text
stringlengths 4
2.78M
| meta
dict |
|---|---|
---
abstract: 'With the observations of $SDO$/AIA 304 $\rm\AA$ and NVST H$\alpha$ bands, we present the formation process of an active-region filament in active region NOAA 11903 during the period from 02:00 UT to 10:00 UT on November 25, 2013. A series of jets occurring in the vicinity of the south-western footpoint of the filament directly ejected cool and hot plasma to filament height and supplied material for the filament. Some newly emerging flux is found in the vicinity of the filament south-western footpoint during these jets. In this paper, we mainly focus on the material supply of the filament. The plasma mass uploaded by the jets and the mass of the filament are estimated, which manifests the fact that the mass carried by jets can supply sufficient material for the formation of the filament. We found two types of jets. one is H$\alpha$ jet, and the other is EUV jet. The significant finding is that some cool jets seen in the H$\alpha$ band but not in the SDO/AIA bands also could eject the cool material for the filament. These results suggest that cool plasma in the low atmosphere can be directly injected into the upper atmosphere and become the filament material by two types of jets. Moreover, the newly emerging flux with non-potential field plays an important role in the appearances of the jets and the magnetic structure of the filament.'
author:
- |
Jincheng Wang,$^{1}$[^1] Xiaoli Yan,$^{1,2}$ Qiaoling Guo,$^{3}$ Defang Kong,$^{1,2}$ Zhike Xue,$^{1,2}$ Liheng Yang,$^{1,2}$ and Qiaoling Li$^{1,4}$\
$^{1}$Yunnan Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Kunming 650011, People.s Republic of China.\
$^{2}$Center for Astronomical Mega-Science, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 20A Datun Road, Chaoyang District, Beijing, 100012,\
People.s Republic of China.\
$^{3}$College of Mathematics Physics and Information Engineering, Jiaxing University, Jiaxing 314001, People’s Republic of China.\
$^{4}$University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Yuquan Road, Shijingshan Block Beijing 100049, People.s Republic of China.
date: 'Accepted 2019 July 08. Received 2019 June 29; in original form 2019 April 18'
title: 'Formation and material supply of an active-region filament associated with newly emerging flux'
---
\[firstpage\]
Sun:filaments - Sun:atmopshere - Sun:activity - emerging flux
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Intriguing structures in the solar atmosphere, solar filaments are sheets of relatively cool and dense material structures suspended in the surrounding hot corona. They are bright cloud-like structures when observed beyond the solar limb called prominences and appear as dark filamentary objects when seen against the solar disk called filaments. Filaments are primarily found in the solar quiet region (quiescent filament), between active regions or surrounding them (intermediate filaments) and inside active regions (active-region filament) [@mac10]. Generally, active-region filaments are shorter, smaller, lower in height, and have shorter lifetimes than quiescent and intermediate filaments. Nevertheless, active-region filaments are more unstable and more likely to erupt [@par14]. As the filaments lose the equilibrium, they would erupt and eject the material into the high corona. Filament eruptions are often accompanied with other solar activities (such as solar flares, coronal mass ejections (CMEs), coronal jets, surges, and so on) [@jin04].
Recently, understanding of solar filaments is one of the hot topics in solar physics, which includes their distribution, magnetic structure, formation, and eruption. Filaments always lie above the magnetic polarity inversion lines (PILs) separating opposite polarities of the photospheric magnetic field, which are considered to support by the local magnetic fields (e.g. magnetic dips or twisted structures) against the gravity [@bab55; @mar98; @che14a]. Unfortunately, due to the limitation of magnetic field measurements at present, it is difficult to measure directly the local magnetic fields in the filament. Therefore, the magnetic structures of filaments are still under controversy. There are two popular views on the magnetic topologies of filaments. One view is the shear-arched model [@kip57; @ama91; @ant94; @wel05] and the other is the flux rope model [@kup74; @dem89; @yang14; @yan15; @che17]. Using two-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) numerical simulations, [@che00] proposed reconnection-favored emerging flux could cancel with the magnetic field below the flux rope or the magnetic field on the outer edge of the channel and led to the eruption of the flux rope. Torus instability and Kink instability are also proposed to be the triggers for the eruption of the filaments [@tor03; @kli06; @jia13; @yan14; @li16].
Formation of the filaments, which consists of the formation of magnetic structures and the mass supply, is still controversial. Regarding of the first term (formation of the filament magnetic structures), many researchers have suggested two different mechanisms to form magnetic structures of filaments: surface effect [@van89; @mar01; @yan15; @yan16; @wan17; @xue17; @che18] and subsurface effect [@rus94; @oka08; @oka09; @mact10; @lit09; @lit10; @yan17]. In the former, the magnetic structures of filaments are formed gradually through the magnetic reconnection driven by various photospheric motions (such as sheared flow, converging flow, and rotating motion). In the latter, the magnetic structures of filaments are thought to be formed in the solar interior and emerge into the atmosphere through magnetic buoyancy. Although both views can explain some observational characteristics, the complicated processes of magnetic structures of filament formation are still not fully understood.
Mechanism of the filament mass supply is another issue for understanding the formation of the filament. It is believed that the materials of filaments originate from low atmosphere (such as from solar chromosphere) [@pik71; @zir94; @son17], which are transported to solar corona either through magnetic forces or thermal pressure forces. Based on observational characteristics and numerical simulations, three popular models have been proposed: injection model [@wan99; @liu05; @cha03; @wan18], levitation model [@rus94; @gal99; @kuc12], and evaporation-condensation model [@ant91; @kar05; @xia11; @xia12; @liu12]. In the injection model, cool plasma in the low atmosphere is forced upward in the filament through sufficient force in the magnetic reconnection. Using the UV and EUV data from *Transition Region and Coronal Explorer (TRACE*), [@cha03] reported that a series of jets and two eruptions events could supply the mass necessary for the formation of a reverse S-shaped filament in active region NOAA 8668. [@zou16] also found that cool material could be injected into the filament spine with a speed of 5-10 km/s and magnetic reconnection played an important role in these transport processes. In the levitation model, cool plasma is lifted by rising magnetic fields at the PIL, which resides in the upward concavities of the helical field (magnetic dips structure). In the evaporation-condensation model, chromospheric plasma is evaporated and flow up driven by heating localized nearby the footpoint, which ultimately condenses in the corona as cool prominence mass. Due to the limitation of the observation, it is still controversial on these three models. In other words, poor observational evidence makes it difficult for us to understand fully the mechanism of filament mass supply.
In order to understand the formation of the filament, we study the formation process of an active region filament in NOAA 11903 observed by *Solar Dynamics Observatory* and New Vacuum Solar Telescope during the period from 02:00 to 10:00 on November 25, 2013. We mainly investigate the material injection process of the filament. The sections of this paper are organized as follows: the observations and methods are described in Section \[sec:obser methods\], the results are presented in the Section \[sec:results\], and the main conclusion and discussion are given in Section \[sec:conclusion\].
Observations and Methods {#sec:obser methods}
========================
Observations
------------
The data set are primarily from New Vacuum Solar Telescope[^2] (NVST; [@liu14]) and *Solar Dynamics Observatory*[^3] (*SDO*; [@pes12]). The NVST is a vacuum solar telescope with a 985 mm clear aperture, located at Fuxian Lake, in Yunnan Province, China. It is mainly composed of four instrumentation systems: the adaptive optics system, the polarization analyzer, the imaging system, and the spectrometers. The imaging system has three high-resolution imaging channels for monitoring the photosphere and chromosphere, which include two channels for photosphere in TiO (7058 [Å]{}) and G-band (4300 [Å]{}) and one channel for chromosphere in H[$\alpha$]{} (6562.8 [Å]{}) band. The high-resolution H[$\alpha$]{} images are utilized to study the filament formation process in this paper, and their cadence and spatial resolution are 12 s and $0\farcs163$ per pixel, respectively. The Atmospheric Imaging Assembly [@lem12] and the Helioseismic and Magnetic Imager (HMI; [@sche12]; [@sch12]) on board the *SDO* provide full-disk, multiwavelength, high spatio-temporal resolution observations for this study. The *SDO*/AIA provides seven extreme ultraviolet and three ultraviolet-to-visible channel images with a spatial resolution of 0$\farcs$6 per pixel and a minimum cadence of 12 s, while the *SDO*/HMI provides line-of-sight magnetic fields, continuum intensity, Doppler shift, and vector magnetograms (VMs) on the photosphere with a spatial resolution of 0$\farcs$5 per pixel, with the cadences of the three former channels being about 45 s and that of the latter one being about 12 minutes.
Methods
-------
We calculate the negative magnetic flux and the change rate of magnetic flux as in the flowing equations: $$\label{eqflux}
\phi = \int B_{zn} dA,$$ and $$\label{rate}
r = \frac{d|\phi|}{dt},$$ in which $B_{zn}$ denotes the negative magnetic field, A is the integrative areas and t is the time.
According to the Ampere’s law, the current density can be derived by follow equation: $$\label{eq1}
\textbf{J} = \frac{1}{\mu_0}(\bigtriangledown \times \textbf{B}),$$ in which $\mu_0$ is the magnetic permeability of vacuum and **B** is the magnetic field vector. Therefore, the vertical current density perpendicular to the solar surface, can be calculated by using the $SDO$/HMI VMs data. Based on the equation: $$\label{eq2}
j_z = \frac{1}{\mu_0}(\bigtriangledown \times \textbf{B})_z = \frac{1}{\mu_0}(\frac{\partial B_y}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial B_x}{\partial y}),$$ where $B_x$ and $B_y$ are the two perpendicular components of the transverse magnetic fields. With the data from $SDO$/HMI VMs, the distribution of $j_z$ on the solar surface can be obtained every 12 minutes. Therefore, the vertical current can be integrated by the vertical current density in the interesting regions.
Magnetic helicity and magnetic energy can be transported from the solar interior to the corona by the new emergence flux and the various motions of magnetic flux on the photosphere. The injection rate of the magnetic helicity across a surface S is expressed by [@ber84; @dem03; @par05]: $$\label{eq3}
\dot H = 2\int_S(\textbf{A}_p\cdot \textbf{B}_t)V_{\bot n}dS - 2\int_s(\textbf{A}_p\cdot \textbf{V}_{\bot t})B_n dS,$$ where $\textbf{A}_p$ is the vector potential of the potential field $\textbf{B}_p$, $\textbf{B}_t$ and $\textbf{B}_n$ denote the tangential and normal magnetic fields, $\textbf{V}_{\bot t}$ and $V_{\bot n}$ are the tangential and normal components of the velocity perpendicular to the magnetic field lines, respectively. We derive the vector velocity field by using the Differential Affine Velocity Estimator for Vector Magnetograms (DAVE4VM) method [@sch08]. The first term contributed by the emerging flux tubes is named emergence term, and the second term generated by the shearing and braiding the field lines by the tangential motions is named shear term. Similarly, the rate of the magnetic energy (Poynting vector) can be derived by following equation [@kus02; @bi18]: $$\label{eq4}
\dot E = \frac{1}{4\pi}\int _s B_t^2V_{\bot n}dS - \frac{1}{4\pi}\int_s(\textbf{B}_t \cdot \textbf{V}_{\bot t})B_ndS.$$ In the same way, the first term of the equation is named emergence term, which is associated with the emergence of twisted magnetic tubes from the solar interior. The second term of the equation is named shear term, which is generated by shearing magnetic field lines due to tangential motions on the surface. Accumulative helicity and energy can be derived by the integration of the helicity injection rate and energy injection rate with the time, respectively. To reduce the noise influence from the measurement, we only consider the field with a transverse component stronger than 150 G. We use these non-potential physical parameters to investigate the newly emerging flux related to the mass supply of the filament.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
Formation process of the active-region filament
-----------------------------------------------
A filament formed gradually in active region NOAA 11903 during the period from 02:00 UT to 10:00 UT. Active region NOAA 11903 located at the southwestern hemisphere (e.g., (460$\arcsec$, -220$\arcsec$)) comprises a positive dominant sunspot and some discrete negative magnetic fields on November 25, 2013. The formation position of the filament was close to the dominant sunspot (see Fig.\[fig1\]). The panels (a) and (b) of Fig.\[fig1\] show the formation process in H$\alpha$ observations from NVST. At 02:20:51 UT, the filament was absent in the field of view. At 08:46:43 UT, two filamentary structures had formed, which were marked by two blue arrows. Panel (c) of Fig.\[fig1\] shows the line-of-sight (LOS) magnetic field from $SDO$/HMI at 09:49:30 UT, which manifests that the south-western footpiont of the filament roots in the positive magnetic field and the north-eastern footpoint roots in the negative magnetic field. Panels (d)-(f) of the Fig.\[fig1\] exhibit the formation process of the filament in 304 $\rm\AA$ images observed by $SDO$/AIA. At 09:50:09 UT, a filament could be seen in the place marked by the blue arrow in the panel (f) of Fig.\[fig1\]. The detailed evolutionary formation process of this filament is shown by the animation of Fig.\[fig1\]. According to the animation, we find that a series of jets driven the cool plasma or chromospheric material to filament height. Unidirectional material motions driven by the jets besides the south-western footpoint of the filament were found and then the filament generally appeared. It should be noted that some of this plasma could remain at the filament height and contribute to the mass of the filament, while some of this plasma could instead fall down to the chromosphere.
![Formation process of the filament. (a)-(b) H$\alpha$ images observed by NVST at different moments. (c) The line-of-sight magnetic fields from $SDO$/HMI. White patches denote the magnetic field with positive polarity, while black ones denote the magnetic field with negative polarity. (d)-(f) The corresponding 304 $\rm\AA$ images observed by $SDO$/AIA. \[fig1\]](figure1.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Fig.\[fig2\] shows numerous cool plasma ejected into the filament height by a series of jets. Panels (a1)-(a4) and (b1)-(b4) exhibit formation process of the filament in H$\alpha$ images. A series of jets occurred in the vicinity of the south-western footpoint of the filament. Accompanying the appearance of these jets, the cool plasma was lifted into the filament height and some of them became the filament material. Two filamentary structures could be identified in panels (b1)-(b4), which are marked by the black arrow and the blue one. The plasma injected by the jets went along the magnetic field lines in the filamentary structure marked by the blue arrow and then fall down to anther footpoint, while the plasma could remain in the filament structure marked by the black arrow. Eventually, the filamentary structure marked by the black arrow became the maturing filament (see the panel (f) of the Fig.\[fig1\]). An intriguing feature is that the twisted structure can be distinguished in one filamentary structure marked by the black arrow (see panels (a4), (b1)-(b3)). The twisted structure is marked by the back arrow in the panel (a4). However, the other filamentary structure does not exhibit any twisted structures. This means twisted magnetic fields exist in the filamentary structure marked by the black arrow and the other filamentary structure lacks of the twisted magnetic field. This also can explain why the lifted plasma could not remain in the filamentary structure marked by the blue arrow, which is due to the lack of twisted structure or dips structure in that located magnetic field. Panels (c1)-(c4) and (d1)-(d4) show the corresponding images of the line-of-sight magnetic fields. White patches denote the magnetic field with positive polarity, while black ones denote the magnetic field with negative polarity. The adjacent main sunspot was the positive magnetic field. Based on these panels, one can see that the emergence of some magnetic fluxes occurred in the vicinity of the filament marked by the yellow box in the panel (d1) of Fig.\[fig2\]. Therefore, we suspect that there is a close relationship between the jets and the flux emergence. More and more observational evidences and numerical simulations manifest that the jets can be triggered by the magnetic reconnection between the emerging flux and the pre-existing magnetic flux [@yok95; @shi98; @cheu14; @li17].
![The material injection process of the filament and the evolution of photospheric magnetic fields. (a1)-(a4) and (b1)-(b2) H$\alpha$ images at different moments observed by NVST. The black arrow and the blue one indicate two filamentary structures in the panel (b1), respectively. (c1)-(c4) and (d1)-(d4) The corresponding line-of-sight field from $SDO$/HMI. The yellow box in the panel (d1) and the gray box in the panel (b1) show the same region for calculating negative flux and intensities of $SDO$/AIA seven bands.\[fig2\]](figure2.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
The jets and material supply for the filament {#sec3.2}
---------------------------------------------
The cool material began to be lifted by a small jet (H$\alpha$ jet) to filament height at about 05:09 UT. Fig.\[fig3\] (a) and (b) show this material injection event in H$\alpha$ images observed by the NVST. At 05:09:34 UT, we find a brightening occurred in the vicinity of the south-western footpoint of the filament marked by the blue arrow in the panel (a), and the material began to be injected from the chromosphere to higher atmosphere. The panel (b) shows that the cool plasma was directly injected into the filament and the intensity in the vicinity of the south-western footpoint had a slight enhancement. Fig.\[fig3\] (c) and (d) show the corresponding 304 $\rm\AA$ images observed by $SDO$/AIA instrument. It is difficult to distinguish any brightenings in the corresponding place where the brightening was found in H$\alpha$ band. This mean that this jet is H$\alpha$ jet instead of EUV jet. It is most likely to be caused by the different responding temperature between AIA 304 $\rm\AA$ band images and H$\alpha$ band images in the region with abundant plasma. In order to understand the property of the injected cool plasma, we make a time-distance diagram to estimate the velocity of the ejected cool plasma along the white dotted lines in the panels (a) and (b). Panel (e) shows the time-distance diagram derived by a series of the images from the NVST H$\alpha$. From this time-distance diagram, we distinguish four inclined lines. Based on their inclinations, we derive the projection velocities along the four dotted white lines, which are about 27.4 km/s, 37.8 km/s, 33.4 km/s, and 35.1 km/s, respectively. The mean projection velocity is about 33.4 km/s.
![The material injection event observed by the NVST. (a)-(b) H$\alpha$ images observed by NVST at 05:09:34 UT and 05:17:38 UT. The blue arrow in the panel (a) indicates the brightening in H$\alpha$, while the white dotted lines indicate the same path for the time-distance diagrams in pane (e). (c)-(d) $SDO$/AIA 304 $\rm\AA$ images at corresponding time. (e) The time-distance diagrams derived from a series of H$\alpha$ images from 05:02 UT to 05:56 UT. \[fig3\]](figure3.eps){width="\columnwidth"}
Fig.\[fig4\] exhibits another material injection event during the period from about 05:51 UT to 06:35 UT. Panels (a) and (b) show this material injection event in H$\alpha$ images observed by the NVST at 05:59:00 UT and 06:11:19 UT, respectively. We also find some brightenings in the vicinity of the filament south-western footpoint, which are marked by the blue arrows. However, we also can not distinguish any brightenings at the corresponding places in $SDO$/AIA 304 $\rm\AA$ images in panels (c) and (d). This jet is also associated with H$\alpha$ jet instead of EUV jet. This means the cool plasma were ejected by the jet and injected into the filament, which is similar to the previous event. We also make a time-distance diagram to estimate the velocity of the ejected cool plasma along the white dotted lines in the panels (a) and (b). Panel (e) shows the time-distance diagram derived by a series of the images observed by the NVST H$\alpha$ band from 05:51 UT to 06:35 UT. According to this time-distance diagram, the projection velocities along the two dotted white lines are about 22.1 km/s and 24.1 km/s, respectively. The mean projection velocity is about 23.1 km/s.
![The material injection event observed by the NVST. (a)-(b) H$\alpha$ images observed by NVST at 05:59:00 UT and 06:11:19 UT. The blue arrows in the panel (a) & (b) indicate the brightenings in H$\alpha$, while the white dotted lines indicate the same path for the time-distance diagram in pane (e). The blue dashed line in panel (b) denotes the position of the time-distance diagram in panel (c) of Fig.\[fig5\]. (c)-(d) $SDO$/AIA 304 $\rm\AA$ images at corresponding time. (e) The time-distance diagrams derived from a series of H$\alpha$ images from 05:51 UT to 06:28 UT. \[fig4\]](figure4){width="\columnwidth"}
In order to investigate these jets related to the material injection of the filament, we calculate the intensities of the $SDO$/AIA seven bands (94 $\rm\AA$, 131 $\rm\AA$, 171 $\rm\AA$, 193 $\rm\AA$, 211 $\rm\AA$, 304 $\rm\AA$, 335 $\rm\AA$) integrated in the yellow box in the panel (d1) of Fig.\[fig2\]. In addition, we also calculate the negative flux in the yellow box in the panel (d1) of Fig.\[fig2\], which is due to the complexity of the positive magnetic field nearby the south-western footpoint of the filament. Fig.\[fig5\] (a) shows the time variations of negative flux and its increasing rate ($d|\phi|/dt$) during the period from 02:00 UT to 10:00 UT on November 25, 2013. The first vertical red dashed line indicates the onset of the material injection derived by the NVST, which is about at 05:09 UT on November 25. The negative flux enhanced gradually about from - 0.2 $\times$ $10^{21}$ Mx to - 5.5 $\times$ $10^{21}$ Mx during the period about from 05:00 UT to 07:45 UT, and the mean rate of enhancement is about 4.3 $\times$ $10^{17}$ Mx $\rm s^{-1}$. This means the new flux emerged from the subsurface in the vicinity of the south-western footpoint of the filament during the period from 05:00 UT to 07:45 UT. During the period from 07:45 UT to 10:00 UT, the negative flux decreased gradually from - 5.5 $\times$ $10^{21}$ Mx to - 3.5 $\times$ $10^{21}$ Mx, and the mean rate of decrease is about 2.4 $\times$ $10^{17}$ Mx $\rm s^{-1}$. The front four jets occurred in the phase of the flux enhancement, while the latter three jets occurred in the phase of flux decrease. On the other hand, two H$\alpha$ jets occurred in the lower magnitude of the magnetic flux, while the EUV jets occurred in the higher magnitude of the magnetic flux. This manifests that the H$\alpha$ jets were caused by the weak emerging flux and the EUV jets were caused by the strong emerging flux and the type of the jets is associated with the strength of the emerging flux. The blue line in the panel (a) indicates the increasing rate of the negative flux as the function of the time. One H$\alpha$ jet and two EUV jets had positive flux rate. Another H$\alpha$ jet and a EUV jet had negative flux rate. Two jets almost occurred at the around zero increasing rate. Fig.\[fig5\] (b) shows the time profiles of normalized intensity in different bands of $SDO$/AIA. The normalized intensity is defined as that the maximum of intensity divided by intensity in each band. We can unambiguously distinguish several intensity enhancements during the period of the flux emergence, which are more sensitive in 304 $\rm\AA$, 131 $\rm\AA$ and 171 $\rm\AA$ marked by the vertical red arrows and the later four blue vertical dashed lines. In other words, several EUV jets also appeared in the vicinity of the filament south-western footpoint during period of the flux emergence. The characteristic emission temperature of the AIA-304 $\rm\AA$ band and the one of AIA-171 $\rm\AA$ band are around $10^{4.7}$ K and $10^{5.8}$ K. However, the emission contribution of AIA-131 $\rm\AA$ band are from two ions, which is Fe VIII around at $10^{5.6}$ K and Fe XX around at $10^{7.0}$ K. In non-flaring conditions, emission from the very hot Fe XX ion is usually negligible [@mar11]. Moreover, the characteristic emission temperatures of other EUV bands are higher than $10^{6.0}$ K. This means that these EUV jets are more sensitive in lower emission temperature. It should be noted that all the intensities of $SDO$/AIA bands did not enhance during the jets recorded by the NVST at 05:09 UT and 05:59 UT. These two jets are indicated by two red vertical dash lines in the Fig.\[fig5\] (b). Moreover, these two jets can be considered as H$\alpha$ jets which only see in the H$\alpha$ band. On the other hand, the new emerging flux had been occurred before the onset of H$\alpha$ jets (see Fig.\[fig5\] (a) and (b)), which begin to emerge at around 04:58 UT. Therefore, it is reasonable suspected that these new emerging flux result in the occurrences of these H$\alpha$ jets or EUV jets. The new emerging flux could reconnect with the pre-existing magnetic field, which maybe cause the occurrences of these jets. However, some H$\alpha$ jets could not be detected by the $SDO$/AIA instrument, which may be due to the low temperature of the H$\alpha$ jets and could not enhance the intensities of $SDO$/AIA band lines. Nevertheless, these cool H$\alpha$ jets also could lift the cool plasma into the filament height, and supply the material for the filament formation.
![Time profiles of different parameters in the yellow box in the panel (d1) of Fig.\[fig2\]. (a) Evolutions of negative flux and flux rate. (b) The variations of $SDO$/AIA intensities in different bands. The red vertical dashed lines denote the onset of the first material injection event and the other material injection observed by the NVST at 05:09 UT and 05:59 UT, respectively. The blue vertical dashed-dotted lines indicate the time of EUV jets \[fig5\]](figure5){width="\columnwidth"}
In order to estimate the mass of the cool plasma driven by the jets, we assume the cross-section of the jets is circular. The quantity of injection mass can be calculated by the following equation: $$\label{eq5}
M_j=\int m_H n_H \frac{w^2(t)\pi}{4}v(t)dt,$$ where $m_H$ is the mass of the hydrogen atom, $n_H$ is the total hydrogen number density, $w(t)$ is the width of the cross-section of the jet, $v(t)$ is the speed of the cool plasma. Considering that the cool plasma come from the lower atmosphere, it is reasonable to assume that the density of the cool plasma driven by the jets is similar to that of the chromosphere. Thus, the total hydrogen number density $n_H$ is about 3.26 $\times$ $10^{10}$ $cm^{-3}$. The mass of the hydrogen atom $m_H$ is about 1.67 $\times$ $10^{-24}$ g. From the above diagnosis, the speed of the cool plasma ($v(t)$) was estimated as about 20-30 km/s. In order to derive the width cross-section of the jets ($w(t)$), we make a time-distance diagram along the blue dashed line in the panel (b) of Fig.\[fig4\]. To allow for uncertainty in the definition of the boundary between the jet and the filament, the blue dashed line was placed nearby the footpoints of the jets. This avoids the effect of the main filament as much as possible. According to the animation of Fig.\[fig1\], the cool material went across this place continuously during the period about from 05:10 UT to 08:54 UT and then the filament appeared. On the other hand, the jet was wider than the filament, so the jet’s width would embody the filament. Therefore, the uncertainty in the definition of the boundary between the jet and the filament had only little effect on the estimate of the cross-sectional width of the jets. Fig.\[fig6\] exhibits the time-distance diagram derived by a series of H$\alpha$ images observed by the NVST during the period from 04:48 UT to 09:00 UT. Panels (a)&(b) show the variations of intensities along the slice path, respectively. Using the different intensities along the slice and the maximum of the variation rate nearby the jets’ position, we can approximately identify the two boundaries of the jet plasma to derive the width of the cross-section. For the complex profiles of the slice’s intensity, it need manually identify the boundary. We obtain the $w(t)$ is around 2.75 Mm at 06:07:53 UT, while the $w(t)$ is around 4.01 Mm at 07:30:38 UT. Therefore, based on the time-distance diagram, the $w(t)$ at different moments can be derived by using the same method. According to the Eq.\[eq5\] and above parameters of the jets, the total mass ($M_j$) of the cool plasma carried by jets is estimated to be in the range (9.3-14.0) $\times$ $10^{13}$ g. On the other hand, the filament is assumed as a circular slab. The mass of the filament $M_f$ also can be estimated by following equation: $$\label{eq6}
M_f=n_Hm_H\frac{w_f^2\pi}{4}L_f,$$ where $n_H$ is the total hydrogen density of the filament, $w_f$ is the width of the filament, $L_f$ is the length of the filament. From Fig.\[fig1\], we obtain the filament width ($w_f$) is about 2.0 Mm and the filament length ($L_f$) is about 23.7 Mm. The total hydrogen density $n_H$ in the filament measured ranges about from $3\times 10^{10}$ $cm^{-3}$ [@ste97] to $3\times 10^{11}$ $cm^{-3}$ [@hir86]. Based on the values, the total filament mass ($M_f$) is estimated to be in the range (0.37-3.7) $\times$ $10^{13}$ g. Comparing the $M_j$ with $M_f$, the maximum of the $M_f$ is just about 40$\%$ of the minimum of the $M_j$. Although not all the cool plasma ejected by jets would become the filament material and some of the cool plasma would fall down to the chromosphere, a conservative estimate of the mass carried by jets could supply sufficient material for the filament at least.
![Time-distance diagram along the blue dashed lines in the panel (b) of Fig.\[fig4\]. (a) Variation of the H$\alpha$ intensity along the slice path at 06:07:53 UT. (b) Variation of the H$\alpha$ intensity along the slice path at 07:30:38 UT. The vertical dotted lines denote the boundaries of jet plasma. (c) The time-distance diagram during the period from 04:48 UT to 09:00 UT. The two vertical black lines indicate the time-distance diagram positions of panels (a) and (b), respectively. \[fig6\]](figure6){width="\columnwidth"}
The magnetic properties of the newly emerging flux
--------------------------------------------------
From the Fig.\[fig5\] (a) and the analyze in the section.\[sec3.2\], we find some newly emerging flux presented in vicinity of the filament south-western footpoint during the formation of the filament. Previous investigations have shown that many jets have a close relationship with newly magnetic flux emergence [@shi98; @rao16; @hon17]. Thus, these newly emerging flux may play important role in the jets and the magnetic structure of the filament. In other words, these newly emerging flux may be a source of supplying mass and energy for the filament. In order to investigate the properties of newly emerging flux associated with the formation of the filament, we calculate the transverse field and vertical current in the photosphere in the newly flux emergence area. Figs.\[fig7\] (a1)-(a4) show vector magnetograms at different moments observed by $SDO$/HMI. The background denotes the vertical magnetic field, while the blue and the red arrows denote the transverse magnetic field with the positive and negative vertical magnetic field, respectively. From the first three magnetograms, it is noted that some newly fluxes emerged in the yellow circle in the panel (a3), in which the vertical and transverse magnetic fields enhanced. And then, the newly emerging flux canceled with the surrounding magnetic field marked by the yellow arrows in the panels (a1)&(a4). Panel (b) of the Fig.\[fig7\] shows the time variation of the mean transverse field strength in yellow circle during the period from 04:00 UT to 10:00 UT. The mean transverse field strength rapidly increased from 85 G to 135 G during the period from about 05:00 UT to 07:48 UT. The mean rate of the increasing is about 18.2 G/h. After that, it decreased in two phases. Firstly, it decayed rapidly from 135 G to 112 G during the period from 07:48 UT to 08:36 UT, and the mean rate of decaying is 28.7 G/h. Secondly, it decayed slowly from 112 G to 105 G during the period from 08:36 UT to 10:00 UT, and the mean rate of decaying is about 5 G/h. With the describing in the section \[sec:obser methods\], we can obtain the vertical current in the yellow circle. The panel (c) exhibits the time profiles of the positive and the negative vertical current in yellow circle, in which the positive vertical current is marked by the red solid line and the negative vertical current is marked by the blue dashed-dotted line. Both of the positive and negative vertical currents display a similar temporal evolution and have relatively equivalent quantity. They had a quickly increase from 7 $\times$ $10^{11}$ A to 14 $\times$ $10^{11}$ A during the period from 05:00 UT to 06:36 UT. The mean rate of the increase is 4.7 $\times$ $10^{11}$ A/h. During the period from 06:36 UT to 07:36 UT, both of them kept at a relatively high value and had a slightly turbulent temporal variations. After that, they decreased gradually to about 8 $\times$ $10^{11}$ A. Obviously, two non-potential proxies of the magnetic field (the transverse field and current) would also enhanced at the former phase of the flux emergence. Comparing the EUV jets, the two H$\alpha$ jets occurred with the relatively less transverse field and vertical current. This may be due to the less energies accumulated at the former phase of the flux emergence. It is too weak to cause the EUV jets’ happening.
![(a1)-(a4) Vector magnetograms from $SDO$/HMI. The blue arrows denotes the transverse magnetic field sited in the vertical magnetic fields with positive polarity, while the red ones denotes the transverse magnetic field sited in the vertical magnetic fields with negative polarity. (b) The time variation of mean transverse field in the yellow circle. (c) The variations of the positive and negative vertical current. The red solid line denotes the time profile of the positive current, while the blue dashed-dotted line denotes the time profile of the negative current. The two red vertical dashed lines indicate the onset of two H$\alpha$ jets, while the blue dashed-dotted lines indicate the moments of EVU jets.\[fig7\]](figure7){width="\columnwidth"}
With the method described in section \[sec:obser methods\], we also calculate the magnetic helicity injection rate and magnetic energy injection rate (Poynting vector) from the solar interior to atmosphere in the yellow circle in the panel (c) of Fig.\[fig7\]. We set the accumulative helicity and accumulative energy to zero at the beginning of investigation. Fig.\[fig8\] shows the time variations of helicity injection rate, accumulative helicity, energy injection rate, accumulative energy in different panels, respectively. The blue dotted-dashed lines denote the quantities from the shear term, while the red solid lines denotes the quantities from the emergence term. From the panel (a), the helicity injection rate from the emergence term ($\rm \dot{H}_e$) is about zero before the flux emergence and remains positive injection during the flux emergence, while the helicity injection rate from the shear term ($\rm \dot{H}_s$) is negative at the early phase and increases to positive after around 07:00 UT. In general, the value of $\rm \dot{H}_s$ is larger than that of $\rm \dot{H}_e$. Most of the magnetic helicity injection is contributed by the shear term, which also is demonstrated by panel (b). The accumulated helicity from the shear term ($\rm H_s$) is up to 13 $\times$ $10^{38}$ $\rm Mx^2$ at 10:00 UT, while the one from the emergence term ($\rm H_e$) is only 5 $\times$ $10^{38}$ $\rm Mx^2$. Panel (c) exhibits time profiles of the energy injection rates from emergence term ($\rm \dot{E}_e$) and shear term ($\rm \dot{E}_s$). Two term energy rates have positive, which manifests that the magnetic energy are injected from subsurface to atmosphere. Both of energy rates abruptly enhanced during the flux emergence and had a sharply decrease after the flux emergence. The value of $\rm \dot{E}_e$ is sightly larger than that of $\rm \dot{E}_s$, which means that the magnetic energy injection are contributed by both terms. Panel (d) shows the time variations of the accumulative magnetic energy from both terms. The magnetic energy from two terms increased quickly from around 05:30 UT to 07:48 UT and then began slowly increasing. The total magnetic energy injection could accumulated up to about $10^{27}$ erg. On other hand, combining the Fig.\[fig7\], the two H$\alpha$ jets took place at the moments with relative lower accumulated energy while the EUV jets took place at the moments with relative higher accumulated energy. The newly emerging flux carried the magnetic helicity and magnetic energy into the atmosphere nearby the western footpoint of the filament, which would provide the energy to carry the mass for the filament and the nonpotential field (helicity) to rearrange the magnetic structure for the filament.
![Time variation curves of different physical parameters across the yellow circle in the panel (a3) of Fig.\[fig7\]. (a) Helicity injection rate. (b) Accumulative helicity. (c) Energy injection rate. (d) Accumulative energy. The red solid lines denote the quantities from the emergence term, while the blue ones denote the quantities from the shear term. \[fig8\]](figure8){width="\columnwidth"}
Conclusion and discussion {#sec:conclusion}
=========================
In this paper, we have presented and studied the formation process of a filament in active region NOAA 11903 in detail and provide a new view of understanding the material supply of the solar filament. The complete formation process of the filament was captured by the NVST and SDO observations, which gradually formed from nonexistence of filament at the beginning of the investigation. We mainly investigate the material injection of the filament and analyzed the newly emerging flux related to the material injection nearby the one footpoint of the filament. The main results are as follows.
1\. The material of the filament originates from the chromosphere. Thought the influence of the instabilities or solar activities, the plasma in the chromosphere could be lifted into the upper atmosphere and some of them become the filament material.
2\. The jets occur in the vicinity of the south-western footpoint of the filament and the newly emerging flux can be found in the same place. Thus, the new flux emergence is responsible for these jets, which were caused by the magnetic reconnection between the pre-existing and new emergence magnetic field. The total mass carried by the jets is about (9.3-14.0) $\times$ $10^{13}$ g, while the mass of the filament is estimated to be in the range (0.37-3.7) $\times$ $10^{13}$ g. Jet is the sufficient way to upload the cool plasma and supply the material for the filament.
3\. Although some H$\alpha$ jets (cool jets) could not brighten the intensity of the SDO/AIA bands due to magnetic reconnection with the low temperature or in the low height, but these cool jets also could lift the cool plasma (T $\sim$ $10^4$ K) to filament height and supply the material for the filament. The velocities of the projection ejected cool plasma range about from 20-30 km/s by the jets. Cool jet is also an important way for supplying the material for the filament.
4.The newly emerging flux carried the energy and helicity into atmosphere nearby the western footpoint of the filament. It may play an important role in transporting the material for filament and building the magnetic structure for the filament.
5\. The H$\alpha$ jets occurred at the beginning of the magnetic emergence, while the EUV jets occurred at the latter of the magnetic emergence with larger accumulated energy.
Furthermore, the twisted structures can be identified in the one filamentary structure during the material injection events. This filamentary structure with high twisted structures eventually evolved as the filament, while the another filamentary structure could not maintain stable as the ejected plasma falls down the chromosphere. [@wan18] also suggested that the ejected plasma is more earlier to be captured by the high twisted structures magnetic field and more stable to remain in the filament. In addiction, previous studies also showed that high twisted structures could be found in the filament during the activity or eruption of solar filaments [@che14b; @yang14; @bi15; @xue16; @jia16]. Therefore, the twisted structures (or magnetic dips) play an important role in holding the mass for the filament.
It is widely accepted that the material of the filaments or prominences should originate from the low atmosphere (chromosphere) [@pik71; @zir94; @liu05; @yan16b; @wan18]. In this paper, we also confirm that the mass of the filament was extracted from the low atmosphere instead of the corona. However, the way how the plasma in the low atmosphere lifts into the filament or filament channel puzzles solar researchers for a long time. Many authors proposed different models for trying to understand the physical mechanisms in the transport process of the filament material [@mac10; @kar15]. The evaporation-condensation models and injection models are more popular among of them. Many numerical simulations manifest that the mass could be condensed near the apex when heat the plasma near the footpoint of the loop [@ant99; @kar03; @kar05; @kar08; @xia11; @lun12], which are related to thermal instability [@par53; @fie65]. However, it is hardly to explain the source of the heating. Furthermore, the only few observation evidences could be captured to supported to the this models [@ber12; @liu12]. On the other hand, many observations are more likely to support the injection models which rely on magnetic reconnection in the low atmosphere to propel cool plasma to typical filament height [@wan99; @liu05; @zou17; @wan18]. In this paper, we supplied a observational evidence that the filament material can be supplied by a series of jets related to the new emerging magnetic field, which again verify the injection model. The jets directly lifted the cool plasma in the low atmosphere to the filament height, while some of the lifted cool plasma could remain in the filament height and became the mass of the filament. Therefore, jet is the sufficient way to upload the cool plasma in the chromosphere into the filament. We also find that H$\alpha$ or cool jets are also enough strong to carry the material for the filament formation, not just EUV jets. In our opinion, it may open a new window for understanding the material supply of the filament. Because there are many small explosive events in the lower atmosphere. These small explosive events also would carry the cool plasma to filament height, not just big explosive events. This means that some filament material could come from the accumulation of the cool plasma carried by these small explosive events.
Using the H$\alpha$ images observed by NVST, we estimate the the mass ($M_j$) of cool plasma ($T\sim10^4$ K) carried by jets and the mass ($M_f$) of the filament and find that the jets can supply the sufficient mass for the filament. In the investigation of [@cha03], the authors used EUV data to estimate the mass of EVU-emitting plasma ($T\sim$ 2-3 $\times$ $10^5$ K) in the jets and eruptions and found the total mass in the EUV jets and eruption was comparable with the mass of the filament. And the authors also indicated the existence of such cool material could be lifted in these jets and eruptions. In our study, some H$\alpha$ jets also could lifted the cool plasma to filament height. This means not all the jets carrying the material for the filament could enhance the brightening of EVU bands. In the other hand, hot plasma in the jets often have higher speed and momentum [@she17]. These hot plasma would be hardly to remain in the filament. Therefore, we consider that the cool plasma ($T\sim10^4$ K) directly injected into the filament from the chromosphere is dominant component of supplying the material for solar filaments.
![Cartoon showing the process of magnetic reconnection between newly emerging flux and pre-exsited magnetic field. The blue filled ellipses denote the negative magnetic polarities, while the green filled ellipses denote the positive polarities.\[fig9\]](figure9){width="\columnwidth"}
In this study, we find that some newly emerging flux occurred in the vicinity of the south-western footpoint of the filament during the jets. Based on many MHD simulations of jets, the jets can be caused by the magnetic reconnection between an emerging magnetic flux and the pre-existing magnetic field [@yok96; @mor08; @mor13; @cheu14]. Therefore, we considered that this jets are caused by the magnetic reconnection between the new emerging flux and the pre-existing magnetic field. According to the observational characteristics, we drawn a cartoon to demonstrate this process (See Fig.\[fig9\]). The blue filled ellipses denote the negative magnetic polarities, while the green filled ellipses denote the positive polarities. Panel (a) of Fig.\[fig9\] shows the original magnetic configuration at the beginning. Some new flux (EF) emerged in the vicinity of the positive polarity C (Fig.\[fig9\] (b)). As this newly emerging flux rose, the new magnetic fields (EF) and the pre-existing magnetic fields (AC & BC) reconnected with each other (Fig.\[fig9\] (c)). The positive polarities D and E merged together, which became the new positive polarity marked by symbol D+. And then, two magnetic fields (AD+ and BD+) were formed, which correspond to the two filamentary structures what we observed. In the meanwhile, magnetic cancellation was caused by the submergence of post-reconnection field (FC). It is worth noting that it can not be deduced how the twist in the filament originated using our observations. There are three possible ways. One is that the twist had existed in the pre-existing magnetic field before the flux emergence. The second possible way is that the twist had existed in the newly emerging flux and transported to the filament during the magnetic reconnection. Another possibility, is that the twist formed during the magnetic reconnection. It would need more observations and more study to address this issue.
It is easy to understand that different non-potential parameters (e.g., transverse field, vertical electric current) are increasing during the the magnetic flux emergence. After all, these parameters are the proxies of the non-potential magnetic field. On the other hand, H$\alpha$ jets occurred in the week emerging flux, and the EUV jets occurred in the strong emerging flux. Furthermore, the two H$\alpha$ jets occurred at the relatively less transverse magnetic field and low vertical current. This may indicate that the magnetic reconnection between week emerging flux with less energy and the pre-existing magnetic field caused the H$\alpha$ jets. The magnetic reconnection between strong emerging flux with high energy and the pre-existing magnetic field caused the EUV jets.
In addition, we derive the accumulated energy carried by the newly emerging flux is about $10^{27}$ erg. We can simply estimate the energy required for lifting the jets mass from chromosphere to filament height as following equation: $\rm E_j=M_jg_\odot \Delta h $, where the $g_\odot$ is the Sun acceleration of gravity and the $\Delta h$ is the lifting height of the mass. $g_\odot$ is 2.74 $\times$ $10^2$ m/s on the solar surface. And we assume $\Delta h$ equal to the typical height of active region filament from chromosphere about 2 Mm. Thus, the energy required for lifting the jets mass from chromosphere to filament height ($\rm E_j$) ranges about (0.51-0.76) $\times$ $10^{27}$ erg. Although additional heat and light energy could also be consumed during the jets, the newly emerging flux could provide the energy for lifting the mass for the filament.
On the acceleration mechanisms of cool plasma during the jets, previous studies found that magnetic reconnection in the lower atmosphere can generation slow mode wave [@tak01] and as a slow-mode wave propagates upward, its amplitude grows due to the density contrast, eventually steepening into a shock. The interaction of the shock and the transition region between the chromosphere and the corona can launch the transition region upward, which is observed as a cool jet [@shi82; @pon04; @heg09]. Furthermore, using a two-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) simulation, [@Tak13] also found that slow-mode waves produced in magnetic reconnection would play key roles in the acceleration mechanisms of chromospheric jets and the chromospheric plasma could be accelerated due to the combination of the Lorentz force and the whip-like motion of the magnetic field when magnetic reconnection takes place in the upper chromosphere. The authors suggested three types of acceleration mechanisms of cool plasma: shock acceleration type, shock and whip-like acceleration type, and whip-like acceleration type [@yok96] according to the hight of the magnetic reconnection site and found that the magnetic energy released by magnetic reconnection is efficiently converted into the kinetic energy of jets in these process. The further details and realism would need to be studied using three-dimensional simulations.
Thanks to the high spacial and temporal resolution observations from the NVST, some low temperature H$\alpha$ jets were found. These H$\alpha$ jets could not brighten in the $SDO$/AIA EUV bands, but they also could eject the cool plasma to the filament height and supply the material for the filament. This attractive phenomenon impels us to suspicions that the mass of all filaments may be related to the different types of jets. Some jets could be strong enough to be observed by recent telescopes, while other cool jets (min-jets) could not be observed due to the low temperature or low intensity. This extraordinary idea needs more observation evidences to confirm, which maybe need more higher spatial and temporal resolution and different layer observations provided by much bigger aperture telescopes in the future.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors thank the referee for constructive comments and suggestions that have improved the quality of the manuscript. SDO is a mission of NASA’s Living With a Star Program. The authors are indebted to the SDO, NVST teams for providing the data. This work is supported by the National Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under grant numbers 11873087, 11503080, 11603071, 11633008, 11527804, the Yunnan Talent Science Foundation of China, (2018FA001) the Youth Innovation Promotion Association CAS under number 2011056, the CAS “Light of West China" Program under number Y9XB018001, the grant associated with project of the Group for Innovation of Yunnan province.
Amari, T., D[é]{}moulin, P., Browning, P., Hood, A., & Priest, E. 1991, , 241, 604 Antiochos, S. K., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1991, , 378, 372 Antiochos, S. K., Dahlburg, R. B., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1994, , 420, L41 Antiochos, S. K., MacNeice, P. J., Spicer, D. S., & Klimchuk, J. A. 1999, , 512, 985 Babcock, H. W., & Babcock, H. D. 1955, , 121, 349 Berger, M. A., & Field, G. B. 1984, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 147, 133 Berger, T. E., Liu, W., & Low, B. C. 2012, , 758, L37 Bi, Y., Jiang, Y., Yang, J., et al. 2015, , 805, 48 Bi Y., Liu Y. D., Liu Y., Yang J., Xu Z., Ji K., 2018, ApJ, 865, 139 Chae, J. 2003, , 584, 1084 Chen, P. F., & Shibata, K. 2000, , 545, 524 Chen, H., Yang, J., Yang, B., Ji, K., & Bi, Y. 2018, , 293, 93 Cheng, X., Ding, M. D., Zhang, J., et al. 2014, , 789, L35 Cheng, X., Ding, M. D., Zhang, J., et al. 2014, , 789, 93 Cheng, X., Guo, Y., & Ding, M. 2017, Science in China Earth Sciences, 60, 1383 Cheung, M. C. M., & Isobe, H. 2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 3 D[é]{}moulin, P., & Berger, M. A. 2003, , 215, 203 D[é]{}moulin, P., & Priest, E. R. 1989, , 214, 360 Field, G. B. 1965, , 142, 531 Galsgaard, K., & Longbottom, A. W. 1999, , 510, 444 Heggland L., De Pontieu B., Hansteen V. H., 2009, ApJ, 702, 1 Hirayama, T. 1986, in Coronal and Prominence Plasmas, ed. A. I. Poland(NASA CP-2442), 149 Hong, J., Jiang, Y., Yang, J., Li, H., & Xu, Z. 2017, , 835, 35 Jiang C., Feng X., Wu S. T., Hu Q., 2013, ApJ, 771, L30 Jiang, C.-W., Wu, S.-T., Feng, X.-S., & Hu, Q. 2016, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 16, 18 Jing, J., Yurchyshyn, V. B., Yang, G., Xu, Y., & Wang, H. 2004, , 614, 1054 Karpen, J. T., & Antiochos, S. K. 2008, , 676, 658 Karpen, J. T., Antiochos, S. K., Klimchuk, J. A., & MacNeice, P. J. 2003, , 593, 1187 Karpen, J. T., Tanner, S. E. M., Antiochos, S. K., & DeVore, C. R. 2005, , 635, 1319 Karpen, J. T. 2015, Solar Prominences, 415, 237 Kippenhahn, R., & Schl[ü]{}ter, A. 1957, , 43, 36 Kliem, B., & T[ö]{}r[ö]{}k, T. 2006, Physical Review Letters, 96, 255002 Kuckein, C., Mart[í]{}nez Pillet, V., & Centeno, R. 2012, , 542, A112 Kuperus, M., & Raadu, M. A. 1974, , 31, 189 Kusano, K., Maeshiro, T., Yokoyama, T., & Sakurai, T. 2002, , 577, 501 Lemen, J. R., Title, A. M., Akin, D. J., et al. 2012, , 275, 17 Li, H., Liu, Y., Elmhamdi, A., & Kordi, A.-S. 2016, , 830, 132 Li, H., Jiang, Y., Yang, J., et al. 2017, , 842, L20 Lites, B. W., Kubo, M., Berger, T., et al. 2010, , 718, 474 Lites, B. W. 2009, , 144, 197 Liu, Y., & Schuck, P. W. 2012, , 761, 105 Liu, Y., Kurokawa, H., & Shibata, K. 2005, , 631, L93 Liu, W., Berger, T. E., & Low, B. C. 2012, , 745, L21 Liu, Z., Xu, J., Gu, B.-Z., et al. 2014, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 14, 705-718 Luna, M., Karpen, J. T., & DeVore, C. R. 2012, , 746, 30 Mackay, D. H., Karpen, J. T., Ballester, J. L., Schmieder, B., & Aulanier, G. 2010, , 151, 333 MacTaggart, D., & Hood, A. W. 2010, , 716, L219 Martens, P. C., & Zwaan, C. 2001, , 558, 872 Martin, S. F. 1998, , 182, 107 Mart[í]{}nez-Sykora J., De Pontieu B., Testa P., Hansteen V., 2011, ApJ, 743, 23 Moreno-Insertis, F., & Galsgaard, K. 2013, , 771, 20 Moreno-Insertis, F., Galsgaard, K., & Ugarte-Urra, I. 2008, , 673, L211 Okamoto, T. J., Tsuneta, S., Lites, B. W., et al. 2008, , 673, L215 Okamoto, T. J., Tsuneta, S., Lites, B. W., et al. 2009, , 697, 913 Parenti, S. 2014, Living Reviews in Solar Physics, 11, 1 Pariat, E., D[é]{}moulin, P., & Berger, M. A. 2005, , 439, 1191 Parker, E. N. 1953, , 117, 431 Pesnell, W. D., Thompson, B. J., & Chamberlin, P. C. 2012, , 275, 3 Pikel’Ner, S. B. 1971, , 17, 44 De Pontieu B., Erd[é]{}lyi R., James S. P., 2004, Natur, 430, 536 Raouafi, N. E., Patsourakos, S., Pariat, E., et al. 2016, , 201, 1 Rust, D. M., & Kumar, A. 1994, , 155, 69 Scherrer, P. H., Schou, J., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, , 275, 207 Schuck P. W., 2008, , 683, 1134 Schou, J., Scherrer, P. H., Bush, R. I., et al. 2012, , 275, 229 Shen, Y., Liu, Y. D., Su, J., Qu, Z., & Tian, Z. 2017, , 851, 67 Stellmacher, G., & Wiehr, E. 1997, , 319, 669 Shibata K., Nishikawa T., Kitai R., Suematsu Y., 1982, SoPh, 77, 121 Shimojo, M., Shibata, K., & Harvey, K. L. 1998, , 178, 379 Song, H. Q., Chen, Y., Li, B., et al. 2017, , 836, L11 Takeuchi A., Shibata K., 2001, ApJ, 546, L73 T[ö]{}r[ö]{}k, T., & Kliem, B. 2003, , 406, 1043 Takasao, S., Isobe, H., & Shibata, K. 2013, , 65, 62 van Ballegooijen, A. A., & Martens, P. C. H. 1989, , 343, 971 Wang, Y.-M. 1999, , 520, L71 Wang, J., Yan, X., Qu, Z., Xue, Z., & Yang, L. 2017, , 839, 128 Wang, J., Yan, X., Qu, Z., et al. 2018, , 863, 180 Welsch, B. T., DeVore, C. R., & Antiochos, S. K. 2005, , 634, 1395 Xia, C., Chen, P. F., Keppens, R., & van Marle, A. J. 2011, , 737, 27 Xia, C., Chen, P. F., & Keppens, R. 2012, , 748, L26 Xue, Z., Yan, X., Cheng, X., et al. 2016, Nature Communications, 7, 11837 Xue, Z., Yan, X., Yang, L., Wang, J., & Zhao, L. 2017, , 840, L23 Yan, X. L., Xue, Z. K., Liu, J. H., et al. 2014, , 782, 67 Yan, X. L., Xue, Z. K., Pan, G. M., et al. 2015, , 219, 17 Yan, X. L., Priest, E. R., Guo, Q. L., et al. 2016, , 832, 23 Yan, X. L., Jiang, C. W., Xue, Z. K., et al. 2017, , 845, 18 Yang, S., Zhang, J., Liu, Z., & Xiang, Y. 2014, , 784, L36 Yang, B., Jiang, Y., Yang, J., Yu, S., & Xu, Z. 2016, , 816, 41 Yokoyama, T., & Shibata, K. 1995, , 375, 42 Yokoyama T., Shibata K., 1996, PASJ, 48, 353 Zirker, J. B., Engvold, O., & Yi, Z. 1994, , 150, 81 Zou, P., Fang, C., Chen, P. F., Yang, K., Hao, Q., & Cao, W. D. 2016, , 831, 123 Zou, P., Fang, C., Chen, P. F., Yang, K., Cao, W., 2017, , 836, 122
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: <http://fso.ynao.ac.cn>
[^3]: <https://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider an “impurity” with a spin degree of freedom coupled to a finite reservoir of non-interacting electrons, a system which may be realized by either a true impurity in a metallic nano-particle or a small quantum dot coupled to a large one. We show how the physics of such a spin impurity is revealed in the many-body spectrum of the entire finite-size system; in particular, the evolution of the spectrum with the strength of the impurity-reservoir coupling reflects the fundamental many-body correlations present. Explicit calculation in the strong and weak coupling limits shows that the spectrum and its evolution are sensitive to the nature of the impurity and the parity of electrons in the reservoir. The effect of the finite size spectrum on two experimental observables is considered. First, we propose an experimental setup in which the spectrum may be conveniently measured using tunneling spectroscopy. A rate equation calculation of the differential conductance suggests how the many-body spectral features may be observed. Second, the finite-temperature magnetic susceptibility is presented, both the impurity susceptibility and the local susceptibility. Extensive quantum Monte-Carlo calculations show that the local susceptibility deviates from its bulk scaling form. Nevertheless, for special assumptions about the reservoir – the “clean Kondo box” model – we demonstrate that finite-size scaling is recovered. Explicit numerical evaluations of these scaling functions are given, both for even and odd parity and for the canonical and grand-canonical ensembles.'
author:
- 'Ribhu K. Kaul,$^{1,2}$ Denis Ullmo,$^{3}$ Gergely Zaránd,$^{4,5}$ Shailesh Chandrasekharan,$^{1}$ and Harold U. Baranger$^{1}$'
bibliography:
- 'general\_ref.bib'
- 'kondo.bib'
- 'nano.bib'
- 'footnotes.bib'
date: 'June 11, 2009; published as Phys. Rev. B. **80**, 035318 (2009)'
title: 'Ground State and Excitations of Quantum Dots with “Magnetic Impurities”'
---
Introduction
============
The Kondo problem describes a single magnetic impurity interacting with a sea of electrons [@HewsonBook]. At temperatures $T$ of the order of or less than a characteristic scale, $T_{\rm K}$, the dynamics of the impurity and the sea of electrons become inextricably entangled, thus making Kondo physics one of the simplest realizations of a strongly correlated quantum system. In its original context, the impurity was typically an element of the 3*d* or 4*f* series of the periodic table, embedded in the bulk of a metal such as *Cu* with *s* conduction electrons. With the subsequent development of fabrication and control of micro- and nano-structures, it was pointed out [@Glazman88; @Ng88] that a small quantum dot with an odd number of electrons – small enough that its mean level spacing $\Delta_{{\rm S}}$ is much larger than the temperature – could be placed in a regime such that it behaves as a magnetic impurity.[@GlazmanHouches05; @ZarandRev06; @GoldhaberGRev07] The first experimental implementations of this idea were naturally made by connecting the “magnetic impurity” formed in this way to macroscopic leads [@Goldhaber98; @Cronenwett98; @Pustilnik01; @GoldhaberGRev07]. The flexibility provided by the patterning of two dimensional electron gas makes it possible, however, to design more exotic systems, by connecting the small magnetic impurity dot to larger dots playing the role of the electron reservoirs. Schemes to observe, for instance, two-channel SU(2) [@Oreg03; @Potok06] or SU(4)[@Borda03; @LeHur03; @LeHur04; @Galpin05; @LeHur07; @Choi05; @Makarovski07a; @Makarovski07b] Kondo have been implemented.
When the bulk electron reservoir of the original Kondo problem is replaced by a finite reservoir, two energy scales are introduced: the Thouless energy $E_{\rm Th}$ associated with the inverse of the time of flight across the structure, and the mean level spacing $\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ [@Kouwenhoven97; @AkkerMontamBook; @Argaman93]. A natural question which arises is therefore how these two new scales affect the Kondo physics under investigation.
Because a quantum impurity problem has point-like interactions, the local density of states $\rho_{\rm loc}(\epsilon) \!=\! \sum_\alpha |\phi_\alpha(0)|^2\delta(\epsilon-\epsilon_\alpha)$ completely characterizes the non-interacting sea of electrons ($\epsilon_\alpha$ and $\phi_\alpha$ are the one-body eigenvalues and eigenfunctions of the reservoir). For $T,T_{\rm K} \!\gg\! E_{\rm Th},\Delta_{{\rm R}}$, thermal smearing washes out the effects of both mesoscopic fluctuations and the discreteness of the reservoir spectrum. Indeed, in this regime, one may safely approximate $\rho_{\rm loc}$ by a constant $\rho_0$; the impurity behaves in much the same way as if it were in an infinite reservoir. In contrast, when $T, T_{\rm K} \lesssim E_{\rm Th},\Delta_{{\rm R}}$, the impurity senses the finiteness of the reservoir through the structure of $\rho_{\rm loc}(\epsilon)$. The presence of these new energy scales (which are ubiquitous [@Kouwenhoven97; @AkkerMontamBook] in reservoirs made from quantum dots) is hence an essential and interesting part of Kondo physics in nano-systems and deserves to be understood thoroughly.
The implications of a finite Thouless energy, and of the associated mesoscopic fluctuations taking place in the energy range $[\Delta, E_{\rm Th}]$, have been investigated mainly in the high temperature range $T \!\gg\! T_{\rm K}$, where a perturbative renormalization group approach is applicable [@Zarand96; @Kettemann04; @KaulEPL05; @Yoo05; @UllmoRPP08] (see also related work [@Kettemann06; @Kettemann07; @Zhuravlev08] in the context of weakly disordered system). Less is known about the implications of mesoscopic fluctuations in the temperature range $T \!<\! T_{\rm K}$.
There is on the other hand already a much larger body of work concerning the “clean Kondo box” problem [@Thimm99], namely the situation where mesoscopic fluctuations are ignored (or absent as may be the case in some one dimensional models), and only the existence of a finite mean level spacing is taken into account. Simon and Affleck [@Simon02] and Cornaglia and Balseiro [@Cornaglia03] have, for instance, considered how transport properties are modified if one dimensional wires of finite length are inserted between the macroscopic leads and the quantum impurity. Ring geometries [@Affleck01; @Simon01; @Lewenkopf05; @Simon06], including the configuration corresponding to a two channel Kondo effect [@Simon06], have also been investigated.
The basic Kondo box configuration, namely a quantum impurity connected to an electron reservoir with a finite mean level spacing, turns out to be already a non-trivial problem and so has been investigated by various numerically intensive techniques such as the non-crossing approximation [@Thimm99] or the numerical renormalization group [@Cornaglia02a]. In Refs. and it was pointed out, however, that as only the regime $T \ll \Delta_R$ is affected by the finiteness of $\Delta$, a lot of physical insight could be obtained by the analysis of the low energy [*many-body*]{} spectrum of the Kondo box system (i.e. the ground state and first few excited states). An analysis of this low energy many-body spectra and of an experimental setup in which it could be probed was given in Ref..
![(Color online) A double dot system, coupled very weakly to leads (${\rm L1, L2}$). In the Coulomb blockade regime, the small dot ${\rm S}$ behaves like a magnetic impurity that is coupled to a finite reservoir ${\rm R}$ provided by the large dot. The leads are used to measure the excitation spectrum of the system.[]{data-label="fig:setup"}](setup2.eps){width="2.4in"}
In this article, we would like on the one hand to provide a more detailed account of some of the analysis sketched in Ref., and furthermore to present an additional physical application, namely the low temperature magnetic response of the Kondo box system. See also Ref. for an analysis of the addition energy of a Kondo box.
Since our focus is the consequences of a finite $\Delta_{{\rm R}}$, we consider the simplest possible configuration: a double dot system with a small dot acting as the magnetic impurity and a larger one playing the role of the electron reservoir, as illustrated in Fig.\[fig:setup\]. The Hamiltonian describing this double-dot system is $$\label{eq:basic_ham}
H_{\rm R\text{-}S} = \sum_{\alpha \sigma} \epsilon_\alpha
c^{\dagger}_{\alpha \sigma}c_{\alpha\sigma}
+ E_C( N^{{\rm R}}- {n^{{\rm R}}_g})^2
+ H^{\rm K,A}_{\rm int} \;.$$ Here $c^\dagger_{\alpha \sigma}$ creates a state $\phi_{\alpha}(r)$ with spin $\sigma$ and energy $\epsilon_\alpha$ which is an exact one-body energy level in the bigger quantum dot R. These states include all the effects of static disorder and boundary scattering. $N^{{\rm R}}$ is the number operator for electrons in the reservoir, $n^{{\rm R}}_g$ the dimensionless gate voltage applied to the large dot R, and $E_C$ its charging energy. As the charging energy is the leading interaction for electrons in a finite system, we shall neglect all other interactions among the electrons on R. (See, e.g., Ref. for work that includes interactions among electrons in R.) The last term in Eq.(\[eq:basic\_ham\]) contains the description of the small dot and the interaction between the dots.
We consider two models for the magnetic impurity quantum dot and its interaction with the reservoir R. For most of this paper, we use a “Kondo”-like model, which therefore includes charge fluctuations only implicitly. In this case, the smaller quantum dot is represented by a spin operator $\mathcal{S}$. The interaction with the screening reservoir R is given by the usual Kondo interaction, $$\label{eq:basic_ham_kondo}
H^{\rm K}_{\rm int} = J \;{\mathbf {\mathcal S}}\cdot
{\mathbf s} (0) \; ,$$ describing the anti-ferromagnetic exchange interaction between the two dots, with $ {\bf s}(0) \!=\! \frac 1 2 f^{\dagger}_{0\sigma} {\overrightarrow{\sigma}_{\sigma\sigma^\prime}} f_{0\sigma}$ the spin density in the large dot at the tunneling position ${\bf r} \!\equiv\! 0$ and $f^{\dagger}_{0\sigma}\!\equiv\! \sum_{\alpha} \phi_{\alpha}(0) c^\dagger_{\alpha}$.
We also consider (see Sec. \[sec:gndstatethm\]) a multi-orbital “Anderson”-type model that explicitly includes the effect of charge fluctuations on the quantum dot S: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:basic_ham_and}
H^{\rm A}_{\rm int} &=& \sum_{m \sigma} \epsilon^d_m d^{\dagger}_{m
\sigma}d_{m\sigma}+ \sum_{m\sigma}t_{m}[f_{0\sigma}^\dagger
d_{m\sigma}\nonumber + {\rm H.c.} ] \\ &+&
U (N^{\rm S} - n^{\rm S}_g)^2.\end{aligned}$$ Here the quantum dot S is described by a set of spin-degenerate energy levels $\epsilon^d_m$ created by $d^\dagger_{m \sigma}$ which couple to the state $f^\dagger_{0\sigma} \!\equiv\! \sum_\alpha \phi_\alpha(0) c^\dagger_{\alpha\sigma}$ in R. Interactions are included through the usual charging term of strength $U$, where $N^{\rm S}\!\equiv\! \sum_{m\sigma}d^\dagger_{m\sigma}d_{m\sigma}$ and $n^{{\rm S}}_g$ is the dimensionless gate voltage applied to the small dot. When $m$ takes only a single value, this reduces to the usual single-level Anderson model. The crucial feature of this model is that the R-S tunneling term (proportional to $t$) involves *only one* state in the reservoir.
For temperature $T$ much larger than not only the mean level spacing $\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ but also the corresponding Thouless energy of the reservoir dot, the discreetness of the spectrum as well as mesoscopic fluctuations in R can be ignored. Thus one expects to recover the traditional behavior of a spin-1/2 Kondo or Anderson model. If $T \!\ll\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$, however, significantly different behavior is expected. A simplifying feature of this limit is that many physical quantities can be derived simply from properties of the ground state and low-lying excited states.
To study the low temperature regime, we shall therefore in a first stage consider the low energy (many-body) spectrum of the Hamiltonian Eq.(\[eq:basic\_ham\]). Specifically, in Sec. \[sec:gndstatethm\] we extend (slightly) a theorem from Mattis [@Mattis67] that enables us to infer the ground state spin of the system. Using weak and strong coupling perturbation theory, we then construct in Sec. \[sec:finitesize\] the finite size spectrum of the Kondo problem in a box.
In a second stage, we consider a few observable quantities that are derived simply from the low energy spectra. We start in Sec. \[sec:rate\_eq\] with tunneling spectroscopy, obtained by weakly connecting two leads to the *reservoir* dot (Fig.\[fig:setup\]). Using a rate equation approach, we predict generic features in the non-linear $I$-$V$ of our proposed device. We then address in Sec. \[sec:susceptibilities\] the low temperature magnetic response of the double dot system, and in particular discuss the difference between local and impurity susceptibilities which, although essentially identical for $T \!\gg\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$, differ drastically when $T \!\ll\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$. A further issue that we study is that the charging energy in R fixes the number of electrons rather than the chemical potential; thus, the canonical ensemble must be used rather than the grand-canonical. Use of the canonical ensemble accentuates some features in the susceptibility. Finally, we conclude in Sec. \[sec:conclusions\].
Ground State Theorem {#sec:gndstatethm}
====================
We now prove an exact ground state theorem for the models defined in Eqs.(\[eq:basic\_ham\])-(\[eq:basic\_ham\_and\]): the ground state spin of the system is fixed, and in particular cannot depend on the coupling between the small dot and the reservoir. We give the value of this ground state spin in a variety of cases.
The theorem is mainly an extension of a theorem due to Mattis [@Mattis67]. It relies on the fact that in a specially chosen many-body basis, all the off-diagonal matrix elements of these Hamiltonians are non-positive. It is then possible to invoke a theorem due to Marshall [@Marshall55; @AuerbachBook] to infer the ground state spin – a proof of Marshall’s sign theorem is in Appendix \[appendix:marthm\].
“Kondo”-type models
-------------------
![(Color online) Mapping of the Kondo problem into a spin-chain with an impurity. The site ’0’ is the point in the bath that interacts with the impurity, and is used as the site to begin the tri-diagonalization of the one-body Hamiltonian of the bath. The sites are labeled by the integer $i$, in the sequence they are generated by the tri-diagonalization procedure. After tri-diagonalization, we are left with non-interacting electrons that feel an on-site potential $\alpha_i$ and can hop [*only*]{} to the neighboring sites with amplitude $t_{i,i+1}$. []{data-label="fig:wilson"}](wilson.eps){width="2.2in"}
The starting point of the proof is the tri-diagonalization of the one-body Hamiltonian of the reservoir, $H_{{\rm R}}$. Beginning with the state $f_{0\sigma}$, one rewrites $H_{{\rm R}}$ as a one dimensional chain with only nearest-neighbor hopping [@WilsonRMP75; @HewsonBook]. This transformation is illustrated in Fig.\[fig:wilson\]. In this one-body basis, the “Kondo”-type model Eqs.(\[eq:basic\_ham\])-(\[eq:basic\_ham\_kondo\]) can be rewritten as a sum of a diagonal and off-diagonal part: $$\label{eq:dod}
H_{\rm R\text{-}S} = H_{\rm D} + H_{\rm OD} \;,$$ $$H_{\rm D} = J {\mathcal S^z} s^z (0) + \sum_{i\sigma}
\alpha_i \;f_{i\sigma}^{\dagger } f_{i\sigma}+ E_C( N^R-{n^{{\rm R}}_g})^2 \;,$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:offdiag}
H_{\rm OD} &=& -\frac{|{J}|}{2}\bigl[{\mathcal S^+} s^-(0)+ {\rm H.c.} \bigr]
\\
&&- \sum_{i\sigma} \big(|t_{i, i+1}|\;
f_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}f_{i+1\sigma} + {\rm H.c.}\big) \;. \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Condition $1$ of the the Marshall theorem requires us to find a many-body basis in which all the off-diagonal matrix elements are non-positive. Consider the following basis: $$\label{eq:basis}
| \Psi_\alpha \rangle = (-1)^{m-\mathcal{S}}
f_{i_{N^{\rm R}_\uparrow}{\uparrow}}^{\dagger}
...
f_{i_1\uparrow}^{\dagger}
f_{j_1\downarrow}^{\dagger}
...
f_{j_{N^{\rm R}_\downarrow}{\downarrow}}^{\dagger}
| 0 \rangle \otimes | m \rangle$$ with $m$ the quantum number of ${\mathcal S}^z$ of the local spin and the site labels (positive integers) ordered according to $i_1<\!\dots\!<i_{N^{\rm R}_{\uparrow}}$ and $j_1<\!\dots\!<j_{N^{\rm R}_{\downarrow}}$. Note that this basis is diagonal with respect to both the total number of electrons in R, $N^{\rm R} \!=\! N^{\rm R}_\uparrow \!+\! N^{\rm R}_\downarrow$, and the $z$-component of the total magnetization, $S^z_{\rm tot} \!=\! m \!+\! (N^{\rm R}_\uparrow \!-\! N^{\rm R}_\downarrow)/2$.
The off-diagonal matrix elements come from two terms, the spin-flip term and the fermion hopping. With regard to the fermion hopping term, first, since the fermions have been written as a one-dimensional chain, there is no sign from the fermionic commutation relation. Additionally, one can use the freedom to choose the phase that defines the one-body states $f^\dagger_{i\sigma}$ to make the hopping integrals $t_{i,i+1}$ negative. Since the number of phases is the same as the number of hopping integrals $t_{i,i+1}$, all the $t_{i,i+1}$ can be made negative, as in Eq.(\[eq:offdiag\]). This ensures that all off-diagonal matrix elements of the fermion hopping term in the many-body basis, Eq.(\[eq:basis\]), are non-positive. With regard to the spin-flip term, note that its sign in $H_{\rm OD}$ can be fixed by rotating the spin $\mathcal{S}$ by an angle $\pi$ about the $z$-axis. In order to ensure that the off-diagonal elements due to the spin-flip term are negative, we have to include the additional phase factor $(-1)^{m-\mathcal{S}}$ appearing in the definition of the basis states in Eq.(\[eq:basis\]).
Since the basis Eq.(\[eq:basis\]) is diagonal in $N_{{\rm R}}$ and $S_{\rm tot}^z$, we will work in a fixed $(N_{{\rm R}},S_{\rm tot}^z)$ sector. Condition (ii) of Marshall’s theorem – connectivity of the basis states by repeated application of $H_{\rm R\text{-}S}$ – is easily seen to be satisfied for the “Kondo” model for all ${J}\!\neq\! 0$, in a given $(N_{{\rm R}},S_{\rm tot}^z)$ sector. However, when $J\!=\!0$, condition 2 is violated: the impurity spin cannot flip and hence some basis states in a $(N_{{\rm R}},S_{\rm tot}^z)$ sector cannot be connected to each other by repeated applications of $H_{\rm R\text{-}S}$.
$\mathcal{S}$ ${J}$ $N_{{\rm R}}$ Spin of $|G\rangle$
--------------- ------- --------------- ---------------------
1/2 ANTI ODD 0
1/2 ANTI EVEN 1/2
1 ANTI EVEN 1
1 ANTI ODD 1/2
1/2 FERRO ODD 1
1/2 FERRO EVEN 1/2
: Ground state spins for different Kondo problems according to the theorem combined with perturbation theory. Marshall’s theorem adapted to the model defined by Eqs.(\[eq:basic\_ham\]) and (\[eq:basic\_ham\_kondo\]) says that the ground state spin does not change in a parametric evolution of the Hamiltonian. The only exception is the crossing of the point $J\!=\!0$, hence the sign of $J$ appears in the table. []{data-label="fig:spintable"}
We have thus shown that the Kondo model satisfies the two conditions of Marshall’s theorem in a given $(N_{{\rm R}},S_{\rm tot}^z)$ sector. Now note that given $N_{{\rm R}}$ and $\mathcal{S}$, the competing spin multiplets for the ground state spin ($S_{\rm tot}$) can either be integer spin multiplets or half-integer spin multiplets. Suppose for instance they are integer multiplets (this is true, e.g., when $N_{{\rm R}}$ is odd and $\mathcal{S}\!=\!1/2$). Marshall’s theorem guarantees that in the $S_{\rm tot}^z\!=\!0$ sector the lowest eigenvalue can never have a degeneracy; this ensures that in a parametric evolution there can never be a crossing in the $S_{\rm tot}^z\!=\!0$ sector. Since each competing multiplet has a representative state in the $S_{\rm tot}^z\!=\!0$ sector, we infer that the ground state spin does not change as the coupling $J$ is tuned. This is true as long as we do not cross the point $J\!=\!0$, because this point (as explained above) violates condition 2 in the proof of the theorem. Hence the ground state spin can be different for ferromagnetic and anti-ferromagnetic $J$, but does not change with the magnitude of the coupling: the ground state spin for all $J$ may hence be inferred by lowest order perturbation theory in $J$. The ground state spin for a few representative cases is displayed in Table \[fig:spintable\].
“Anderson”-type models
----------------------
We can prove a similar theorem for the model defined by Eqs. (\[eq:basic\_ham\]) and (\[eq:basic\_ham\_and\]). We begin by tri-diagonalizing the electrons in the reservoir R, as for the Kondo case. In addition we have to tri-diagonalize the electrons in the quantum dot S, a process which begins with the state $\tilde d_{0\sigma} \!=\! (1/t_{\rm R\text{-}S})\sum_{m}t_{m} d^\dagger_{m\sigma}$ where $t_{\rm R\text{-}S}\!=\!(\sum_m t_m^2)^{1/2} $. An organization of $H_{\rm R\text{-}S}$ into diagonal and off-diagonal parts then yields $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dod_and}
H_{\rm D} &=& \sum_{m, \sigma} \alpha^d_m \tilde d^{\dagger}_{m \sigma}\tilde d_{m\sigma} + U (N^{\rm S} - n^{\rm S}_g)^2\\
&&+ \sum_{i,\sigma} \alpha_i \;f_{i\sigma}^{\dagger } f_{i\sigma}+ E_C( N^{\rm R}-{n^{\rm R}_g})^2 \nonumber\\
H_{\rm OD} &=& - |t_{\rm R\text{-}S}|(f_{0\sigma}^\dagger \tilde d_{0\sigma}\nonumber + {\rm H.c.} )
\nonumber \\
&&- \sum_{m,\sigma}(|t^d_{m, m+1}|\; \tilde d_{m\sigma}^{\dagger}\tilde d_{m+1\sigma} + {\rm H.c.})\nonumber \\
&&- \sum_{i,\sigma}(|t_{i, i+1}|\; f_{i\sigma}^{\dagger}f_{i+1\sigma} + {\rm H.c.}) \;.
\end{aligned}$$ We note again that the sign of all the hopping integrals can be fixed as displayed above by an appropriate selection of the arbitrary phase that enters the definition of the $\tilde d^\dagger_{m \sigma}$ and the $f^\dagger_{i\sigma}$. The appropriate basis that has only non-positive off-diagonal matrix elements is, then, simply $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:basis_and}
| \Psi_\alpha \rangle &=&
f_{i_{N^{{\rm R}}_\uparrow}{\uparrow}}^{\dagger}
...
f_{i_1\uparrow}^{\dagger}
\tilde d_{k_{N^{\rm S}_\uparrow}{\uparrow}}^{\dagger}
...
\tilde d_{k_1\uparrow}^{\dagger}\nonumber\\
& & \tilde d_{l_1\downarrow}^{\dagger}
...
\tilde d_{l_{N^{\rm S}_\downarrow}{\downarrow}}^{\dagger}
f_{j_1\downarrow}^{\dagger}
...
f_{j_{N^{{\rm R}}_\downarrow}{\downarrow}}^{\dagger}
| 0 \rangle \;.\end{aligned}$$ The total number of particles is now $N^{\rm tot}\!=\! N^{{\rm R}}_\uparrow+N^{{\rm R}}_\downarrow+N^{\rm S}_\uparrow+N^{\rm S}_\downarrow$, and the $z$-component of spin is $S^z_{\rm tot}\!=\!(N^{{\rm R}}_\uparrow+N^{\rm S}_\uparrow - N^{{\rm R}}_\downarrow - N^{\rm S}_\downarrow)/2$.
In the case of the Anderson-type model Eqs.(\[eq:basic\_ham\]) and (\[eq:basic\_ham\_and\]), the result for the ground state spin is remarkably simple: the ground state spin has $S^{\rm tot}\!=\!0$ for $N^{\rm tot}$ even and $S^{\rm tot}\!=\!1/2$ for $N^{\rm tot}$ odd. There is no possibility of having a ground state spin other than the lowest.
Finite Size Spectrum {#sec:finitesize}
====================
In this section, we outline the main features of the low-energy finite-size spectrum for the Kondo problem, Eqs. (\[eq:basic\_ham\])-(\[eq:basic\_ham\_kondo\]). The basic idea is to use perturbation theory around its two fixed points: at the weak coupling fixed point ($J\!=\!0$) expand in $J$, and at the strong coupling fixed point expand in the leading irrelevant operators (Nozières’ Fermi-liquid theory). We begin by analyzing the classic case of $\mathcal{S}\!=\!1/2$ with anti-ferromagnetic coupling, and then turn to the under-screened Kondo problem realized by anti-ferromagnetic coupling and $\mathcal{S}\!=\!1$.
$\mathcal{S}=1/2$: Screened Kondo problem {#sec:1/2Kondo}
------------------------------------------
![Weak-coupling perturbation theory: schematic illustration of the unperturbed system for (a) $N^{{\rm R}}$ odd and (b) $N^{{\rm R}}$ even. The spin marked ${\mathcal S}$ is that of the small quantum dot while the solid lines represent the spectrum of the (finite) reservoir. The dashed lines show the lowest energy orbital excitation in each case; note that in the even case, any excitation requires promoting an electron to the next level and so involves a minimum energy of order $\Delta_{{\rm R}}$. []{data-label="fig:weakcplg"}](weakcplg_oe.eps){width="2.0in"}
*Weak-Coupling Regime:* In the weak coupling regime defined by $\Delta_{{\rm R}}\!\gg\! T_{\rm K}$, given a realization of the reservoir R, we can always make $J$ small enough so that the spectrum can be constructed through lowest order perturbation theory.
The unperturbed system for $N$ odd is shown schematically in Fig.\[fig:weakcplg\](a). At weak coupling the eigenstates follow from using degenerate perturbation theory in all the multiplets of the unperturbed system. The ground state and the first excited state are obtained by considering the coupling $$\label{eq:topmost}
H_{\rm top} = J |\phi_{\alpha_{\rm top}}(0)|^2 \; {\rm \bf s}_{\rm top}
\cdot {\mathcal S}$$ where ${\rm \bf s}_{\rm top}$ is the spin of the topmost (singly occupied) level $\alpha_{\rm top}$ of the large dot. The ground state is therefore a singlet ($J\!>\!0$) and the first excited state is a triplet with excitation energy $$\label{eq:EST}
\delta E_{\rm ST} = J |\phi_{\alpha_{\rm top}}(0)|^2 \ll
\Delta_{{\rm R}}\; .$$ The next excited states are obtained by creating an electron-hole excitation in the reservoir \[shown as a dashed arrow in Fig.\[fig:weakcplg\](a)\]. Combining the spin $1/2$ of the reservoir with that of the small dot, one obtains a singlet of energy $\sim\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$ separated from a triplet by a splitting $\sim\! \mathcal{J} \Delta_{{\rm R}}/4$, where we define $\mathcal{J} \!=\! J\rho$ with $\rho = \langle |\phi_\alpha(0)|^2 \rangle/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ the mean local density of states.
In the $N$ even case depicted in Fig.\[fig:weakcplg\](b), the ground state is trivially a doublet. The first excited eigenstate of the unperturbed system is an $8$-fold degenerate multiplet obtained by promoting one of the bath electrons to the lowest available empty state \[shown as a dashed arrow in Fig.\[fig:weakcplg\](b)\]. As $J$ is turned on, this multiplet gets split into two $S_{\rm tot} \!=\! 1/2$ doublets and one $S_{\rm tot} \!=\! 3/2$ quadruplet. In general the two doublets have lower (though unequal) energy than the quadruplet.
![Strong-coupling perturbation theory: schematic illustration of the unperturbed system for (a) $N^{{\rm R}}$ odd and (b) $N^{{\rm R}}$ even. For $\mathcal{S}=1/2$, a conduction electron is bound to the impurity at strong coupling. This leaves effectively a gas of even (odd) weakly interacting quasi-particles. We note here that in the usual case of $T_{\rm K}\ll D$ (bandwidth of the reservoir), the formation of a singlet between the impurity spin and the reservoir for $T_{\rm K} \!\gg\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$ is a complicated many-body effect: it is [*not*]{} just a singlet between the spin and the topmost singly occupied level, as is the case for very weak coupling. []{data-label="fig:strngcplg"}](strngcplg_oe.eps){width="2.0in"}
*Strong-Coupling Regime:* For $T_{\rm K} \!\gg\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$, on the other hand, the impurity spin $\mathcal S$ is screened by the conduction electrons, and we can use Nozières’ “Fermi-liquid” theory.[@Nozieres74; @Nozieres78] In the very strong coupling limit, one electron is pulled out of the Fermi sea to bind with the impurity; this picture essentially holds throughout the strong coupling-regime [@GlazmanHouches05; @Nozieres74; @Nozieres78]. For $N$ odd (even) one ends up effectively with an [*even (odd) number*]{} of quasi-particles that interact with each other only at the impurity site through a repulsive effective interaction $$U_{\rm FL} \sim (\Delta_{{\rm R}}^2/T_{\rm K}) \,
n_{\uparrow}(0) \,n_{\downarrow}(0)
\label{eq:U_FL}$$ which is weak ($T_{\rm K} \!\gg\! \Delta_{\rm R}$). The quasi-particles have the same mean level spacing $\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ as the original electrons, but the spacing between two quasi-particle levels is not simply related to the spacing of the original levels in the chaotic quantum dot. This case is illustrated in Fig.\[fig:strngcplg\].
For $N$ odd, the ground state is thus a singlet (as expected from our theorem), and the excitations start at energy $\sim\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$ since a quasi-particle must be excited in the reservoir. The first two excitations consist of a spin $S_{\rm tot}\!=\!1$ and a $S_{\rm tot}\!=\!0$. Because the residual quasi-particle interaction is repulsive, the orbital antisymmetry of the triplet state produces a lower energy; the splitting is about $\sim\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}^2/T_{\rm K}$.
In the $N$ even case at strong coupling, there are an odd number of quasi-particles in the reservoir, and so the ground state is a doublet. The first excited multiplet must involve a quasi-particle-hole excitation in the reservoir. There are two such excitations that involve promotion by one mean level spacing on average (either promoting the electron in the top level up one, or promoting an electron in the second level to the top level). Thus, the first two excitations are doublets.
*Crossover between Weak- and Strong-Coupling:* Remarkably, the ordering of the $S_{\rm tot}$ quantum numbers of the ground state and two lowest excitations is the same in both the $T_{\rm K} \!\gg\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$ and $T_{\rm K} \!\ll\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$ limits. It is therefore natural to assume that the order and quantum numbers are independent of $T_{\rm K}/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$. Thus we arrive at the schematic illustration in Fig.\[fig:illust\].
![(Color online) Schematic of the energy eigenvalues of the double-dot system as a function of the coupling $J$ for (a) $N$ odd and (b) $N$ even in the $\mathcal{S}\!=\!1/2$ anti-ferromagnetic coupling case. Energy differences are shown with respect to the ground state which therefore appears on the $x$-axes. The relation to the double-dot experiment Fig.\[fig:setup\] is that the $y$-axis here is like $V_{\rm BIAS}$ and the $x$-axis is like $V_{\rm PINCH}$. The excitations will show up as peaks in the differential conductance $G$. []{data-label="fig:illust"}](illust_g.eps){width="3.0in"}
$\mathcal{S}=1$: Under-screened Kondo problem
----------------------------------------------
The theorem and perturbation theory analysis presented above has an interesting generalization to the under-screened Kondo effect, in which $\mathcal{S}\!>\!1/2$. We will consider for concreteness the case $\mathcal{S}\!=\!1$. Note that the under-screened Kondo effect has been realized experimentally in quantum dots.[@VanDerWiel02]
![(Color online) Schematic illustration of the finite-size spectrum of the under-screened Kondo problem, $\mathcal{S}\!=\!1$ with anti-ferromagnetic coupling, for (a) $N$ even and (b) $N$ odd. In each panel we show all the excitations up to order $\Delta$, both at strong and weak coupling. When it seems plausible, we have connected the strong and weak coupling limits; note the necessity of crossings among the excited states in (a). []{data-label="fig:illust_us"}](illust_us_eo.eps){width="3.0in"}
For $N$ even and ${\mathcal S}\!=\!1$, we find that the ground state for all $J$ has $S_{\rm tot}\!=\!1$. At weak coupling, this follows directly from perturbation theory – the reservoir has spin zero and $J$ is too small to promote an electron so the spin of the ground state is just that of the small dot. The theorem then implies that ${\mathcal S}\!=\!1$ for all $J$. The first excited multiplet is at energy of order $\Delta_{{\rm R}}$. It splits into a singlet, two triplets, and a quintuplet; as $J$ increases, the singlet has the lowest energy because the coupling is anti-ferromagnetic.
In the opposite limit of strong coupling, as $J\!\rightarrow\!\infty$, one electron from R binds to the impurity spin forming a spin-1/2 object. For $J\!=\!\infty$, this spin does not interact with the quasi-particles in R; however, when $J\!\neq\! \infty$, the flow to strong coupling generates other irrelevant operators that connect the spin to the quasi-particles. It is known from studies of the under-screened Kondo problem that the leading irrelevant operator is a *ferromagnetic* Kondo coupling [@Nozieres80] (the sign of the coupling follows heuristically from perturbation theory in $t/J$). However, since one of the electrons is bound to the spin, there is an *odd* number of quasi-particles in the effective low energy ferromagnetic Kondo description – the level filling is as in Fig. \[fig:strngcplg\](b). Since the ferromagnetic Kondo problem flows naturally to *weak* coupling [@HewsonBook], we are again justified in doing perturbation theory in the coupling, and so recover that the ground state has $S_{\rm tot}\!=\!1$. From the small ferromagnetic coupling, we conclude that the first excited state is a singlet separated from the ground state by an asymptotically small energy (as $T_{\rm K}/\Delta_{{\rm R}}\!\rightarrow\! \infty$). The next excited state involves promotion of a quasi-particle to the next level within R and so has energy of order $\Delta_{{\rm R}}$. It is a triplet because of the ferromagnetic coupling, with a nearby singlet in the strong coupling limit. Note that there are two possible quasi-particle excitations with energy of order $\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ (as discussed in the $\mathcal{S}\!=\!1/2$ case), and so two singlet-triplet pairs.
The proposed crossover from weak to strong coupling for $N$ even is shown in Fig.\[fig:illust\_us\](a). Note that in this case, level crossings of excited states *must* occur: the two singlets at energy of order $\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ at strong coupling come from energies greater than $\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ at weak coupling, and so cross the $S \!=\! 2$ state. The two singlet-triplet pairs at strong coupling are shown to be slightly different because each involves a different level spacing; thus, there is an additional level crossing as one of the singlets comes below a triplet.
In the $N$ odd case, weak anti-ferromagnetic coupling implies that the ground state spin is $S_{\rm tot}\!=\!1/2$. The first excited state is the other multiplet involving no excitations in the reservoir, $S_{\rm tot}\!=\!3/2$. The next excited states are the $S_{\rm tot}\!=\!1/2$ and $3/2$ states that involve promoting one electron by one level. In the strong coupling limit, we repeat the mapping to a ferromagnetically coupled impurity, yielding this time an even number of quasi-particles in the reservoir. Now the first excited state involves promoting a quasi-particle in the reservoir by one level; the ferromagnetic coupling implies that the $S_{\rm tot}\!=\!3/2$ state has the lowest energy among the possible multiplets. Making again the reasonable assumption that the two limits are connected to each other in the simplest manner possible, we arrive at the schematic illustration in Fig.\[fig:illust\_us\](b). In contrast to the $N$ even case, no level crossings are definitely required.
We stress here that the evolution of the finite size spectra shown in Figs.\[fig:illust\] and \[fig:illust\_us\] are totally different in each of the cases illustrated. The finite-size spectrum is hence an interesting way to observe the Kondo effect in nano-systems, each impurity problem having its own unique spectrum.
Non-linear I-V characteristics of the R-S system {#sec:rate_eq}
================================================
We now turn to the question of how to observe the features of the finite size spectrum delineated in the previous section. Any physical observable depends, of course, on the spectrum of the system and so could be used as a probe. We choose to concentrate on two: (1) In the next section, we discuss the *magnetic susceptibility* of the R-S system, a classic quantity in Kondo physics. (2) In this section we discuss the *conductance* across the device shown in Fig.\[fig:setup\]. The advantage of this physical quantity is that the finite-size spectrum can be observed directly in the proposed experiment. The emphasis here is on transfer of electrons entirely by real transitions; cotunneling processes, which involve virtual states, are briefly discussed at the end of the section.
A current through the R-S system clearly involves number fluctuations on it. For a general value of the gate voltage \[$n^{\rm R}_g$ in Eq.(\[eq:basic\_ham\])\], however, the ground state will have a fixed number of electrons, and hence $G\!=\!0$ (Coulomb blockade). When $V_{\rm BIAS}=V_{\rm 1} - V_{\rm 2}$ is increased sufficiently, the Coulomb blockade is lifted, and $G(V_{\rm BIAS})$ has a sequence of peaks. It is possible to extract the excitation spectrum of the R-S system from the position of these peaks[@VonDelft01]. In principle, there is a peak in $G$ for every transition $\alpha \rightarrow \beta$ that involves a change in $N$. As discussed in subsection \[sec:C\] we shall however choose a particular setting such that only a limited number of these transitions play a role, making in this way simpler the reconstruction of the underlying low-energy many-body spectra.
Method
------
In order to describe transport through the R-S system (realized through either a double dot or a metallic grain with a single magnetic impurity), we solve the appropriate rate equations for the real transitions [@Beenakker91; @VonDelft01]. The rate equations are a limit of the quantum master equation in which the off-diagonal elements of the density matrix are neglected. The dynamics of the quantum dot can then be described simply by the probability $P_{\alpha}$ that the R-S system is in a given many-body state $\alpha$. In thermal equilibrium these $P_{\alpha}$ are the Boltzmann weights. The electrons in the leads are assumed to always be in thermal equilibrium; hence, the probability that a given one-body state in the leads is occupied is given simply by the Fermi-Dirac function $f(\epsilon)
\!\equiv\! 1/(e^{\epsilon/T}\!+\!1)$. Here, $\epsilon$ is the deviation from the electro-chemical potential $E_{\rm F}\!+\!V_{1,2}$, where $V_1$ and $V_2$ are the voltages on leads $1$ and $2$ respectively.
Steady state requires that the $P_{\alpha}$ are independent of time. Hence, the various rates of transition from $\alpha$ to $\beta$, $\Lambda_{ \beta \alpha}$, must balance, leading to a linear system for the $P_{\alpha}$, $$\label{eq:ratebal}
\sum_{\beta} \Lambda_{\alpha \beta} P_{\beta} = \sum_{\beta}
\Lambda_{\beta \alpha} P_{\alpha} \;.$$ In addition, the occupation probabilities should be normalized, $\sum_{\alpha} P_{\alpha} \!=\! 1$.
There are four transitions that have to be taken into account: addition or removal of an electron from lead L1 or L2. We denote the rates for these four processes as $\Lambda^{\pm {\rm L1, L2}}_{\alpha \beta}$, and the $\Lambda_{\alpha \beta}$ in Eq.(\[eq:ratebal\]) are sums of these four transition rates. Once we have the $P_{\alpha}$ from (\[eq:ratebal\]), the current is simply $$I_{\rm 2} \equiv \frac{dN_{\rm 2}}{dt} =\sum_{\beta, \alpha}
(\Lambda^{+\rm L2}_{\beta \alpha}- \Lambda^{-\rm L2}_{\beta \alpha})
P_{\alpha} \;.$$ The conductance $G$ then follows by differentiating $I(V_{\rm BIAS})$.
The rates $\Lambda_{\alpha \beta}$ can be calculated in second order perturbation theory in the reservoir-lead coupling term, using Fermi’s golden rule [@VonDelft01]. For example, consider the addition of an electron to R-S from ${\rm L}_{\rm 1}$ corresponding to a transition $\beta (N) \!\rightarrow\! \alpha (N+1)$ on R-S: $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda^{+\rm L1}_{\alpha \beta}
&=& \frac{2 \pi \mathcal{V}_{\rm 1}^2}{\hbar}\int\!
d\epsilon\,\rho(\epsilon)\, f(\epsilon)\,
\delta(E_\alpha-E_\beta-\epsilon-V_{\rm 1})\nonumber\\
&=& \Gamma_{\rm 1} f(E_\alpha - E_\beta -V_{\rm 1}) \label{eq:FGR}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma_{\rm 1,2} = 2\pi \mathcal{V}_{\rm 1,2}^2\rho(E_{\rm F})/\hbar$. $\mathcal{V}_{\rm 1}$ is the amplitude for the above process. Although, in general it will have some dependence on $\alpha$ and $\beta$ as well as the coupling $\mathcal{J}$, we will ignore such dependence here. We will, however, retain the distinction between $\mathcal{V}_{\rm 1,2}$ and allow these to be tuned by the gates that define the R-L1 and R-L2 junctions.
To summarize our approach, to find the conductance in the proposed tunneling experiment, we have solved the rate equations for transferring an electron from lead 1 to the reservoir and then to lead 2.[@Beenakker91; @VonDelft01] We assume that (1) the coupling of the lead to each state in R is the same (mesoscopic fluctuations are neglected), (2) the Kondo correlations that develop in R-S do not affect the matrix element for coupling to the leads,[@fnspacing] (3) there is a transition rate $\lambda_{\rm rel}$ that provides direct thermal relaxation between the eigenstates of R-S with fixed $N$, (4) the electrons in the lead are in thermal equilibrium, and (5) the temperature $T$ is larger than the widths $\Gamma_1,\Gamma_2$ of the R-S eigenstates due to L1 and L2.
Magnetic Field
--------------
A Zeeman magnetic field ${\bf B}_{\rm Z}$ can be used as an effective probe of the various degeneracies of the R-S system. We shall assume that the magnetic field does not couple to the orbital motion of the electrons: $$H_{\rm Z} = -g \mu_B {\bf B}_{\rm Z} \cdot {\bf S} \;.
\label{eq:ZeemanHam}$$ This can be achieved in the semiconductor systems by applying the field parallel to the plane of motion of the electrons. The effect of an orbital magnetic field in ultra-small metallic grains is argued to be small in Ref. for moderate fields.
We may neglect the effect of $B_{\rm Z}$ on the lead electrons: The only characteristic of the lead electrons appearing in the rate equation calculations is the density of states at $E_{\rm F}$. All that $B_{\rm Z}$ does to the lead electrons is to make the modification $\rho(E_{\rm F}) \!\rightarrow\! \rho(E_{\rm F}\pm g\mu_B B_{\rm Z}/2)$. Since the band is flat and wide (on the scale of $B_{\rm Z}$) to an excellent approximation, this has no effect.
The effect of $B_{\rm Z}$ on the R-S system is complicated if the $g$-factors for the ${\rm S}$ and ${\rm R}$ electrons are different, as would be the case for a magnetic impurity in a metallic nano-particle. If we assume, however, that the $g$-factors for the electrons on the ${\rm S}$ and ${\rm R}$ systems are the same, as is relevant for the semiconductor quantum dot case illustrated in Fig.\[fig:setup\], then $H_{\rm Z}$ becomes simply $-g \mu_B B_{\rm Z} S^z_{\rm tot}$. The energy of a given many-body level $\alpha$ is then $E_{\alpha} \!-\! g\mu_B B_{\rm Z} S^z_{\rm tot}$ where $S^z_{\rm tot}$ is the corresponding eigenvalue of the many-body state.
Application to R-S System {#sec:C}
-------------------------
To identify characteristic features in the transport properties, let us analyze a situation in which only a limited number of transitions show up.[@VonDelft01] For a $\mathcal{S} \!=\! 1/2$ Kondo problem the most interesting features appear in the spectrum when there is an [*odd*]{} number of electrons in the reservoir. These states appear clearly when an electron is added to a $N$ even reservoir and the parameters are such that the excited states of the $N\!+\!1$ electron reservoir dominate.
We thus consider the following situation: For zero bias, assume that the R-S system is brought into a Coulomb blockade valley, not far from the $N\!\to\! N+1$ transition. This could be done by adjusting $V_1$ and $V_2$ in the setup of Fig.\[fig:setup\] (with $V_1\!=\!V_2$), or more realistically with the the help of the additional gate voltage $n^{{\rm R}}_g$ in Eq.(\[eq:basic\_ham\]). We take this setup as the origin of the bias potentials ($V_1\!=\!V_2\!=\!0$). Upon applying a bias $V_1 \!>\! V_2$, electrons flow from lead 1 to lead 2.
We assume that the rates $\Gamma_{1,2}$ are sufficiently small that virtual processes (cotunneling) can be entirely neglected for this subsection; that is, all relevant transitions occur on shell and can be described by the Fermi golden rule expression Eq.(\[eq:FGR\]). Furthermore, we take $\Gamma_2 \!\gg\! \Gamma_1$. Because $V_1 \!>\! V_2$, this means that it takes much longer to add an electron to the dot than to empty it. Thus, the dot tends to be occupied by $N$ electrons.
Several conditions are needed in order to restrict the discussion to just the lowest lying states of the system. First, we shall assume that $T \!\ll\! \Delta_R$ so that in equilibrium only the ground state $S\!=\!1/2$ doublet, with energy $E_G[N]$, needs to be considered. In a non-equilibrium situation, however, higher excited states $E_i[N]\!\sim\! \Delta_R$ can also be populated: the excess energy of the electron supplied by the bias can be used to leave the dot in an excited state. Apart from the ground state doublet, we take all excited states $E_i[N]$ to be higher in energy than $E_G[N+1]$.[@EFterm] Then, if an excited state is populated, it will quickly relax to an energy below $E_G[N+1]$ through a rapid exchange of particles back and forth between the dot and lead 2 ($\Gamma_2 \!\gg\! \Gamma_1$). Because off-shell processes are assumed negligible, this relaxation will stop as soon as an $N$-electron state $E_i[N]$ below $E_G[N+1]$ is reached. We assume that the energy of the first excited $S\!=\!1/2$ doublet, $E_1[N]$, is large enough that $ E_1[N] + V_2 \!\!> E_G[N+1] \!>\! E_G[N] + V_2 $. Then only the $N$-electron ground state multiplet needs to be retained in the calculation.
With regard to the $N\!+\!1$ electron states, we limit ourselves to a small enough bias such that only transitions to the three lowest excited multiplets need to be taken into account. In this way, only a small number of transitions will show up in the excitation spectrum, making it relatively simple to analyze.[@VonDelft01]
When a magnetic field is applied, note the following unusual behavior: Since there is no way to decay from the $S_z\!=\! -1/2$ state to the $S_z\!=\!+1/2$ state of the lowest doublet without involving virtual processes explicitly neglected here, the doublet will remain out of equilibrium: the $S_z \!=\! -1/2$ state can be significantly populated even though $g \mu_B B_{\rm Z} \gg k_B T$.
![ (Color online) Illustrative calculation of transport spectroscopy starting from the ground state of a $N$ even Kondo R-S system. Transitions are $S\!=\!1/2 \rightarrow
S\!=\!0,1$ as marked. Top panel: The differential conductance as a function of bias voltage for different values of the asymmetry between $L,R$ tunneling rates. Bottom panel: The probability of occupation of the two states forming the $S\!=\!1/2$ ground state. For large asymmetries $P_{\uparrow}+P_{\downarrow}\approx 1$, as expected. Even though $k_{\rm B} T/g \mu_B B_{\rm Z} \!=\! 0.2 \ll 1$, $P_{\downarrow}$ is large because this calculation neglects inelastic relaxation on the R-S system, allowing it to stay well out of equilibrium. $\Gamma_1 \!=\! 0.01$, $g\mu_B B_{\rm Z} \!=\! 0.4$, and $\Gamma_2/\Gamma_1 \!=\! 10$, $3$, and $1$ from top to bottom.[@fnGamma2Gamma1] []{data-label="fig:ass1"}](fig_ass1.eps){width="2.8in"}
![(Color online) Transport spectroscopy with energy relaxation included. $\Gamma_2/\Gamma_1\!=\!10$ (fixed), the parameter $\lambda_{\rm
rel}$ that models energy relaxation varies, and other parameters are as in Fig.\[fig:ass1\]. Top panel: The differential conductance as a function of bias voltage. Note how the symmetry of the $S\!=\!1/2 \rightarrow
S\!=\!1$ peaks is unaffected while the $S\!=\!1/2, S_z\!=\!-1/2 \rightarrow
S\!=\!0$ transition is suppressed (this transition would completely vanish if the R-S system were in thermal equilibrium). Bottom panel: The probability of occupation of the two states forming the $S\!=\!1/2$ ground state. As $\lambda_{\rm rel}$ is increased, the R-S system has a larger probability to occupy its ground state ($S_z\!=\!1/2$). []{data-label="fig:ass2"}](fig_ass2.eps){width="2.8in"}
Results for $G$
---------------
With the above assumptions, results for the differential conductance are shown in Fig.\[fig:ass1\]. We assumed that the system parameters (gate potential, $V_1$, $V_2$, and $\delta E_{\rm ST}$) are such that the first three states of the $N\!+\!1$ electron system coincide with the ground state of the $N$ electron system for $V_{\rm BIAS} \!=\! 1$, $2$, and $3$, respectively, at $B\!=\!0$. (See Fig 4. of Ref. for $dI/dV$ in the $B\!=\!0$ case.) We are thus assuming that the excited triplet state lies midway between the two lowest singlet states (see Fig.\[fig:illust\]), placing ourselves in the middle of the cross-over regime.
First, note that the ground state to ground state transition, $S\!=\!1/2 \rightarrow S\!=\!0$, yields only one peak even at non-zero $B_{\rm Z}$. This is because the $S_z\!=\!-1/2$ state of the doublet cannot be populated before some current is flowing through the R-S system ($k_{\rm B} T/g \mu_B B_{\rm Z} \!=\! 0.2 \!\ll\! 1$). However, after the first transition, the $N+1$ state can decay into the $S_z=-1/2$ state. Hence, we expect the higher $S\!=\!1/2 \rightarrow S\!=\!0$ transitions to split in a magnetic field, as in Fig.\[fig:ass1\].
The next feature to understand is the two $S\!=\!1/2 \rightarrow S\!=\!1$ transitions. These two peaks occur because out of the six transitions between the multiplets, two are forbidden by spin conservation and the other four split into two degenerate sets.
How is one then to distinguish between a $S\!=\!0$ and $S\!=\!1$ state, since they both split into two as a function of $B_{\rm Z}$? One possible method is to observe the peak heights in $G(V_{\rm BIAS})$ keeping $B_{\rm Z}$ fixed. These are plotted in Fig.\[fig:ass1\] for a variety of $\Gamma_2/\Gamma_1$.[@fnGamma2Gamma1] A clear feature is that the two $S\!=\!1/2 \rightarrow S\!=\!0$ peaks are very asymmetric, while the $S\!=\!1/2 \rightarrow S\!=\!1$ are almost symmetric. This is for a robust physical reason: each $S\!=\!1$ peak gets contributions from both $S_z\!=\!1/2$ and $-1/2$ initial states, while in the $S\!=\!0$ transition each peak gets a contribution from only one, the $S_z\!=\!1/2$ for the taller peak and $S_z\!=\!-1/2$ for the shorter one. The associated probabilities, $P_{\uparrow}$ and $P_{\downarrow}$, are shown in the lower panel of Fig.\[fig:ass1\]. Thus the peak heights in the $S\!=\!1$ transitions are insensitive to the difference between the probability of occupation of the two states in the doublet, while the peak heights in the $S\!=\!0$ transitions are sensitive to this difference.
Energy Relaxation
-----------------
In any real system, there are mechanisms of energy relaxation beyond the energy conserving exchange of electrons with the leads that is given by the rate equations. These mechanisms can involve, for instance, interactions with phonons or, more simply, higher order virtual processes between the R-S system and the leads that are neglected in the Fermi’s golden rule approach Eq.(\[eq:FGR\]). These relaxation processes are particularly important for the second $S\!=\!1/2 \rightarrow S\!=\!0$ transition. If the system is in perfect thermal equilibrium this transition should yield a single peak, even in the presence of a $B_{\rm Z} \neq 0$. The second peak is suppressed even if only on-shell processes are taken into account, as discussed above, but explicit energy relaxation causes this suppression to be more pronounced.
To model energy relaxation, we include a transition rate between the $S_z \!=\! \pm 1/2$ states that satisfies detailed balance (i.e., with Boltzmann weights), $$\Lambda_{\alpha \beta} = \lambda_{\rm rel} \frac{e^{-\varepsilon_\alpha/T}
}{e^{-\varepsilon_\alpha/T}+e^{-\varepsilon_\beta/T}}$$ where $\varepsilon_{\alpha}$ is the energy eigenvalue of the $\alpha^{\rm th}$ state.
The effect of this term is shown in Fig.\[fig:ass2\]. Clearly as the relaxation rate is increased, the peak in the second $S\!=\!1/2\rightarrow S\!=\!0$ transition coming from non-equilibrium effects is suppressed further. Note, however, that the heights of the $S\!=\!1/2\rightarrow S\!=\!1$ transition are unaffected (in both relative and absolute magnitude).
Cotunneling Spectroscopy
------------------------
While the approach proposed above should be reasonably simple to implement, because the excitations of both the $N$ and $N+1$ electron systems may come into play, the resulting experimental conductance curves may in some circumstances be non-trivial to interpret. Therefore, we mention, without going into detail, an alternative way to extract the excitation spectra from the differential conductance. Though within the “Coulomb blockade diamond”, on-shell processes such as the ones considered above are forbidden by energy conservation constraints, a small current can nevertheless be measured, which is associated with virtual (cotunneling) processes.[@Aleiner02]
At very low bias, these virtual processes are necessarily elastic as the electron transferred from one lead to the other does not have enough energy to leave the R-S system in an excited state. However, each time $V_{\rm BIAS}$ reaches a value corresponding to an excitation energy of the system with $N$ electrons, a new “inelastic” channel is open, as the electron has the option to leave the R-S system in an excited state as it leaves the structure. The opening of these new channels produce steps in the differential conductance within the Coulomb diamond. These steps are small, but clearly observable experimentally [@DeFranceschiPRL01; @ZumbuhlPRL04; @Makarovski06].
Because of the smallness of the associated currents, observing this substructure within the Coulomb diamond is certainly more challenging experimentally than for observing the main peaks associated with on-shell processes. On the other hand, the time elapsed between the successive transfers of an electron across the structure is large enough that the initial state of the $N$-particle system is always the ground state. If they can be measured accurately, the cotunneling steps within the Coulomb diamond may therefore lead more directly to the $N$-particle excitation spectra.
Summarizing this section, we have shown in detail how $dI/dV$ measurements enable one to extract the finite size spectrum and spin quantum numbers of the R-S system, using the case when the ground state has an even number of electrons as an example. In particular, we argued that the relative peak height of the Zeeman split terms ($B_{\rm Z} \!\neq\! 0$) reflects the spin quantum number of the excitation: asymmetric peak heights correspond to $S\!=\!0$, whereas symmetric peak heights correspond to $S\!=\!1$. The case when $N$ is odd is straightforward to analyze in a similar way. Transitions from $S\!=\!0$ to $S\!=\!1/2$ or $3/2$ can easily be distinguished: the former splits into two in a magnetic field while the latter splits into four.
Magnetic response of the double dot system {#sec:susceptibilities}
==========================================
We turn now to studying a second physical observable which probes the finite size spectrum of the system, namely the magnetic susceptibility defined by $$\chi = \frac{1}{\beta} \frac{\partial^2 \log Z}{\partial B^2} \; ,$$ where $Z$ is the canonical or grand-canonical partition function depending on the ensemble considered. As in Section \[sec:rate\_eq\], we assume that the magnetic field is in plane so that only the Zeeman coupling needs to be considered, Eq.(\[eq:ZeemanHam\]). We furthermore distinguish between the local susceptibility $\chi_{\rm loc}$, corresponding to the case where $B$ couples only to the quantum impurity spin (${\bf S} \equiv {\bf \mathcal S}$), and the situation where $B$ couples to the total spin of the R-S system (${\bf S} \equiv {\bf S}_{\rm tot}$). In the latter case, the impurity susceptibility $\chi_{\rm imp}$ is defined as the difference $\chi_{\rm tot} \!-\! \chi_0$ between the total magnetic response and that of R in the absence of the impurity dot.
For a wide ($D \!\gg\! T_{\rm K})$ and flat ($T \!\gg\! E^R_{\rm Th}, \Delta_{{\rm R}}$) band the local and impurity susceptibilities are essentially identical [@AndClog]. Indeed the effect of the magnetic field on the reservoir electrons is just to shift the energies of the spin up electrons with respect to the spin down by a fixed amount. If the spectrum is featureless, this only affects in practice the edge of the band, which in the limit $\mathcal{J} \!\equiv\! J \rho \!\to\! 0$ and $D \!\to\! \infty$ with fixed $T_{\rm K}$ will not affect the Kondo physics. More precisely, for small but finite $J \rho$ (and again for a wide flat band) the impurity susceptibility, being associated with the correlator of a constant of the system, can be written as $$T_{\rm K} \chi_{\rm imp} = f_\chi(T/T_{\rm K}) + \mathcal{O} (T_{\rm K}/D) \;$$ where $f_\chi$ is a universal function of the ratio $(T/T_{\rm K})$. On the other hand, since the spin ${\bf \mathcal S}$ of the impurity is not conserved, a multiplicative renormalization factor $z_{\chi_{\rm loc}}$ needs to be introduced for the local susceptibility so that $T_{\rm K} \chi_{\rm loc} = z_{\chi_{\rm loc}} f_\chi(T/T_{\rm K}) $. For $z_{\chi_{\rm loc}}$ we use a form motivated by two loop renormalization, $1/z_{\chi_{\rm loc}} =1-\mathcal{J}+\alpha\mathcal{J}^2$ for $\mathcal{J} \!\ll\! 1$, with the coefficient of the quadratic term determined empirically, $\alpha=-0.4$. (For a discussion of $z_{\chi_{\rm loc}}$ in the context of two loop renormalization, see e.g. Ref..) We note here that in the universal regime $T_{\rm K}/D \rightarrow 0$, one also has $\mathcal{J} \rightarrow 0$ and hence $z_{\chi_{\rm loc}}\rightarrow 1$. In practical numerics, even though $T_{\rm K}/D$ is small enough that the $\mathcal{O}(T_{\rm K}/D)$ correction can be neglected, $\mathcal{J} \simeq 1/\ln(D/T_{\rm K})$ need not be as small; hence, it is necessary to include the prefactor correction $z_{\chi_{\rm loc}}$ to observe good scaling behavior.
In the regime $T \!\ll\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$ that we consider here, however, the reservoir electron spectrum is not featureless near the Fermi energy, and the Zeeman splitting of the conduction electrons affects in practice the whole band, and not just the band edge. One therefore does not particularly expect any simple relation between the local and impurity susceptibilities. We now discuss the behavior of these quantities in this regime. We start with the canonical ensemble, for which the number of particles $N$, and therefore the parity of $N$, is fixed. We’ll consider in a second stage the grand canonical ensemble and so neglect charging effects in the reservoir \[$E_C \!=\!0$ in Eq.(\[eq:basic\_ham\])\]; in this case the spin degeneracy induces finite fluctuations of the particle number even in the zero temperature limit.
Canonical ensemble
------------------
Since $S^z_{\rm tot}$ is a good quantum number, the impurity susceptibility in the canonical ensemble follows immediately from the information contained in Fig.\[fig:illust\], i.e. from the knowledge of the total spin and excitation energy of the first few many-body states. Neglecting all the levels with an excitation energy of order $\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ (because $T \!\ll\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$), we simply get for $\chi_{\rm tot}$ a spin 1/2 Curie law for even $N$, and a spin 1 Curie law damped by $\exp[-\beta \, \delta E_{\rm ST}]$ for odd N. In this latter case, the magnetic response in the absence of the impurity is also a spin 1/2 Curie law; thus, for $\delta E_{\rm ST} \!\ll\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$ one finds $$\chi_{\rm imp} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle \beta \frac{(g \mu_B)^2}{4} \;,} & \mbox{$N$ even} \\[0.1in]
\beta (g \mu_B)^2
\left[ 2 \exp(-\beta\, \delta E_{\rm ST}) - \frac{1}{4} \right], &
\mbox{$N$ odd}
\end{array}
\right. \label{eq:chi_imp}$$
The local susceptibility on the other hand involves ${\mathcal S}$ which is not a conserved quantity. Its computation therefore requires knowledge of the eigenstates, in addition to the eigenenergies and total spin quantum numbers contained in Fig.\[fig:illust\]. We can follow the same approach used in Section \[sec:finitesize\] and analyze the two limiting regimes of coupling between the reservoir and the impurity quantum dot. We will then use a numerical Monte Carlo calculation in the intermediate regime and investigate how well it is described by a smooth interpolation between the two limiting regimes.
In the weak coupling regime, $T_{\rm K} \!\ll\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$, we assume that even if some renormalization of the coupling constant $\mathcal J$ takes place, the eigenstates are the ones obtained from first-order perturbation theory in this parameter. For even $N$ at $T \!\ll\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$, the impurity spin decouples from the (frozen) electron sea, and one obtains again a spin 1/2 Curie law. For odd $N$ at $T \!\ll\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$, the system formed by the impurity spin and the singly occupied orbital decouples from the set of doubly occupied levels. The magnetic response is the same as for two spin 1/2 particles interacting through Eq.(\[eq:topmost\]). We thus obtain $$\label{eq:chi_loc_low}
\chi_{\rm loc} = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\displaystyle \beta \frac{(g \mu_B)^2}{4} \;,} & \mbox{$N$ even} \\[0.1in]
{\displaystyle
\frac{(g \mu_B)^2 e^{-\beta\, \delta E_{\rm ST}}}{1 + 3 e^{-\beta\, \delta E_{\rm ST}}}
\left[\frac{e^{+\beta\, \delta E_{\rm ST}}-1} {2\,\delta\!E_{\rm ST}} +
\frac{\beta}{2} \right]
,} & \mbox{$N$ odd}
\end{array} \right.$$ valid for $T_{\rm K} \!\ll\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$.
Turning now to the strong coupling regime, we follow Nozières’ Fermi liquid picture [@Nozieres74; @Nozieres78], where low energy states $\vert \Psi \rangle$ (with $E_\Psi \!\ll\! T_{\rm K}$) are constructed from quasiparticles which interact locally according to Eq.(\[eq:U\_FL\]). In a local magnetic field, the energy of a state $\vert \Psi \rangle$ is modified to $$E_\Psi(B) = (g \mu_B B_{\rm Z}) \langle \Psi | {\mathcal S}_z | \Psi \rangle
- (g \mu_B B_{\rm Z})^2 \sum_{\xi \neq \psi}
\frac{|\langle \xi | {\mathcal S}_z | \Psi \rangle
|^2}{E_\xi - E_\Psi}
\label{eq:Epsi_strong}$$ where the sum is over all the many-body excited states $\xi$. The first term in this expression yields the effect of a change of the quasiparticle phase shift on the energy. It is important when $N$ is even: one of the quasiparticle states is singly occupied, and its energy is shifted by an amount $\sim\! (g \mu_B B_{\rm Z}/T_K) \Delta_R$. Thus the system acts like a spin-1/2 particle with an effective $g$-factor given by $g\Delta_R /T_K$. The result is a weak Curie susceptibility $\sim\! (g \mu_B \Delta_R/T_K)^2 / 4T$ at low temperature.
The second term captures the effect of electron-hole quasiparticle excitations. It produces a non-zero contribution even when the discreteness of the spectrum is ignored, as may be seen as follows. First, the density of states of particle-hole excitations of energy $\Delta E$ in a Fermi liquid is proportional to $\Delta E$. In a Kondo state, the density of single-particle states is increased by a factor of $1/T_K$ because of the Kondo resonance. Thus we may replace the sum in Eq.(\[eq:Epsi\_strong\]) by an integral using a density of states proportional to $\sim\! \Delta E/T_K^2$. The integral should be cutoff at an energy of order $T_K$, where the Kondo resonance ends. Thus the second term in Eq.(\[eq:Epsi\_strong\]) gives a contribution $\sim\! (g \mu_B B_{\rm Z})^2/T_K $ to the energy, and a corresponding contribution $\sim\! (g \mu_B)^2/T_K$ to $\chi_{\rm loc}$.
Note that this second contribution is independent of the finite-system parameter $\Delta_R$ and so is the universal (bulk) part of the local susceptibility.[@FiniteSize_chiloc] It should behave smoothly as $T/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ becomes smaller than one. In particular, if one considers a system without mesoscopic fluctuations (i.e. with constant spacings and wave function amplitudes at the impurity), we expect to recover the bulk behavior $T_{\rm K} \chi_{\rm loc} = z_{\chi_{\rm loc}} f_\chi(T/T_{\rm K}) $ for $\Delta_{{\rm R}}/T_K\to 0$. For $N$ even this relation holds only if the weak Curie behavior of the first term is not too large; more precisely, we expect $\chi_{\rm loc}$ to follow the universal behavior as long as $T \agt \Delta_R^2/T_K$.
With these arguments, we have thus arrived at a complete description of the magnetic susceptibility in both the weak and strong coupling limits for the canonical ensemble. Note in particular the difference in the conditions for having $\chi_{\rm loc} \!\to\! \chi_{\rm bulk}$ from those for having $\chi_{\rm imp} \!\to\! \chi_{\rm bulk}$. Both limits hold in the regime $T
\!\gg\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$ no matter what the value of $T_{\rm K}$. However in addition, $\chi_{\rm loc} \!\to\! \chi_{\rm bulk}$ for any $T$ as long as $\Delta_{{\rm R}}/T_K\to 0$.
Grand-canonical ensemble {#sec:grand-canonical}
------------------------
Use of the grand canonical ensemble \[which involves neglecting charging effects in the reservoir, $E_C \!=\!0$ in Eq.(\[eq:basic\_ham\])\] introduces additional complications compared to the canonical ensemble case above. To illustrate, recall first the behavior in the absence of the impurity, i.e. for a system of independent particles occupying doubly degenerate states $\epsilon_\alpha$. For $T \!\gg\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$ in the grand canonical ensemble, the magnitude of the fluctuation of the number of particles will be significantly larger than one. Thus, even if the canonical ensemble result for $N$ even is quite different from that for $N$ odd \[Eqs.(\[eq:chi\_imp\])-(\[eq:chi\_loc\_low\])\], such an odd-even effect would be completely washed out here: whatever the choice of the chemical potential $\mu$, configurations with odd or even $N$ would be as probable.
In the low temperature regime on the other hand, as soon as $T \!\ll\! \min_\alpha(|\mu-\epsilon_\alpha|)$ (which is usually $\sim\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$), there is a fixed, even number of particles in the system. It is possible to make the average number of particles odd by choosing $\mu \!=\! \epsilon_{\alpha_F}$ for some orbital $\alpha_F$. In that case, as $T/\Delta_{{\rm R}}\!\to\! 0$, all orbitals $\alpha \!<\! \alpha_F$ are doubly occupied, all orbitals $\alpha \!>\! \alpha_F$ are empty, and independent of $T$ the orbital $\alpha_F$ has probability $1/4$ to be empty, $1/4$ to be doubly occupied, and $1/2$ to be singly occupied. For quantities showing some odd-even effect in the canonical ensemble but no strong dependence on $N$ once the parity is fixed (such as the local susceptibility), the grand canonical ensemble produces a behavior which is the average of the the odd and even canonical response, even though the mean number of particles $\langle N \rangle$ is odd.
Turning now to the full R-S system, the above non-interacting picture should certainly still hold in the weak coupling regime. If, either by adjusting $\mu$ or by making use of some symmetry of the one particle spectrum, $\langle N \rangle$ is kept fixed with an even integer value as $T \!\ll\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$, one should recover the canonical magnetic response for even $N$. In contrast, the magnetic response for odd $\langle N \rangle$ should be the average of the canonical odd and even responses.
In the strong coupling regime (following again Nozières’ Fermi liquid description), one also has an essentially non-interacting picture, but with effectively one less particle since one reservoir electron is used to form the Kondo singlet. The role of “odd” and “even” are then exactly reversed from the weak coupling case: for $T \!\ll\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$ the grand canonical response will be the average of the canonical odd and even response for *even* $\langle N \rangle$, and will be exactly the canonical response for *odd* $\langle N \rangle$.
Universality in a clean box
---------------------------
The previous discussion mainly addressed the two limiting behaviors – weak and strong coupling. To investigate the intermediate regime we now turn to numerical calculations. In particular, we use the efficient continuous-time quantum Monte Carlo algorithm introduced in Ref., with in addition adaptations to compute quantities in the canonical ensemble [@canon_method]. We study the behavior of the singlet-triplet gap $\delta E_{\rm ST}$ and the local susceptibility $\chi_{\rm loc}$; the impurity susceptibility $\chi_{\rm imp}$ follows directly from $\delta E_{\rm ST}$.
To focus on the consequences of the discreetness of the one particle spectrum while avoiding having to explore an excessively large parameter space, we disregard the mesoscopic fluctuations of the spectrum and the wave-functions. That is, we consider the simplified “clean Kondo box” model [@Thimm99; @Simon02; @Cornaglia03] defined by $\phi_\alpha(0) \!\equiv\! \rho \Delta_{{\rm R}}$ and $\epsilon_{\alpha+1} \!-\! \epsilon_{\alpha} \!\equiv\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$ independent of $\alpha$. For initial results for the more realistic “mesoscopic Kondo model” see Refs. and.
Under these conditions, the problem is described by only three dimensionless parameters: the coupling ${\mathcal J} \!=\! J\rho$, and the two energy ratios $D/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ and $T/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$. For small ${\mathcal J}$ and large $D$ ($\gg\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}, T$), ${\mathcal J}$ and $D$ can be scaled away in the usual manner so that, except for renormalization prefactors such as $z_{\chi_{\rm loc}}$ which may still contain some explicit dependence on $\mathcal J$, physical quantities depend on $\mathcal J$ and $D$ only through the Kondo temperature $T_{\rm K}$.
We therefore expect, again up to the factor $z_{\chi_{\rm loc}}$, that both susceptibilities for the “clean Kondo box” model will be universal functions of the two parameters $T/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ and $T_{\rm K}/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$. This function may, however, be different for the local and impurity susceptibilities, and will also depend on the parity and type of ensemble considered.
Before discussing how well the limiting behaviors discussed above describe the whole parameter range, we shall first check that our numerics confirm the expected universality. For the impurity susceptibility, since Eq.(\[eq:chi\_imp\]) is valid in the full range of coupling as long as $T \!\ll\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$, we only need to verify that for $N$ odd the singlet-triplet excitation energy $\delta E_{\rm ST}$ is, as expected from the same argument, a universal function of $(T_{\rm K}/\Delta_{{\rm R}})$: $\delta E_{\rm ST}/\Delta_{{\rm R}}\!=\! F(T_{\rm K}/\Delta_{{\rm R}})$ with the limiting behaviors $$F(x) \approx \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1, & x \gg 1 \\
- 1/{\rm ln}(x), & x \ll 1 \; .
\end{array}
\right. \label{eq:FST}$$ The strong coupling behavior follows directly from the discussion in Sec. \[sec:1/2Kondo\]. The scaling behavior of $F_{\rm ST}$ at weak-coupling can, on the other hand, be obtained from a perturbative renormalization group argument: in the perturbative expression for $\delta E_{\rm ST}$ Eq.(\[eq:EST\]), replace the coupling constant ${\mathcal J}$ by its renormalized value ${\mathcal J}_{\rm eff}$ at the scale $\Delta_{{\rm R}}$. Within the one-loop approximation, ${\mathcal J}_{\rm eff} \!=\! {\mathcal J} / [1 - {\mathcal J} \ln(D/\Delta_{{\rm R}})]$ yields $$\delta E_{\rm ST} \approx \frac{\mathcal{J} \Delta_{{\rm R}}}
{1-{\mathcal{J}}\ln(D/\Delta_{{\rm R}})} \; .$$ Substituting the one-loop expression for the Kondo temperature, $T_{\rm K} \!=\! D\exp(-1/{\mathcal J})$, now yields the second line of (\[eq:FST\]).
In the crossover regime, we find $F(x)$ through continuous time quantum Monte Carlo (QMC) calculations using a modification of the algorithm presented in Ref. with updates which maintain the number of particles (canonical ensemble) [@canon_method]. To extract $\delta E_{\rm ST}$, we measure the fraction $P$ of states with $({S^z_{\rm tot}})^2\!=\!1$ visited in the Monte-Carlo sampling at temperature $T$. For a fixed ${\mathcal J}$ and large $\beta\!=\!1/T$, $P(\beta)$ can be excellently fit to the form ${2}/({ 3 + e^{\beta\, \delta E_{\rm ST}}})$ valid for a two-level singlet-triplet system. Repeating this procedure yields $\delta E_{\rm ST}$ for a variety of ${\mathcal J}$ and $\Delta_{{\rm R}}$.
![(Color online) Universal form of the singlet-triplet gap ($N$ odd) in the absence of mesoscopic fluctuations (“Kondo in a box model”). Note the excellent data collapse for a wide range of bare parameters upon plotting the extracted gaps as a function of $T_{\rm K}/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$. Inset: $P_{\rm QMC}(\beta)$ for $D/\Delta_{{\rm R}}\!=\!41$. Circles are data for fixed ${\mathcal J}\!=\!0.05$, $ 0.10$, $ 0.13$, $ 0.15$, $ 0.19$, $ 0.23$, $ 0.26$, and $ 0.30$ (right to left). Lines are one parameter fits to the two state singlet-triplet form used to extract the values of the gap.[]{data-label="fig:EST"}](univgap1.eps){width="3.37in"}
{width="4.2in"}
{width="6.0in"}
Fig.\[fig:EST\] shows the results of our calculations, plotted as a function of $T_{\rm K}/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$. We emphasize three features: (i) The inset shows that the fit of our QMC data to the simple two-level singlet-triplet form is indeed very good. (ii) The limiting behaviors of Eq.(\[eq:FST\]) are clearly seen. (iii) Data for a wide variety of bare parameters is shown; the excellent collapse onto a single curve in the main figure is a clear demonstration of the expected universality.
We now turn to the local susceptibility and explore the expected scaling ansatz $$\label{eq:univ_ansatz}
z_{\chi_{\rm loc}}^{-1} T_{\rm K}\chi_{\rm loc}=
f\left(\frac{{T}}{\Delta_{{\rm R}}},\frac{{T}}{T_{\rm K}}\right) \;;$$ for variety, we use the grand canonical ensemble. By fixing the chemical potential in the middle of the spectrum of the reservoir, particle-hole symmetry ensures that even in the presence of the Kondo coupling the mean number of particles $\langle N\rangle$ has a fixed parity: if $\mu$ is aligned with a level, $\langle N\rangle$ is odd, while if $\mu$ falls exactly between two levels, $\langle N\rangle$ is even.
Figs.\[fig:univsus\_gc\] and \[fig:fixedH1\] show our QMC results. In Fig.\[fig:univsus\_gc\], we demonstrate the expected scaling by showing the susceptibility as a function of $T/T_{\rm K}$ for fixed $T/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ \[ie. “slices” of the function $f$ in (\[eq:univ\_ansatz\]) are shown\]. A wide variety of bare parameters are used in order to map out the full cross over, and a good data collapse is found. Note that in the low temperature limit, the universal function for $\langle N\rangle$ even is substantially different from that for $\langle N\rangle$ odd.
One technical point concerning the determination of $T_{\rm K}$: We expect that $T_{\rm K}$ is not affected by finite size effects (in the absence of mesoscopic fluctuations) – it is determined by the mean density $\rho$, the bandwidth $D$, and the coupling $J$ in the same way as the “bulk problem”. Indeed, this is explicitly verified in Refs. and. However, for practical numerical purposes the 2-loop perturbative formula $T_{\rm K}^{\rm pert}\!=\!D\sqrt{J\rho}\,e^{-1/J\rho}$ works only approximately for $J\rho \!\agt\! 0.20$, and so we need to fit $T_{\rm K}$ numerically in this regime. Since the overall scale of the Kondo temperature is arbitrary, we set $T^{\rm fit}_{\rm K}\!=\!T^{\rm pert}_{\rm K}$ for $J\rho\!=\!0.19$. Having fixed this value, we can then obtain $T^{\rm fit}_{\rm K}$ for all other couplings by choosing it to get the best data collapse in Fig.\[fig:univsus\_gc\]. If we were truly in the perturbative regime, this extracted value would always agree well with the perturbative formula. The comparison between $T^{\rm fit}_{\rm K}$ and $T_{\rm K}^{\rm pert}$ is made in the inset of Fig.\[fig:univsus\_gc\]. As expected, for stronger couplings there are deviations from the perturbative value. After this fit, there are no further free parameters used to analyze the data.
While the way the data is presented in Fig.\[fig:univsus\_gc\] is convenient for demonstrating the universal scaling Eq.(\[eq:univ\_ansatz\]), it is more natural to present the data for fixed values of $T_{\rm K}/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ since this corresponds to a fixed geometry or Hamiltonian. This is done in Fig.\[fig:fixedH1\]. The curves for odd and even $\langle N\rangle$ agree for $T/\Delta_{{\rm R}}\!\ge\! 0.2$. For lower temperature, the susceptibility saturates for $\langle N\rangle$ odd, while it shows the expected Curie law for $\langle N\rangle$ even. When scaled by $T_{\rm K}$ \[panel (b)\], the curves for both parities follow the bulk universal curve as temperature decreases until they separate from each other when $T/\Delta_{{\rm R}}\!\approx\! 0.2$.
{height="3.in"} {height="3.in"}
Limiting regimes and interpolations for $T \!\ll\! \Delta_{{\rm R}}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------
To close this section, we come back to the limiting behaviors of the susceptibility discussed earlier. We show in detail how the interpolation between them takes place, as well as the relation between the results for the canonical and grand-canonical ensembles. Fig.\[fig:can\_eo\] shows our QMC results yet another way: for fixed $T/\Delta_{{\rm R}}\!=\!0.1$ but over the whole transition regime of $T_{\rm K}/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ and for both ensembles. As expected, the results from the canonical ensemble also satisfy the scaling ansatz. We see moreover that the weak and strong coupling limits of the canonical QMC data are reasonable: it is in good agreement with the expressions Eq.(\[eq:chi\_loc\_low\]) for the weak coupling regime, and tends to the bulk zero temperature limit $f_\chi(0)$ for large $T_{\rm K}/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$. (Note, however, that the numerics were not pushed as deep into the limiting regimes as for $\delta E_{\rm ST}$ in Fig.\[fig:EST\]).
The strong dependence of the cross-over behavior on the parity is unexpected. The odd case has a featureless transition and reaches the large $T_{\rm K}/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ limit from below. In contrast, the susceptibility in the even case overshoots the large $T_{\rm K}/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$ value and then approaches $f_\chi(0)$ from above. As the even and odd canonical results are so different, this provides an excellent test of the connection between the canonical and grand-canonical results discussed in Section \[sec:grand-canonical\]: the grand-canonical result in the even case agrees with the average of the two canonical results (green line). As a consequence, the grand-canonical susceptibility for even $\langle N \rangle$ differs considerably from the even $N$ canonical result even for fairly large $T_{\rm K}/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$.
For weak coupling, although the two expressions in Eq.(\[eq:chi\_loc\_low\]) appear quite different, they lead to similar numerical values for a very large range of $T/\Delta_{{\rm R}}$, and in particular for the value $0.1$ used in Fig.\[fig:can\_eo\]. As a consequence, the canonical and grand-canonical data in the odd case do not differ very much in the weak coupling regime. Note however that this is somewhat emphasized here by the fact that $T_{\rm K} \chi_{\rm loc}$ is plotted rather than simply the susceptibility itself.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
Our focus in this paper has been on the many-body spectrum of a finite size Kondo system. We have in mind a “magnetic impurity” – either a real one or an effective one formed by a small quantum dot – coupled to a finite fermionic reservoir (Fig.\[fig:setup\]). Such a system can certainly be made with current technology; indeed, using quantum dots, a *tunable* connection between the small dot (S) and reservoir (R) could be made, allowing a direct investigation of the parametric evolution of properties as function of the coupling. The emphasis throughout the paper is on experimentally observable consequences.
We start with a theorem for the ground state spin of the combined R-S system. Because a crossing of the ground state is forbidden, this can be obtained from simple perturbation theory – the result for different cases is given in Table I. The theorem is a straightforward extension of the classic theorems of Mattis [@Mattis67] and Marshall [@Marshall55].
A schematic picture of the spectrum of low-lying states as a function of the coupling $J$ can be constructed using perturbation theory and plausibility arguments. Figs.\[fig:illust\] and \[fig:illust\_us\] show results for the screened and under-screened cases, respectively. In this respect we are greatly aided by having a perturbation theory available not only at weak coupling but also at strong coupling (Nozières’ Fermi liquid theory).
The first observable property that we focus on is the nonlinear $I$-$V$ curve of such an R-S system. Using a rate equation approach, we find the differential conductance as a function of the bias voltage for a number of cases (Figs.\[fig:ass1\] and \[fig:ass2\]), with certain simplifying assumptions so that the identification of the different transitions is clear. The key result is that the splitting with magnetic field combined with the magnitude of $dI/dV$ can be used to deduce the spin of the low-lying excited states. Thus an experiment could obtain the information needed to compare with the theoretical schematic picture.
The second observable that we treat is the magnetic susceptibility; in the low temperature limit, this is simply related to the low-lying states of the system. We study the general behavior of both the impurity and local susceptibility, finding that they are markedly different. An extensive example illustrates the general features: A quantum Monte Carlo calculation yields results for the singlet-triplet energy gap (impurity susceptibility) and the local susceptibility in the “clean Kondo box” model in which the levels are equally spaced and all levels couple to the impurity with the same amplitude. Results in Figs.\[fig:EST\]-\[fig:can\_eo\] show the expected universality in this model, the strong even-odd effects, and the difference between using the canonical and grand-canonical ensemble.
Clearly the finite size spectrum of engineered many-body systems is a rich area for future experiments. We hope that our schematic arguments plus results for two observable properties will persuade researchers to undertake them.
We thank J. Yoo and P. Simon for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by the U.S. NSF Grant No. DMR-0506953 and Hungarian Grants OTKA Nos. T046267, T046303, and NF061726. D.U. and H.U.B. thank the Aspen Center for Physics for its hospitality.
Marshall’s Theorem {#appendix:marthm}
==================
*Theorem:* If a Hermitian matrix $H$ and a basis set $|\phi_\alpha \rangle$ satisfy two conditions,\
(i) $\langle \phi_\alpha|H|\phi_\beta\rangle < 0$ for $\alpha \neq \beta$, and\
(ii) for every pair $\alpha$ and $\beta$, $\langle \phi_\alpha|H^n|\phi_\beta\rangle \neq 0$ for at least one integer $n$,\
then the ground state of $H$ is unique (i.e. non-degenerate).
We prove the theorem in a few steps:
*Step I:* First, we prove that if the conditions above are satisfied, then the following simple result is true: if $\sum_{\alpha}
f_\alpha | \phi_\alpha \rangle$ is a ground state, then so is $\sum_{\alpha} |f_\alpha| | \phi_\alpha \rangle$. To show this, consider the following “Perron-Frobenius” inequality: $$\sum_{\alpha, \beta} |f_\alpha|\, |f_\beta| \langle \phi_\alpha | H |
\phi_\beta \rangle \leq \sum_{\alpha, \beta} f_\alpha f_\beta \langle
\phi_\alpha | H | \phi_\beta \rangle \;.$$ Note that the two sides of the inequality differ only for terms with $\alpha \!\neq\! \beta$. All such terms on the left-hand side are negative because of condition (i) above, while on the right-hand side the sign may be positive, depending on the sign of $f_\alpha$; hence, the inequality holds. Physically, the right and left side of the inequality are, in fact, the expectation values of the energy in the ground state $\sum_\alpha f_\alpha |\phi_\alpha \rangle$ and in $\sum_\alpha |f_\alpha|\, |\phi_\alpha \rangle$, respectively. Since the expectation value of the Hamiltonian in the ground state is always the lowest, $\sum_\alpha |f_\alpha|\, |\phi_\alpha \rangle$ must also be a ground state.
*Step II:* We now show that any ground state described by $f_\alpha$ must have $f_\alpha \geq 0$. For convenience we separate $H=H_{\rm D}+H_{\rm OD}$, where $H_{\rm D}$ and $H_{\rm OD}$ are the diagonal and off-diagonal parts of $H$ with respect to the basis $|\phi_\alpha \rangle$. In this language the Schrödinger equation expressed for the states $\sum_\alpha f_\alpha |\phi_\alpha \rangle$ and $\sum_\alpha |f_\alpha|\, |\phi_\alpha \rangle$ becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{marshall:eq:sch_eqn}
\langle \phi_\alpha |H_{\rm D}| \phi_\alpha \rangle f_\alpha
- \sum_{\beta}|\langle \phi_\alpha |H_{\rm OD}| \phi_\beta
\rangle|f_\beta = E_{\rm G} f_\alpha \quad\\
\langle \phi_\alpha |H_{\rm D}| \phi_\alpha \rangle |f_\alpha|
- \sum_{\beta}|\langle \phi_\alpha |H_{\rm OD}| \phi_\beta
\rangle|\, |f_\beta| = E_{\rm G} |f_\alpha| \quad\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{\rm G}$ is the ground state energy. These two equations combine to give $$\left|\big(\langle \phi_\alpha |H_{\rm D}| \phi_\alpha \rangle - E_{\rm G}\big) f_\alpha \right| =
\big|\langle \phi_\alpha |H_{\rm D}| \phi_\alpha \rangle - E_{\rm G}\big|\, | f_\alpha |.$$ Note, however, that $\langle \phi_\alpha |H_{\rm D}| \phi_\alpha
\rangle - E_{\rm G}\geq\! 0$, because $|\phi_\alpha \rangle$ cannot have a lower energy expectation value than the ground state. Thus, $f_{\alpha}\geq 0$ follows.
*Step III:* The next step is to use condition (ii) from the theorem to show that the stricter condition $f_\alpha \!>\! 0$ holds. This is most easily seen in Eq.(\[marshall:eq:sch\_eqn\]): if $f_{\alpha_1}\!=\!0$ for one $\alpha_1$, then, using condition (ii), all the $f_\alpha$ must be zero. Since this cannot be the case, all $f_\alpha \!\neq\! 0$. Thus, combining with the result of *Step II*, we conclude that $f_{\alpha}\!>\!0$.
*Step IV:* We have thus shown that every ground state of $H$ has a positive definite expansion in the basis set $|\phi_\alpha \rangle$. Since there cannot be two simultaneously orthogonal *and* positive definite vectors, the ground state of $H$ must be non-degenerate. This proves the theorem.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We discuss the potential of observing effects of CP-violation phases in squark decay chains at the LHC [@MoortgatPick:2009jy]. As the CP-odd observable, we use the asymmetry composed by triple products of final state momenta. There are good prospects of observing these effects using the method of kinematic reconstruction for the final and intermediate state particles. We also discuss the main experimental factors and the expected sensitivity.'
address:
- 'IPPP, University of Durham, Durham DH1 3LE, United Kingdom'
- 'Department of Physics, University of Bonn, Nussallee 12, D-53115 Bonn, Germany'
author:
- 'Krzysztof Rolbiecki [^1]'
- 'Gudrid Moortgat-Pick'
- Jamie Tattersall
- Peter Wienemann
title: Probing CP Violation with Kinematic Reconstruction at the LHC
---
Introduction
============
The search for Supersymmetry (SUSY) is one of the main goals of present and future colliders since it is one of the best motivated extensions of the Standard Model (SM). An important feature of SUSY models is the possibility of introducing many new sources of CP violation as required to explain baryon asymmetry in the universe. A careful analysis of how to observe new CP-violating effects in future experiments will be required and in the following we discuss the example in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model.
CP-odd observables are the unambiguous way of discovering hints of complex parameters in the underlying theory. One of the examples of such an observable is via exploiting triple product correlations of momenta and/or spins of the final state particles, see [@Kittel:2009fg] for a recent review. They follow from totally antisymmetric expressions $i\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma} a^{\mu}
b^{\nu} c^{\rho} d^{\sigma}$, where $a$, $b$, $c$ and $d$ are 4-momenta or spins of the particles involved. Such a covariant product can be expanded in terms of the momenta as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}p_a^\mu p_b^\nu p_c^\rho p_d^\sigma = &
E_a\;\overrightarrow{p_b}\cdot(\overrightarrow{p_c}\times\overrightarrow{p_d})+E_c\;
\overrightarrow{p_d}\cdot(\overrightarrow{p_a}\times\overrightarrow{p_b}) \nonumber \label{eq:EpsExpanLab} \\
& -E_b\;\overrightarrow{p_c}\cdot(\overrightarrow{p_d}\times\overrightarrow{p_a})
-E_d\;\overrightarrow{p_a}\cdot(\overrightarrow{p_b}\times\overrightarrow{p_c})\;.\end{aligned}$$ As we evaluate only one triple product, we miss the contributions of the other combinations and the asymmetry is diluted. However, if we are in the rest frame of the decaying particle, the momentum components of the four vector vanish and we are now only left with the single triple product that we are interested in: $$\epsilon_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}p_a^\mu p_b^\nu p_c^\rho p_d^\sigma \longrightarrow m_a\;
\overrightarrow{p_b}\cdot(\overrightarrow{p_c}\times\overrightarrow{p_d})\;.
\label{eq:EpsExpanRest}$$
Production of strongly interacting particles will have the largest cross sections at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). Therefore, in Ref. [@MoortgatPick:2009jy], we studied possible CP-violating effects in squark decay chains $$\label{eq:chain}
\tilde{q} \to \tilde{\chi}_2^0 + q \to \tilde{\chi}_1^0 \ell^+
\ell^- + q \; .$$ In the last step of the above decay chain we have the genuine three-body leptonic decay of the neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$. In this decay chain one can construct the $\mathrm{T}_N$-odd triple product [@Choi:2005gt] of momenta of the final state particles $$\label{eq:triple}
\mathcal{T}= \vec{p}_q \cdot (\vec{p}_{\ell^+} \times
\vec{p}_{\ell^-})\; .$$ Using this triple product one can construct a CP-odd asymmetry $$\label{eq:asy}
\mathcal{A}_T =
\frac{N_{\mathcal{T}_+}-N_{\mathcal{T}_-}}{N_{\mathcal{T}_+}+N_{\mathcal{T}_-}}\;
,$$ where $N_{\mathcal{T}_+}$ ($N_{\mathcal{T}_-}$) are the numbers of events for which $\mathcal{T}$, Eq. (\[eq:triple\]), is positive (negative), see also [@Bartl:2004jj]. At the parton level, the asymmetry due to the phase of the bino mass parameter $M_1 = |M_1|
\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} \phi_1}$ can reach $15\%$ in the neutralino $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$ rest frame, cf. Fig. \[fig:asymmetry\]. However, due to the internal proton structure, particles produced at the LHC get large, undetermined boosts. As a consequence, the asymmetry is strongly diluted as can be seen in Fig. \[fig:boost\], with the maximum value of $\sim 2\%$. This makes the observation of CP-violating effects very challenging [@Ellis:2008hq].
![The asymmetry $\mathcal{A}_T$, Eq. (\[eq:asy\]), in the laboratory frame as a function of the squark momentum, $|\vec{p}_{\tilde{q}}|$.\[fig:boost\]](KrysRightPart){width="140pt"}
![The asymmetry $\mathcal{A}_T$, Eq. (\[eq:asy\]), in the laboratory frame as a function of the squark momentum, $|\vec{p}_{\tilde{q}}|$.\[fig:boost\]](MomPlot){width="140pt"}
We show that the discovery potential can be greatly increased if one can reconstruct momenta of all the particles involved including those escaping detection [@MoortgatPick:2009jy]. We apply this technique to the squark decay chain, Eq. (\[eq:chain\]), and analyze the possible enhancement of the signal.
CP asymmetry in the laboratory frame
====================================
![The asymmetry $\mathcal{A}_T$ at the LHC with PDFs included in the analysis: **(a)** before momentum reconstruction and **(b)** after momentum reconstruction. The coloured lines show the size of the asymmetry needed for a $3\sigma$ observation at the given luminosity and for $\sqrt{s} = 14$ TeV.\[fig:results\]](leftpdfcross "fig:"){width="190pt"} a)![The asymmetry $\mathcal{A}_T$ at the LHC with PDFs included in the analysis: **(a)** before momentum reconstruction and **(b)** after momentum reconstruction. The coloured lines show the size of the asymmetry needed for a $3\sigma$ observation at the given luminosity and for $\sqrt{s} = 14$ TeV.\[fig:results\]](momreccrosstau "fig:"){width="190pt"} b)
We start with studying the impact of parton density functions (PDFs) on the asymmetry. We observe a reduction by an order of magnitude in the asymmetry, Eq. , compared with the asymmetry in the neutralino rest frame, see Fig. \[fig:results\]a. This is because in a boosted squark frame the momentum vector of the quark may now flip to the opposite side of the plane formed by $\ell^+$ and $\ell^-$. This changes the sign of the triple product, Eq. (\[eq:triple\]), causing a significant dilution. The other dilution factor that has to be taken into account are anti-squarks $\tilde{q}^*_L$. They will be produced along with squarks, however at a much lower rate, what is a consequence of the valence quarks present in the colliding protons [@MoortgatPick:2009jy]. As the asymmetries due to $\tilde{q}_L$ and $\tilde{q}_L^*$ have the opposite sign, the asymmetry would vanish if we had equal numbers of both species.
Including the above effects, we end up with a maximum value of $|\mathcal{A}_T| = 1.7\%$ for our scenario. Using the total production cross section and the branching ratios for the decay chain, Eq. (\[eq:chain\]), one can get the expected number of events. Fig. \[fig:results\]a shows the integrated luminosity needed to observe the asymmetry at the $3\sigma$-level. For $\mathcal{L} = 100\ \mathrm{fb}^{-1}$ a wide range of values for $\phi_1$ can be probed.
CP asymmetry with momentum reconstruction
=========================================
![The asymmetry $\mathcal{A}_T$ at the LHC after momentum reconstruction with cuts and momentum smearing. The coloured lines show the size of the asymmetry needed for a $3\sigma$ observation at the given luminosity and for $\sqrt{s} = 14$ TeV.\[fig:momrec\]](fullproc){width="190pt"}
![The asymmetry $\mathcal{A}_T$ at the LHC after momentum reconstruction with cuts and momentum smearing. The coloured lines show the size of the asymmetry needed for a $3\sigma$ observation at the given luminosity and for $\sqrt{s} = 14$ TeV.\[fig:momrec\]](momreccrosscutstau){width="190pt"}
As mentioned before the asymmetry has the maximum value in the neutralino rest frame. Therefore, the full reconstruction of kinematics of the underlying process would in principle restore the original value of the asymmetry, cf. [@MoortgatPick:2009jy]. However, the squark decay chain itself offers too little kinematical constraints. Hence we consider associated production of squark and gluino in order to perform the reconstruction, $$pp \to \tilde{q}_L\; \tilde{g} \;,$$ where the following gluino decay chain is dominant $$\label{eq:gluinodecay}
\tilde{g} \to \tilde{t}_1\; \bar{t} \to \tilde{\chi}^+_1\; b\; \bar{t} \to \tilde{\chi}^0_1\; \ell^+\; \nu_{\ell}\; b\; \bar{t}\;
.$$ Again, in the last step we have the three-body leptonic chargino decay, see Fig. \[fig:fullproc\].
For this process one can formulate 6 on-shell [@Kawagoe:2004rz] conditions for the intermediate particles and the final state LSP from the squark decay chain:
[rCl+rCl]{} m\^2\_[\^0\_1]{} & = & (P\_[\^0\_[1a]{}]{})\^2 , & m\^2\_[\^+\_1]{} & = & (P\_[\^0\_[1b]{}]{}+P\_[\_]{}+P\_[\^+\_b]{})\^2 ,\
m\^2\_[\^0\_2]{} & = & (P\_[\^0\_[1a]{}]{}+P\_[\^+\_a]{}+P\_[\^-\_a]{})\^2 , & m\^2\_ & = & (P\_[\^+\_1]{}+P\_b)\^2 ,\
m\^2\_ & = & (P\_[\^0\_2]{}+P\_[q]{})\^2 , & m\^2\_ & = & (P\_+P\_[t]{})\^2.
Together with two equations involving missing transverse momentum $$\overrightarrow{p}^T_{miss} =
\overrightarrow{p}^T_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1a}} +
\overrightarrow{p}^T_{\tilde{\chi}^0_{1b}} +
\overrightarrow{p}^T_{\nu_{\ell}}\;, \label{eq:MET}$$ this gives 8 equations (6 linear and 2 quadratic). The components of the four-momenta of the invisible final state particles are the 8 unknowns and the system can therefore be solved [@MoortgatPick:2009jy]. In principle one gets up to four real solutions, but there are no additional kinematic constraints to pick the correct solution. Hence, only the events that give the same sign for the triple product, Eq. (\[eq:triple\]), in all cases, are taken into account. This guarantees that we take the correct sign for the triple product for the calculation of the asymmetry but reduces the number of available events.
The procedure allows one to reconstruct the momenta of the intermediate particles, in particular $\tilde{q}_L$ and $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$. It is now possible to calculate the triple product in the rest frame of the decaying particle, neutralino $\tilde{\chi}_2^0$, and in principle to restore its maximal asymmetry, as shown in Fig. \[fig:results\]b. There is a significant improvement compared to the situation before the reconstruction, cf. Fig. \[fig:results\]a, but we still observe dilution due to the anti-squark admixture in the sample.
Finally, we include some of the experimental effects in our analysis. We impose basic selection cuts and momentum smearing due to the finite detector resolution, see Ref. [@MoortgatPick:2009jy] for details. With momentum smearing included, there is a significant number of events where do not obtain the correct rest frame of the neutralino $\tilde{\chi}^0_2$. This results in an increased dilution and a further reduction in the number of usable events. Nevertheless, the asymmetry can be restored to a reasonable value in the observable range, see Fig. \[fig:momrec\].
Conclusions
===========
In [@MoortgatPick:2009jy] we have studied the possibility of observing CP-violating effects in the squark cascade decay chain at the LHC. It was shown that CP-odd observables may be successfully probed by kinematic reconstruction of momenta of the particles involved in the process. Such an measurement at the LHC can directly influence future searches at a linear collider and provide hints of the origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry of the universe.
KR is supported by the EU Network MRTN-CT-2006-035505 (HEPTools). JT is supported by the UK Science and Technology Facilities Council (STFC).
[10]{}
G. Moortgat-Pick, K. Rolbiecki, J. Tattersall and P. Wienemann, JHEP [**1001**]{}, 004 (2010) \[arXiv:0908.2631 \[hep-ph\]\]. O. Kittel, arXiv:0904.3241 \[hep-ph\]. J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, [*Phys. Lett. *]{}[**B596**]{}, 247 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0403243\];\
S. Y. Choi, B. C. Chung, J. Kalinowski, Y. G. Kim and K. Rolbiecki, [*Eur. Phys. J. *]{}[**C46**]{}, 511 (2006) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0504122\]. A. Bartl, H. Fraas, S. Hesselbach, K. Hohenwarter-Sodek and G. A. Moortgat-Pick, JHEP [**0408**]{}, 038 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0406190\]. J. Ellis, F. Moortgat, G. Moortgat-Pick, J. M. Smillie and J. Tattersall, [*Eur. Phys. J. *]{}[**C60**]{}, 633 (2009) \[arXiv:0809.1607 \[hep-ph\]\]. K. Kawagoe, M. M. Nojiri and G. Polesello, [*Phys. Rev. *]{}[**D71**]{}, 035008 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0410160\];\
H. C. Cheng, D. Engelhardt, J. F. Gunion, Z. Han and B. McElrath, [*Phys. Rev. Lett. *]{}[**100**]{}, 252001 (2008) \[arXiv:0802.4290 \[hep-ph\]\].
[^1]: Corresponding authorE-mail:
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'While the costs of human violence have attracted a great deal of attention from the research community, the effects of the network-on-network (NoN) violence popularised by Generative Adversarial Networks have yet to be addressed. In this work, we quantify the financial, social, spiritual, cultural, grammatical and dermatological impact of this aggression and address the issue by proposing a more peaceful approach which we term *Generative Unadversarial Networks* (GUNs). Under this framework, we simultaneously train two models: a generator $G$ that does its best to capture whichever data distribution it feels it can manage, and a motivator $M$ that helps $G$ to achieve its dream. Fighting is strictly *verboten* and both models evolve by learning to respect their differences. The framework is both theoretically and electrically grounded in game theory, and can be viewed as a *winner-shares-all* two-player game in which both players work as a team to achieve the best score. Experiments show that by working in harmony, the proposed model is able to claim both the moral and log-likelihood high ground. Our work builds on a rich history of carefully argued position-papers, published as anonymous YouTube comments, which prove that the optimal solution to NoN violence is more GUNs.'
author:
- |
Samuel Albanie[^1]\
Institute of Deep Statistical Harmony\
Shelfanger, UK\
Sébastien Ehrhardt\
French Foreign Legion\
Location Redacted\
João F. Henriques\
Centre for Discrete Peace, Love and Understanding\
Coimbra, Portugal\
bibliography:
- 'iclr2016\_conference.bib'
title: |
Stopping GAN Violence:\
Generative Unadversarial Networks
---
[^1]: Authors are listed according to the degree to which their home nation underperformed at the 2016 European football championships
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'For several years now, the ITU-T’s Perceptual Evaluation of Speech Quality (PESQ [@itu:p.862]) has been the reference for objective speech quality assessment. It is widely deployed in commercial QoE measurement products, and it has been well studied in the literature. While PESQ does provide reasonably good correlation with subjective scores for VoIP applications, the algorithm itself is not usable in a real–time context, since it requires a reference signal, which is usually not available in normal conditions. In this paper we provide an alternative technique for estimating PESQ scores in a single–sided fashion, based on the PSQA technique [@perfeval].'
author:
- |
Sebastián Basterrech, Gerardo Rubino\
INRIA/Rennes – Bretagne Atlantique,\
Rennes, France
- |
Martín Varela\
Converging Networks Laboratory\
VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland\
Oulu, Finland
bibliography:
- 'rapport.bib'
title: 'Single–sided Real–time PESQ Score Estimation[^1] [^2] '
---
Introduction {#sec:introduction}
============
For several years now, the ITU-T’s Perceptual Evaluation of Speech Quality (PESQ [@itu:p.862]) has been the reference for objective speech quality assessment. It is widely deployed in commercial QoE measurement products, and it has been well studied in the literature.\
In previous work [@varela:mesaqin06], we have studied the performance of PESQ for VoIP over a wide range of network conditions, and found that
1. the correlation with subjective scores was good, even for cases in which losses were relatively abundant and bursty (but still within reasonable limits, see [@pennock1; @psytechnics:pesq] for some limitations of PESQ with respect to network impairments), and
2. PESQ scores were fairly consistent for all combinations of speech samples and loss patterns.\
These results lead to thinking that a good approximation of PESQ can be achieved at the receiving terminal as long as network performance can be measured and some application–level knowledge (such as the codec in use, the presence or absence of loss concealment, etc.) is available. In the past we have advocated the use of Pseudo–Subjective Quality Assessment (PSQA [@varela:thesis]) for VoIP QoE estimations, which allows for very accurate estimations of MOS values based on network and application parameters. In this paper we analyze the applicability of the PSQA approach to the estimation of PESQ scores.\
In principle, given that both PESQ and PSQA correlate very well with subjective perception, it is expected that the approach presented herein will lead to a hybrid approach offering the best of both worlds. On the one hand, using PESQ as a target function eliminates the costly part of PSQA, namely the need to perform a non–trivial subjective LQ assessment campaign. On the other hand, it allows to have these results in real–time, without the need for a reference signal. This enables the use of these PESQ-like results in situations in which some quick reaction is desirable, for instance in order to improve the perceived quality by means of real–time controlling actions on the communication system whose delivered QoE is automatically assessed, one of the main goals behind our research efforts.\
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \[sec:methodology\] we describe the experiments realized and their motivation. Section \[sec:results\] presents the results obtained. We conclude the paper in Section \[sec:conclusions\].
Methodology {#sec:methodology}
===========
Motivation {#sec:motivation}
----------
Our previous work on PSQA is based on a rather simple concept, to wit: the quality of a media stream (be it voice or video), as perceived by an average user, and assuming no extraneous, non-measurable degradations at the source (such as faulty equipment) is usually determined by a number of factors that can be divided in two categories. These categories are
: **Application–related factors**, such as the encoding used, the type of error correction and concealment chosen, play-out buffer sizes, etc.
: **Network–related factors**, such as the loss rate in the network, delay, jitter, etc.\
These premises, coupled with the fact that PSQA provides very good correlation with subjective scores, imply a certain independence of the perceived quality from the actual media streamed (there are of course some limitations to this claim, especially concerning video, mostly related to scene types and amount of motion, but those can be measured and hence considered as an application–level factor).\
In turn, the previous observation leads to the prediction that for VoIP, the scores given by reference–based tools such as PESQ should be quite consistent for a given configuration of application and network factors or parameters. This was the subject of our work in [@varela:mesaqin06]. The results from that study show that PESQ scores taken for a single encoding and over consistent network conditions are remarkably stable. So much so, that for a given configuration of parameters (in the case of the previous study, a given codec, whether PLC was in use and the loss rate and loss distribution in the network) a fairly good prediction of the PESQ-LQ values could be given by taking the median of a series of PESQ-LQ assessments taken over similar configurations. For *reasonable* network conditions (i.e. conditions that do not degrade the VoIP stream’s quality badly enough to break PESQ’s assessment), the median–based estimations are very close to actual PESQ scores.\
Using this approach in practice, however, has some limitations. Firstly, it requires a rather large number of assessments to be performed in order to acquire enough information to reliably cover the parameter space. This, in itself is not a serious issue if the parameters considered are not too numerous, but it is an area that could be improved. The second issue is more important, since it may actually limit the applicability of the approach. This issue is the lack of generalization and hence the inability to extrapolate for parameter values not present in the original measurements. While this could be palliated by a brute–force approach (i.e. cover a larger parameter space, in a more fine–grained fashion if needed), this is not an elegant solution, and it basically doesn’t solve the issue, but only masks it.\
PSQA, on the other hand, relies upon the ability of the Neural Network (NN) it uses as a learning tool in order to reduce the number of samples required to reliably cover the whole parameter space. This is important since PSQA is usually trained with subjective scores, which are expensive and time–consuming to obtain. The NN’s ability to generalize, coupled with PESQ’s regularity over similar application and network configurations hint at the feasibility of obtaining a flexible, cheap and accurate way of single–sidedly estimating PESQ scores by using PSQA.\
Experimental Setup {#sec:setup}
------------------
The experimental setup used for this study is very similar to the one used for [@varela:mesaqin06]. We used G.711 encoding, with and without loss concealment, and considered the loss rate and distribution in the network as our network parameters. While jitter is a relevant parameter for LQ, it can be folded into the loss rate if no particular attention is being payed to the dejittering buffer sizes and algorithms. Hence, it is not considered explicitly in this study.\
The network loss model used is a simplified Gilbert model [@gilbert1] in which the lossy–state loss probability is 1 (i.e. all packets are lost in the lossy state). This model has the advantage of eliminating one free variable, and it provides a reasonably good model of losses on the Internet.\
The network impairments are thus represented not only by the packet loss rate (LR), but also by the dispersion of losses in the stream, captured by the mean loss burst size (MLBS) [@perfeval]. The MLBS is the expected number of consecutive losses in a loss episode, that is, the mean length of loss bursts in the flow, a real number $\geq 1$. We considered loss rates between 1% and 30%, more specifically values 1%, 2%, 3%, ..., 30%, and mean loss burst sizes of up to 6 consecutive packets (values 1, 1.25, 1.5, 1.75, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4, 5, 6). Given that standard–length (approximately 10s) samples were used, it was not possible to have all possible combinations of LR and MLBS, since some of them are not really feasible within the $\sim 400$ packets that each speech sample uses when transmitted. Thus, only valid combinations were considered, and for those, each loss trace created was verified to ensure that it had the desired characteristics.\
It should also be noted that PESQ is not expected to behave correctly with respect to subjective scores when the network impairments are too high. In any case, since the goal of the study was to mimic PESQ’s performance, we anyway considered very impaired networks.\
For each combination of values of the two loss-related parameters LR and MLBS, 10 different traces (all statistically similar) and 20 standard speech samples (50% male and 50% female) were used[^3]. The number of samples generated and then evaluated with PESQ was slightly above 128500. For each combination of LR, MLBS and packet loss concealment (PLC, either active, coded PLC = 1, or not, coded PLC = 0) several sequences were analyzed (around 200 of them, except in some cases with high loss rates, where more samples were generated and used). In other words, we sent each one of the error-free voice sequences through a simulated/emulated network varying the three considered variables, and we used PESQ to evaluate the resulting quality. Since with every considered triple of values for LR, MLBS, PLC (we call a *configuration* such a triple [@varela:thesis]) we had many different associated PESQ values, we generated a second smaller table having around 600 entries, each corresponding to a different configuration of our platform. Again, in this table, each considered configuration (a loss rate, a value for the mean loss burst size, and the indicator of packet concealment active or inactive), there is one row in this new table.\
For each of the entries (configurations) of the compact table, we evaluated statistical descriptors of the set of PESQ values associated with, such as the empirical mean, median, variance, etc. As in [@varela:mesaqin06], the median was a good approximation of PESQ scores. We therefore used it to train a Neural Network using the AMORE package for the R statistical analysis language. That is, we built a function $f$ mapping each possible configuration into a quality value in the interval $[1,5]$ (actually, given that the target function is PESQ, the interval will be $[1,4.5]$), that approximates the median of the values obtained using PESQ. Function $f$ is defined in the space $[1,30]\times[1,6]\times\{0,1\}$, corresponding to LR in %, MLBS and PLC. This function $f$ is our approximation tool for PESQ, whose behavior is analyzed in next Section.\
Results {#sec:results}
=======
The learning phase consisted of using a standard Neural Network (NN) for learning the mapping from configurations to (median) PESQ values. This was also partly done in the context of a larger study comparing the performance of the AMORE–based NNs against the Random Neural Networks (RNN) we have used previously. This comparison work is still ongoing at the time of writing. Some preliminary results were published in [@psqa:icann06]; for the tool itself and its use in the PSQA approach, see [@grChapter05]. Any of the numerous good references on Neural Network methodology can provide background material to the reader if this is necessary; for a classic one, see [@bishop06].\
For training the NN, we randomly (and uniformly) separated the data in the small compacted table into two parts, corresponding to a 80%–20% decomposition for training and validation respectively. Since we have a binary variable PLC in the configurations, we actually built 2 NN, that is, two functions, $f_{0}$ corresponding to the case PLC$ = 0$, and $f_{1}$ for the case of PLC$ = 1$. This proved to be a better solution in this case than having a single NN with the PLC considered as a third input.\
We used the usual 3-layer feed-forward perceptron structure with two inputs (LR and MLBS) and one output (estimated, or predicted PESQ value). For the hidden layer, we varied the number of neurons starting from 1, in order to select the best architecture for our neural networks. We finally chose an architecture with 30 hidden neurons for both $f_{0}$ and $f_{1}$. As stated before, the whole data set for learning (coming from the small table) has around 600 entries, half corresponding to the case PLC$=0$ and half for the case PLC$=1$.\
Let us denote by ${\cal TS},i$ the set of configurations corresponding to the 80% used for training the $f_{i}$ network, the *Training Set* for the case PLC = $i$, with cardinality $K_{{\cal TS},i}$, and by ${\cal VS},i$ the similar set of configurations corresponding to the 20% used for validation (the *Validation Set* when PLC = $i$), with cardinality $K_{{\cal VS},i}$. The *Training Error* when PLC = $i$, $i = 0$ or $1$, is then $$(K_{{\cal TS},i})^{-1} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\sum_{\text{all config.} \gamma \in {\cal TS},i}
\!\!\!\!\! \big[ f_{i}(\gamma) - \text{MedianOfPESQ}(\gamma) \big]^2,$$
and the *Validation Error* is $$(K_{{\cal TV},i})^{-1} \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!
\sum_{\text{all config.} \gamma \in {\cal VS},i}
\!\!\!\!\! \big[ f_{i}(\gamma) - \text{MedianOfPESQ}(\gamma) \big]^2.$$ In both expressions, we call configuration (denoted by $\gamma$) just the pair (LR,MLBS), since we separated the data into two sets thus eliminating the need for a third variable PLC. For each such $\gamma$, MedianOfPESQ$(\gamma)$ is the value obtained from the analysis of the original table having fixed PLC to 0 or to 1, according to the case we are analyzing, for instance, the number defined by $$\text{argmin}_{x} K^{-1} \!\!\!\!\!
\sum_{\text{all config. } \gamma}
\!\!\!\!\! \big| \text{PESQ}(\gamma) - x \big|$$ if $K$ is the size of the small table (around 600 in our experiments). Table \[t:NN\] provides some data for this step of the analysis. Given the fact that we are using PESQ values in the range \[1,5\], the reached error levels are indeed extremely small.
--------- ---------- ------------
neural training validation
network error error
$f_{0}$ $0.064$ $0.069$
$f_{1}$ $0.040$ $0.042$
--------- ---------- ------------
: Performances of the learning phase, for the two selected Neural Networks $f_{0}$ and $f_{1}$
\[t:NN\]
Figure \[PesqVsLrnoPlc\] shows, on the left, PESQ values and on the right, the predictions provided by the Neural Network, everything for PLC = 0 (no Packet Loss Concealment). In the $x$-axis we put LR values. Each point in the graphs corresponds to a configuration (LR,MLBS,0). Different points on the same vertical line, that is, with same LR, correspond to configuration with same LR but varying MLBS. It is interesting to see that the PESQ plot shows a significant amount of dispersion compared to the estimation when the loss rate goes over 10 to 15%. This is due to the NN being trained with median values, which significantly suppress the impact of outlier values in the data set. It is also known that PESQ tends to behave in a more variable way when the network impairments become large, and this behavior is exacerbated in this case by the lack of PLC on the decoder end.\
Figure \[PesqVsMLBSnoPlc\] provides an analogous view, plotting PESQ and its estimation as a function of MLBS. It can be noticed in this plot that the estimated values are not as expected for burst losses higher than two or three packets, in which case the estimations are overly optimistic with respect to actual PESQ values. We do not, at the time, have a definitive explanation for this phenomenon. However, given the good correlation for PSQA and subjective scores obtained in previous study, we suspect that the variability of PESQ results with respect to MLBS might have precluded the NN from capturing the correct behavior.\
Figures \[PesqVsLrPlc\] and \[PesqVsMLBSPlc\] illustrate the case of PLC = 1. As expected, the overall values in this case are higher (by about 0.5 MOS points) than in the non-PLC scenario. Otherwise, the overall behavior of PESQ and the NN–based estimations are comparable to the non–PLC case, but with smaller errors.\
Consider again the original set of data (the large table), over $10^5$ voice samples, with the corresponding values of loss rate, mean loss burst size and PLC, together with the quality assessment made by PESQ. If we use our functions $f_{i}$ for approximating the PESQ scores for all of the data points, what would be the mean error? Observe that this is quite close of a field application of our approach, even if this table of values is the original data with which the training data sets were built. Denote
- by $s$ a generic entry in the original table (a sample); there are more than $10^5$ such samples;
- by PLC$(s)$ the value of PLC in sample $s$;
- by $f_{\text{PLC}(s)}(s)$ the value predicted by the right NN when the configuration is the one in sample $s$;
- finally, let PESQ$(s)$ be the PESQ assessment of sample $s$.
Table \[t:global\] shows the Mean Square Error (MSE$_i$), its square root and the Mean Absolute Error (MAE$_i$), corresponding to function $f_{i}$, defined as follows: $$\text{MSE}_{i} = \frac{1}{N_{i}} \sum_{ s: \text{PLC}(s)=i }
\big[ f_{\text{PLC}(s)}(s) - \text{PESQ}(s) \big]^{2},$$ $$\text{MAE}_{i} = \frac{1}{N_{i}} \sum_{ s: \text{PLC}(s)=i }
\big| f_{\text{PLC}(s)}(s) - \text{PESQ}(s) |.$$\
--------- ---------- --------- ---------
neural
network
$f_{0}$ $0.236 $ $0.486$ $0.412$
$f_{1}$ $0.076$ $0.276$ $0.221$
--------- ---------- --------- ---------
: Performances of the two selected Neural Networks $f_{0}$ and $f_{1}$
\[t:global\]
This implies that the NN–based estimations are on average, at about 0.41 points from actual PESQ scores for samples in which PLC was not used, and at about 0.22 points for samples in which it was enabled. Given the average listener’s appreciation in terms of the MOS scale, it seems that the estimations are indeed very close to the actual values. This closeness can be seen in Figure \[fig:approximations\], which shows, for a loss rate of 12% all the PESQ scores in the complete data set, separated by MLBS value, and the NN’s estimation of them.\
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
In this paper we have presented a simple, efficient way of providing single–sided, reference–free estimations of PESQ scores for VoIP samples or ongoing streams. The method used was PSQA (Pseudo–Subjective Quality Assessment), but using PESQ as a target function instead of subjective scores, as was done previously.\
While this will evidently not increase the correlation of PSQA with respect to subjective scores, it provides a very cheap and efficient way of having a single–sided quality assessment tool. Moreover, the evaluation by NNs is very computationally efficient, which allows this mechanism to be used in real–time, for control purposes, for example, even in resource–constrained devices such as mobile phones or Internet tablets (unlike, say, the ITU’s P.563 [@p.56304:_singl_ended_method_objec_speec] single sided metric, which is very resource–intensive).\
The reliability of the results obtained is slightly variable with network conditions, as depicted in Figures \[PesqVsLrnoPlc\] through \[PesqVsMLBSPlc\]. However, it should be noted that firstly, for *normal* operating conditions, in which network impairments are not too high, the estimations are remarkably close to actual PESQ scores. Secondly, since PESQ itself shows reliability issues in cases where the network is severely impaired, a different approach should be tried in these scenarios, as needed.\
In future work on this subject, we plan on determining the impairment bopundaries in which using this sort of approach works well in practice, and using it to implement some sort of QoE control mechanism (either application or network–based). It would be also interesting to use different kinds of neural networks (for example in a recurrent architecture, instead of feed–forward) and also to re–use the data obtained in this work to train a Random Neural Network (RNN, cf [@gelenbe:random]), which we have previously used with success for PSQA applications.
[^1]: Partially supported by the EuroNF “QUAXIME” project.
[^2]: This work was partially supported by Celtic Easy Wireless 2 project, funded in Finland by Tekes (Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation) and VTT
[^3]: For some configurations in the higher–end of the impairment values we actually used more samples, in order to mitigate the variability of PESQ’s results.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We report on the development and construction of a new fiber-fed, red-optical, high-precision radial-velocity spectrograph for one of the twin 6.5m Magellan Telescopes in Chile. MAROON-X will be optimized to find and characterize rocky planets around nearby M dwarfs with an intrinsic per measurement noise floor below 1ms$^{-1}$. The instrument is based on a commercial echelle spectrograph customized for high stability and throughput. A microlens array based pupil slicer and double scrambler, as well as a rubidium-referenced etalon comb calibrator will turn this spectrograph into a high-precision radial-velocity machine. MAROON-X will undergo extensive lab tests in the second half of 2016.'
author:
- |
Andreas Seifahrt, Jacob L. Bean, Julian Stürmer, Luke Gers, Deon S. Grobler, Tony Reed, and Damien J. Jones University of Chicago, USA;\
KiwiStar Optics, Callaghan Innovation, New Zealand;\
Prime Optics, Australia
bibliography:
- 'report.bib'
title: 'Development and construction of MAROON-X'
---
INTRODUCTION {#sec:intro}
============
The radial velocity (RV) method has been one of the most important observational techniques in the history of exoplanet science, and while it no longer drives the field, the technique will continue to be critical for making many of the most significant exoplanet discoveries anticipated over the next two decades through support of other experiments. For example, ground-based radial velocity measurements can deliver confirmation and mass measurement of candidate transiting planets, both from ground-based surveys and from space missions such as *Kepler*, *K2*, and *TESS*. This is important because masses should be known for targets of follow-up atmospheric studies using *HST*, *Spitzer*, and *JWST*. Knowing both the mass and radius of a planet constrains its bulk composition and surface gravity, which are crucial boundary conditions for the interpretation of spectra. Furthermore, populating the mass-radius diagram for exoplanets is currently a major topic in the field, especially in the regime of small planets [@gettel].
In addition to the synergy with the transit technique, the radial velocity technique is also needed to support direct imaging efforts to study planets at intermediate to large separations. Simulations for *WFIRST-AFTA* and a hypothetical flagship telescope with next-generation imaging capabilities (e.g., *HabEx* or *LUVOIR*) have shown that such missions would be much more successful if the planets were known ahead of time and had well-constrained masses and orbits [@stark; @brown].
It is thus not surprising that the field is seeing a variety of new RV spectrograph projects come to fruition. New ultra-stable instruments following the blueprint of HARPS have been commissioned or are being currently built, both for mid-size telescopes (e.g., HARPS-N/TNG, CARMENES/CAHA3.5m, SPIROU/CFHT, EPDS/WIYN) and large telescopes (e.g., ESPRESSO/VLT, IRD/Subaru, HPF/HET, G-CLEF/GMT) alike.
Our instrument, the *Magellan Advanced Radial velocity Observer Of Neighboring eXoplanets*, or MAROON-X, is following suit by providing the US community access to a precision RV instrument at a 6.5m telescope in the southern hemisphere. The scientific driver for MAROON-X is to detect the reflex motion of very low-mass stars due to the gravitational influence of an Earth-size planet orbiting in its habitable zone. For a 0.15M$_{\odot}$ star, the middle of the habitable zone is 0.055AU[@selsis]. A 1M$_{\oplus}$ planet at this distance around such a star would have an orbital period of 12.2d, and would impart a radial velocity signal of 1ms$^{-1}$ semi-amplitude assuming an edge-on orbit. This metric sets the desired level of precision for MAROON-X.
Beyond the required precision, we also aim for MAROON-X to have the reach necessary to take maximum advantage of the wealth of transiting planet candidates expected from the *TESS* mission [@sullivan]. In particular, we want to be able to obtain mass measurements for potentially habitable planets identified by TESS. Such planets would be ideal targets for *JWST* spectroscopy to search for Earth-like environments [@deming]. The limiting factor for this experiment is the expectation for the distances to the nearest transiting, habitable-zone, Earth-size planets because these planets will be around stars that are farther away than the nearest such non-transiting planets.
Based on the planet occurrence statistics from the *Kepler* mission, *TESS* is expected to find 20 planets with radii less than 2R$_{\oplus}$ and receiving between 0.2 and 2 times the Earth’s insolation around mid M dwarfs that are brighter than V=16.5 [@dressing; @sullivan]. Therefore, we aim to build an instrument that will enable on-sky radial velocity measurements with a precision of 1ms$^{-1}$ for mid M dwarfs as faint as V=16.5 in 30 minutes or less.
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
\[precisions\]
INSTRUMENT CONCEPT
==================
Our concept for MAROON-X was driven by finding the most efficient solution to the technical requirements identified in our science case as outlined above. We have carried out detailed simulations to identify the optimum wavelength range to observe low-mass M dwarfs for radial velocity measurements to minimize the telescope aperture that is needed. Surprisingly, our conclusion is that the red part of the optical contains more radial velocity information than the near-infrared for stars down to masses of 0.10M$_{\odot}$ (T$_{\mathrm{eff}}$$\approx$2600K). See Figure \[precisions\] for results of our simulations. The reason for this is that radial velocity measurements depend not just on the number of collected photons, but also on the spectral line density and the distribution of telluric lines in our own atmosphere. Although M dwarfs are brighter around 1$\mu$m, the very high line density at shorter wavelengths and the increased transparency of the Earths atmosphere at optical wavelength more than compensates for this.
Beyond pure efficiency, there is also likely little to be gained in terms of reducing the influence of stellar activity on radial velocity measurements from going to longer wavelengths. Simulations of star spots on M dwarfs suggest that there is no further reduction in radial velocity jitter beyond due to the reduced contrast between the normal stellar surface and the spots[@reiners2010]. Also, there is the possibility that the increased sensitivity of stellar lines at longer wavelengths to Zeeman splitting means that near-infrared spectra of M dwarfs could exhibit *higher* jitter due to activity than optical spectra, which is the opposite of the usual assumption[@reiners2013]. Also, late M dwarfs are often faster rotators[@reinersbasri]. The detrimental influence of stellar rotation on radial velocity precision is a function of wavelength, again favoring the red optical over infrared wavelengths.
All this taken together suggests that a high-resolution spectrograph operating at red optical wavelengths is a good option for high-precision radial velocity measurements of very low-mass stars. We will observe at wavelengths of maximum radial velocity measurement efficiency for these stars, and we don’t expect to be at a disadvantage in terms of activity-related jitter compared to other instruments.
Our calculations have shown that the intrinsic RV content of our targets is limited to about for a V=16.5 M dwarf in a exposure. Our instrumental stability budget must be under as well in order to achieve our overarching goal of on-sky performance.
Stabilizing a spectrograph to below over long timescales requires a wide range of measures. The optical design has to eliminate moving parts and must deliver the needed spectral bandpass in one fixed setting. The spectrograph has to be mechanically and thermally decoupled from its environment to maintain pressure and temperature stability of and at the echelle grating. Therefore, it must be mounted in a vacuum chamber that is in turn housed in a temperature controlled enclosure. The instrument also must be fed with fiber optics for mechanical separation from the telescope and to stabilize the light injection both in the near field (light distribution in the slit) as well as the far field (light distribution in the pupil will change the PSF of the spectrograph). Additionally a fiber shaker is required to suppress modal noise and reduce speckle effects. Even at this extreme level of stability, RV drifts are expected, and simultaneous reference spectra with a dense comb spectrum are required to track and correct the long term zero-point of the spectrograph.
The main components and features that allow MAROON-X to achieve its technical specifications are thus:
- An echelle spectrograph with high throughout and thermo-mechanical stability (see Section\[kiwispec\]).
- Fiber feed with low focal-ratio-degradation and high scrambling efficiency (see Section\[fiber\]).
- Pupil slicer and image scrambler to match the slit-resolution product to the A$\Omega$ product of a 6.5m telescope and increase the near- and far-field stability of the light injection (see Section\[fiber\]).
- Fiber agitator to suppress modal noise and speckle effects.
- A Fabry-Pérot etalon as a wavelength calibrator capable of delivering stability over timescales of minutes to months and a high information density to measure and correct for instrumental drifts (see Section\[etalon\]).
- Environmental control with a temperature stability of the air surrounding the spectrograph of $dT$. (see Section\[chamber\])
PROJECT OUTLINE {#outline}
===============
Our project execution can be considered somewhat unusual in at least two aspects, owing to the limited available manpower and the challenging funding environment for a project of this size. For one, we decided to outsource the detailed technical design and construction of the core spectrometer to KiwiStar Optics, a subsidiary of Callaghan Innovation, a New Zealand government-owned Crown entity.
KiwiStar Optics has developed an implementation of a versatile echelle spectrograph with 100mm beam diameter, 1:3 pupil compression and multiple camera arms, dubbed “KiwiSpec R4-100” [@barnes]. Our trade study has shown that this concept is very well suited for MAROON-X after some major modifications over their first prototype[@gibson] and custom input optics to match it to a 6.5m telescope.
In answer to funding realities, we split the project in three phases. In phase 1, which we are now nearing completion, we modified the design of KiwiSpec R4-100 to match our requirements for throughput and stability. We held a PDR for the core spectrograph in June 2014 and ordered a two-arm version of KiwiSpec R4-100 (with only the blue arm executed) in June 2015. An internal FDR and kick-off meeting was held in August 2015 in Wellington, New Zealand. As of this writing all of the optics have been procured and delivered, the vacuum chamber has been completed, and integration is underway. We expect delivery of the spectrograph to Chicago in September 2016.
In lieu of a large format (4k$\times$4k) detector and custom cryo- and readout systems we purchased only an off-the-shelf detector system with a smaller (2k$\times$2k) CCD for initial lab testing (see Section\[detector\]).
In phase 1 we also developed the pupil slicer and image scrambler (see Section\[fiber\]), a Fabry-Pérot etalon as the wavelength calibrator system (see Section\[etalon\]), characterized the fiber properties of octagonal and rectangular fibers (see Section\[fiber\]), and built an actively controlled environmental enclosure to house the spectrograph (see Section\[chamber\]).
In phase 2, which we hope to start in early 2017, we will complete the spectrograph with the red arm and build the two large-format science grade detector systems. Finally, in phase 3 we will build the telescope front end (ADC, guiding system, tip-tilt fiber feed) and commission the instrument at Magellan.
KIWISPEC R4-100 as the core of MAROON-X {#kiwispec}
=======================================
Optics
------
In our implementation for MAROON-X, the KiwiSpec R4-100 delivers a resolving power of R$\approx$80,000 for a wide pseudo-slit at $f/10$ with 3.5pixel sampling across a wide wavelength range of 500 – 900nm spread over two camera arms. A Zemax layout of the spectrograph is shown in Figure\[Kiwispec\_raytrace\].
{width="1.0\linewidth"}
\[Kiwispec\_raytrace\]
The main disperser is a Richardson Gratings R4 echelle with a nominal blaze of and a line frequency of 31.6g/mm. Our echelle was replicated from master MR263 on a Zerodur substrate with a ruled area and coated with protected silver. Measurements at Richards Gratings (see Figure\[dispersers\]) show peak efficiencies of up to 85% at blaze. The grating was remeasured in all orders from 400–1020nm at KiwiStar Optics, confirming the excellent efficiency. From the blaze maxima, a blaze angle of was determined, slightly lower than specified.
The collimator mirror, pupil transfer mirror, and both fold mirrors are made from Zerodur class 1 and coated with protected enhanced silver.
A dichroic beam splitter separates the dispersed light into the two camera arms. The crossover wavelength is 660nm. Theoretical coating performance based on data from Cascade Optical Corp. is shown in Figure\[cascade\]. The range of transmission and reflection efficiencies (including the BBAR coating on the backside) favor either the blue or the red wavelength channel. We have expressed a preference for the “red optimized” case, but will likely see an as-built performance intermediate between the two cases.
Two VPH cross-disperser grisms and camera arms cover 500–670nm and 650–900nm, respectively, with a considerable order overlap to minimize the losses on the slope of the dichroic. The blue VPH grating was produced by KOSI. Its line frequency is 1652.4l/mm and the AOI is . The peak efficiency was measured to be 85% (see Figure\[dispersers\]). Two prisms will be bonded onto the VPH grating that have BBAR coatings on the air-glass surfaces. We thus expect the efficiency of the VPH grism assembly to be slightly higher than the one measured for the bare grating.
Our cameras have a focal length of $f$ and hence a moderate $f/5.22$. The large height of the slit image (2.7mm at $f/10$) in combination with the large field angles and the anamorphism of the VPH grism makes achieving a homogeneous optical quality over the whole field and for all wavelengths challenging and required a compromise between number of optical elements and requirements towards the PSF size and homogeneity. Our efforts resulted in two 9-element cameras, each with two aspheric surfaces. The last element of each camera is a plano-cylindric field flattener lens that serves as the dewar window for the detector. Part of both cameras is a small wedge prism at the input slit (directly bonded onto the fiber slit plate, see below), that introduces a field dependent focus shift, which slightly eases the aberration control in the main camera optics.
We achieve typical PSF widths of (80% EE) in the dispersion direction and (80% EE) in the spatial direction at the center of the field (see Figure\[Kiwispec\_psf\]). Towards the edges of the field (the calibration and sky fibers) some regions in the spectrum, particularly at the edges of the FSR do exceed these limits.
Most gratifyingly, the PSF shape in the dispersion direction is very symmetric, as is the change of the PSF shape over a given order. This greatly reduces RV shifts induced by varying pupil illuminations (e.g. from changing FRD properties of the fibers) which otherwise could amount to several [^1].
[r]{}[0.45]{}
We only use a moderate anamorphism on the cross-disperser grisms of 1.23 to slightly compress the spectrum in spatial direction. The slit image is sampled by 3.5pixel per slit-width on average for both cameras (2.91pixel minimum). Due to the large separation of the individual fibers forming our slit (see Section\[fiber\]), the separation of individual spectral traces in the same order (from the pupil slicer as well as from sky and calibration fibers) is pixels. The minimum inter-order separation is equally large (see Figure\[slitimage\]).
A pupil stop in the pre-optics and baffles around the beam footprint on the echelle grating and collimator mirror as well as in the camera barrel suppress unwanted stray light. Optical ghost analysis showed optical ghosts to be $<0.1\%$ of the intensity of the parent order for both cameras. The current projections for the instrument efficiency are shown in Figure\[efficiency\]. We expect peak throughputs for both arms to exceed 50% (measured from $f/10$ slit image to detector plane). For the blue channel we already have as-built measured values for most of the critical items (echelle grating, cross-dispersers, mirror coatings) and find a peak throughput in excess of 60%.
For the exposure meter we collect part of the 0th order of the echelle grating with an off-the-shelf OAP ( diameter, EFL) mounted behind the echelle. The OAP refocuses the un-dispersed image of the input slit onto a diameter high-NA optical fiber which then guides the light outside the vacuum chamber. The size of the fiber is chosen to only accept the images of the three object fibers, rejecting the light from the sky and calibration fiber in order to avoid contamination of the spectro-photometric signal of the exposure meter.
Mechanics
---------
A considerable effort went into numerical simulations of the spectrograph opto-mechanics to optimize thermo-mechanical stability vs. complexity and thus cost. These simulations have shown that a uniform application of stainless steel SS420 for all mounts and almost all structural components offers the best compromise between performance (thermal conductivity and CTE) and cost compared to other choices such as aluminum and Invar. We choose Invar only for the three legs of the internal table to minimize the impact of non-common expansion between the legs which would lead to beam steering on the cross-disperser and cameras exceeding our tolerances for RV stability.
The complete optical train from the input fibers up to and including the dichroic are enclosed in a vacuum chamber and will be held at $p$ and $dT$ with a combination of active and passive temperature control. The cross-dispersers and camera optics are enclosed in a sealed barrel outside the vacuum chamber[^2]. This is permissible given their lower sensitivity to pressure and temperature changes compared to the echelle grating and minimizes the volume of the vacuum chamber. It also allows us to add the red wavelength arm and replace the detector modules at a later stage in the project without opening the vacuum chamber.
We expect the pressure stability in the camera barrel to be still better than $dp$ and long term temperature drifts smaller than $dT$. The vacuum chamber is mechanically and thermally decoupled from the spectrograph optics. The optical components inside the vacuum chamber are mounted on an optical bench that rests on three Invar legs through vacuum bellow feedthroughs. The legs, as well as the separately mounted vacuum chamber, are bolted onto a commercial optical bench that sits on actively vibration dampened legs and is thermally insulated from the floor. There is no direct mechanical contact between the vacuum chamber and the optics (aside from the two vacuum windows) and a layer of PEEK between the top of the internal legs and the inner optical bench serves as thermal insulation. The vacuum chamber thus acts as a passive thermal insulation layer for the main optics.
Part of our characterization campaign in the lab, scheduled for the last quarter of 2016, is to determine the thermo-mechanical stability of the as-built spectrograph and implement modifications, if necessary. For example, the camera optics are not athermalized since we place them in a tightly thermally controlled environment. However, provisions are in place to add an athermalization mechanism to correct for focus and plate scale changes by changing the distance between the detector system and the camera barrel. Likewise, an additional passive or active insulation layer can be added to the vacuum vessel and the camera barrels to further dampen temperature fluctuations.
The main characteristics of MAROON-X are summarized in Table\[table\].
PUPIL SLICER & IMAGE SCRAMBLER {#fiber}
==============================
KiwiSpec R4-100 would have a resolution-slit product of $R\phi\approx25,400$” on the 6.5m Magellan Telescope. To achieve the desired resolving power of 80,000, we need to either slice the image or the pupil to reach an acceptable FOV on sky. Either technique will boost the efficiency of the spectrograph at the cost of an increase in slit height and thus spectral coverage and optical aberrations.
We decided against image slicing, since throughput and alignment of image slicers are critical and the latter remains practically untested in the context of high-precision radial velocity work. It is important to realize that an image slicer effectively works as an anti-scrambler, as it non-linearly amplifies small changes in the fiber output illumination at the slicer edges. Moreover, being directly in the imaging plane of the spectrograph, a sub-ms$^{-1}$ stability requirement translates into nanometer levels of positional stability, which is challenging to control both on a mechanical and thermal level.
We thus decided to build a pupil slicer, which is much less critical in terms of (thermo-)mechanical stability. This technique has been selected for the next generation of large spectrographs (i.e. G-CLEF/GMT[@gclef; @gclef2] and ESPRESSO/VLT[@espresso; @espresso2]).
The median seeing on Cerro Manqui, the site of the twin Magellan Telescopes, is 0.62“ and the 75-percentile is 0.79”[@thomas-osip]. We thus found a 3x slicer the best compromise between instrument throughput, allowable slit-height, and available fiber core sizes. With a diameter octagonal fiber operated at $f/3.33$ we accept a 0.95" FOV on the $f/11$ focus of Magellan with a geometrical coupling efficiency between 81% (under median seeing conditions) and 64% (for the 75-percentile).
Our design implementation of a pupil slicer uses microlens arrays (MLAs) to slice the pupil into three sections and to re-image the pupil slices onto three rectangular fibers with 1:3 aspect ratio. By feeding a pupil image into the slit-forming fibers, we are effectively incorporating a double scrambler into the pupil slicer as we use the octagonal fiber to scramble the stellar input image and the rectangular fibers to scramble the (sliced) pupil image. This also benefits the illumination stability of the slicer itself, as temporal instabilities in the slicing geometry will effectively be greatly reduced by the subsequent scrambling of the pupil images.
The design parameters of the fibers and the slicer were again a compromise between a number of requirements and practical considerations, most notably to minimize focal-ratio-degradation (FRD) effects, achieve a good scrambling gain, keep the curvature of the microlenses within a manageable range, all the while working with non-custom fiber core geometries to avoid a costly custom fiber preform.
Our final design uses a diameter octagonal fiber from CeramOptec (OCT-WF100/140/250, NA=0.22) at $f/3.33$ to guide the light from the telescope into the spectrograph through a custom vacuum feedthrough. We position all the optics of the pupil slicer inside the vacuum chamber. A small collimator forms a pupil image and two MLAs slice the telescope pupil into three sections and re-image these sections at $f/5$ with a separation of onto three CeramOptec fibers with rectangular cores. These fibers are positioned in a fused silica plate in a linear arrangement with the short sides of each fiber core lined up. After a fiber run of approximately , in which the fibers are rotated by , another linear stack is formed, this time with the long sides of the fiber cores lined up to form the physical entrance slit of the spectrograph. At this point two more rectangular fibers are added to the three object fibers to add sky- and calibration light. An image of a slit plate prototype with five of the rectangular fibers forming a pseudo-slit is shown in Figure\[slit\].
While technically within specification, the prototype slit plate has still sub-optimal alignment. The fibers were etched slightly too long, making them smaller than the holes in the plate, which leads to offsets. Likewise, rotational alignment of two fibers is off by . Achievable tolerances are in relative position and in rotation and the final slit plates will be produced to these specs.
A detailed description of the design, prototyping, and testing of our pupil slicer is presented elsewhere in these proceedings[@seifahrt]. Likewise, a discussion of the scrambling and FRD properties of our fibers can be found in another article in the same proceedings[@adam].
Custom relay optics, consisting of a doublet and a triplet, form a 2x magnified, telecentric, image of the slit plate at the nominal $f/10$ focus of the spectrograph. The small wedge prism, part of the spectrograph camera optics, is directly bonded onto the fiber slit plate with Norland 61. The relay optics are fully diffraction limited over the full field and for all wavelengths. Typical rms radii range from .
The expected geometrical efficiency of the pupil slicer and double scrambler is limited by the achievable tolerances on the MLA optics and their alignment but is still $\geq$90%. The pupil slicer and double scrambler unit has only four air-glass surfaces, three of which are BBAR coated. Five more air-glass surfaces, all of which are BBAR coated, are part of the spectrograph’s pre-optics. Specifications on the BBAR coatings call for $R\leq0.5\%$ over 500–900nm. We thus estimate the efficiency of the optics that form the input slit of the spectrograph to be $\approx$78%.
Additional losses from FRD effects are hard to fully quantify in advance, as they depend on a number of factors related mainly to the mechanical stress of the fibers at their mount points. We estimate 90% here[@seifahrt], which brings the combined efficiency of the light injection down to $\approx$70%. Given the excellent throughput of the spectrograph itself, we still have enough margin left for the telescope front end in order to reach our combined throughput requirement of $\geq$11%.
DETECTOR SYSTEM {#detector}
===============
The final detector systems for MAROON-X will consist of two 4k$\times$4k CCD detectors. For the red channel (650–900nm) we will use a deep-depletion, thick sensor to boost the quantum efficiency at the red end of the spectrum and to suppress fringing. We plan to use either two e2v CCD231-84 or two STA 4150 devices and a STA Archon readout system.
During assembly and initial lab testing we will use a commercial off-the-shelf CCD camera, a ProLine PL230 from Finger Lakes Instrumentation (FLI). This detector system is based on an e2v CCD 230-42 with 2k$\times$2k pixels. The camera uses a Peltier cooler and the chip can be operated at with a chilled water circulator to remove the excess heat.
We have removed the standard window of the ProLine PL230 camera and replaced it with a smaller version of our field-flattener lens, using a modified window holder. The inner chamber housing the CCD was pumped out for 48hrs. After subsequent back-filling with pure argon to atmospheric pressure, we re-sealed the CCD chamber. The expected thermo-mechanical stability and the performance of the readout system of our interim detector system will likely limit the achievable RV precision. However, this camera will still be useful for initial testing.
WAVELENGTH CALIBRATOR {#etalon}
=====================
Our main calibration system is a custom bulk Fabry-Pérot etalon (FPI) from SLS with a finesse of 40 and a FSR of . Illuminated by an Energetiq EQ-99XFC laser-driven light source (LDLS), the etalon produces a comb of unresolved lines across the entire bandpass of MAROON-X.
The etalon is housed in a custom vacuum chamber with in-built liquid circulation channels by Lesker. We achieve vacuum levels of with a ion pump. A PolyScience PD07R-40 refrigerated circulator is used to stabilize the temperature of the etalon to P-V. We monitor the temperature of the etalon with two PT100 sensors and a Lakeshore temperature controller.
A grating stabilized external cavity diode laser (ECDL) from Toptica and a Rubidium cell from TEM Messtechnik is used to monitor one of the etalon lines for short- and long-term drifts. We scan the laser at a scan rate of over a spectral range of () near 780.25nm to simultaneously measure one etalon line, three transition groups of Rb$^{85}$ and Rb$^{87}$ D2, and about 30 lines of a custom confocal etalon. The latter is used to linearize the scan axis and correct for piezo hysteresis effects.
White light and laser light are combined and sent in a single mode fiber to the etalon. Vacuum compatible versions of Thorlab’s off-axis paraboloid collimators are used to illuminate the etalon with collimated light. A multi-mode fiber collects the light from the etalon and brings it out of the vacuum chamber.
An Ondax SureBlock ultra narrow-band notch filter is used to remove the laser line from the white light comb and reflect it onto a photo diode for measurement. The OD of the notch filter is about 4 and the FWHM is 0.45nm. This is sufficient to block the laser light and only lose etalon comb lines for about 5% of the FSR in order 79 of the spectrograph.
We achieve a rms frequency stability of the etalon of , hence within a few seconds. After binning 1min worth of data we reach a limit of . For longer timescales we find a linear drift of about , which we identify as the aging of the Zerodur spacer in the etalon, in full agreement to known shrinkage rates of Zerodur[@zerodur]. Thanks to the rubidium frequency standard, we can track the etalon zero point and either compensate or account for drifts and instabilities at the few level for timescales longer than 60s.
A more detailed description of the design and performance of our etalon comb calibrator can be found elsewhere in these proceedings[@etalon].
For in-depth characterization and initial testing of MAROON-X we will also use a classical ThAr lamp from Photron as well as an iodine absorption cell from Thorlabs. The ThAr lamp will provide a wavelength zero point as the etalon can only deliver relative positions until the order number of at least one etalon peak per echelle order is established and the true cavity length of the etalon is determined. The iodine cell will allow us to monitor the stability of the line spread function in the blue wavelength arm of the spectrograph, a useful tool for RV stability diagnostics.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CHAMBER {#chamber}
=============================
In order to provide a tightly temperature controlled environment for the spectrograph, we installed a commercial walk-in freezer unit (Masterbilt 761012, ) in the lab. A dual-fan Lytron heat exchanger with capacity and 700CFM air movement receives a temperature controlled water supply from a PolyScience PD15R-40 refrigerated circulator with heating and cooling power. An external sensor at the output of the heat exchanger drives the PID loop of the circulator. Several temperature sensors, as well as pressure and humidity sensors inside and outside of the chamber allow a detailed monitoring of the conditions inside the chamber.
We have not yet optimized the PID parameters and see air temperature fluctuations of P-V which even over weeks are fully dominated by 15min oscillations and clearly show the need for a re-tuning of the PID parameters. We currently run the chamber at a set-point lower than the average lab temperature, hence with a moderate but permanent forcing.
Our lab environment is in two aspects similar to the foreseen location at the Magellan Telescope. The lab we placed the chamber in regularly sees temperature changes with up to gradients due to malfunctioning HVAC supplies. These gradients are dampened to less than inside the chamber. The lab is in the sub-basement of a building and the temperature of the lab floor shows seasonal variations over timescales of months that change the floor temperature of the chamber by . Only about of long-term temperature changes are recorded at a sensor farthest away from the heat exchanger. We thus clearly see the need of either actively controlling the floor temperate of the chamber or to thermally insulate the spectrograph from the chamber floor.
Before the arrival of the spectrograph we will tune the PID parameters of the circulator to improve our short-term temperature stability to better than . We will ultimately change the location of the temperature sensor for the PID loop to the location of the spectrograph to improve the long-term temperature stability under seasonal temperature forcings. We anticipate both long- and short-term stability of the air temperature surrounding the spectrograph of .
All active (and hence heat dissipating) equipment (accept for the CCD detector systems) will be placed outside of the environmental chamber to minimize time-variable heat loads. The FLI camera, our interim detector system, is water cooled with a chiller and kept at a constant temperature. An additional layer of insulating foam panels is used to minimize the influence of the static temperature gradient between the CCD camera and the surrounding air.
------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Spectral resolution R = 80,000 for slit image at $f/10$
Acceptance angle FOV = 0.95” at the Magellan 6.5m Telescope
Wavelength range 500 nm – 900 nm (in 56 orders)
Number and reach of arms 2 (500–670nm and 650–900nm)
Cross-disperser anamorphic VPH grisms
Beam diameter 100mm (at echelle grating), 33mm (at cross-disperser)
Main fiber octagonal (CeramOptec)
Number and type of slicer 3x pupil slicer
Slit forming fibers 5$\times$ rectangular (CeramOptec)
Inter-order and inter-slice spacing $\geq10$ pixel
Average sampling 3.5 pixel per FWHM
Blue detector Standard 4k$\times$4k e2v or STA CCD ( pixel size)
Red detector Deep-depletion 4k$\times$4k e2v or STA CCD ( pixel size)
Calibration Fabry-Pérot etalon for simultaneous reference (fed by 2nd fiber)
Environment for main optics Vacuum operation, 1mK temperature stability
Environment for camera optics Pressure sealed operation, 20mK temperature stability
Long-term instrument stability (requirement), (goal)
Total efficiency 11% (requirement) to 15% (goal) at (at median seeing)
Observational efficiency S/N=100 at for a V=16.5 late M dwarf in
------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------
: MAROON-X main characteristics
\[table\]
The University of Chicago group acknowledges funding for this project from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation through a fellowship to J.L.B.
[^1]: Gabor Furesz, private communications.
[^2]: We thank Francesco Pepe for this suggestion made during the PDR.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Hideo [Kodama]{}[^1]'
title: |
Perturbative Uniqueness of Black Holes near the Static Limit\
in All Dimensions
---
Introduction
============
In recent years, inspired by proposals of various higher-dimensional universe models, the investigation of black holes in higher dimensions has become quite active. One of the main issues in these investigations is whether the celebrated black hole uniqueness theorem in four dimensions[@Heusler.M1996B; @Heusler.M1998; @Chrusciel.P1996] also holds in higher dimensions.
Results obtained to this time concerning this issue are quite intriguing[@Kodama.H2004A]. On one hand, it has been shown that Israel’s theorem on the rigidity and uniqueness of static black holes also holds in higher dimensions, that is, the asymptotically flat and static regular black hole solutions are always spherically symmetric for the vacuum system. This rigidity theorem has been extended to the electro-vacuum and Einstein-Maxwell-Dilaton systems with non-degenerate horizons.
On the other hand, concerning rotating black holes, we now have two families of asymptotically flat regular vacuum solutions with different horizon topologies in five dimensions, the Myers-Perry solution and the Emparan-Reall black ring solution. The former is a higher-dimensional analogue of the Kerr solution, and its black hole surface is diffeomorphic to a sphere, while the latter has no analogue in four dimensions and its horizon has a spatial section diffeomorphic to $S^2\times S^1$. Thus, the uniqueness theorem is violated for rotating black holes. Recently, it has also been shown that a new family of black ring solutions violating the uniqueness appear when the system is coupled with form fields[@Emparan.R2004A], although the uniqueness holds for supersymmetric black holes in the five-dimensional minimal $N=1$ supergravity theory[@Reall.H2003]. Further, Emparan and Myers have pointed out that the Myers-Perry solutions in greater than five dimensions may suffer from a Gregory-Laflamme type instability for high angular momenta and argued that there may exist a new family of rotating solutions that bifurcates from the Myers-Perry family maintaining the symmetry. Such a symmetry preserving branch does not exist in five dimensions, as shown by Morisawa and Ida.
Along with these results in the asymptotically flat case, non-uniqueness has also been observed in Kaluza-Klein-type spacetimes. For example, Kudoh and Wiseman numerically constructed a family of non-uniform black string solutions in six dimensions. This family bifurcates from the uniform black string solution at the Gregory-Laflamme critical point. As discussed by Horowitz and Maeda, this family cannot be smoothly connected to a family of localised black hole solutions with spherical horizon. In fact, Wiseman numerically found that these two families bifurcate at a singular solution with a conic horizon[@Wiseman.T2003a], confirming Kol’s conjecture.
One common feature of these new families of solutions giving rise to non-uniqueness is that they do not have a static and spherically symmetric limit. This feature, together with the uniqueness of asymptotically flat static black holes, strongly indicates that the violation of uniqueness in higher dimensions occurs only when the black horizon is significantly deformed due to high angular momentums or has a non-trivial topology. The main purpose of the present paper is to confirm this observation by searching for regular stationary perturbations of static and maximally symmetric black hole solutions. To be precise, we prove the following theorem.
*For any spherically symmetric vacuum solution that represents a regular black hole spacetime of dimension $d (\ge4)$, a scalar-type perturbation corresponding to a variation of the black hole mass and vector-type perturbations representing rotation of the black hole are the only stationary bounded perturbations that are regular at and outside the horizon (and fall off at infinity in the case $\Lambda\le0$). These exceptional vector perturbations can be parametrised by $[(d-1)/2]$ parameters after identification with background isometries, irrespective of the value of the cosmological constant $\Lambda$, where $[(d-1)/2]$ is the rank of $\SO(d-1)$. A similar result holds for a regular static topological black hole spacetime for which a spatial section of the horizon is an $n$-dimensional compact space with non-positive constant curvature $K$. The only difference between the two cases is the number of degrees of freedom of the exceptional vector perturbation, which is $d-2$ for $K=0$ and zero for $K<0$.*
For the asymptotically constant-curvature vacuum case, this theorem implies that the Myers-Perry solution for $\Lambda=0$ and the Gibbons-Lü-Page-Pope solution for $\Lambda\not=0$ are the only regular black hole solutions near the static and spherically symmetric limit. Further, it shows that a similar perturbative uniqueness holds for topological black holes as well. Because no uniqueness theorem has been proved for asymptotically de Sitter black holes in four dimensions, this theorem also has a non-trivial implication for the four-dimensional case.
The present paper is organised as follows. In the next section, we give a brief summary of a gauge-invariant formulation for stationary perturbations of generalised static vacuum black holes. The basic equations given there are basically specialisations to the case of stationary perturbations of the equations for generic perturbations derived in Refs. , but some are new. In order for solutions to these basic equations to represent regular perturbations of black hole spacetimes, an appropriate boundary condition at the horizon and an asymptotic condition at infinity should be satisfied. These boundary conditions are specified in §3, and it is shown that the exceptional vector perturbations indeed do satisfy them. Then, in the subsequent three sections, it is proved that, except for the exceptional vector perturbations and the trivial scalar perturbations corresponding to variations of the background parameters, there exists no stationary solution satisfying the boundary conditions to the basic equations for the asymptotically flat, de Sitter and anti-de Sitter cases, respectively. Section 7 is devoted to concluding remarks.
Basic Equations for Stationary Perturbations
============================================
Our analysis of black hole perturbations fully utilises the gauge-invariant formulation developed in Refs. and . In this section, we briefly summarise the basic concepts of that formulation and give master equations for stationary perturbations.
Background spacetime
--------------------
In the present paper, we consider the background spacetime whose metric has the form where $g_{ab}(y)dy^a dy^b$ is the static metric of a two-dimensional spacetime $\N^2$, and $d\sigma_n^2=\gamma_{ij}(z)dz^i dz^j$ is the metric of an $n$-dimensional complete, compact Einstein space $\K^n$ whose Ricci curvature $\hat R_{ij}$ satisfies the condition with $K=0,\pm1$. Although perturbative uniqueness can be proved only in the case in which $\K^n$ has a constant curvature, most analysis in the present paper is done without assuming this condition, in order to see what happens when $\K^n$ does not have a constant curvature.
We assume that this metric satisfies the vacuum Einstein equations for $(n+2)$-dimensional spacetimes and represents a black hole. Then, the two-dimensional metric $g_{ab}$ is given by where This metric describes a regular black hole spacetime only when $\lambda$ satisfies the condition[^2] Under this condition, in general, the region outside the black hole corresponds to the range $r_h<r<\infty$, where $r_h$ is the horizon radius, which is given by the (smallest positive) solution to When we study the behaviour of perturbations, we consider this entire range for $\lambda\le0$. For $\lambda>0$, however, we consider only the region $r_h<r<r_c$, where $r_c$ is the radius of the cosmological horizon given by the larger positive root of $f(r)=0$, because the perturbative uniqueness of asymptotically de Sitter black holes can be proved only by looking at the behaviour of perturbations in this region.
In this black hole background, the linearised Einstein equations can be reduced to simple master equations if we decompose the metric perturbation $\delta g_{\mu\nu}=h_{\mu\nu}$ into tensor-type, vector-type and scalar-type components, according to their transformation behaviour as tensors on $\K^n$. Now, we present these equations for the case of stationary perturbations.
Tensor perturbations
--------------------
It is convenient to expand tensor perturbations in terms of the eigentensors satisfying where $\hat \triangle_L$ is the Lichnerowicz operator Here, $\hat D_i$ and $\hat R_{ijkl}$ represent the covariant derivative and the curvature tensor with respect to the metric $\gamma_{ij}$ on $\K^n$, respectively. When $\K^n$ is a constant curvature space, $\hat\triangle_L$ can be written simply as Hence, $k_T^2$ corresponds to the eigenvalue of the operator $-\hat
D\cdot\hat D$ on second-rank symmetric tensors. In this case, $k_T^2$ takes discrete and positive values, except in the case $K=0$. In particular, for $\K^n=S^n$, its spectrum is given by In contrast, for $K=0$, i.e., when $\K^n$ is a torus $T^n$, the smallest eigenvalue is zero, and the corresponding eigentensors are given by trace-free constant symmetric matrices. There exist $n(n+1)/2-1$ such matrices, and these matrices represent variations of the moduli parameters of $T^n$.
In general, the moduli degrees of freedom of a constant curvature space correspond to the tensor harmonics satisfying $k_T^2=-2K$. Hence, these constant matrices exhaust all moduli degrees of freedom for $K=0$, and there exists no moduli degree of freedom for $K=1$. Further, from the integral identity we obtain for $K=-1$. Hence, for $K=-1$, there exist moduli degrees of freedom only when $n=2$, in accordance with Mostow’s rigidity theorem. Note that these tensor harmonics satisfying $k_T^2=-2K$ are the only non-trivial tensor harmonics for $n=2$.
Through the expansion in terms of these tensor harmonics, each mode of a stationary tensor perturbation can be expressed in terms of a gauge-invariant variable $H_T(r)$ as Note that stationary tensor perturbations are always static.
The linearised Einstein equations are reduced to where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to $r$, and Note that for the modes satisfying $k_T^2=-2K$, $H_T=\const$ is always a solution of this equation and represents a perturbation corresponding to the variation of the background metric with respect to its moduli parameters.
Vector perturbations {#subsec:BasicEqs:Vector}
--------------------
Stationary vector perturbations can be expanded in terms of the vector harmonics satisfying as where The eigenvalue $k_V^2$ takes discrete and positive values, except when $K=0$, and $k_V^2\ge n-1$ for $K=1$. In particular, for $\K^n=S^n$, the spectrum of $k_V^2$ is given by In contrast, when $K=0$ and $\K^n$ is expressed as $\K^n=T^p\times
\K'$, where $\K'$ is a Ricci flat space with no isometry, there exist $p$ independent covariantly constant vector fields providing harmonic vectors with $k_T^2=0$. These modes and those with $k_T^2=n-1$ for $K=1$ comprise the exceptional modes discussed below.
First, for generic modes satisfying $k_V^2>(n-1)K$, the linearised Einstein equations can be written in terms of the gauge-invariant variables as where From the $a=t$ component of , we find that $F^r=0$ for stationary perturbations, and becomes trivial. Hence, the Einstein equations are equivalent to Note that stationary vector perturbations are not static.
Next, for exceptional modes with $k_V^2=(n-1)K$, $\VHB_{ij}$ vanishes. (The factor $1/k_V$ in the definition of $\VHB_{ij}$ is introduced just for convenience and is not essential.) For these modes, $H_T$ does not appear, and perturbations are described by $f_a$ alone. Because $f_a$ transforms under the gauge transformation $\bar\delta
z^i=L\VHB^i$ as $\bar\delta f_a=-rD_a L$, $f_r$ can be set to zero through such a gauge transformation. In this gauge, the Einstein equations are given by with $m_V=0$ and $F^t=f^t$. This equation can be easily solved, and the general solution is given by From this, we have where $C$ is an integration constant.
The gauge condition $f_r=0$ does not remove the gauge degree of freedom completely and leaves a residual gauge freedom such that $L=L(t)$. If we require that $f_t$ be independent of time, $L(t)$ is restricted to the form $L(t)=C' t$, where $C'$ is a constant. Under this gauge transformation, the above integration constant $C$ changes to $C-C'$. Hence, we can set this constant to zero through a gauge transformation. However, as discussed in the next section, this residual gauge degree of freedom plays an important role in proving the regularity of the above solution. In any case, this argument shows that the physical degrees of freedom of these exceptional modes can be parametrised by the single constant $J$ for each mode. As shown in Appendix \[Appendix:ExceptionalModes\], we can regard each of these modes as representing a rotational perturbation of a static black hole, and the parameter $J$ represents the total angular momentum of the perturbation.
Because the vector harmonics satisfying $k_V^2=(n-1)K$ are in one-to-one correspondence with the Killing vector fields of $\K^n$, these solutions form a linear space isomorphic to the linear space of Killing vector fields of $\K^n$. However, they are not all physically distinct, because two solutions related by an isometry of the background spacetime must be considered physically equivalent. In the case in which $\K^n=S^n$ and the orientation-preserving spatial isometry group is given by $\SO(n+1)$, the Killing vectors are in one-to-one correspondence with the antisymmetric matrices of rank $n+1$, and the transformation of a Killing vector by an isometry is mapped to a conjugate transformation of the corresponding antisymmetric matrix by an element of $\SO(n+1)$. Because the conjugate classes of these anti-symmetric matrices are classified according to their $[(n+1)/2]$ eigenvalues, where $[(n+1)/2]$ is the rank of $\SO(n+1)$, physically distinct exceptional modes are classified with respect to $[(n+1)/2]$ constants. Thus, they have exactly the same number of degrees of freedom as that of the angular momentum parameters of the Myers-Perry solution and the Gibbons-Lü-Page-Pope solution. In fact, we can directly check that these exceptional modes can be obtained by expanding these solutions with respect to the angular momentum parameters. Note that when $\K^n$ is distinct from $S^n$, the parameter $J$ does not represent the angular momentum in the standard sense, although it is still related to a conserved quantity of the system. The number of physical degrees of freedom of the exceptional modes can differ from $[(n+1)/2]$ in that case.
Scalar perturbations {#subsec:BasicEqs:Scalar}
--------------------
Scalar perturbations can be expanded in terms of harmonic functions satisfying and the vector and tensor harmonics derived from them, Because we assume that $\K^n$ is compact, $k^2$ takes discrete values starting from zero, and, in particular for $\K^n=S^n$, its spectrum is given by The above definitions of $\SHB_i$ and $\SHB_{ij}$ become meaningless for $k^2=0$. Because the harmonic function for $k^2=0$ is constant, the corresponding perturbation merely represents a change of the background metric with respect to a variation of the mass parameter. Thus, this is a trivial perturbation with respect to the uniqueness problem. Therefore, we only consider modes with $k^2>0$ from this point, unless otherwise stated.
In addition to $k^2=0$, harmonics with $k^2=n$ for $K=1$ are also exceptional, because $\SHB_{ij}$ vanishes for such harmonic functions. Modes corresponding to such harmonics are gauge modes as shown in Ref. , and we do not consider such modes. This implies that $k^2>n$ can be assumed when $K=1$, because for $K=1$, the second smallest eigenvalue of $k^2$ is greater than or equal to $n$.
Ignoring these exceptional modes, stationary scalar perturbations of the metric can be expanded in terms of the harmonics as We adopt the following combinations as a basis for gauge-invariant quantities constructed from these expansion coefficients: where As shown in Ref. , the linearised Einstein equations for stationary scalar perturbations can be written in terms of these gauge-invariant variables as where As discussed in Ref. , we can reduce this set of equations to a second-order ODE in various ways. For example, the master variable $\Phi$ introduced in Ref. for generic perturbations can be written as a complicated linear combination of $X$ and $Y$ and satisfies a second-order ODE for stationary perturbations. However, this equation is not useful in the analysis of stationary perturbations, because its effective potential is not positive definite in the case of a non-vanishing cosmological constant for generic values of $n$. Further, it is not easy to determine the asymptotic behaviour of $F$ and $F^a_b$, because their expressions in terms of $\Phi$ are rather complicated. Therefore, in the present paper, we utilise second-order ODEs for $X$ and $Y$, which turn out to have structures convenient for the investigation of the uniqueness issue.
The second-order ODE for $Y$ can be easily obtained by eliminating $X$ from with the help of . The result can be expressed as where Similarly, by eliminating $Y$, we obtain the following second-order ODE for $X$: where
Boundary Conditions {#sec:BoundaryConditions}
===================
In the arguments regarding black hole uniqueness, the boundary conditions at the horizon and at infinity play a crucial role. Obviously, if we impose boundary conditions that are too weak, the uniqueness will always be violated. On the other hand, the uniqueness theorem obtained under conditions that are too strong will not be sufficiently powerful in general.
Regularity condition at the horizon
-----------------------------------
Because we are considering only regular black holes, the spacetime metric describing a black hole must be regular at the horizon. Hence, it is natural to require that a metric perturbation be regular at the horizon with respect to a coordinate system in which the background metric is regular. For the background metric with , such a coordinate system is given by the Szekeres-type coordinates $U,V$ and $z^i$ that satisfy where $\kappa=f'(r_h)/2$ is the surface gravity of the black hole, and $r_*$ is the coordinate defined by Because the black hole horizon is non-degenerate, we have $\kappa\not=0$, and $UV$ can be expressed near the horizon in terms of a regular positive function $g(r)$ as In the present paper, we require that the components of perturbations of the metric and the Weyl tensors in this coordinate system be bounded at the horizon.
### Tensor perturbations
For a tensor perturbation, the metric components in the $(U,V,z^i)$ coordinate system are bounded only when $H_T$ is bounded at the horizon. Under this condition, from and , we see that a perturbation of the Weyl tensor, $\delta C_{****}$, in this coordinate system is bounded if and only if $H_T'$ and $H_T''$ are bounded at $r=r_h$. Thus, the regularity condition at horizon is given by
### Vector perturbations {#vector-perturbations}
For a stationary vector perturbation, $F_t=f_t$ is the only non-vanishing gauge-invariant variable. Because we have the metric components in the $(U,V,z^i)$ coordinate system are bounded only when $F^t=f^t$ is bounded at the horizon. Under this condition, from , it follows that the Weyl tensor in this coordinate system is bounded at the horizon if and only if $F^{(1)}$ is bounded there. To summarise, the regularity condition is given by
### Scalar perturbations {#scalar-perturbations}
For a scalar perturbation, the determination of the boundary condition at the horizon is not so simple, because all metric components can be non-vanishing. First, from the relations we obtain the conditions at the horizon. From this, we have $X^t=\Order{1}$. Next, from and the regularity of $h_{ij}$, we obtain the conditions at the horizon. Under these conditions, the coefficients of $\SHB_{ij}$ in $\Lie_\eta C_{aibj}$ given in are bounded at the horizon. Therefore, the corresponding coefficients in $[\delta C_{aibj}]$ should be bounded in the $(U,V,z^i)$ coordinates. Taking account of and the equation $F^a_a=-2(n-2)F$, this leads to the conditions at the horizon. From this and the definitions of $F^a_b$, it follows that at the horizon. Using , we can easily check that all components of $\Lie_\eta C_{****}$ in the $(U,V,z^i)$ coordinates are bounded at the horizon under these boundary conditions. This implies that the gauge-invariant combinations $[\delta C_{****}]$ in the same coordinates should be bounded at the horizon. This requirement yields the additional conditions at the horizon.
In terms of the variables $X$ and $Y$, the boundary conditions at the horizon obtained by the above argument are expressed simply as Note that the conditions on the second derivatives follow from these conditions, with the help of the Einstein equations . Note also that in the case $\Lambda>0$, the same conditions should be imposed at the cosmological horizon.
Asymptotic condition at infinity
--------------------------------
In the cases $\Lambda\le0$, the region outside the horizon extends to $r=\infty$. Therefore, we must impose some asymptotic condition. In the present paper, we require that all components of the metric perturbation $h_{\mu\nu}$ in the natural orthonormal basis of the background metric fall off at infinity, i.e., First, for a tensor perturbation, this requirement gives the single condition Next, for a stationary vector perturbation, these conditions can be expressed in terms of the gauge-invariant variables $F_t=f_t$ and $F^{(1)}=-r(f_t/r)'$ as Note that we do not need an asymptotic condition on $F_r$, because $F_r$ vanishes for a stationary perturbation.
Finally, for a stationary scalar perturbation, the Einstein equation $F^a_a=-2(n-2)F$ yields From this, we obtain the asymptotic condition Hence, the above asymptotic conditions on the metric perturbations can be expressed in terms of the gauge-invariant variables $X$ and $Y$ as
Exceptional vector perturbations {#subsec:ExceptionalMode2}
--------------------------------
As shown in §\[subsec:BasicEqs:Vector\], we have an exact general solution for the exceptional vector perturbation with $k_V^2=(n-1)K$ for $K\ge0$. There is a subtlety concerning the regularity of this solution. In the case $\Lambda\le0$, the above asymptotic condition is satisfied by only for the choice $C=0$. The solution corresponding to this choice is obtained when we treat, for example, the Kerr metric with small angular momentum as a perturbed form of the Schwarzschild metric in the standard $(t,r,\theta,\phi)$ coordinates. However, under this gauge condition, the regularity condition at the horizon, , is not satisfied for $J\not=0$. Nevertheless, this solution is regular at the horizon, because we can set $C=-J/(n+1)/r_h^{n+1}$ through a gauge transformation, for which the solution satisfies . The apparent singular behaviour of the perturbation for the former gauge arises because the Killing vector $\partial_t$ vanishes at the bifurcation sphere of the horizons for the Schwarzschild metric, while it becomes space-like and does not vanish there for the Kerr metric. That is, the mapping used to compare the two metrics is singular at the bifurcation sphere. In contrast, for the latter gauge, which corresponds to the redefinition of the angular coordinate from $\phi$ to $\tilde\phi=\phi
-\Omega_h t$, with $\Omega_h$ being the angular velocity of the horizon, $\partial_t$ becomes parallel to null generators of the horizon and vanishes at the bifurcation sphere. Hence, the mapping between two spacetimes is regular at the horizon. The situation in the $\Lambda>0$ case is similar. In this case, to prove the regularity of the solution, we have to employ different choices of $C$ at the black hole horizon and at the cosmological horizon.
In connection to the above consideration, we now give a comment on another type of exceptional mode. As is well known, the Kerr solution can be extended to a larger regular family by introducing the NUT parameter $\nu$. This family reduces to the Schwarzschild solution in the simultaneous limit $J\tend 0$ and $\nu\tend 0$. In particular, the Taub-NUT solution with $J=0$ expressed as with can be treated as a perturbed form of the Schwarzschild solution when $|\nu|$ is small. This perturbation is of the vector type and given by $h_{ti}=-2\nu f \VHB_i$, with It is easy to see that this $\VHB_i$ satisfies the divergence-free condition and that $f_t=f/r$ is a solution to the Einstein equations satisfying the regularity condition at the horizon. (Of course, the NUT solution is not asymptotically flat and does not satisfy the above asymptotic condition at infinity.) Further, $\VHB_i$ is also harmonic. However, the corresponding eigenvalue is given by $k_V^2=-1$, i.e., $l=0$. This apparently contradicts our previous claim that $k_V^2>0$ for $K=1$. This contradiction arises simply because $\VHB^i$ is singular and not square integrable on $S^2$.
This peculiarity of the solution arises from two pathological features of the Taub-NUT solution. Firstly, each $r=\const$ submanifold is diffeomorphic to $S^3$ for $\nu\not=0$. In particular, the causality condition is violated, and there exist closed time-like curves in the region satisfying$f(r)>0$, corresponding to the outside of a black hole. Second, each $t=\const$ section of this $S^3$ is actually a cylinder with two boundaries for $f(r)>0$, although they shrink to points at the bifurcation surface of the horizons. Further, this section becomes time-like near the boundary. Due to these features, taking the limit $\nu\tend 0$ is a singular procedure.
In the present paper, we only consider $L^2$-normalizable perturbations. Therefore, solutions with peculiarities like this Taub-NUT solution are excluded from the argument of perturbative uniqueness.
Asymptotically Flat Case
========================
The analysis of the perturbative uniqueness of asymptotically flat black hole solutions for $K=1$ and $\Lambda=0$ is rather straightforward, because the perturbation equations are exactly soluble. We mainly consider the case of a spherically symmetric black hole, i.e., $\K^n=S^n$, and only briefly mention generic Einstein cases.
Tensor perturbations
--------------------
In terms of the variable the master equation can be written This equation is of the Fuchs type, and its general solution can be expressed in terms of hypergeometric functions as where $l$ is a solution of the equation and For $\K^n=S^n$, $l$ takes the discrete values $l=2,3,\cdots$. Hence, if we require that $H_T$ be bounded at infinity, which is a weaker condition than , we have $B=0$. However, from the general formula we find that Therefore, there exists no stationary tensor perturbation of the Schwarzschild-Tangherlini solution that is bounded and regular outside the horizon.
Contrastingly, for the case in which $\K^n$ is a generic Einstein space, the above general solution always falls off at infinity if the Lichnerowicz operator has an eigentensor for which $k_T^2<-2$. In this case, because the above equation for $H_T$ always has a solution that is regular at $x=1$, there exists a regular and bounded stationary tensor perturbation, and uniqueness does not hold.
Vector perturbations {#vector-perturbations-1}
--------------------
Because there exists no harmonic vector for which $k_V^2<n-1$, $l$ defined by can be assumed to satisfy $l\ge1$. Because the solutions for $l=1$, i.e. the exceptional modes, have been discussed in §§\[subsec:BasicEqs:Vector\] and \[subsec:ExceptionalMode2\], we need only consider modes with $l>1$.
For a generic mode, the Einstein equations are equivalent to where $x=(r_0/r)^{n-1}$, as previously. The general solution to this equation can be expressed in terms of hypergeometric functions as where Note that when $a+b$ is a non-negative integer, $F(-a,1-b,-a-b;x)$ should be replaced by a function $\tilde F(x)$ that is regular at $x=0$ and $\tilde F(0)=1$.
If we require that $F^t$ be bounded at $r=\infty$, which is weaker than the asymptotic condition , $B$ should vanish. Under this condition, from , we find that $F^t$ diverges at the horizon. Therefore, there exists no regular and bounded stationary vector perturbation other than the exceptional modes.
Scalar perturbations {#scalar-perturbations-1}
--------------------
As explained in §\[subsec:BasicEqs:Scalar\], we can assume that $m=k^2-n>0$ for $K=1$. Therefore, we can express $k^2$ in terms of $l>1$ as Then, can be written in terms of $x=(r_0/r)^{n-1}$ as where This equation can be solved explicitly again, and its general solution is given by with where $\nu=l/(n-1)$, and $A$ and $B$ are arbitrary constants. Inserting this solution for $Y$ into , we obtain with From these expressions, we find that the asymptotic condition is satisfied only when $B=0$ if $l>1$. However, when $B=0$, $Y$ diverges at $x=1$, and the regularity condition is not satisfied. Actually, the same conclusion is obtained from the weaker condition that $F$ and $F^a_b$ are bounded at infinity. Hence, there exists no regular and bounded stationary scalar perturbation.
The following proposition summarises the main result obtained in this section.
*For the Schwarzschild-Tangherlini black hole, there exists no stationary perturbation that is regular and bounded outside the horizon, except for the exceptional vector perturbations.*
Taking account of the uniqueness theorem for asymptotically flat static vacuum regular solutions in higher dimensions, this result implies that the Myers-Perry solution is the only regular stationary solution for an asymptotically flat vacuum system near the static limit in a spacetime with any number of dimensions. However, for a generic system for which $\K^n$ is a non-spherically symmetric Einstein space with $K=1$, there may exist a regular static tensor perturbation that falls off at infinity.
Asymptotically de Sitter Case
=============================
In the case with a non-vanishing cosmological constant $\Lambda$, we cannot express general solutions to the perturbation equations in terms of known functions explicitly. Nevertheless, we can show the non-existence of stationary perturbations satisfying the boundary conditions with the help of integral identities derived from the master equations.
We first consider the case $\Lambda>0$, for which $K$ must be unity. In this case, we can demonstrate uniqueness only by studying the behaviour of perturbations in the region bounded by the black hole horizon $r=r_h$ and the cosmological horizon $r=r_c$, for which only the regularity condition at the horizon is relevant.
Tensor perturbations
--------------------
For a tensor perturbation, by multiplying by $r^{n/2}H_T$, integrating it over $r$, and using the regularity condition , we obtain the identity When $\K^n=S^n$, $U_T$ is always positive in the range $r_h<r<r_c$, because $k_T^2\ge n-2$. Hence, from this integral identity, it follows that there exists no regular stationary tensor perturbation.
By contrast, in the case in which $\K^n$ is not a constant curvature space, $k_T^2$ may become negative, and no general lower bound on it is known. Therefore, there may exist a regular stationary perturbation.
Vector perturbations {#vector-perturbations-2}
--------------------
The argument concerning vector perturbations is almost the same as that for tensor perturbations. We multiply by $F_t/r$ and integrate it over $r$. Then, using the regularity condition , we obtain As in the case $\Lambda=0$, we can restrict our consideration to the case in which $m_V=k_V^2-n+1>0$. Then, only the trivial solution $F^t=0$ satisfies this integral identity. Unlike the case of tensor perturbations, this result holds even if $\K^n$ is a generic Einstein space with $K=1$.
Scalar perturbations {#scalar-perturbations-2}
--------------------
The argument for a scalar perturbation is also similar to that given above. Now, we utilise the master equation for $X$, , which leads to the identity For $f=1-x-\lambda r^2>0$, $P$ vanishes only when $m+1=0$, which is not realised, because $m=k^2-n>0$. Further, if $x=2/(n+1)$ at $r=r_h$ or $r=r_c$, $P'$ does not vanish there. Hence, $f^2/P$ is positive for $r_h<r<r_c$ and vanishes at $r=r_h$ and $r_c$. From this and the regularity condition , we find that the left-hand side of the above integral identity vanishes. Therefore, if $U_X$ is non-negative, we can conclude that there exists no stationary regular scalar perturbation. From , we see that this condition is satisfied if $m\ge n-1$. Although this inequality may not hold for a generic Einstein space $\K^n$ with $K=1$, in the most important case, in which $\K^n=S^n$, we have the necessary inequality, because $m$ takes the discrete values $m=(l-1)(l+n)$ with $l\ge2$: To summarise, we have proved the following proposition.
*For a de Sitter-Schwarzschild black hole, there exists no stationary perturbation that is regular in the region $r_h\le r\le r_c$, except for the exceptional vector perturbations.*
From the above arguments, it follows that near the static and spherically symmetric limit, the rotating version of the de Sitter-Schwarzschild solution with the same number of parameters as the Myers-Perry solution is the only regular stationary vacuum solution for $\Lambda>0$. In four dimensions, this solution is identical to the Carter solution with a vanishing NUT parameter, and in higher dimensions, it is identical to the Gibbons-Lü-Page-Pope solution with $\Lambda>0$. This uniqueness may not hold when $\K^n$ is not a constant curvature space, due to the existence of a regular static perturbation of the tensor or scalar type in that case.
Asymptotically anti-de Sitter Case
==================================
The method based on integral identities can also be applied to the case $\Lambda<0$. However, because the region outside the horizon extends to infinity in this case, we have to check that the boundary contribution at infinity vanishes for solutions satisfying the asymptotic condition. Further, we also have to consider the cases $K=0$ and $K=-1$.
Tensor perturbations
--------------------
For large $r$, the master equation can be approximated by whose general solution can be written $A/r^{n+1}+B$, with constants $A$ and $B$. Hence, if we require the asymptotic condition , $H_T$ should behave as $\sim 1/r^{n+1}$ at infinity. From this and the regularity condition at the horizon, , it follows that the left-hand side of the identity vanishes. Hence, in the case in which $\K^n$ is a constant curvature space, from the positivity of $U_T$, we can conclude that there exists no regular stationary tensor perturbation that satisfies the fall off condition .
Vector perturbations {#vector-perturbations-3}
--------------------
For large $r$, the master equation can be approximated by whose general solution can be written $A/r^{n+2}+B/r$. Because $f^{-1/2}F_t$ behaves as $\sim r F^t$ at infinity in an asymptotically anti-de Sitter spacetime, the asymptotic condition requires $B$ to vanish. Then, in the identity obtained from , the boundary terms on the left-hand side vanish if the regularity condition at the horizon is also satisfied. From this, it follows that $F^t$ should vanish identically if $m_V>0$. Therefore, the exceptional modes discussed in §\[subsec:ExceptionalMode2\] are the only regular stationary vector perturbations that satisfy the fall-off condition , irrespective of the value of $K$.
Scalar perturbations {#scalar-perturbations-3}
--------------------
In order to determine the asymptotic behaviour of scalar perturbations for $\Lambda<0$, we utilise the equation for $Y$, . For large $r$, this equation can be approximated as The general solution to this equation can be expressed as and the asymptotic condition is satisfied only if $B=0$. For this solution, the boundary terms in the identity obtained from , vanish if the solution also satisfies the regularity condition at the horizon. Thus, uniqueness holds if $U_Y$ is non-negative. For $K\le0$, this condition is trivially satisfied. In contrast, for $K=1$, it leads to the condition on the spectrum $k^2-2(n-1)\ge0$. As in the case $\Lambda\ge0$, this condition is satisfied for $\K^n=S^n$, but it may not be satisfied generically.
The main result obtained in this section can be summarised as the following proposition.
*For anti-de Sitter-Schwarzschild black holes and topological black holes, there exists no stationary perturbation that is regular and falls off at infinity, except for the exceptional vector perturbations.*
This result indicates that the Gibbons-Lü-Page-Pope solution with $\Lambda<0$, which is a rotational extension of the anti-de Sitter-Schwarzschild solution characterised by the same number of parameters as for the Myers-Perry solution, is the only regular stationary asymptotically anti-de Sitter solution near the static and spherically symmetric limit. Concerning topological black holes with $K=-1$, no such rotational extension exists if $\K^n$ is compact, because there is no exceptional mode in this case (cf. Refs. and ). This uniqueness may be violated for the case in which $\K^n$ is a generic Einstein space with a non-constant sectional curvature, due to the existence of a regular static perturbation of tensor type for $K=0,\pm1$ or of scalar type for $K=1$.
Concluding Remarks
==================
In the present paper, we have determined all stationary solutions to the perturbation equations that are regular at the horizon and fall off at infinity (in the case $\Lambda\le0$) for a static black hole background whose horizon has a spatial section with constant curvature. As summarised in Theorem 1 given in the introduction, we have found that these solutions are exhausted by the trivial perturbations corresponding to variations of the background parameters and the exceptional vector perturbations representing stationary rotations of black holes for any value of the cosmological constant. We have also pointed out that there may exist additional regular and bounded solutions if a spatial section of the horizon does not have constant curvature.
As mentioned in the introduction, this result strongly indicates that the Myers-Perry solution and the Gibbons-Lü-Page-Pope solution are the only asymptotically flat, de Sitter or anti-de Sitter regular stationary vacuum solutions near the static and spherically symmetric limit. However, our arguments do not give an exact proof of this perturbative uniqueness near the static and spherically symmetric limit, because there may exist a regular family of solutions that approaches the limit in a singular way, as in the case of the Taub-NUT solution discussed in §\[subsec:ExceptionalMode2\]. Logically, there is also the possibility that there exist infinitely many families whose bifurcation points accumulate at the static limit, although this is quite unlikely.
It is clear that we have to study perturbations of the Myers-Perry solutions in order to show that such a pathological situation is not realised and to determine whether the Myers-Perry family actually bifurcates at high angular momenta, as suggested by Emparan and Myers. At present, however, such a study would be quite difficult because there exists no tractable formulation for perturbations of the Myers-Perry solutions. The development of such a formulation is the most important problem to be solved in the present context.
Finally, we would like to point out that the fall-off condition at infinity is essential for uniqueness to hold in the asymptotically anti-de Sitter case, unlike in the asymptotically flat case, in which uniqueness holds even if we only require perturbations to be bounded at infinity. In fact, for the general solution given in the previous section, $\delta g_{\mu\nu}$ with respect to the natural orthonormal frame is bounded at infinity even if $B\not=0$, irrespective of the type of perturbations. Further, we can easily show that one solution is always regular at the horizon for each mode. Hence, in the asymptotically anti-de Sitter case, for any boundary value of $\delta g_{\mu\nu}$ at infinity, there exists a stationary solution to the perturbation equation that is regular everywhere and satisfies the given boundary condition at infinity. Furthermore, this solution is unique except for the freedom to add solutions corresponding to the exceptional vector perturbations. This result is consistent with the general results concerning asymptotically anti-de Sitter and static solutions given in Refs. and , and has a close connection with the AdS/CFT argument[@Maldacena.J1998; @Anderson.M2004A].
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The author would like to thank Akihiro Ishibashi for valuable comments and Yoshiyuki Morisawa and Daisuke Ida for useful conversations. This work is supported by the JSPS grant No. 15540267.
Interpretation of exceptional modes for vector perturbations {#Appendix:ExceptionalModes}
============================================================
In this appendix, we derive the relation between the angular momentum of the system and the parameter $J$ for each exceptional mode of the vector perturbation in §\[subsec:BasicEqs:Vector\].
To begin, we note that for an exceptional mode, the metric can be written where $ds_0^2$ is the background metric. Because $\VHB_i$ is a Killing vector for $k_V^2=(n-1)K$, this perturbed metric is invariant under translations generated by the vector field Hence, it is “rotationally symmetric.” This implies that we can calculate the angular momentum of this spacetime using the Komar integral on $\K^n$. In fact, from the Einstein equations for the background metric we obtain the identity for any Killing vector $\eta$, where $\eta_*=\eta_\mu dx^\mu$, $*$ is the Hodge dual operator, $I_\eta$ is the inner product operator, and $\Omega_{n+2}$ is the spacetime volume form. From this, it follows that the integration of the $n$-form $*d\eta_*$ over a $n$-subspace $\Sigma_n$ is independent of the choice of $\Sigma_n$ if $\Sigma_n$ is tangential to the vector field $\eta$. If we calculate this integral in the present case in which we obtain where Therefore, $J$ is proportional to the angular momentum of the spacetime defined by the Komar integral.
In order to determine the proportionality constant in this relation, we utilise the perturbation equation with a source term for an exceptional mode derived in Ref. . In the stationary case, it reads where $\tau^t$ is related to the energy-momentum tensor of the source as In a flat background, the angular momentum $\bm{J}[\VHB]$ of the system with respect to the “rotational” Killing vector $\VHB^i$ can be expressed as Therefore, integration of over $r$ yields Comparing this expression and , we obtain This final result can be regarded as exact, because it is consistent with the expression in terms of the Komar integral, , and it gives the relation
$\delta C_{****}$
=================
In this appendix, we derive explicit expressions for the background values and the perturbation of the Weyl curvature.
$C_{****}$
----------
The Weyl tensor for our static background metric is given by where
Tensor perturbations
--------------------
For a tensor perturbation, all components of the perturbation of the Weyl tensor, $\delta C_{****}$, are gauge invariant. For a solution to , their non-vanishing components in the $(t,r,z^i)$ coordinate system are given by From these, we find that the non-vanishing components of $\delta
C_{****}$ in the $(U,V,z^i)$ coordinate system are given by The expression for $\delta C_{ijkl}$ is the same as that above.
Vector perturbations {#vector-perturbations-4}
--------------------
For a vector perturbation, $\delta C_{****}$ are not gauge invariant. Under the vector-type coordinate transformation they transform as Hence, taking account of the fact that $H_T$ transforms under as we find that the following combination is gauge invariant: where Explicitly, the non-vanishing components of $\Lie_\eta
C_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma}$ are as follows: In the $(t,r,z^i)$ coordinate system, the non-vanishing components of $[\delta C_{****}]$ are given by where Note that from , we have $[\delta
C_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma}]=\delta C_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma}$ for these components. The components in the $(U,V,z^i)$ coordinate system are expressed in terms of these non-vanishing components in the $(t,r,z^i)$ coordinate system as
Scalar perturbations {#scalar-perturbations-4}
--------------------
For a scalar perturbation, under the gauge transformation $X_a$ and $H_T$ transform as Hence, the combinations with are gauge invariant.
Explicitly, the non-vanishing components of $\Lie_\eta
C_{\mu\nu\lambda\sigma}$ are given by The non-vanishing components of the gauge-invariant combinations in the $(t,r,z^i)$ coordinates are The corresponding components in the $(U,V,z^i)$ coordinates are with $[\delta C_{ijkl}]$ as above.
[10]{}
Horava, P. and Witten, E.: [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**460**]{}, 506 (1996).
Horava, P. and Witten, E.: [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [**475**]{}, 94 (1996).
Lukas, A., Ovrut, B., Stelle, K. and Waldram, D.: [*Nucl. Phys. B*]{} [ **552**]{}, 246 (1999).
Lukas, A., Ovrut, B., Stelle, K. and Waldram, D.: [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**59**]{}, 086001 (1999).
Lukas, A., Ovrut, B. and Waldram, D.: [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**60**]{}, 086001 (1999).
Arkani-Hamed, N., Dimopoulos, S. and Dvali, G.: [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**429**]{}, 263 (1998).
Antoniadis, I., Arkani-Hamed, N., Dimopoulos, S. and Dvali, : [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**436**]{}, 257 (1998).
Randall, L. and Sundrum, R.: [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{}, 3370 (1999).
Randall, L. and Sundrum, R.: [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**83**]{}, 4690 (1999).
Heusler, M.: [*Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems*]{} (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1996).
Heusler, M.: [*Living Reviews*]{} [**1**]{}, 6 (1998).
Chru[ś]{}ciel, P. T.: [*Helv. Phys. Acta*]{} [**69**]{}, 529 (1996).
Kodama, H.: [*hep-th/0403030*]{}.
Hwang, S.: [*Geometriae Dedicata*]{} [**71**]{}, 5 (1998).
Gibbons, G. W., Ida, D. and Shiromizu, T.: [*Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl.*]{} [No. 148]{}, 284 (2003).
Gibbons, G. W., Ida, D. and Shiromizu, T.: [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**89**]{}, 041101 (2002).
Gibbons, G. W., Ida, D. and Shiromizu, T.: [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**66**]{}, 044010 (2002).
Myers, R. and Perry, M.: [*Ann. of Phys.*]{} [**172**]{}, 304 (1986).
Emparan, R. and Reall, H. S.: [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**88**]{}, 101101 (2002).
Emparan, R.: [*hep-th/0402149*]{}.
Reall, H.: [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**68**]{}, 024024 (2003).
Emparan, R. and Myers, R. C.: [*JHEP*]{} [**0309**]{}, 025 (2003).
Morisawa, Y. and Ida, D.: [*hep-th/0401100*]{}.
Wiseman, T.: [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**20**]{}, 1137 (2003).
Kudoh, H. and Wiseman, T.: [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**111**]{}, 475 (2004).
Kudoh, H.: [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**69**]{}, 104019 (2004); Erratum, ibid. [**70**]{}, 029901 (2004).
Horowitz, G. T. and Maeda, K.: [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**87**]{}, 131301 (2001).
Wiseman, T.: [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**20**]{}, 1177 (2003).
Kol, B. and Wiseman, T.: [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**20**]{}, 3493 (2003).
Gibbons, G. W., Lü, H., Page, D. N. and Pope, C. N.: [*hep-th/0404008*]{}.
Kodama, H., Ishibashi, A. and Seto, O.: [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**62**]{}, 064022 (2000) \[hep-th/0004160\].
Kodama, H. and Ishibashi, A.: [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**110**]{}, 701 (2003) \[hep-th/0305147\].
Kodama, H. and Ishibashi, A.: [*gr-qc/0312012*]{}.
Kodama, H. and Ishibashi, A.: [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**111**]{}, 29 (2003) \[hep-th/0308128\].
Ishibashi, A. and Kodama, H.: [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**110**]{}, 901 (2003) \[hep-th/0305185\].
minneborg, S., Bengtsson, I., Holst, S. and Peldán, P.: [*Class. Quantum Grav.* ]{} [**13**]{}, 2707 (1996).
Birmingham, D.: [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**16**]{}, 1197 (1999).
Mostow, G. D.: [*Ann. Math. Stud.*]{}, Vol. 78 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1973).
Fujiwara, Y., Kodama, H. and Ishihara, H.: [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**10**]{}, 859 (1993).
Barrow, J. D. and Kodama, H.: [*Class. Quantum Grav.*]{} [**18**]{}, 1753 (2001).
Barrow, J. D. and Kodama, H.: [*Int. J. Mod. Phys. D*]{} [**10**]{}, 758 (2001).
Kodama, H.: [*Prog. Theor. Phys.*]{} [**107**]{}, 305 (2002).
Gibbons, G. W. and Hartnoll, S. A.: [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**66**]{}, 064024 (2002).
Klemm, D., Moretti, V. and Vanzo, L.: [*Phys. Rev. D*]{} [**57**]{}, 6127 (1998).
Lemos, J. P. S.: [*Phys. Lett. B*]{} [**353**]{}, 46 (1995).
Anderson, M. T., Chruściel, P. T. and Delay, E.: [*JHEP*]{} [ **0210**]{}, 063 (2002).
Anderson, M. T., Chruściel, P. T. and Delay, E.: [ *gr-qc/0401081*]{}.
Maldacena, J. M.: [*Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.*]{} [**2**]{}, 231 (1998).
Anderson, M. T.: [*hep-th/0403087*]{}.
[^1]: E-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: For the interpretation of this solution in the case $K\le0$ as a topological black hole, see Refs. and .
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'D. Semenov, Th. Henning, M. Ch. Helling, Ilgner,'
- 'E. Sedlmayr'
date: 'Received <date> / Accepted <date>'
title: Rosseland and Planck Mean Opacities for Protoplanetary Discs
---
Introduction
============
Recently, significant progress toward the understanding of the possible composition and properties of dust grains and gas species in many astrophysical environments has been achieved. For instance, (sub)millimetre observations of molecular lines provided basic information about chemical composition and dynamical properties of the gas in discs around pre-main-sequence stars and young stellar objects (e.g., Bujarrabal et al. [@Bea97]; Olofsson, Liseau, & Brandeker [@OLB01]; Thi et al. [@Tea01]; Pi[é]{}tu et al. [@PDK03]). The infrared-to-millimetre continuum observations of such environments constrain the properties of dust grains and can be used to estimate masses and thermal structure of the objects (e.g., Bouwman et al. [@Bea00]; Boogert, Hogerheijde, & Blake [@BHB02]; Tuthill et al. [@Tea02]). Finally, experimental studies on the formation and spectra of various gaseous species (e.g., Butler et al. [@BLP01]; Sanz, McCarthy, & Thaddeus [@SMT02]) as well as the composition and properties of meteoritic, cometary, and interplanetary dust together with their laboratory analogues (e.g., Chihara et al. [@Cea02]; Mutschke et al. [@MPFD02]) form a basis for theoretical investigations.
On the other hand, the increase of computer power and new numerical methods stimulate the development of more sophisticated hydrodynamical models (e.g., Kley, D’Angelo, & Henning [@KDH01]; D’Angelo, Henning, & Kley [@AHK02]; Struck, Cohanim, & Willson [@SCW02]). Many of such simulations need an accurate treatment of the energy transport within the dusty medium (see e.g., Klahr, Henning, & Kley [@KHK99]; Niccolini, Woitke, & Lopez [@nwl03]), which requires a detailed description of the radiative properties of matter. Consequently, the adopted opacity model is an important issue.
In this paper, we deal with physical conditions typical for protostellar nebulae and protoplanetary discs around low-mass young stellar objects. Virtually everywhere within the medium dust grains are the main opacity source, as they absorb radiation much more efficiently compared to the gas and because the temperature in these regions is low enough to prevent their destruction. However, for hotter domains ($T \ga 1\,500$ K), where even the most stable dust materials cannot survive, it is necessary to take absorption and scattering due to molecular species into account.
Recently, several extensive models describing the properties and evolution of dust grains in protostellar cores and protoplanetary discs were proposed by Henning & Stognienko ([@HS96]), Schmitt, Henning, & Mucha ([@Sea97]), and Gail ([@G01], [@G02]).
Henning & Stognienko ([@HS96]) studied the influence of particle aggregation on the dust opacity in the early evolutionary phases of protoplanetary discs. They concluded that distribution of iron within the particles affects their optical properties in a great respect. Schmitt et al. ([@Sea97]) for the first time investigated collisional coagulation of dust grains in protostellar and protoplanetary accretion discs coupled with hydrodynamical evolution of these objects. They reported significant alteration of the thermal disc structure caused by the modification of the opacity due to dust growth. Gail ([@G01; @G02]) considered annealing and combustion processes leading to the destruction of silicate and carbon dust grains consistently with the evolution of a steady-state accretion disc. They found that the modification of the dust composition in the inner regions due to these processes and its consequent transport toward outer disc domains affect the opacity and, eventually, the entire disc structure.
A number of papers deal with the computation of Rosseland or/and Planck mean gas opacities in atmospheres of cool stars, protostars, and stellar winds. Alexander & Ferguson ([@AF94]) computed a set of opacity tables for temperatures between $700$ K and $12\,500$ K for several compositions. They considered a condensation sequence[^1] of refractory materials based on chemical equilibrium calculations and took into account absorption and scattering properties of these solids as well as various gas species. Note that the actual formation process is not modelled by such calculations. Helling et al. ([@H00]) calculated gas mean opacities for wide ranges of density, temperature and various chemical compositions based on up-to-date spectral line lists of the Copenhagen SCAN data base and studied the importance of the molecular opacity for the dynamics of the stellar winds of cool pulsating stars. An extension of this work will be used to construct our opacity model for protoplanetary accretion discs.
In Appendix A, we give a brief overview of the most common opacity models and studies and where they have been applied. It can be clearly seen that there is a lack of papers which focus on calculations of both Rosseland and Planck mean opacities of grain and gas species for temperatures between several K and few thousands K in a wide range of densities based on both the best estimates of the dust composition and properties and recent improvements in molecular line lists.
The first goal of this paper is to define such a model. In addition, we study how Rosseland and Planck mean opacities depend on the properties of dust grains and compare them with other opacity tables. Furthermore, we investigate how different opacity models affect the hydrodynamical structure of accretion discs. Our opacity model is freely available in the Internet: [ *http://www.astro.uni-jena.de/Laboratory/labindex.html*]{}.
The paper is organised as follows. We introduce the opacity model in Sect. \[model\]. The influence of the grain properties on resulting Rosseland mean opacities is described in Sect. \[gp\]. The Rosseland and Planck mean opacities are compared to other recent opacity tables in Sect. \[com\]. We study how different opacity tables affect the hydrodynamical structure of active accretion discs in Sect. \[struc\]. A summary follows in Sect. \[sum\]. Finally, an overview of the opacity models cited in the paper is given in Appendix A.
The opacity model {#model}
=================
Dust opacities
--------------
In order to calculate frequency-dependent, Rosseland and Planck mean opacities of dust grains, we partly follow the schemes, proposed in Pollack et al. ([@Pea94], hereafter PHB), Henning & Stognienko ([@HS96], HS), and Voshchinnikov & Mathis ([@VM99], VM).
### Composition model and grain sizes
In this paper we follow the dust composition model for accretion discs by Pollack et al. ([@Pea94]; Sect. 2.3) which is based on an analysis of a wide range of theoretical, laboratory, and observational dust data. This composite model has been frequently used, for instance, in the evolutionary modelling of accretion discs around young stellar objects or estimates on their mass from millimetre observations (e.g., Greaves et al. [@Gea98]; Jura & Werner [@JW99]; D’Alessio, Calvet, & Hartmann [@DCH01]).
The main dust constituents include amorphous pyroxene (\[Fe, Mg\]SiO$_3$), olivine (\[Fe,Mg\]$_2$SiO$_4$), volatile and refractory organics (CHON material), amorphous water ice, troilite (FeS), and iron[^2]. Following HS, we vary the relative iron content in the silicates considering “iron-rich” (IRS) silicates with Fe/(Fe+Mg)=0.4, “normal” silicates (NRM) with Fe/(Fe+Mg)=0.3, and “iron-poor” (IPS) silicates with Fe/(Fe+Mg)=0. However, the absolute amount of metallic iron in all these models is kept constant, which leads to the absence of solid iron in the first case and enhanced mass fraction of Fe in the third case. Such a variety of silicate models allows us to study the influence of iron content within the grain constituents on the extinction properties of dust. Another reason is that the exact mineralogical composition of the silicates in the protostellar clouds and protoplanetary discs is poorly constrained and can be different for various environments. Compared to HS, we re-estimated the absolute abundances of the silicates (Fe$_x$Mg$_{1-x}$SiO$_3$, Fe$_{2x}$Mg$_{2x-2}$SiO$_4$), iron, and troilite (FeS) in the cases of the “iron-poor” and “iron-rich” models from the Fe-stocheometric fractions keeping constant the total amount of iron. For the mass fractions of all dust constituents and their densities we follow Table $2$ in PHB. Note the difference between the iron mass fractions in the different dust models.
The sublimation temperatures of the grain constituents are adopted from PHB (see Table $3$ therein). We suppose that destruction of dust materials occurs in a narrow range of temperatures ($\sim
10-30$ K). Given that the evaporation of the silicates and iron happens at approximately the same conditions, we do not distinguish between their evaporation temperatures and assume that they evaporate in one wide temperature range, $\sim
100$ K. Thus, we account for six principal temperature regions:
1. $T\la 155$ K – all dust constituents are present;
2. $\sim 165 \mathrm{K}< T\la 270$ K – no ice;
3. $\sim 280 \mathrm{K}< T\la 410$ K – no ice and volatile organics;
4. $\sim 440 \mathrm{K}< T\la 675$ K – silicates, iron, and troilite are present;
5. $\sim 685 \mathrm{K}< T\la 1\,500$ K – silicates and iron are present;
6. $\sim 1\,500 \mathrm{K}< T\la 10\,000$ K – gas-dominated opacities;
We take into account the dependence of the evaporation temperatures of ice, silicates, and iron on gas density (the values shown above are given for a density $\sim 10^{-10}$ gcm$^{-3}$). Note that if one considers a condensation sequence of these materials (hysteresis behaviour), it results in higher values of the condensation temperatures compared to the evaporation temperatures.
We assume that for the fifth temperature region the absolute amount of solid iron raises due to the destruction of troilite. The corresponding mass fractions of metallic iron are $6.15 \times
10^{-4}$, $2.42 \times 10^{-4}$, and $1.29 \times 10^{-3}$ for the NRM, IRS, and IPS silicate models, respectively.
As for the size distribution, we apply a modified MRN (Mathis et al. [@MRN]) function suggested by Pollack, McKay, & Christofferson ([@P85]). The modification consists of the inclusion of large ($0.5 \mu$m – $5 \mu$m) dust grains. Such particle growth is expected to proceed efficiently at the early phases of the protoplanetary disc evolution due to the coagulation of small dust grains (see, for instance, Mizuno, Markiewicz, & Voelk [@MMV88]). We do not consider other size distributions since the overall effect of the particle sizes on the dust opacity is well studied (e.g., Pollack et al. [@P85]; Beckwith, Henning, & Nakagawa [@BHN00]). It further allows us to compare directly our results with other works.
### Grain structure and topology
It becomes evident from theoretical investigations and laboratory experiments that the dust agglomeration is an efficient process in dense and relatively cold environments, like protostellar cores or protoplanetary discs (e.g., Kesselman [@K80]; Nuth & Berg [@NB94]; Ossenkopf & Henning [@OH94]; Kempf, Pfalzner, & Henning [@KPH99]; Wurm & Blum [@WB98], [@WB00]; Blum et al. [@Bea02]). Agglomeration leads to the formation of irregular particles consisting of hundreds or thousands of tiny subgrains. Usually, dust aggregates of two extreme kinds are considered, depending on the assumed coagulation processes, namely, PCA (particle-cluster aggregation) and CCA (cluster-cluster aggregation). As the laboratory and theoretical studies reveal, the PCA aggregates are sphere-like particles having a fractal dimension of about $3$. They have a compact “core” and a more rarefied “mantle”. The CCA process results in the formation of very filamentary grains with complicated structure. They have fractal dimension of roughly $2$ (Stognienko, Henning, & Ossenkopf [@SHO95]). During the evolution of parent objects, like molecular clouds or protostellar discs, chemical and physical processes can further modify the properties of dust grains. For instance, accretion of volatile materials on dust surfaces and their subsequent chemical processing are efficient in outer regions of protoplanetary discs and in protostellar clouds (e.g. Greenberg [@G67]; Brown, Charnley, & Millar [@BCM88]; Hartquist & Williams [@HW90]; Hasegawa & Herbst [@HH93]; Willacy, Rawlings, & Williams [@WRW94]; Aikawa et al. [@Aea99]). This results in well-defined “core-mantle” or, more probably, “onion-like” grain structure. In protostellar discs, dust can be transported by the accretion flow toward hotter regions, where their volatile mantle materials evaporate, and sputtering, annealing, combustion, and crystallisation processes may change the structure, composition, and sizes of the grains (Gail [@G01; @G02]). Therefore, it seems obvious that the real astronomical grains must have a very complicated structure and topology.
Unfortunately, modern computational methods and facilities allow only the consideration of somewhat simplified (but still reasonable) types of dust grains. In the present study, we focus on the following particle types:
1. Homogeneous and composite aggregates;
2. Homogeneous, composite, and porous composite spherical particles;
3. Multishell and porous multishell spherical particles.
An aggregate dust particle is assumed to be a cluster of small spherical subgrains sticking together. A particle is called “homogeneous” if it consists of only one dust component. On the contrary, “composite” means that a particle incorporates a fine mixture of various materials (heterogeneous particle). In addition to these two extreme cases of the chemical dust structure, we consider a model of “multishell” grains, where each particle includes all constituents distributed within concentric spherical shells. To study the influence of the porosity on the extinction properties of dust grains, we fill composite and multishell spherical particles with vacuum. It is reasonable to assume that the optical behaviour of these porous multishell and porous composite particles may resemble that of more realistic kinds of dust grains.
------------ ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
Olivine $2.64\,10^{-3}$ ($3.49$ gcm$^{-3}$) $3.84\,10^{-3}$ ($3.59$ gcm$^{-3}$) $6.30\,10^{-4}$ ($3.20$ gcm$^{-3}$)
Iron $1.26\,10^{-4}$ ($7.87$ gcm$^{-3}$) – $7.97\,10^{-4}$ ($7.87$ gcm$^{-3}$)
Pyroxene $7.70\,10^{-4}$ ($3.40$ gcm$^{-3}$) $4.44\,10^{-5}$ ($3.42$ gcm$^{-3}$) $1.91\,^{-3}$ ($3.20$ gcm$^{-3}$)
Troilite $7.68\,10^{-4}$ ($4.83$ gcm$^{-3}$) $3.80\,10^{-4}$ ($4.83$ gcm$^{-3}$) $7.68\,10^{-4}$ ($4.83$ gcm$^{-3}$)
Refractory
organics $3.53\,10^{-3}$ ($1.50$ gcm$^{-3}$) $3.53\,10^{-3}$ ($1.50$ gcm$^{-3}$) $3.53\,10^{-3}$ ($1.50$ gcm$^{-3}$)
Volatile
organics $6.02\,10^{-4}$ ($1.00$ gcm$^{-3}$) $6.02\,10^{-4}$ ($1.00$ gcm$^{-3}$) $6.02\,10^{-4}$ ($1.00$ gcm$^{-3}$)
Water ice $5.55\,10^{-3}$ ($0.92$ gcm$^{-3}$) $5.55\,10^{-3}$ ($0.92$ gcm$^{-3}$) $5.55\,10^{-3}$ ($0.92$ gcm$^{-3}$)
------------ ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
### Computational methods {#methods}
The aggregate model and the numerical method to compute the optical properties of coagulated particles are adopted from HS. The aggregates are assumed to be in the form of PCA (50%) and CCA (50%) particles consisting of $0.01 \mu$m spherical subgrains. The spectral representation of inhomogeneous media (Bergman [@B78]) and the discrete multipole method (DMM) are elaborated to calculate effective dielectric functions of aggregates (Stognienko et al. [@SHO95]). At first, we use the DMM to calculate the spectral function of the aggregated particles of a special topology, when their subgrains touch each other only at one point. Then, we account for the interaction strength between the subgrains (percolation), which varies with the size and type of the aggregates, by an analytical expression (see Equation $13$ in HS). Finally, the effective dielectric functions of the aggregates are obtained by the spectral representation (HS, Eq. $5$). In the case of the composite aggregates, we compute the optical constants of the composite material by the Bruggeman effective medium theory (Bruggeman [@B35]), generalised to many components by Ossenkopf ([@O91]). The optical properties of the dust aggregates are calculated with the usual Mie theory. It should be noted that this numerical approach is valid in the static limit only, which means that the scale of inhomogeneities within the particles must be small compared to the wavelength. Given the $0.01 \mu$m size of the subgrains and the shortest wavelength of $0.1 \mu$m we considered, this condition is fulfilled.
We use the numerical approach of VM to model (porous) composite and (porous) multishell dust particles. In this method, the composite grains are represented as spheres with many concentric shells, where each shell includes several layers of randomly distributed dust materials. The multishell grains are modelled exactly as the composite ones but each shell includes only one layer of a dust constituent. Then a generalised multilayered Mie theory can be applied to calculate their optical properties. As it has been shown by VM, a convergence in the optical behaviour of the multishell particles is achieved if the number of shells exceeds $3$ and dust materials within shells are randomly ordered. In our calculations, we found that this number must be at least $20$, because the highly absorbing material troilite is used, which induces interference within the shells and prevents fast convergence. Thus, in our case, a typical composite grain is modelled as a spherical particle with about hundred shells. On the contrary, a multishell grain is represented by a spherical particle with only a few shells.
We modify somewhat the dust model for the case of multishell and composite spherical particles. We mixed the silicates and iron into one material with the Bruggeman mixing rule. A similar mixture of silicates, sulphides, and metals (GEMS, Glass with Embedded Metals and Sulphur) is found to be a common component of interplanetary dust particles (Rietmeijer & Nuth [@RN00]). However, the main reason for this change is the convergence failure of the applied numerical method for the case of multishell grains with iron layers. This is due to numerical uncertainty which arises in the calculation procedure for the Mie scattering coefficients in the case of highly absorbing materials, like iron (for further explanation, see Gurvich, Shiloah, & Kleiman [@GSK01]).
We assume that each dust component has a total volume fraction in a particle according to its mass fraction and density, as specified in Table \[rmf\]. For example, for the first temperature region and in the case of IPS silicate mineralogy, the mixture of iron and silicates occupies $8.9$%, troilite – $1.6$%, refractory organics – $23.4$%, volatile organics – $6$%, and water ice – $60$% of the entire particle volume, respectively. These values are similar in the case of NRM and IRS models. Thus, if the temperature is low, organics and ice are the dominant components of the dust grains.
Unlike to the case of the composite particles, in the case of multishell spherical grains it is assumed that the distribution of dust materials is not random but follows their evaporation sequence. Thus, for the first temperature region in the protoplanetary disc, multishell spherical grains consist of a refractory core made of a mixture of silicates and iron and subsequent shells of troilite, refractory organics, volatile organics, and water ice. For higher temperature ranges, the number of shells is smaller since some materials are evaporated. In total, the number of shells in the case of multishell spherical particles varies from $2$ to $5$. For the fifth temperature range ($T>700$ K), where all troilite is converted to solid iron, we let this iron form an additional layer on the grain surface. It is an extreme and probably physically unjustified case, but this allows us to study the influence of the formation of a highly absorbing surface layer on resulting opacities.
The porosity of particles is treated in a simple manner by the addition of $50\%$ of vacuum (by volume) inside. For the case of the porous composite spheres, we consider vacuum to be one of the grain constituents, which forms additional “empty” layers. In the case of the multishell grain model, we mix each shell with vacuum in the same way which is applied to create the composite spherical particles. That is, we subdivide each individual shell in many layers and fill some of them with vacuum according to the requested porosity degree.
With the two computational approaches described above, we calculated the ensemble averaged absorption and scattering cross section as well as albedo and the mean cosine of the scattering angle for all kinds of dust grains. Applying Eqs. $1$-$5$ from Pollack et al. ([@P85]; see Table \[rmf\] of the present paper), the dust monochromatic opacity and, consequently, the Rosseland and Planck mean opacities were obtained for temperatures below roughly $1\,500$ K and a density range between $10^{-18}$ gcm$^{-3}$ and $10^{-7}$ gcm$^{-3}$. A convenient analytical representation of the Rosseland and Planck mean opacities for every temperature region is provided as a $5$-order polynomial fit. This representation allows to calculate the Rosseland and Planck mean dust opacities accurately ($\sim 1$%) and quickly for any given temperature and density values within the model applicability range, which is important for computationally extensive hydrodynamical simulations. The corresponding fit coefficients can be found in the code[^3].
Gas opacity
-----------
The opacity of the very inner part of the protoplanetary accretion disc is dominated by various gaseous species. Here, the temperature is too high for dust to be present.
Compared to the calculation of dust opacities, the calculation of accurate Rosseland and Planck mean gas opacities is more challenging due to the large variation in frequency, temperature, and density of the absorption coefficient of numerous molecules, atoms, and ions. In addition, the body of data to be handled easily amounts to several millions of absorption lines per molecule.
Missing data for absorption lines are critical for the calculation of Rosseland mean gas opacity since it is dominated by transparent spectral regions due to the harmonic nature of the averaging process. Therefore, each Rosseland mean is always only a lower limit of the correct value. The opposite is true for the case of the Planck mean opacity – missing data for weak lines or bands cause an overestimation of the strong lines. Therefore, a Planck mean is always an upper limit of the case of ideally complete data.
The dust opacity model for protoplanetary accretion discs outlined in the previous sections is supplied by a new table of gas opacities assembled on the basis of Helling ([@H_PhD99]; Copenhagen SCAN data base) and Schnabel ([@S_MT01]; HITRAN data base). The gas opacity model is outlined in Helling et al. ([@H00]) and only a short summary is given here. The Rosseland and the Planck mean opacities are calculated from opacity sampled lines lists. The data for the line absorption coefficients used in Helling et al. ([@H00]) (CO - Goorvitch & Chackerian [@CO]; TiO - J[ø]{}rgensen [@TiO]; SiO - Langhoff & Bauschilder [@SiO]; H$_2$O - J[ø]{}rgensen & Jensen [@H2O]; CH - J[ø]{}rgensen et al. [@CH]; CN, C$_2$ - J[ø]{}rgensen & Larsson [@CN]; C$_3$ - J[ø]{}rgensen [@C3]; HCN, C$_2$H$_2$ - J[ø]{}rgensen [@C2H2]) were supplemented by data from the HITRAN96 database (CH$_4$, NH$_3$, HNO$_3$, H$_2$CO, CO$_2$, N$_2$O, O$_3$, SO$_2$, NO$_2$, HO$_2$, H$_2$, O$_2$, NO, OH, N$_2$). The opacity sampling of the latter was carried out by Schnabel ([@S_MT01]). The set of continuum opacities and scattering includes continuum absorption from (Karzas & Latter [@Hi]), H$^-$ (John [@H-]), H$+$H (Doyle ), H$_2^-$ (Somerville [@H2-]), H$_2^+$ (Mihalas [@H2+]), He$^-$ (Carbon et al. [@He-]), , , , , (all from Peach [@P70]) as well as Thompson scattering on free electrons and Rayleigh scattering. Collision-induced absorption has been considered for H$_2$-H$_2$ and H$_2$-He according to Borysow et al. ([@bjz97]).
The number densities of the ions, atoms and molecules are computed from an updated chemical equilibrium routine, including 14 elements and 155 molecules based on the JANAF table (electronic version of Chase et al. [@Ch85]; for more detail see Helling et al. [@H00]). The element abundances are chosen mainly according to Anders & Grevesse ([@AG89]), but have been updated for various elements (see Helling et al. [@H00]).
{width="100.00000%"}
Using this approach, the Rosseland and Planck mean gas opacities were computed for temperature ranges between $500$ K and $10\,000$ K and for gas densities between $\sim
10^{-18}$ gcm$^{-3}$ and $\sim 10^{-7}$ gcm$^{-3}$. In contrast to the dust opacity, no simplified analytical expression can be found for the gas mean opacities because of their sensitive dependence on temperature and density. Thus, we apply a second-order interpolation in order to calculate the gas opacities for any given temperature and density value from tabulated values.
Opacity table
-------------
In order to assemble the opacity table, we take into account either only dust opacity data for low temperatures, $T \la 1\,500$ K, or only gas opacity data for higher temperatures. As has been shown by many authors (e.g., Lenzuni, Gail, & Henning [@L95]), it is an accurate approach because dust dominates the absorption properties of matter whenever it is present. It has been shown that already 30% of total SiO content in the solid phase is enough to exceed even the Planck mean gas opacity (Helling [@H_PhD99]). This fraction will decrease with increasing impurity of the grains. However, for the dust-to-gas transitional region ($T$ from $\sim
1\,400$ K to $1\,600$ K), where the last dust grain population evaporates, it is necessary to calculate the opacity of dust and gas simultaneously. In this narrow temperature range the resulting Rosseland and Planck mean opacities are certainly going down by few orders of magnitude, so one can apply a simple linear interpolation to estimate their values with a good accuracy. Still, we note that our table may give only approximate opacity data for that temperature range.
Results {#res}
=======
In this section, we present the opacities of all types of dust grains and discuss the differences between them. Second, we compare the Rosseland and Planck mean opacities with other recently published opacity models. Finally, we study the influence of the adopted opacity model on the accretion disc structure.
Opacity and the dust models {#gp}
---------------------------
The Rosseland mean opacities $\kappa_{\mathrm R}$ computed for all dust models are presented in Fig. \[f1\]. We compared two silicate models, namely, the IPS (left panel) and the IRS (right panel). Shown are the following dust models: multishell spheres, composite aggregates, composite spheres, homogeneous aggregates, homogeneous spheres, porous multishell grains, and porous composite spheres.
The most prominent trends in behaviour of the Rosseland mean dust opacities can be summarised as follows:
1. There is a significant difference in the calculated dust opacity values between the aggregates, (porous) composite and (porous) multishell spherical particles for the first ($T \la 150$ K) and fifth ($T \ga 700$ K) temperature regions;
2. For intermediate temperatures, $150~\mathrm{K} \la T \la 700$ K, the resulting Rosseland mean opacities do not show profound variations with the applied dust models, except for the case of the IPS homogeneous aggregates;
3. The discrepancy between opacity curves are smaller for the case of the IRS silicate model compared to the IPS;
4. Addition of vacuum inside compact composite and multishell spherical particles leads to significant modification of their opacities.
In the first temperature region, organics and water ice are the dominant dust materials according to our compositional model (see Table \[rmf\]). At that temperatures ($T \la 150$ K), the main contribution to the Rosseland mean opacity comes from monochromatic opacities in the wavelength range about $30 \mu$m – $400 \mu$m. In this spectral range, iron and troilite have higher values of the real ($n_\lambda$) and imaginary ($k_\lambda$) indices of refraction compared to the other materials considered in our model. For instance, at $\lambda = 100 \mu$m, iron has $n^\mathrm{Fe}_{100 \mathrm{{\mu}m}} = 95.02$, $k^\mathrm{Fe}_{100 \mathrm{{\mu}m}} = 181.95$, troilite has $n^\mathrm{FeS}_{100 \mathrm{{\mu}m}} = 8.5$, $k^\mathrm{FeS}_{100 \mathrm{{\mu}m}} = 0.73$, whereas organics and water ice have $n^{Org}_{100 \mathrm{{\mu}m}} = 2.14$, $k^{Org}_{100 \mathrm{{\mu}m}} = 0.15$ and $n^{Ice}_{100 \mathrm{{\mu}m}}
= 1.82$, $k^{Ice}_{100 \mathrm{{\mu}m}} = 0.05$, respectively. Furthermore, for troilite and especially for iron these values rapidly increase with wavelength. Thus, the resulting optical properties of a dust grain become sensitive to the absolute amount of Fe and FeS and its distribution inside the particle. In such a case, different theories to calculate optical properties of an aggregate particle may give different results and should be used with caution (see Stognienko et al. [@SHO95], Fig. 6, 8).
We considered aggregated particles of two kinds, namely, composite and homogeneous aggregates. The optical constants of the composite material do not show a peculiar behaviour at long wavelengths. Moreover, the refractive index of this composite changes only little if one is switching from the IPS to the IRS silicate model. One reason is that the amount of solid Fe is small compared to other constituent materials. Another reason is that the total iron abundance is kept constant in all compositional models. Hence the resulting optical properties of the composite aggregates are not very sensitive to the actual topology of the particles and adopted silicate model. Indeed, as it can be clearly seen in the Figure, the dust opacity values of the composite aggregates (triangles) are close to the $\kappa_{\mathrm R}$ of the homogeneous spheres (dot-dashed line). The maximum deviation of these opacity curves is achieved in the case of the IPS silicates for temperatures higher than $\sim 700$ K. Here, the absolute amount of metallic iron is increased due to conversion of FeS to Fe. In addition, the Rosseland mean opacities of the composite aggregates do not depend much on the adopted silicate model (compare triangles on the left and right panel).
{width="\textwidth"}
are shown. \[f2\]
On the contrary, the $\kappa_{\mathrm R}$ values for the homogeneous aggregates do demonstrate a strong variations with the compositional model. In the case of the “iron-rich” silicates (right panel) the Rosseland mean values of the homogeneous aggregates (dashed line) lie much closer to the $\kappa_{\mathrm
R}$ of the composite aggregates (triangles) then for the “iron-poor” compositional model (left panel). As it has been shown already by HS, this is caused by the presence of bare iron aggregates in the case of the IPS homogeneous aggregate model. Due to the extremely high absorptivity induced by the strong interactions between individual aggregate sub-grains, the optical properties of such iron clusters determine the overall behaviour of the resulting opacities. Note, that in the case of the “iron-rich” silicate composition, all iron is locked inside silicates and the absolute amount of troilite is reduced by a factor of two compared to the IPS and NRM models. In the absence of a population of highly absorbing grains, the Rosseland mean values of the homogeneous aggregates are close to that of the composite aggregates. However, at temperatures higher than $\sim 700$ K, troilite is converted to solid iron which increases the $\kappa_{\mathrm R}$ values of the homogeneous aggregates in respect to that of the composites (compare dashed lines with triangles on the right panel of Fig. \[f1\]).
The situation is different for the case of the (porous) composite and (porous) multishell spherical particles. As it was mentioned in Sect. \[methods\], we changed the compositional model in this case and locked all solid iron in silicates using the Bruggeman rule of the effective medium theory. Thus, the only material with a high absorptivity at long wavelengths which remains in all compositional models is troilite. The metallic iron is another highly-absorbing dust component, but it is present in the fifth temperature region only, at $T>700$ K.
Voshchinnikov & Mathis ([@VM99]) have shown that conventional EMTs are rather approximate in the case of small composite spherical particles, $x=2\pi a / \lambda \ll 1$, when one of the grain constituents has a large refractive index (see Fig. 3b therein). Given a typical size $a=0.1 \mu$m of our dust grains, a typical wavelength of $\lambda=100 \mu$m for the first temperature region, and the high refractive index of troilite at that wavelength, this condition is fulfilled. Thus, we adopted the approach of VM to model a composite grain as a spherical particle with many concentric layers and applied it for all temperature regions. Note that there is always an interference between the layers, which makes the optical properties of such composite particles to be different from that of composite grains with well mixed dust constituents. This is especially true if one of the dust components has a high absorptivity. In our compositional model for layered spherical particles, this is troilite in the first temperature region while in the fifth region it is iron. Therefore, we may expect to see the difference between the Rosseland mean opacity values of the composite spheres and composite aggregates, particularly for $T\la 150$ K and $T>700$ K.
As it can be seen in Fig. \[f1\], indeed the $\kappa_{\mathrm R}$ values in the case of the composite spherical particles are much higher than for the composite aggregates. For instance, at $T=10$ K this difference can reach factors of 10 and 20 for the IPS and IRS compositions, respectively (compare circles and triangles on the left and right panels). For higher temperatures, the Rosseland mean opacity curves of the composite spheres and aggregates are close to each other till $T \sim 700$ K is reached. In this temperature region, we assumed that iron forms a layer on the surface of the composite spherical grains. Such a layer “screens out” all underlying materials and totally dominates the optical behaviour of the entire particle. Due to this fact, the dust opacity values of the composite spheres in the fifth temperature region is nearly the same for both the IPS and IRS compositions.
The multishell spherical particles have a restricted number of layers compared to the composite spheres, namely from 2 to 5, depending on the temperature region. The troilite layer is assumed to be the first layer after the silicate core and thus troilite is “hidden” inside. It prevents a strong interference between the consequent particle shells as it is the case for the composite spheres. Then one may expect that the $\kappa_{\mathrm R}$ values of the multishell spheres should be lower than that of the composite spherical particles, especially for the IPS model. As it can be clearly seen in Fig. \[f1\], this is true for $T\la 150$ K, whereas for higher temperatures both opacity curves almost coincide (compare solid line with circles). Hence, the actual distribution of dust constituents within a multilayered spherical particle is not that important for the relevant Rosseland mean opacities at $T\la 150$ K.
The addition of vacuum inside the compact composite and multishell spherical grains leads to a significant increase of the corresponding $\kappa_{\mathrm R}$ values for the first and fifth temperature regions (compare solid line with dotted line and circles with pluses). The first reason is that the density of the porous grains becomes lower than the density of the compact particles. Second, for the porous spheres the relevant extinction efficiencies are higher compared to that of the compact spherical particles if some of the dust constituents have a particularly high absorptivity, like troilite in the first and iron in the fifth temperature region, respectively. This is due to the coherence between the particle layers. The interference is more intense for the case of the composite sphere since it has more concentric layers and a nearly homogeneous distribution of the dust constituents from the centre to the surface compared to the multishell spherical particle. Note that in the fifth temperature region, both composite and multishell spheres have a similar topology, namely, a silicate core covered by iron mantle. Therefore, it is naturally to expect that they have a similar behaviour of the resulting Rosseland mean opacities.
As it can be clearly seen in Fig. \[f1\], the $\kappa_{\mathrm R}$ values of the porous composite spheres are higher than that of the compact composite spherical particles at $T<150$ K and $T>700$ K by a factor of 2 for both the IPS and IRS compositions (compare pluses and circles). For other temperatures, the corresponding Rosseland mean curves lie close to each other. The situation is similar for the case of the multishell and porous multishell spherical particles (compare solid line with dotted line). As we expected, in the fifth temperature region the Rosseland mean opacities for the case of the porous composite and porous multishell spheres have almost the same values.
Comparison to other studies {#com}
---------------------------
In Fig. \[f2\], the Rosseland (left panel) and Planck (right panel) mean opacities composed of the NRM composite aggregate for the low temperature range and gas opacities for the high temperature range are compared with other models. We plotted these values for a wide temperature range, $T$ from $\sim 10$ K to $10^5$ K and for gas densities which scale as $10^{-19} \times
T^3$ gcm$^{-3}$. It allows us to make a comparison between the models in a wide temperature as well as density range simultaneously.
As it is clearly seen in Fig. \[f2\] (left panel), the discrepancy between the Rosseland mean values provided by various models is negligible at high temperatures ($T \ga 3\,000$ K). On the contrary, the Planck mean opacity values differ by a few order of magnitude in this temperature range (compare curves on the right panel). The reason is that the Rosseland mean is much less sensitive to differences in the material data than the Planck mean due to the nature of the averaging process. However, the Planck mean heavily depends on the adopted values of the band and line strengths which vary for different line lists and on the adopted chemical equilibrium constants[^4]
Therefore, the $\kappa_\mathrm{P}$ of the Opacity Project (OP, crosses) are much larger than all the other opacity models since it combines more atomic opacity sources (see e.g. Table $3.3$ in Helling [@H_PhD99]). This model does not contain molecules for temperatures $1\,500$ K – $5\,000$ K, which become important absorbers in this temperature range. The difference between the Planck mean opacity values in the case of the AF model (dashed line) and our model (solid line) may be caused by different molecular line data and a different set of chemical species adopted. The same is true for the $\kappa_\mathrm{P}$ values of Sharp ([@Sharp92], diamonds), which lay somewhat in between the Planck mean opacities of our model (solid line) and the values of Alexander & Ferguson (dashed line).
For temperatures lower than about $1\,500$ K, dust grains are the main opacity source. As it has been shown by Pollack et al. ([@Pea94]), in this case the difference between the Rosseland and Planck mean opacities computed for the same model is small, $\sim 30$% (see Fig. 4b therein). The reason is that both opacities are dominated by continuum absorption and scattering rather than absorption lines in this case. In what follows, we focus on the low-temperature Rosseland mean opacities only ($T \la 3\,000$ K).
{width="105.00000%"}
The Rosseland mean opacity values $\kappa_\mathrm{R}$ computed by the model of Bell & Lin ([@BL94], BL) strongly deviate from the $\kappa_\mathrm{R}$ calculated by other models. For example, this difference can reach a factor of hundred for $T \sim 1\,500$ K – $1\,800$ K (compare dot-dashed and solid lines in Fig. \[f2\]). The reason is that the BL data are a modification of the old analytical Lin & Papaloizou ([@L80]) opacities, which are based on the opacity tables of Alexander ([@A75]) and Cox & Stewart ([@CS70a; @CS70b]) supplemented by the data from Alexander, Augason, & Johnson ([@AAJ89]) for $T<3\,000$ K. The model of Bell & Lin includes dust grains of two types, namely, homogeneous icy and metallic spherical grains. Since we used the more advanced dust compositional model of PHB and a different set of evaporation temperatures, this causes lower $\kappa_\mathrm{R}$ values in the case of the BL model compared to the other models for $T \la
1\,500$ K. For higher temperatures, $\sim 1\,500$ K – $3\,000$ K, this deviation is huge, $\sim 100$ times. As it has been shown by AF, the reason is that Bell & Lin truncated monochromatic opacities of water, which is one of the main absorbers at such temperatures, at a too short wavelength in their calculations. The missing opacity data affect the resulting Rosseland mean opacity. They do, so far, not draw any conclusions regarding Planck mean opacities.
In overall, the opacity curves of all other models do not show such a strong difference between each other (compare triangles, dashed line, solid line, and line with open squares). Our dust model differs from the model of Pollack et al. by taking into account an aggregate nature of cosmic dust grains and a new set of optical constants, but dust size distribution, composition, and evaporation temperatures are the same. However, the difference between the Rosseland mean opacity values of these two model can reach about a factor of two (see also Fig. 5a in Henning & Stognienko [@HS96]).
The $\kappa_\mathrm{R}$ values of the opacity model of Alexander ([@A75], line with open squares) is lower for the dust-dominated temperature region ($T \la 1\,500$ K) and higher for the dust-to-gas transitional region ($1\,500~\mathrm{K} \la T \la
1\,700$ K) compared to our model (solid line) by factors of 5 and 100, respectively. The reason is, as mentioned above, that we used an approximation to compute $\kappa_\mathrm{R}$ in that temperature region, where the last dust grains get evaporated, which is not a very accurate approach. On the contrary, the opacity model of Alexander assumes the presence (but no evaporation!) of small $0.1 \mu$m spherical silicate grains in a rather approximate way, assuming that all dust is homogeneously condensed when the gas becomes saturated. Since here a phase-transition takes place, a supersaturated gas would be needed which results in higher molecular abundances than AF derive from their equilibrium consideration (for a discussion see e.g. Woitke & Helling [@wh2003]). Moreover, the condensation begins at higher temperature than the value we assumed for the evaporation of the last grain constituents because of the dust hysteresis. Finally, the model of AF neglects the presence of other refractory materials, like iron, in the dust-dominated temperature range, which makes the relevant Rosseland mean opacity values lower than provided by our model.
On the contrary, the model of AF does consider several dust materials, namely, iron, silicate, carbon, SiC assumed to be present as small ellipsoidal grain particles. Therefore, the corresponding Rosseland mean dust opacities nearly coincide with our values (compare dashed and solid lines, respectively). The same is true even for the dust-to-gas transitional region, where our opacity model gives rather approximate opacity values.
Opacity and disc structure {#struc}
--------------------------
We compare the thermodynamical structure of a typical protoplanetary disc around a low-mass star computed with two different opacity tables in Fig. \[f3\]. The $1+1$D model of an active steady-state accretion disc of Ilgner ([@I03]) was used with the following input parameters: $M_{\star}=1M_{\sun}$, $\dot{M}=10^{-7}M_{\sun}$ yr$^{-1}$, and $\alpha=0.01$. Here, $M_{\star}$ is the stellar mass, $\dot{M}$ is the mass accretion rate, and $\alpha$ is the parameter describing the kinematic viscosity. Note that this model incorporates a star as a gravitational center only and does not take into account the effect of the stellar radiation on the disc structure.
The thermal structure shown on the left panel was obtained with the Rosseland mean opacity table of Bell & Lin ([@BL94]). On the right panel, we present the same disc structure but for the case of the IPS homogeneous aggregate model (IPSHA) supplemented by the gas mean opacity. We choose these two opacity models as the overall difference between them is the largest among the different models (compare solid and dash-dotted lines in Fig. \[f2\]).
It can be clearly seen that the higher values of the Rosseland mean opacity in the case of the IPSHA model leads to a hotter and more extended disc structure. For instance, the vertical scale height of the disc at $20$ AU is equal to $1.3$ AU for the former and $2.1$ AU for the latter opacity models, respectively. Consequently, there is also a variation of the density structure between the models, namely, the disc density is higher for the BL opacity model compared to that of the IPSHA model. The temperature difference is also prominent. For example, the midplane temperature of $100$ K, which roughly corresponds to the ice melting point, is reached at $6.5$ AU for the model of Bell & Lin, whereas in the case of the IPSHA model it is at $\approx 8$ AU.
To confirm our findings, we did a similar comparison with another code. We used a full 2D hydrodynamical code designed to simulate the interaction of the protoplanetary disc with a protoplanet (D’Angelo [@DA01]). The parameters of the model were as follows: $M_{\star}=1M_{\sun}$, $M_{\mathrm d}=0.01M_{\sun}$, $\nu=10^{15}$ cm$^2$s$^{-1}$, $\mu=2.39$, and $\gamma=1.4$, where $M_{\mathrm d}$ is the total disc mass, $\nu$ is the kinematic viscosity, $\mu$ is the mean atomic weight of the gas, and $\gamma$ is the adiabatic exponent.
![The midplane temperature of the accretion disc obtained with the BL opacity model (dashed line) and IPS (solid line) and IRS (dotted line) homogeneous aggregate dust models.[]{data-label="f4"}](3802f4.eps){width="40.00000%"}
The Bell & Lin opacity model together with IPS and IRS homogeneous aggregate models were chosen for the comparison. The midplane temperature for all three opacity models is shown in Fig. \[f4\]. It can be clearly seen that the difference in the temperature values between all models can reach about $50$% for the disc radii $r_{\mathrm d} \la 2$ AU. Note that it disappears at larger distances, $r_{\mathrm d} \sim 10$ AU. As expected, in the case of the BL model the midplane temperature is the lowest almost everywhere (dashed line), whereas for the IPS homogeneous aggregates it is the highest (solid line) and the IRS temperature values lie between them (dotted line). The reason is the same as for the case of the $1+1$D disc model, namely, lower opacity values of the BL model compared to both the IPS and IRS opacities and higher values of IPS opacity in comparison with those of BL and IRS models. It is interesting that at $T \sim 130$ K ($r \sim 2$ AU) all the temperature curves are very close to each other. This is due to the adopted ice evaporation temperatures, which is a little lower in our case compared to the model of Bell & Lin. That leads to nearly the same opacity values for all three models at a restricted set of temperatures around $\sim 130$ K (compare solid and dot-dashed lines in Fig. \[f3\]). For $r \ga 10$ AU the temperature curves are close to each other because the corresponding opacity models have rather similar low-temperature opacity values.
Thus, we showed that the difference in the Rosseland opacity tables applied in hydrodynamical calculations leads to deviations in the resulting disc structure. As it has been shown by Markwick et al. ([@Mea02]), the temperature distribution is a crucial factor for the chemical evolution in the inner parts of accretion discs. Therefore, proper opacity modelling is an important issue in order to follow the dynamical and especially chemical evolution of protoplanetary accretion discs.
Summary {#sum}
=======
We have compiled the Rosseland and Planck mean dust and gas opacities for the temperature range $T \in [5, 10^4]$ K and for gas densities $\rho \in [10^{-18}, 10^{-7}]$ gcm$^{-3}$ which is appropriate for the conditions in protoplanetary discs. The absorption and scattering due to dust grains of different compositions, shapes and topological structures and the absorption provided by over $30$ atoms, molecules, ions were taken into consideration. The corresponding well-documented numerical code together with representative data and figures are electronically available: [*http://www.astro.uni-jena.de/Laboratory/labindex.html*]{}.
It has been found that the topological distribution of highly absorbing materials, such as iron and troilite, within dust grains dominates the relevant optical properties to a large degree. Particularly, the composite and porous composite spherical grains modelled in a special way have remarkably high Rosseland mean opacities at $T\la 150$ K and $T\ga 700$ K even in comparison with the composite aggregated particles. We have shown that at intermediate temperatures the Rosseland mean opacities of distinct grain models are close to each other. It has been demonstrated that the difference between the opacity values of various dust models is smaller in the case of the compositional model with a smaller amount of solid iron and troilite. We found that porous composite and porous multishell spherical particles show higher opacity values in comparison with their compact analogues.
We performed a comprehensive comparison of our results with other recent opacity models. We found a significant difference between the opacity models in the case of the Planck mean and a good agreement between them for the case of the Rosseland mean at $T \ga 1\,500$ K, where gas species are the main opacity sources. For lower temperatures, where opacities are dominated by dust grains, there is a discrepancy (a factor of $\sim 3$ at most) in both the Rosseland and Planck mean values for all considered models.
We demonstrated that differences in the Rosseland mean opacity values provided by distinct opacity models affect the hydrodynamical structure of active steady-state accretion discs. Namely, higher values of the Rosseland mean opacity lead to a hotter and more extended disc structure in the case of $1+1$D and $2$D disc modelling.
DS was supported by the German *Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, DFG* project “Research Group Laboratory Astrophysics” (He 1935/17-1). The work of MI was supported by the Max Planck Society. We are grateful to D. Alexander for valuable comments and discussions. For the calculations of the optical properties of multishell spherical particles, we used a code by N.Voshchinnikov ([*http://www.astro.spbu.ru/staff/ilin2/ilin.html*]{})
An overview of the opacity models
=================================
The goal of this compilation is to provide essential information about opacity models cited in the text. We show for which elemental composition they are developed, what kind of opacities they supply, and in what temperature and density ranges they work. In addition, key references to the studies, where these opacity models have been applied, are given and the aims of the investigations are briefly mentioned.
Primarily, we distinguish between two kinds of opacity models. The first kind is designed for stellar evolutions, where it is more convenient to use a special parameter, $R=\rho / T^3_6,
{T}_6 = T / 10^6$ K instead of gas density $\rho$ (see discussion in Rogers & Iglesias [@RI92]). Thus, opacity data of such models are assembled in rectangular tables in R–$T_6$ space. However, in hydrodynamical simulations of accretion discs, it is more convenient to have opacity tables composed in $\rho$–$T$ parameter space, for which we refer as to the second type of the models. The direct conversion of R to $\rho$ in the opacity models of the first kind leads to trapezoidal tables, where opacity values for different temperatures have different density intervals. We mark such models with “a” and show the maximum limits of density and temperature values for them.
In addition, we point out if opacity data are available on-line in the Internet or via E-mail (“b”). By default, the papers are supposed to contain the opacity data in a tabular form. Otherwise, when only opacity plots are available, we label the corresponding papers with “c”. The analytical opacity models are marked with “d”.
[llllllllll]{} Model & Composition, & & & & Usage & Studies\
& Z & dust & gas & $\kappa_{\mathrm R}$ & $\kappa_{\mathrm P}$ & T, K & $\rho$, g cm$^{-3}$ & &\
Cox & & $10^{-4} \div 1$ & – & a$^*$ & + & – & $1\,500 \div 10^9$ & $10^{-15} \div 10^{10}$ & Wood & Pulsations of\
Stewart & & & & & & & & ([@W76]) & luminous\
([@CS70a]a,b)$^{\mathrm a}$ & & & & & & & & & helium stars\
Alexander & $10^{-3} \div 0.02$ & + & m$^{**}$ & + & – & $700 \div 10^4$ & $10^{-19} \div 10^{-2}$ & Bodenheimer & Protostellar\
([@A75])$^{\mathrm a}$ & & & & & & & & et al. ([@B90]) & collapse\
Alexander & $10^{-4} \div 2\,10^{-2}$ & + & m & + & – & $650 \div 10^4$ & $10^{-18} \div 10^{-2}$ & Ruden & & Protostellar\
et al. ([@A83])$^{\mathrm a}$ & & & & & & & & Pollack ([@RP91]) & collapse\
Pollack et & Solar & + & – & +$^{\mathrm c}$ & – & $10 \div 2\,500$ & $10^{-14} \div 1$ & Boss ([@B88]), & Molecular cloud\
al. ([@P85]) & & & & & & & & & fragmentation;\
& & & & & & & & Lunine et & brown dwarf\
& & & & & & & & al. ([@L89]), & atmospheres;\
& & & & & & & & Bodenheimer &\
& & & & & & & & et al. ([@B90]), & protostellar\
& & & & & & & & Ruden & & collapse\
& & & & & & & & Pollack ([@RP91]) &\
Sharp & Solar, & – & m & + & + & $2\,10^3 \div 10^4$ & $10^{-10} \div 10^{-3}$ & Sackmann & Evolution\
(1992) & 3 times & & & & & & & et al. ([@Sea93]), & of the Sun;\
& enhanced& & & & & & & Finocchi & & chemistry of\
& CNO & & & & & & & Gail ([@FG97]) & accretion discs\
Alexander & $0 \div 1$ & + & m & + & + & $700 \div 10^4$ & $10^{-16} \div 10^{-5}$ & Huré ([@Hure00]), & Accretion\
& Ferguson & & & & & & & & & discs of AGN\
([@AF94])$^{\mathrm{a; b}}$ & & & & & & & & & and YSO;\
& & & & & & & & Driebe et & evolution\
& & & & & & & & al. ([@Dea99]), & of helium\
& & & & & & & & & dwarfs;\
& & & & & & & & Ikoma et & formation\
& & & & & & & & al. ([@Iea01]) & of giant\
& & & & & & & & & planets\
Bell & Lin & Solar & + & a & +$^{\mathrm d}$ & – & $10 \div 10^6$ & $10^{-20} \div 10^{-4}$ & Bell & Lin & FU Orionis\
([@BL94]) & & & & & & & & ([@BL94]) & outbursts\
Pollack et & Solar & + & – & +$^{\mathrm c}$ & – & $10 \div 2\,10^3$ & $10^{-18} \div 10^{-4}$ & Huré ([@Hure00]) & Accretion\
al. ([@Pea94]) & & & & & & & & & discs\
Seaton et & $0 \div 1$ & – & a & + & + & $3\,10^3 \div 10^7$ & $10^{-15} \div 10^{-2}$ & Aikawa & & Nonlinear\
al. ([@S94])$^{\mathrm{a; b}}$ & & & & & & & & Antonello & pulsations\
(OP project) & & & & & & & & ([@AA00a],[@AA00b]), & of Cepheids,\
& & & & & & & & Aikawa ([@A01]), & accretion\
& & & & & & & & Huré ([@Hure00]) & discs\
Henning & & Solar & + & – & +$^{\mathrm{c; d}}$ & – & $10 \div 2\,10^3$ & $10^{-18} \div 10^{-4}$ & Bell et al. & Accretion\
Stognienko & & & & & & & & ([@B97]) & discs\
([@HS96])$^{\mathrm b}$ & & & & & & & & &\
Iglesias & & $0 \div 2\,10^{-2}$ & – & a & + & – & $5\,10^3 \div 5\,10^8$ & $10^{-15} \div 10^5$ & Turcotte et & Solar\
Rogers & & & & & & & & al. ([@T98]), & evolution,\
([@OPAL96])$^{\mathrm{a; b}}$ & & & & & & & & &\
(OPAL & & & & & & & & Collins et & accretion\
project) & & & & & & & & al. ([@C98]) & discs\
Helling et & Solar, & – & m & +$^{\mathrm c}$ & +$^{\mathrm c}$ & $500 \div 10^4$ & $10^{-19} \div 10^{-9}$ & Helling et & Dusty shells of\
al. ([@H00])$^{\mathrm{b}}$ & LMC, & & & & & & & al. ([@H00]) & long-period\
& SMC$^{\mathrm e}$ & & & & & & & & variables\
atomic opacities,
molecular and atomic opacities,
a trapezoidal table in $\rho$–$T$ parameter space,
it can be retrieved via E-mail or the Internet,
only plots are available,
analytical expressions are used,
LMC, SMC mean the element abundances of the Large and the Small Magellanic Clouds
Aikawa, J., Umebayashi, T., Nakano, T., Miyama, Sh. 1999, , 519, 705
Aikawa, T. 2001, , 371, 667
Aikawa, T., Antonello, E. 2000, , 363, 593
Aikawa, T., Antonello, E. 2000, , 363, 601
Alexander, D.R. 1975, , 29, 363
Alexander, D.R., Ferguson, J.W. 1994, , 437, 879
Alexander, D.R., Augason, G.C., Johnson, H.R. 1989, , 345, 1014
Alexander, D.R., Johnson, H.R., Rypma, R.L. 1983, , 272, 773
Anders, E., Grevesse, N. 1989, , 53, 19
Beckwith, S., Henning, Th., Nakagawa, Y. 2000, in Protostars and Planets IV, ed. by V. Mannings, A. P. Boss, and S.S. Russell, 533
Bell, K.R., Cassen, P.M., Klahr. H.H., Henning, Th. 1997, , 486, 372
Bell, K.R., Lin, D.N.C. 1994, , 427, 987
Bergman, D. 1978, Phys. Rep. 43, 377
Blum, J., Wurm, G., Poppe, T. et al. 2002, AdSpR, 29, 497
Bodenheimer, P., Yorke, H.W., Rozyczka, M., Tohline, J.E. 1990, , 355, 651
Boogert, A., Hogerheijde, M., Blake, G. 2002, , 568, 761
Borysow, A., J[ø]{}rgensen, U.G., Zheng, C. 1997, å, 324, 185
Boss, A. 1988, , 331, 370
Bouwman, J., Meeus, G., Hony, S., et al. 2000, Planetary Systems in the Universe, IAU Symposium 202, 88
Brown, P., Charnley, S., Millar, T. 1988, , 231, 409
Bruggeman, D. 1935, Ann. Phys., 24, 636
Bujarrabal, V., Alcolea, J., Neri, R., Grewing, M. 1997, , 320, 540
Butler, R., De Lucia, F., Petkie, D. et al. 2001, , 134, 319
Carbon, D., Gingerich, O., Latham, D. 1969, Low Luminosity Stars, ed. S. Kumar. Gordon and Breach, New York
Chase Jr. M.W., Davies, C.A., Downey Jr. J.R., et al. 1985, In: J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Dat. Vol. 14, Suppl.1, National Bureaus of Standards
Chihara, H., Koike, C., Tsuchiyama, A. et al. 2002, , 391, 267
Collins, T.J.B., Helfer, H.L., Van Horn, H.M. 1998, , 502, 730
Cox, A.N., Stewart, J.N. 1970, , 19, 243
Cox, A.N., Stewart, J.N. 1970, , 19, 261
D’Alessio, P., Calvet, N., Hartmann, L. 2001, , 553, 321
D’Angelo, G. 2001, private communication
D’Angelo, G., Henning, Th., Kley, W. 2002, , 385, 647
Dalgarno, A. The Scattering of light by Atomic Systems. Volume III of Spectral Reflectivity of the Earth Atmosphere.
Doyle, R. 1968, PhD Thesis, Harvard University, Harvard, USA
Driebe, T., Bl[ö]{}cker, T., Sch[ö]{}nberner, D., Herwig, F. 1999, , 350, 89
Finocchi, F., Gail, H.–P., Duschl, W. J. 1997, , 325, 1264
Gail, H.–P. 2001, , 378, 192
Gail, H.–P. 2002, , 390, 253
Goorvitch, D., Chackeria Jr., C. 1994, , 91, 483
Greaves, J., Holland, W., Moriarty–Schieven, G. et al. 1998, , 506, L133
Greenberg, J. 1967, , 72, 800
Grevesse, N., Lambert, D., Sauval, A. et al. 1991, , 242, 488
Gurvich, I., Shiloah, N., Kleiman, M. 2001, , 70, 433
Hartquist, T., Williams, D. 1990, , 247, 343
Hasegawa, T., Herbst, E. 1993, , 263, 589
Helling, Ch. 1999, PhD Thesis, Technische Universit[ä]{}t Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Helling, Ch. Winters, J.M., Sedlmayr, E., 2000, , 358, 651
Henning, Th., Stognienko, R. 1996, , 311, 291
Huré, J.–M. 2000, , 358, 378
Iglesias, C.A., Rogers, F.J. 1996, , 464, 943
Ikoma, M., Emori, H., Nakazawa, K. 2001, , 553, 999
Ilgner, M. 2003, PhD thesis, Friedrich Schiller University, Jena, Germany
John, T. 1988, , 193, 189
J[ø]{}rgensen, U. 1989, , 344, 901
J[ø]{}rgensen, U. 1990, , 232, 420
J[ø]{}rgensen, U. 1994, , 284, 179
J[ø]{}rgensen, U. 2003, ASP Conf. Ser. 288, 303
J[ø]{}rgensen, U., Jensen, P. 1993, J. Mol. Spect., 161, 219
J[ø]{}rgensen, U., Larsson, M. 1990, , 238, 424
J[ø]{}rgensen, U., Larsson, M., Iwamae, A., Yu, B. 1996, , 315, 204
Jura, M., Werner, M. 1999, , 525, L113
Karzas, W., Latter, R. 1961, , 6, 167
Kempf, S., Pfalzner, S., Henning, Th. 1999, Icarus, 141, 388
Kesselman, V. 1980, , 57, 566
Klahr, H., Henning, Th., Kley, W. 1999, , 514, 325
Kley, W., D’Angelo, G., Henning, Th. 2001, , 547, 457
Langhoff S., Bauschlicher Jr., C. 1993, Chem. Phys. Letters, 211, 305
Lenzuni, P., Gail, H.-P., Henning, Th. 1995, , 447, 848
Lin, D.N.C., Papaloizou, J. 1980, , 191, 37
Lunine, J.I., Hubbard, W.B., Burrows, A., et al. 1989, , 338, 314
Markwick, A., Ilgner, M., Millar, T., Henning, Th. 2002, A&A, 385, 632
Mathis, J.S., Rumpl, W., Nordsieck, K.H. 1977, , 217, 425
Mihalas, D. 1965, , 9, 321
Mizuno, H., Markiewicz, W., V[ö]{}lk, H. 1988, , 195, 183
Mutschke, H., Posch, Th., Fabian, D., Dorschner, J. 2002, , 392, 1047
Niccolini, G., Woitke, P., Lopez, B. 2003 A&A, 399, 703
Nuth, J. III, Berg, O. 1994, In Lunar and Planetary Inst., The Twenty-Fifth Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. Part 2, 1011
Olofsson, G., Liseau, R., Brandeker, A. 2001, , 563, L77
Ossenkopf, V. 1991, , 251, 210
Ossenkopf, V., Henning, Th. 1994, , 291, 943
Peach, G. 1970, Mem. R. Astron. Soc. 73, 1
Peytremann, E. 1974, Astr. Ap., 33, 203
Pi[é]{}tu, V., Dutrey, A., Kahane, C. 2003, , 398, 565
Pollack, J.B., Hollenbach, D., Beckwith, S., et al., 1994, , 421, 615
Pollack, J.B., McKay, C.P., Christofferson, B.M. 1985, Icarus, 64, 471
Rietmeijer, F., Nuth III, J. 2000, Earth, Moon, and Planets, 82–83, 325
Rogers, F., Iglesias, C. 1992, , 79, 507
Ruden, S.P., Pollack, J.B. 1991, , 375, 740
Sacmann, I., Boothroyd, A.I., Kraemer, K. 1993, , 418, 457
Sanz, M., McCarthy, M., Thaddeus, P. 2002, , 577, L71
Schmitt, W., Henning, Th., Mucha, R. 1997, , 325, 569
Schnabel, K. 2001, Master Thesis, Technische Universit[ä]{}t Berlin, Berlin, Germany
Seaton, M.J., Yan, Y., Mihalas, D., Pradhan, A.K. 1994, , 266, 805
Sharp, C.M. 1992, , 94, 1
Somerville, W. 1964, , 139, 192
Stognienko, R., Henning, Th., Ossenkopf, V. 1995, , 296, 797
Struck, C., Cohanim, B., Willson, L. 2002, , 572, 83
Thi, W., van Dishoeck, E., Blake, G. et al. 2001, , 561, 1074
Turcotte, S., Richer, J., Michaud, G., et al. 1998, , 504, 539
Tuthill, P., Monnier, J., Danchi, W. et al. 2002, , 577, 826
Voshchinnikov N., Mathis, J. 1999, , 526, 257
Willacy, K., Rawlings, J., Williams, D. 1994, , 269, 921
Woitke, P., in [*Astronomy with Radioactivities*]{}, eds. R. Diehl and D. Hartmann, Ringberg, Germany, MPE Report 274, 163
Woitke, P., Helling, Ch. 2003, A&A, submitted
Wood, P.R. 1976, , 174, 531
Wurm, G., Blum, J. 1998, Icarus, 132, 125
Wurm, G., Blum, J. 2000, , 529, 57
[^1]: which is not to be confused with a formation sequence (see also Woitke [@woi2000])
[^2]: See: [*http://www.astro.uni-jena.de/Laboratory/labindex.html*]{}
[^3]: http://www.astro.uni-jena.de/Laboratory/labindex.html
[^4]: Note that the chemical equilibrium constants, $K_p$, used by different authors can cause differences in the resulting opacity values because it affects the number density of species. The same effect will be caused by the neglect of the metal ions in the chemical equilibrium calculations (see, e.g., Helling et al. [@H00]). It is, however, not very straightforward to decide which line list is the most correct (for a discussion see J[ø]{}rgensen [@ugj03]). We nevertheless dare to demonstrate the difficulties arising from comparing Planck mean opacities calculated by different authors because it has – to our knowledge – not been pointed out clearly in the literature. Only comparisons of Rosseland mean opacities are presented, e.g. by Alexander & Ferguson ([@AF94]).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate the competition between pairing correlations and ferromagnetism in small metallic grains in the presence of a Zeeman field. Our analysis is based on the universal Hamiltonian, valid in the limit of large Thouless conductance. We show that the coexistence regime of superconducting and ferromagnetic correlations can be made experimentally accessible by tuning an external Zeeman field. We compare the exact solution of the model with a mean-field theory and find that the latter cannot describe pairing correlations in the intermediate regime. We also study the occurrence of spin jumps across the phase boundary separating the superconducting and coexistence regimes.'
author:
- 'S. Schmidt'
- 'Y. Alhassid'
- 'K. Van Houcke'
title: 'Effect of a Zeeman field on the superconductor-ferromagnet transition in metallic grains'
---
[[Tr]{}]{}[[Tr]{}]{}
Introduction
============
The hallmark of the BCS model of superconductivity in metals is the presence of an excitation gap $\Delta$. This gap is caused by the formation of Cooper pairs describing correlated electron pairs in time-reversed states. Thus, pairing correlations in superconductors tend to minimize the total spin of the electron system. Ferromagnetic correlations, on the other hand, prefer to maximize the total spin and form a macroscopic magnetic moment. Early work [@abri; @clog; @chan; @fuld; @lark] predicted a state in which both pairing and ferromagnetic order are present, if ferromagnetism is caused by localized paramagnetic impurities. The experimental observation that both states of matter can coexist in heavy fermion systems [@sax; @pfei; @aoki] and high-Tc superconductors [@tall; @bern] came as a surprise and led to the search for new theoretical models to describe this coexistence. A BCS-like model of $s$-wave pairing combined with a simple Stoner-like model of ferromagnetism was used to derive such an intermediate state within a mean-field approximation. [@karchev] However, it was argued that such a state is unstable in the bulk. [@zhou; @shen01; @shen02] Furthermore, it was shown that a proper Hartree-Fock mean-field theory of the model does not support coexistence of $s$-wave superconductivity and ferromagnetism. [@jogle; @blagoev]
A similar model of BCS-like pairing and exchange interaction was shown to be valid in small metallic grains in the mesoscopic regime for a Thouless energy $E_T$ that is large compared with the single-particle mean-level spacing $\delta$. [@kur; @alei; @murthy01] In such a finite-size system, a partially paired state with finite spin polarization exists within a narrow parameter regime. [@ying] Since this coexistence regime is relatively small, it would be difficult to observe it experimentally. It has been suggested that the probability of spin polarization in the presence of pairing correlation may be enhanced by mesoscopic fluctuations [@falci] or by an asymmetric spin-dependent bandwidth of the single-particle spectrum. [@ying]
Here we study the competition between ferromagnetic and pairing correlations in metallic grains in the crossover regime from a few-electron system ($\Delta\ll\delta$) to the bulk ($\Delta\gg\delta$). We use Richardson’s solution of the BCS-like interaction [@rich] and the known solution of the exchange model [@rupp] to determine the ground state of the grain. For sufficiently small grains, there is a regime in pairing gap $\Delta/\delta$ and exchange coupling $J_s/\delta$, in which the ground state is partly paired and partly polarized. We show that, in the presence of a Zeeman field, the exchange coupling at which the crossover from a pure superconducting state to the coexistence regime takes place decreases to values that can be realized in several metals. The onset of magnetization with increasing exchange coupling at a given pairing gap corresponds to a spin jump $\Delta S \geq 1$, followed by successive spin increments of $\Delta S=1$. The magnitude of the initial spin jump depends on the value of $\Delta/\delta$. Similar spin jumps were found in the crossover from a superconducting state to a paramagnetic state, [@delft01; @delft02] where they are reminiscent of a first-order transition in the bulk. We apply a mean-field theory similar to the one used in Ref. and compare with the exact results. In contrast to the exact solution, we find that the mean-field approximation cannot describe pairing correlations in the intermediate regime of partial spin polarization.
Model
=====
An isolated metallic grain in which the single-particle dynamics are chaotic and whose dimensionless Thouless conductance $g_T=E_T/\delta$ is large ($g_T \gg 1$), can be described by an effective universal Hamiltonian [@kur; @alei; @murthy01] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{origH}
\hat H=\sum_{k\sigma}\hspace{-0.0cm}\epsilon_{k} c_{k\sigma}^\dagger c_{k\sigma}
-G \hat P^\dagger \hat P - J_s \hat{\bf S}^2 + g \mu_B H \hat S_z\;.\end{aligned}$$ Here $c_{k\sigma}^\dagger$ is the creation operator for an electron in the single-particle level $\epsilon_k$ with either spin up ($\sigma=+$) or spin down ($\sigma=-$). The one-body term in (\[origH\]) describes the kinetic energy plus confining single-particle potential. The second term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (\[origH\]) is a pairing interaction with strength $G$ and where $P^\dagger=\sum_i c_{i+}^\dagger c_{i-}^\dagger$ is the pair creation operator. The third term in (\[origH\]) is an exchange interaction expressed in terms of the total spin operator $\hat{\bf S}=\sum_{k\sigma\sigma'}c_{k\sigma}^\dagger {\bf \tau}_{\sigma\sigma'}c_{k\sigma'}$ ($\tau_i$ are Pauli matrices). The parameter $J_s$ is the exchange coupling constant (estimated values of $J_s$ for a variety of materials were tabulated in Ref. ). The inclusion of such an exchange interaction in quantum dots [@al00] explained quantitatively the measured peak height and peak spacing statistics. [@mal; @rupp] The last term on the r.h.s. of Eq. (\[origH\]) describes the coupling of an external Zeeman field $H$ (applied in the $z$ direction) to the spin of the dot. Here $g$ is the $g$-factor of the electrons in the grain (taken to be positive) and $\mu_B$ is the Bohr magneton. Orbital diamagnetism can be neglected for small grains. [@delft02] The charging energy $e^2 \hat N^2/2C$ ($C$ is the capacitance of the grain) is a constant for a grain with a fixed number of electrons $N$ and was omitted in the Hamiltonian (\[origH\]).
In this work, we do not consider mesoscopic effects that originate in the random matrix description of the single-particle Hamiltonian. To construct a typical phase diagram of a single grain, we consider a generic equidistant spectrum $\epsilon_{k}=k\delta$ with $-N_o\leq k \leq N_o$ at half filling. Thus we have $N=2N_o$ for an even number of electrons ($p=0$) and $N=2N_o+1$ for an odd number ($p=1$).
Exact solution
==============
In the absence of a pairing interaction ($G=0$), the Hamiltonian (\[origH\]) can be solved in closed form. [@rupp] The orbital occupations $\hat n_k=\hat n_{k+}+ \hat n_{k-}$ commute with $\hat {\bf S}^2$ and are good quantum numbers. The empty ($n_k=0$) and doubly occupied ($n_k=2$) orbitals do not contribute to the total spin, so the total spin of the grain is obtained by coupling the singly occupied levels with spin $1/2$ to total spin $S$ and spin projection $M$. For a specific set $\cal{B}$ of $b$ singly occupied levels, the total spin ranges from $S=p/2$ to $S=b/2$ with each spin value having a degeneracy of $d_b(S) = \binom{b}{S+ b/2} - \binom{b}{S+1+ b/2}$. A complete set of eigenstates is then given by $\vert \{n_k\}, \gamma, S, M\rangle $ where $\gamma$ are quantum number distinguishing between eigenstates with the same spin. [@rupp; @tureci]
The pairing interaction can only scatter time-reversed pairs from doubly occupied to empty orbitals but does not affect the singly occupied levels (referred to as “blocked” levels). It is therefore sufficient to diagonalize the reduced BCS Hamiltonian $\sum_{k \sigma}\hspace{-0.0cm}\epsilon_k c_{k\sigma}^\dagger c_{k\sigma} -G P^\dagger P$ using the single-particle subspace ${\cal U}$ of empty and doubly occupied levels. This problem was solved by Richardson. [@rich] The eigenenergies are given by $$\begin{aligned}
E_m=\sum_{\mu=1}^m E_\mu\;,\end{aligned}$$ where $E_\mu$ are parameters that characterize the eigenstate and $m=(N-b)/2$ is the number of pairs. Richardson’s parameters $E_\mu$ are found by solving the set of $m$ coupled non-linear equations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{richardson}
\frac{1}{G}+2\sum_{\nu=1\atop \nu\neq\mu}^{m}\frac{1}{E_\nu-E_\mu}=
\sum_{i\in\cal{U}}\frac{1}{2\epsilon_i-E_\mu} \;\;\;\;(\mu=1,\ldots,m)\;.\end{aligned}$$ To each set of $m$ doubly occupied levels at $G=0$, there is a unique solution for Richardson’s parameters at $G \neq 0$. We note that in the general case Richardson’s equations depend on the seniority quantum numbers of the levels (the seniority is the number of electrons not coupled to spin zero). In our case, the levels are doubly degenerate and the seniority of a doubly occupied level is zero.
The eigenstates constructed from the subset ${\cal U}$ of empty and doubly occupied levels have spin zero, so the total spin of the grain is determined by the spin-1/2 coupling of the singly occupied levels in ${\cal B}$. The eigenstates of the full Hamiltonian (\[origH\]) are then given by $\vert {\cal B},\{ E_\mu\}, \gamma, S,M \rangle$ with energies of $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eexact}
E =E_m + \sum_{k\in \cal{B}}\epsilon_k - J_s S (S+1)+ g\mu_B H M \,.\end{aligned}$$
In this work, we focus on the ground state of the grain as a function of the interaction couplings $G$ and $J_s$. To that end, we find the lowest energy $E(S)$ in (\[Eexact\]) for a given spin $S$ and then minimize with respect to $S$. The energy $E(S)$ is found by choosing a set ${\cal B}$ of $b=2S$ singly occupied levels that are placed closest to the Fermi energy. We then populate these $b$ levels with spin-down electrons, resulting in a good-spin state with spin $S$ and spin projection $M=-S$. For a given set ${\cal B}$, we solved Richardson’s equations using the method of Ref. .
The physical parameter desc ribing the pairing Hamiltonian is $\Delta/\delta$, where $\Delta$ is the bulk pairing gap and $\delta$ the single-particle mean-level spacing. The low-energy spectrum of the grain (for $J_s=H=0$) is determined by the value of this parameter. We can truncate the total number of levels from $N_o$ to $N_r < N_o$, and renormalize $G$ such that the low-energy spectrum of the grain remains approximately the same. For a picketfence spectrum, the renormalized coupling constant is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{renorm}
\frac{G_r}{\delta}=\frac{1}{{\rm arcsinh}\left(\frac{N_r+1/2}{\Delta/\delta}\right)}\;.\end{aligned}$$ Strictly speaking, this holds in the absence of an exchange interaction. However, since the exchange interaction affects only the blocked levels, we expect the renormalization (\[renorm\]) to hold as long as the number of blocked levels is small compared with the total number of levels in the band. The quality of this approximation depends on the choice for $N_r$ and was discussed in detail in Ref. .
Mean-field approximation
========================
We compare the findings based on the exact solution with a mean-field theory. The mean-field approach is based on a trial wave function of the form [@delft02] $$\begin{aligned}
\vert\psi_S\rangle=\prod_{k\in {\cal B}}c^\dagger_{k-}\prod_{j\in {\cal U}}\left(u_j^{(S)}+v_j^{(S)}c_{j+}^\dagger c_{j-}^\dagger\right)\vert0\rangle\end{aligned}$$ with the normalization condition $(u_j^{(S)})^2+(v_j^{(S)})^2=1$. The wave function $\psi_S$ has $b=2S$ singly occupied levels with spin-down electrons (set ${\cal B}$) chosen to be closest to the Fermi energy, and is of the BCS form within the remaining set of levels ${\cal U}$. The lowest state with spin $S$ is found by minimizing the expectation value $\langle\psi_S\vert (\hat{H}-\mu \hat{N})\vert\psi_S\rangle$ with respect to the variational parameters $v_j^{(S)}$. Here $\mu$ is a chemical potential ensuring that the average number of particles is $N$.
The mean-field energy at fixed spin $S$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Evar}
E_{\rm mf}\left(S\right)&=& 2\sum_{k\in {\cal U}}\hspace{-0.1cm}\epsilon_k \left(v_k^{(S)}\right)^2-\frac{\Delta_S^2}{G}\nonumber\\
&+&\sum_{k\in {\cal B}}\hspace{-0.1cm}\epsilon_k-J_s S\left(S+1\right)-g \mu_B H S\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\left(v_k^{(S)}\right)^2=\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\frac{\epsilon_k-\mu}
{\sqrt{\left(\epsilon_k-\mu\right)^2+\Delta_S^2}}\right)\;,\end{aligned}$$ and $\Delta_S$ is a spin-dependent pairing gap. The gap parameter and chemical potential are determined by solving the gap equation together with the particle number equation
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{g}
\frac{2}{G} & = & \sum_{k\in {\cal U}}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\left(\epsilon_k-\mu\right)^2+\Delta_S^2}} \;,\\
N & = & 2\sum_{k\in {\cal U}}\hspace{-0.1cm}\left(v_k^{(S)}\right)^2+ b \;.\end{aligned}$$
For an equidistant spectrum, the chemical potential can be determined by symmetry considerations and is given by $\mu=-(1-p)\delta/2$ for $N_o\delta\gg\Delta_S$.
Here, we used the same approximations as in Ref. and neglected a term in the energy $E_{\rm mf}(S)$ which is proportional to $(v_j^{(S)})^4$. The result (\[Evar\]) is in agreement with the leading term of an expansion in the inverse number of electrons $1/N$. [@yuzba]. Comparing (\[Evar\]) and (\[Eexact\]) with $M=-S$, we see that the exchange and Zeeman terms are treated exactly in this mean-field approximation. The ground-state spin in the mean-field approximation is found by minimizing $E_{\rm mf}(S)$ in (\[Evar\]) with respect to $S$.
Ground-state phase diagram
==========================
The ground-state spin of the grain is determined by the competition between various terms in the universal Hamiltonian. The one-body part (kinetic plus confining one-body potential) and pairing interaction favor minimal spin $S=p/2$ while exchange interaction and Zeeman field favor a maximally polarized state. We have studied the ground-state spin as a function of the three parameters $\Delta/\delta , J_s/\delta$ and $g\mu_B H/\delta$. Using the exact solution, we find three different phases: a superconducting phase where the number of pairs is maximal and $S=p/2$, a ferromagnetic phase where the system is fully polarized $S=N/2$ (all electrons are with spin down), and an intermediate regime. The intermediate regime describes a partially polarized state $S< N/2$, in which $b=2S$ electrons reside in singly occupied levels closest to the Fermi energy and the remaining electrons are paired to give spin zero.
=0.95
The phase diagram in the $\Delta/\delta$–$J_s/\delta$ plane of a grain with even number of electrons and in the absence of Zeeman field ($H=0$) is presented in Fig. 1(a). For weak pairing, the superconducting and ferromagnetic phases are separated by an intermediate regime. The boundaries of this intermediate regime are described by two critical values $J_s^{(1)}$ and $J_s^{(2)}$ of the exchange interaction that are function of $\Delta/\delta$. The critical value $J_s^{(1)}/\delta$ is a monotonically increasing function of $\Delta/\delta$, i.e., a stronger exchange interaction is required to polarize a grain with stronger pairing correlations. However, $J_s^{(2)}/\delta$ is almost insensitive to $\Delta/\delta$. The intermediate regime shrinks at larger $\Delta/\delta$ and eventually disappears above $\Delta/\delta \sim 3$. For stronger pairing correlations, the superconducting phase makes a direct transition to the ferromagnetic phase. In this regime (not shown in Fig. 1), the phase boundary exhibits a strong dependence on the bandwidth $N_o$.
For comparison, we show the mean-field results in Fig. 1(b). We observe that the mean-field results are qualitatively different from the exact solution. The region to the right of the thick solid line and dashed line describes an superconducting phase with $\Delta _0 \neq 0$. However, there is no superconducting solution (i.e., $\Delta_0=0$) for $\Delta/\delta \leq 0.28$. Furthermore, in each of the partially polarized regions with spin $0<S<N/2$, the corresponding pairing gap vanishes $\Delta_S=0$ and there are no pairing correlations present. While solutions with $\Delta_S \neq 0$ exist, they occur for values of $\Delta/\delta$ for which a higher spin state with no pairing correlations has lower energy (because of the exchange interaction). For example, a solution with $\Delta_1 \neq 0$ exists only for $\Delta/\delta > 2.1.$ [@delft02] However, at this strength of pairing correlation we observe a direct transition from $S=0$ to $S=4$ with $\Delta_S=0$ as the energy of the lowest $S=4$ state with no pairing correlations is lower than the paired $S=1$ state. As a result, the boundaries which separate different spin phases are flat, e.g., independent of the pairing strength. In fact, in the mean-field approximation the ground-state wave function is a Slater determinant through the whole intermediate regime of partial spin polarization. Thus no coexistence of pairing and spin polarization is observed within the mean-field approach.
In contrast, the exact solution shows that pairing correlations are present as long as the system is not fully polarized. This can be seen in the shift of the spin transition lines to higher values of the exchange interaction strength as the pairing gap $\Delta/\delta$ is increased. Thus, the exact solution predicts a regime in which pairing correlations and spin polarization coexist. In the following, we only discuss results obtained from the exact solution.
More detailed phase diagrams for $H=0$ are shown in the top row of Fig. 2 for both grains with even \[panel (a)\] and odd \[panel (b)\] number of electrons. For weak pairing we observe an odd-even effect (in number of electrons). In particular, the critical value $J_s^{(1)}$ is larger for the odd grain, even though the presence of a blocked level in the odd superconducting phase weakens pairing correlations in the odd grain. This is because increasing the spin from $1/2$ to $3/2$ in the odd grain costs more one-body energy than increasing the spin from $0$ to $1$ in the even grain.
The phase boundaries for a finite Zeeman field $g\mu_B H/\delta=2.6$ are shown in the bottom row of Fig. 2. The effect of a Zeeman field is twofold. First, it helps polarizing the grain, making the value of $J_s^{(1)}$ for a given pairing gap smaller. Second, at given exchange strength $J_s/\delta$, it increases the critical value of $\Delta/\delta$ at which partial spin polarization is destroyed. Both effects together increase the size of the intermediate regime in the $\Delta/\delta$–$J_s/\delta$ plane.
\[fig2\] =1.0
Spin jumps
==========
As we increase the exchange coupling constant $J_s/\delta$ at fixed $\Delta/\delta$ and Zeeman field, the spin increases by discrete steps from its minimal value $S=p/2$ to its maximal value of $S=N/2$. In the absence of pairing ($\Delta=0$), the transition from spin $S$ to spin $S+1$ occurs for an exchange coupling of $$\begin{aligned}
J_s/\delta=\frac{\left(2S+1\right)-g\mu_B H/\delta}{2S + 2}\qquad\mbox{at}\quad \Delta=0 \;.\end{aligned}$$
\[fig3\] =1.0
The corresponding $\Delta=0$ phase diagrams in the $g\mu_BH/\delta$–$\Delta/\delta$ plane are shown in Fig. 3(a) and 3(b) for even and odd grains, respectively. In particular, the phase boundaries are given by $J_s^{(1)}=\delta(p+1)/(p+2)-g\mu_B H/(p+2)$ and $J_s^{(2)}=\delta(N -1)/N -g\mu_B H/N$. The ground-state spin increases as a function of $J_s$ in steps of $\Delta S=1$. An interesting qualitative change in the presence of pairing correlations is the possibility of a spin jump $\Delta S >1$. For $\Delta/\delta < 0.6$, the ground-state spin still increases in steps of $\Delta S=1$ versus $J_s$. However, for $0.6 < \Delta/\delta < 0.8$, the ground-state spin jumps from $0$ to $2$ within the range $0.87< J_s/\delta < 0.9$. The size of the first-step spin jump gets larger with increasing $\Delta/\delta$. All subsequent steps are of size one \[see Fig. 2(a)\].
A similar effect was observed when superconductivity breaks down due to the presence of a large external Zeeman field. [@delft02] The experimental findings were qualitatively explained using the mean-field theory we discussed previously (but without the inclusion of an exchange interaction). It was concluded in Ref. that the first-order phase transition from a superconductor to a paramagnet, observed in thin films, is “softened” in metallic grains. Here we have shown that spin jumps also occur in the presence of exchange correlations. In the absence to an external Zeeman field, these spin jumps are predicted to occur at exchange coupling values $J_s/\delta> 0.87$. Such exchange coupling values are significantly larger than the values for most metals (see Fig. 9 in Ref. ). Moreover, the exchange is an intrinsic material property and is difficult to tune experimentally.
The regime of spin jumps can be tuned to lower and more typical values of $J_s$ by applying an external Zeeman field. We have already seen in Figs. 2(c) and 2(d) that a relatively weak Zeeman field increases the size of the intermediate regime. It also means that spin jumps can be observed at smaller values of the exchange strength that are accessible to experiments. This is demonstrated in Fig. 3(c) and 3(d) where phase diagrams in the $g\mu_BH/\delta$–$\Delta/\delta$ plane are shown for a given pairing gap of $\Delta/\delta=2$. For example, a Zeeman field of $g\mu_B H/\delta \approx 2$ is sufficient to lower the critical exchange strength for the $0 \to 2$ spin jump to $J_s/\delta\approx 0.55$ at $\Delta/\delta=2$ \[see Fig. 3(c)\] as compared to $J_s=0.89\delta$ at $\Delta=0.7\delta$ without Zeeman field \[see Fig. 2(a)\].
The idea of a Zeeman-field tuning of the values of exchange coupling where spin jumps occur is best illustrated in Fig. 4, where spin staircase functions are shown versus $J_s/\delta$. In the presence of pairing correlations and the absence of Zeeman field, the ground-state spin staircase is shifted to the right and compressed as $\Delta/\delta$ increases \[see Fig. 4(a)\], reflecting the fact that the intermediate region shrinks \[see Fig. 2(a) and 2(b)\]. For an even grain with $\Delta/\delta=0.7$, a spin jump of $\Delta S=2$ sets in at $J_s\approx 0.89\delta$, while for $\Delta/\delta=0.9$, a spin jump of $\Delta S=3$ occurs at $J_s\approx 0.92\delta$. For a finite Zeeman field of $g\mu_B H/\delta = 2$, the spin staircase functions that exhibit similar spin jumps are shifted to smaller values of the exchange strength but larger values of the pairing gap \[see Fig. 4(b)\]. Spin jumps of $\Delta S=2$ ($\Delta S=3$) occur at $J_s/\delta=0.55$ ($J_s/\delta=0.64$) and $\Delta/\delta =2$ ($\Delta/\delta =2.3$).
In the relevant experimental situation of a fixed exchange interaction strength, the critical value of $\Delta/\delta$ at which spin jumps occur as well as the size of these jumps increase at larger values of $g\mu_B H/\delta$. The ratio $\Delta/\delta$ (for the given metal) can be made larger by studying a larger grain, hence reducing the mean level spacing $\delta$.
As an example, niobium has an exchange interaction strength of $J_s/\delta \approx 0.4$ (see, e.g., Fig. 9 in Ref. ). Without an external Zeeman field, the ground-state spin will be minimal ($S=p/2$) at all values of $\Delta/\delta$ \[see Fig. 2(a) and 2(b)\]. At a Zeeman field $g\mu_B H/\delta = 1$, the ground-state spin of niobium changes from 0 to 1 at $\Delta/\delta =0.66$. However, at $g\mu_B H/ \delta=2.6$, a spin jump of $\Delta S=2$ occurs from 0 to 2 at $\Delta/\delta=2.15$ \[see Fig. 2(c)\]. For these two values of $\Delta/\delta$, we can roughly estimate the corresponding critical size of the metallic grain given the bulk gap value $ \Delta=3.05 \,{\rm meV}$ and Fermi momentum $ k_{\rm F}=11.8 \,{\rm nm}^{-1} $ of niobium. In a Fermi gas model, the mean-level spacing is related to the volume of the grain by $\delta=2\pi^2\hbar^2/(m k_{\rm F} V)$. Assuming a hemispheric grain with radius $r$, we have the relation $r_{\rm Nb}\approx 2.7\, {\rm nm} \left(\Delta_{\rm Nb}/\delta\right)^{1/3}$. Thus, the Hamiltonian (\[origH\]) with an equidistant spectrum predicts a $0 \to 1$ spin transition for a niobium grain of radius $r\approx 2.35\, {\rm nm}$ and Zeeman field of $g\mu_B H=4.62\, {\rm meV}$, and a $0 \to 2$ spin jump at $r\approx 3.48 \,{\rm nm}$ and a Zeeman field of $g\mu_B H=3.69 \,{\rm meV}$.
\[fig4\] =0.95
Conclusion
==========
We have shown that there exists a small region in the ground-state phase diagram of a small metallic grain in which pairing correlations and ferromagnetism coexist. This coexistence regime becomes larger (in the $J_s/\delta$–$\Delta/\delta$ plane) and therefore more accessible to experiments in the presence of a finite Zeeman field. In particular, we propose that for a given exchange constant (determined by the material used), spin jumps can be observed by tuning a Zeeman field. We have also shown that a quantitative study of the intermediate regime requires the use of the exact solution. Furthermore, the mean-field approximation is qualitatively different in that it does not predict any pairing correlations in the intermediate regime of partial spin polarization.
In this work, we have ignored mesoscopic fluctuations and focused on a grain with an equidistant single-particle spectrum. It would be interesting to study how mesoscopic fluctuations affect the boundaries of the intermediate phase and the size of spin jumps.
We thank L. Fang, S. Girvin, S. Rombouts, S. Rotter, R. Shankar and A.D. Stone for useful discussions. K. Van Houcke acknowledges financial support of the Fund for Scientific Research - Flanders (Belgium), and the hospitality of the Center for Theoretical Physics at Yale University where this work was completed. This work was supported in part by the U.S. DOE grant No. DE-FG-0291-ER-40608.
[99]{} A. A. Abrikosov and L. P. Gorkov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**39**]{}, 1781 (1960)\[Sov. Phys. JETP [**12**]{}, 1243 (1961)\]. A. M. Clogston, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**9**]{}, 266 (1962). B. S. Chandrasekhar, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**1**]{}, 7 (1962). P. Fulde and R. A. Ferrell, Phys. Rev. [**135**]{}, A550 (1964). A. I. Larkin and Yu. N. Ovchinnikov, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**47**]{}, 1136 (1964)\[Sov. Phys. JETP [**20**]{}, 762 (1965)\]. S. S. Saxena [*et al.*]{}, Nature (London) [**406**]{}, 587 (2000). C. Pfleiderer [*et al.*]{}, Nature (London) [**412**]{}, 58 (2001). D. Aoki [*et al.*]{}, Nature (London) [**413**]{}, 613 (2001). J. Tallon [*et al.*]{}, IEEE Trans. Appl. Supercon. [**9**]{}, 1696 (1999). C. Bernhard [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev B [**59**]{}, 14099 (1999). N. I. Karchev, K. B. Blagoev, K. S. Bedell, and P. B. Littlewood, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 846 (2001). Y. Zhou, J. Li, and C. Gong, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 069701-1 (2003). R. Shen, Z. M. Zheng, and D. Y. Xing, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 069702-1 (2003). R. Shen, Z. M. Zheng, S. Liu, and D. Y. Xing, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 024514 (2003). Y. N. Joglekar, A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 199705-1 (2004). K. B. Blagoev, K. S. Bedell, and P. B. Littlewood, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 199706-1 (2004). I. L. Kurland, I. L. Aleiner, and B. L. Altshuler, Phys. Rev. B [**62**]{}, 14886 (2000). I. L. Aleiner, P. W. Brouwer, and L. I. Glazman, Phys. Rep. [**358**]{}, 309 (2002). G. Murhty and R. Shankar, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**90**]{}, 066801 (2003). Z. Ying, M. Couco, C. Noce, and H. Zhou, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 012503 (2006). G. Falci, R. Fazio, and A. Mastellone, Phys. Rev. B [**67**]{}, 132501 (2003). R. W. Richardson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**3**]{}, 277 (1963); R. W. Richardson, and N.Sherman, Nucl. Phys. [**52**]{}, 221 (1964); R. W.Richardson, Phys. Rev. [**159**]{}, 792 (1967). Y. Alhassid and T. Rupp, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**91**]{}, 056801 (2003). J. von Delft and D. C. Ralph, Physics Reports [**345**]{}, 661-173 (2001). F. Braun, J. von Delft, D. C. Ralph, and M. Tinkham, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**79**]{}, 921 (1997). D. A. Gorokhov, and P. W. Brouwer, Phys. Rev. B [**69**]{}, 155417 (2004). Y. Alhassid, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**72**]{}, 895 (2000). Y. Alhassid and S. Malhotra, Phys. Rev. B [**66**]{}, 245313 (2002). H.E. Tureci and Y. Alhassid, Phys. Rev. B [**74**]{}, 165333 (2006). S. Rombouts, D. Van Neck and J. Dukelsky, Phys. Rev. C [**69**]{}, 061303 (R) (2004). Y. Alhassid, L. Fang, and S. Schmidt, cond-mat/0702304. E. A. Yuzbashyan, A. A. Baytin, and B. L. Altshuler, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 094505 (2005).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the Seiberg-Witten curves for ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ SUSY gauge theories arising from type IIA string configurations with two orientifold sixplanes. Such theories lift to elliptic models in M-theory. We express the M-theory background for these models as a nontrivial elliptic fibration over ${\mathbb{C}}$. We discuss singularities of this surface, and write the Seiberg-Witten curve for several theories as a subvariety of this surface.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, State University of New York at Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794'
- 'Department of Physics, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME 04011'
author:
- 'Amy E. Ksir'
- 'Stephen G. Naculich'
date: 'March 27, 2002'
title: Elliptic Fibrations and Elliptic Models
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction
============
In the Seiberg-Witten approach to ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ supersymmetric gauge theory [@SW], one identifies a family of algebraic curves associated to each choice of a gauge group and matter content. One approach to this is via M-theory [@W4D]. One identifies a configuration of branes in type IIA string theory such that the induced theory on the world volume of the D4 branes is the desired gauge theory. The D4 branes and NS5 branes in the IIA theory then lift to an M-theory five brane, whose world volume is ${\mathbb{R}}^{4} \times \Sigma$, where $\Sigma$ is the desired algebraic curve. This curve is embedded in an algebraic surface $Q$, where ${\mathbb{R}}^{7} \times Q$ is the eleven-dimensional M-theory background. (For brevity, we will refer to $Q$ as the M-theory background.)
In some cases, the type IIA configuration contains D6 branes and orientifold six planes as well as the NS5 and D4 branes. These affect the geometry of $Q$. In cases with D6 branes and no orientifold planes, $Q$ is a multi-Taub-NUT space [@W4D]. In cases with one (negatively-charged) orientifold plane, $Q$ is the Atiyah-Hitchin monopole moduli space [@LL; @LLL; @AH]. In cases with two orientifold planes, $Q$ is an elliptic surface, and the M-theory model is an elliptic model. This is the case that we study in this paper.
For elliptic models without orientifold planes, the M-theory background $Q$ is of the form ${\mathbb{R}}^2 \times T^2$, which can be given the complex structure ${\mathbb{C}}\times E$, where $E$ is an elliptic curve. More generally, the background can be an affine ${\mathbb{C}}$ bundle over $E$. The Seiberg-Witten curve is then written as a cover over $E$. For elliptic models with orientifold planes, in cases where the orientifold plane charge is cancelled [*locally*]{} by D6 branes [@U; @GK], the M-theory background can be viewed as the quotient of an affine ${\mathbb{C}}$ bundle over $E$ by a ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$ action. It is not clear, however, how to extend this to more general orientifold backgrounds.
In this paper, we adopt a different approach, viewing the M-theory background $Q$ as an elliptic fibration over ${\mathbb{C}}$, and the Seiberg-Witten curve as a cover of ${\mathbb{C}}$. This approach is partially motivated by the results of ref. [@2anti], in which the Seiberg-Witten curves were written in terms of theta functions with a varying modular parameter. In section 2, we give the explicit form of the elliptic surface $Q$ for the background corresponding to two negatively-charged orientifold six-planes with coincident D6 branes. We briefly discuss the singularities of this surface in the context of M-theory and F-theory. In section 3, we derive the explicit form of the Seiberg-Witten curves for three ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ gauge theories with this background: $\sp{2k}$ + 1 antisymmetric + 4 fundamental hypermultiplets, $\sp{2k}\times\sp{2k}$ + 1 bifundamental + 4 fundamental hypermultiplets, and $\su{N}$ + 2 antisymmetric + 4 fundamental hypermultiplets. We show that our results are in agreement with the curves for these theories derived using different approaches [@U; @GK; @ELNS].
We expect that the description of the M-theory background $Q$ as an elliptic fibration will generalize to the situation where the D6 branes are displaced from the orientifold sixplanes, by a deformation of the elliptic fibration, as occurs in F-theory [@Sen]. Knowing the precise form of the M-theory background for these more general brane configurations is crucial to determining the Seiberg-Witten curve for theories in which the fundamental hypermultiplets have nonzero masses, particularly the terms of the curve equation subleading in the QCD scale $\Lambda$, which are currently unknown [@ELNS].
The surface
===========
We consider the M-theory background corresponding to type IIA models with two orientifold six planes. An orientifold six plane can have charge $+4$ or $-4$ relative to the D6-brane charge; we consider models with two negatively-charged O$6^{-}$ planes, and add four pairs of D6 branes to the theory to cancel the charge. Each orientifold six plane and D6 brane is extended in the 0123789 directions. We combine the $x_{4}$ and $x_{5}$ coordinates into the complex coordinate $v=x_{4}+ix_{5}$, and place one of the orientifold planes at $(v, x_{6})=(0,0)$ and the other at $(v, x_{6})=(m, \pi L)$, where $m$ is the global mass [@U]. Each orientifold plane is the fixed point set of a reflection, and the two reflections generate a translation symmetry $(v,x_6) \to (v+2m, x_6 + 2\pi L)$ of the IIA model.
The corresponding M-theory background, which is invariant under $x_{10} \to x_{10} + 2\pi R$, is thus doubly periodic, and gives rise to elliptic models. The metric in the $x_{6}$ and $x_{10}$ directions is not generally a simple product $S^{1} \times S^{1}$, but is such that travelling around the $x_{6}$ direction results in a shift in the $x_{10}$ direction by $\theta R$. The orientifold reflections lift to $$\begin{aligned}
(v, x_{6}, x_{10}) &\to& (-v, -x_{6}, -x_{10})
\nonumber\\
(v, x_{6}, x_{10}) &\to& (2m - v, 2\pi L - x_{6},
\theta R -x_{10}),\end{aligned}$$ which have four fixed points $$\label{four fixed points}
(v,x_{6},x_{10})= (0,0,0), \quad
(0,0,\pi R), \quad
(m, -\pi L, -\tshalf \theta R), \quad
(m, -\pi L, (\pi - \tshalf \theta) R).$$ The fundamental parallelogram, with the four fixed points, is shown in fig. 1.
Now we consider the case where the global mass $m$ vanishes. Defining $$\nu=\frac{x_{6}+ix_{10}}{2\pi iR},$$ the background is therefore invariant under $\nu \to \nu +1$ and $\nu \to \nu+\tau$, where $\tau = - \frac{\theta}{2\pi} + i \frac{L}{R}$. This gives ${\mathbb{R}}^2 \times T^2$ the complex structure of ${\mathbb{C}}\times E$, where ${\mathbb{C}}$ is the $v$-plane and $E$ is the quotient of the $\nu$-plane by the lattice ${\mathbb{Z}}\oplus {\mathbb{Z}}\tau$. We can now embed the elliptic curve $E$ as a cubic in ${\mathbb{C}}P^{2}$ with local equation $$\label{cubic}
y^{2} = (x^{2}-4)(x-\lambda).$$
If in addition the D6 branes are coincident with the O$6^-$ planes, the M-theory background $Q$ is precisely the ${\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$ quotient of the product ${\mathbb{C}}\times E$, where the ${\mathbb{Z}}_2$-involution sends $(v,x,y) \to (-v,x,-y)$ in the cubic equation (\[cubic\]). We now express this quotient as an elliptic fibration. Define invariant variables $u=v^2$ and $\eta = y v$. Then $Q$ is characterized locally in ${\mathbb{C}}^{3}$ by the equation $$\label{fibration}
\eta^2 = u (x^2-4)(x-\lambda),$$ an elliptic fibration over the complex $u$-plane. For nonzero values of $u$, the fiber is isomorphic (via rescaling) to the original cubic curve $E$, so the parameter $\tau$ is constant for $u \neq 0$. At $u=0$, the fiber is singular and consists of the line $u=\eta=0$, with three singular points at $x=2,-2, \lambda$, plus a line at infinity. The local equation for each singular point is $\eta^{2} \sim u (x-e_i)$, where $e_i=2,-2, \lambda$, so these are $A_{1}$ type singularities. If we blow down the line at infinity, we get one more $A_{1}$ singularity on this fiber at $x=\infty$.
The elliptic fibration (\[fibration\]) is somewhat analogous to the one that arises in the F-theory background corresponding to an O7 plane and coincident D7 branes in type IIB string theory [@Sen]. However, there is an important difference. The F-theory fibration contains a $D_4$ type singularity, whereas the M-theory fibration above contains four distinct $A_1$ type singularities on the singular fiber at $u=0$. This difference reflects the fact that, in F-theory, the value of $\tau$ at each fiber is the dilaton-axion modulus, but coordinates along the fiber have no physical meaning whereas, in M-theory, the coordinates along the fiber correspond to the $x_6$ and $x_{10}$ coordinates (as discussed in sec. 4.3 of ref. [@Toroidal]). If the $D_{4}$ singularity of the F-theory model is resolved, the fiber is a chain of five genus zero curves arranged so that their dual graph is the affine $\tilde{D_{4}}$ Dynkin diagram. If the four curves on the ends are contracted, the result is a genus zero curve with four $A_{1}$ singularities, which is the fiber of the M-theory model. This is very similar to the phenomenon discussed in refs. [@Sen; @Toroidal].
We can perform a check on the fibration (\[fibration\]) by considering the limit $\tau \to i\infty$, causing $\lambda \to \infty$. This limit corresponds to sending one of the orientifold planes, and its two accompanying pairs of D6 branes, to infinity. The resulting M-theory background, which corresponds to one orientifold plane and two pairs of coincident D6 branes, was shown in ref. [@LLL] to be the “$D_2$” surface $a^2 + b^2 z = 4 z$ (which has a pair of $A_1$ singularities). By rescaling the surface (\[fibration\]) to $$\eta^{2}=u(x^{2}-4)(-\frac{x}{\lambda} +1)$$ and taking the limit $\lambda \to \infty$, we obtain $\eta^{2}= u(x^{2}-4)$, which is identical to the surface above, with $a = \eta$, $b = x$, and $z = -u$.
The curves
==========
We will consider three ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ supersymmetric gauge theories arising from type IIA brane configurations with two O$6^{-}$ planes, with global mass $m=0$ and coincident D6 branes. In each case, the IIA configuration contains parallel NS5 branes, extended in the 012345 directions and separated in the $x_{6}$ direction, and D4 branes extended in the 01236 directions, ending on the NS5 branes in the $x_{6}$ direction. Brane configurations for the three theories under consideration are shown in fig. 2.
For each theory, the IIA brane configuration lifts to an M5-brane, whose embedding in ${\mathbb{R}}^{7} \times Q$ is given by ${\mathbb{R}}^{4} \times \Sigma$, where $\Sigma$ is the Seiberg-Witten curve. In the cases with two NS5 branes, we will express $\Sigma$ as a double cover of the $u$-plane. The NS5 branes correspond to the sheets of the cover, and each D4 brane becomes a “tube” connecting the two sheets of the cover. More precisely, each D4 brane (and its orientifold mirror) corresponds to a branch cut in the $u$ plane.
This agrees with what we know from nonelliptic models, where a pair of NS5 branes connected by a pair of D4-branes (at $v=\pm a$) is represented by $$t^2 + (u-a^2)t + 1= 0,$$ where $t =\exp [-(x_6 + i x_{10})/R]$. The branch points occur at $u=a^2 \pm 2$, $t=\pm 1$, i.e., $(x_6,x_{10}) = (0,0)$ and $(0,\pi R)$. The branch cut in the $u$ plane, parallel to the real axis from $a^2-2$ to $a^2+2$, corresponds to $|t|=1$, i.e., the $x_{10}$ circle at the fixed value $x_6=0$ where the NS5 branes join. The “position” of the D4-brane in the IIA picture, viz. $u=a^2$, corresponds to $t = \pm i$, i.e. points on the $x_{10}$ circle midway between the pre-images of the branch points.
For each of the gauge theories in this section, we will give an equation $F(u, x, \eta)=0$ for $\Sigma$ as a curve in the surface $Q$ (\[fibration\]).
$\sp{2k}$ + 1 antisymmetric + 4 fundamental hypermultiplets
-----------------------------------------------------------
The IIA configuration giving rise to the ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ Sp($2k$) gauge theory with hypermultiplets in the ${\tableau{1 1}}+ 4 {\tableau{1}}$ representations [@U] contains only one NS5 brane, intersecting the O$6^{-}$ plane at $u=\eta=0, x=2$. Each physical D4 brane, located at $u = a^2_{i}$ (corresponding to a mirror pair at $v=\pm a_i$), wraps around the $x_{6}$ direction and comes back to the same point on the NS5 brane. In the M-theory lift, the brane wraps the $x_{10}$ direction as well, so it is represented by the entire fiber torus at $u=a_i^2$. The NS5 brane is represented by $x=2$. Thus the equation for the Seiberg-Witten curve is given by $$(x-2) \prod_{i=1}^k (u-a^2_{i})=0$$ within the surface $Q$ given by equation (\[fibration\]). It is a reducible curve made up of the $x=2$ line along with the fiber tori at each $u=a_{i}^2$. This agrees with the results obtained in refs. [@U] and [@ELNS].
$\sp{2k}\times\sp{2k}$ + 1 bifundamental + 4 fundamental hypermultiplets
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The IIA configuration corresponding to the ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ Sp($2k$) $\times$ Sp($2k$) gauge theory with hypermultiplets in the $({\tableau{1}},{\tableau{1}}) + 2 ({\tableau{1}},1) + 2 (1, {\tableau{1}})$ representations consists of two NS5 branes between the orientifold planes, and a total of $2k$ physical D4 branes stretched between them [@U]. Half of the D4 branes go around the $x_{6}$ circle in one direction and the other half go in the other direction. The two NS5 branes are symmetric with respect to the orientifold ${\mathbb{Z}}_{2}$ action. Furthermore, we can choose them to be symmetric under the reflection $(u,x,\eta) \to (u,x,-\eta)$. The Seiberg-Witten curve can then be written as a double cover of the $u$-plane by giving an equation $$\label{doublecover}
x=f(u),$$ with $f(u)$ to be determined. To simplify calculations, we shift $x$ by a fractional linear transformation so that the fibration locally has the form $$\label{newfibration}
\eta^2 = u (x^2-4)(x^2-\mu^2).$$ The two sheets of the cover correspond to $(u,x,\eta)$ and $(u,x,-\eta)$ satisfying (\[doublecover\]) and (\[newfibration\]). The branch points of the cover therefore occur at points $u$ where $f(u)=2$, $-2$, $\mu$, or $-\mu$.
To determine the form of $f(u)$, consider the picture on the universal cover, ${\mathbb{C}}_{v} \times {\mathbb{C}}_{\nu}$ of the surface $Q$, where $\nu=(x_{10}-ix_{6})/2\pi R$. Choose $x$ so that $x=2$, $-2$, $\mu$, and $-\mu$ correspond to $\nu = 0,$ $\half$, $\frac{\tau}{2}$, and $\half+\frac{\tau}{2}$ respectively (see fig. 3). For each value of $v$, the two NS5 brane positions are at $\nu$ and $-\nu$.
Consider D4 branes at positions $u=a_{i}^{2}$ going around the $x_{6}$ circle in one direction. These pull the NS5 branes together to meet at $x_{6}=0$. The branch cut centered on $a_i^2$ in the $u$ plane (i.e. going around the “tube”) is the image under the covering map of the $x_{10}$ circle at $x_{6}=0$. The branch points are the images of $x_{10} = 0$ and $\pi R$, corresponding to $x=2$ and $-2$ respectively. The D4-brane position $u=a_i^2$ is the image of points on the $x_{10}$ circle midway between the branch point pre-images, viz. $x_{10} = \half \pi R$ (or $\threehalf \pi R$), corresponding to $x=0$. Therefore $f(u) = 0$ at $u= a_i^2$.
The D4 branes at positions $u=b_{i}^{2}$ going around the $x_{6}$ circle in the other direction pull the NS5 branes together to meet at $x_{6}=-\pi L$. The branch cut centered on $b_i^2$ in the $u$ plane is the image of the $x_{10}$ circle at $x_{6}=-\pi L$, with the branch point pre-images at $x_{10} = - \tshalf \theta R$ and $ (\pi-\tshalf \theta) R$ corresponding to $x=\mu$ and $-\mu$ respectively. The D4-brane position $u=b_i^2$ is the image of $x_{10} = (\half \pi -\tshalf \theta) R$ (or $(\threehalf \pi -\tshalf\theta) R$), corresponding to $x=\infty$. Therefore $f(u) = \infty$ at $u= b_i^2$.
With the poles and zeros of $f(u)$ determined, we may write the Seiberg-Witten curve as the double cover $$x = x_{0}\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{k}(u-a^2_{i})}{\prod_{i=1}^{k}(u-b^2_{i})}$$ for some $x_0$. Written as a polynomial in $u$, this becomes $$u^{k} + \left( A_{1} + \frac{B_{1}}{x-x_{0}} \right) u^{k-1} + \ldots +
\left( A_{k} + \frac{B_{k}}{x-x_{0}}\right) =0$$ with $A_{i}$ and $B_{i}$ constants. The points $(x_0,\eta_0)$ and $(x_0,-\eta_0)$, where $\eta_0^2 = u (x_0^2-4)(x_0^2-\mu^2)$ correspond to the asymptotic positions of the NS5 branes as $u \to \infty$. When rewritten in terms of $v$, this curve agrees exactly with the results in ref. [@GK].
$\su{N}$ + 2 antisymmetric + 4 fundamental hypermultiplets
----------------------------------------------------------
The ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ SU($N$) gauge theory with hypermultiplets in representations $2 {\tableau{1 1}}+ 4 {\tableau{1}}$ corresponds to a IIA brane configuration with two NS5 branes, each of them intersecting one of the O$6^{-}$ planes [@U]. There are a total of $2N$ D4 branes stretched between the two NS5 branes: $N$ going around the $x_{6}$ circle one way, at positions $v=a_{i}$, and $N$ going around the $x_{6}$ circle the other way, at positions $v=-a_{i}$. In invariant coordinates, there are $N$ mirror pairs of branes at positions $u=a_{i}^{2}$. As in sec. 3.2, the curve we seek is a degree two cover of the $u$-plane, with a branch cut for each pair of D4 branes.
We can describe a double cover of the $u$ plane with an equation $$\label{newcover}
\frac{\eta}{x+2}-f(u)=0,$$ where $f(u)$ is to be determined, and $Q$ is described by the elliptic fibration $ \eta^2 = u (x^2-4)(x-\lambda) $. For each value of $u$, the left hand side of (\[newcover\]) is a rational function with poles at $x=-2$ and $x=\infty$, and two zeroes, which correspond to the sheets of the cover.
Again, consider the universal cover ${\mathbb{C}}_{v} \times {\mathbb{C}}_{\nu}$ of $Q$, choosing $x$ such that $x=2$, $-2$, $\lambda$, $\infty$ correspond to $\nu = 0$, $\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{\tau}{2}$, and $\frac{1+\tau}{2}$ respectively (see fig. 4). Then the two sheets of the cover will be at points $\nu_{1}$ and $\nu_{2}$ in each fiber, where $\nu_{1} + \nu_{2} + \frac{1}{2} + \frac{\tau +1}{2} \in {\mathbb{Z}}+ {\mathbb{Z}}{\tau}$ (since these are the zeroes and poles of a rational function on $E$). The sheets coincide when $2 \nu + \frac{\tau}{2} \in {\mathbb{Z}}+ {\mathbb{Z}}{\tau}$, or $\nu = \fourth \tau $, $\fourth \tau +\half$, $\threefourth \tau $, and $\threefourth \tau +\half$; these correspond to the branch points of the cover.
We wish to choose $f(u)$ such that the locations of the D4 branes, $u=a_{i}^{2}$, are the images of points $\nu$ midway (along the $x_{10}$ circles) between the branch point pre-images, namely, $\nu = \fourth \tau + \fourth$ and $\fourth \tau +\threefourth$ (corresponding to $x_6= -\half \pi L$), and $\threefourth \tau + \fourth$ and $\threefourth \tau +\threefourth$ (corresponding to $x_6= -\threehalf \pi L$). These points satisfy $2 \nu + \frac {1}{2} + \frac{\tau}{2} \in {\mathbb{Z}}+ {\mathbb{Z}}{\tau}$; in terms of the cubic curve, each of them is a point of tangency between the curve and a line through the point corresponding to $\frac {1}{2} +
\frac{\tau}{2}$. It is easy to check that these points correspond to points with coordinates $(x,\eta)$ in the quotient surface $Q$ with $x=2 \pm 2\sqrt{2-\lambda}$, and therefore satisfying $$\label{positions}
\frac{\eta}{x+2} = \pm \sqrt{u} \sqrt{2-\lambda}.$$ The choice of sign in (\[positions\]) corresponds to the choice $x_6= -\half \pi L $ or $-\threehalf \pi L$ at which the NS5-branes meet. This in turn corresponds to choosing the direction in which the D4 branes wrap the $x_{6}$ circle at $v=a_{i}$. (If the D4 branes wrap one direction at $v=a_{i}$, then due to the orientifold, they wrap the other direction at $v=-a_{i}$, so a different choice changes the sign of $v=\sqrt{u}$.)
Thus, comparing (\[newcover\]) and (\[positions\]), we require $f(u)$ to satisfy $$\label{desirable}
\frac{f(u)^{2}}{u} = 2-\lambda
\qquad \mbox{ when } \qquad u=a_i^2.$$ This can be attained by choosing $$f(u) = \frac{ \sqrt{2-\lambda} F_{1}(u)}{F_{2}(u)}$$ where $F_1(u)$ and $F_2(u)$ satisfy either $$\label{firstcondition}
F_{1}(u)^{2} - u F_{2}(u)^{2} = \prod_{i=1}^{N} (u-a_{i}^{2}),$$ or, if $F_{1}(u)$ has a factor of $u$, $$\label{secondcondition}
\frac{F_{1}(u)^{2}}{u} - F_{2}(u)^{2} = \prod_{i=1}^{N}
(u-a_{i}^{2}).$$
Let us compare this to the results in sec. 5.1 of ref. [@ELNS]. In the notation of that paper, $$\begin{aligned}
H_{0}(v) = \prod_{i=1}^{N}(v-a_{i}) = \sum_{j=0}^{N} u_{j}v^{N-j},
&\quad& H_{1}(v) = H_{0}(-v) = (-1)^{N} \prod_{i=1}^{N}(v+a_{i})\nonumber\\
H_{0}(v) = H_{\even}(v) + H_{\odd}(v),
&\quad& H_{1}(v) = (-1)^{N}(H_{\even}(v) - H_{\odd}(v)),\\
H_{\even} (v) = \sum_{j \ \even} u_{j}v^{N-j},
&\quad& H_{\odd} (v) = \sum_{j \ \odd} u_{j}v^{N-j},\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ so that $H_{\even}(v)$ is the even degree part of $H_{0}(v)$ if $N$ is even, and the odd degree part if $N$ is odd.
If $N$ is even, then $H_{\even}(v)$ and $H_{\odd}(v)/v$ have only even powers of $v$, so can be written as polynomials $G_{\even}(u)$ and $G_{\odd}(u)$, where $u=v^{2}$. Then $$G_{\even}(u)^{2} - u G_{\odd}(u)^{2} =
H^2_{\even}(v) - H^2_{\odd}(v) =
H_{0}(v)H_{1}(v) = \prod_{i=1}^N (u-a_{i}^{2}).$$ Since $ F_{1}(u) = G_{\even}(u)$ and $ F_{2}(u) = G_{\odd}(u)$ obey condition (\[firstcondition\]), we may choose $f(u) = \sqrt{2-\lambda} G_{\even} (u)/ G_{\odd}(u)$.
Similarly, if $N$ is odd, then $v H_{\even}(v)$ and $H_{\odd}(v)$ have only even powers of $v$, so we write them also as $G_{\even}(u)$ and $G_{\odd}(u)$. Then $G_{\even}(u)$ has a factor of $u$, and we have $$\frac{G_{\even}(u)^{2}}{u} - G_{\odd}(u)^{2} =
H^2_{\even}(v) - H^2_{\odd}(v) =
-H_{0}(v)H_{1}(v) = \prod_{i=1}^N (u-a_{i}^{2}).$$ Since $ F_{1}(u) = G_{\even}(u)$ and $ F_{2}(u) = G_{\odd}(u)$ obey condition (\[secondcondition\]), we may again choose $f(u) = \sqrt{2-\lambda} G_{\even} (u)/ G_{\odd}(u)$.
The Seiberg-Witten curve for this theory is therefore $$\label{SWcurve}
\frac{\eta}{x+2} = \sqrt{2-\lambda} \frac{G_{\even}(u)}{G_{\odd}(u)}.$$ Observe that, since $G_{\even}$ has higher degree than $G_{\odd}$, the right hand side goes to $\infty$ as $u\to\infty$, thus the asymptotic positions of the NS5-branes are $x=-2$ and $x=\infty$, corresponding to $(x_6, x_{10}) = (0, \pi R)$ and $(-\pi L, (\pi-\tshalf \theta) R)$.
In terms of the double cover ${\mathbb{C}}_{v} \times E$, the curve (\[SWcurve\]) becomes $$\label{last equation}
\frac{y}{x+2} = \sqrt{2-\lambda}
\frac{\prod_{i=1}^{N}(v-a_{i}) + \prod_{i=1}^{N}(v+a_{i}) }
{\prod_{i=1}^{N}(v-a_{i}) - \prod_{i=1}^{N}(v+a_{i})}.$$ This agrees with the result (5.1.7) of ref. [@ELNS] and therefore with ref. [@GK], upon rescaling $u_i$, which amounts to a redefinition of the $a_i$.
Finally, we observe that, when $v=0$, the right hand side of eq. (\[last equation\]) goes to infinity (and thus $x=-2$ or $\infty$) for even $N$, whereas it goes to zero (and thus $x=2$ or $\lambda$) for odd $N$. That is, when $N$ is even, the $(x_6,x_{10})$ position of the NS5 branes (in the $v\to \infty$ limit) coincides with the $(x_6,x_{10})$ position of those fixed points of the orientifold (\[four fixed points\]) through which the curve (\[last equation\]) passes, whereas when $N$ is odd, the $(x_6,x_{10})$ position of the NS5 branes (in the $v\to \infty$ limit) coincides with the $(x_6,x_{10})$ position of those fixed points through which the curve does [*not*]{} pass. This is precisely in accordance with the discussion in section 4.4 of ref. [@U].
[99]{} N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Electro-magnetic duality, monopole condensation, and confinement in N=2 supersymmetric Yang-Mills theory,” Nucl. Phys. B **426** (1994), 19-53. hep-th/9407087; N. Seiberg and E. Witten, “Monopoles, duality, and chiral symmetry breaking in N=2 Supersymmetric QCD,” Nucl. Phys. B **431** (1994), 484-550. hep-th/9410167. E. Witten, “Solutions of four-dimensional field theories via M theory,” Nucl. Phys B **500** (1997), 3-42. hep-th/9703166. K. Landsteiner and E. Lopez, “New Curves from Branes,” Nucl. Phys. B **516** (1998), 273. hep-th/9708118. K. Landsteiner, E. Lopez, and D. Lowe, “Supersymmetric Gauge Theories from Branes and Orientifold Six-planes,” J. High Energy Phys. **1998** No. 7, Paper 11, 28 pp. hep-th/9805158. M. Atiyah and N. Hitchin, *The Geometry and Dynamics of Magnetic Monopoles.* Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1988. A. Uranga, “Towards Mass Deformed N=4 SO(n) and Sp(k) gauge configurations”, Nucl. Phys. B **526** (1998), 241-277. hep-th/9803054. S. Gukov and A. Kapustin, “New ${\mathcal{N}}=2$ superconformal field theories from M/F theory orbifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B **545** (1999), 283-308. hep-th/9808175. I. Ennes, S. Naculich, H. Rhedin, and H. Schnitzer, “Two antisymmetric hypermultiplets in $N=2$ SU$(N)$ gauge theory: Seiberg-Witten curve and M-theory interpretation,” Nucl. Phys. B **558** (1999), 41-62. hep-th/9904078. I. Ennes, C. Lozano, S. Naculich, and H. Schnitzer, “Elliptic Models and M-theory”, Nucl. Phys. B **576** (2000), 313-346. hep-th/9912133. A. Sen, “F-theory and Orientifolds,” Nucl. Phys. B **475** (1996), 562-578. hep-th/9605150. E. Witten, “Toroidal Compactification without Vector Structure,” J. High Energy Phys., **1998** No. 2, Paper 6, 43 pp. hep-th/9712028.
[^1]: The first author was supported in part by NSF Grant DMS-9983196 as a VIGRE Postdoctoral Fellow.
[^2]: The second author was supported in part by NSF Grant PHY-9407194 through the ITP Scholars Program.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Unlike the two-fold Weyl fermions that are of significant theoretical and experimental interest presently, higher-fold chiral fermionic states have very recently been theoretically predicted in crystalline systems using symmetry arguments and Density Functional calculations. Here, we focus on such excitations in a few binary/ternary alloys (CoGe being the titular example), that belongs to space group (SG) 198. We found distinct three-fold, four-fold and six-fold chiral fermions in the bulk. We provide symmetry arguments for the protection of these degeneracies at high symmetry points in the Brillouin zone (BZ), with special emphasis on the four-fold fermions for spinless (at $R$ point in the BZ) and spinfull (at $\Gamma$ point) cases. Our surface simulations show that the size of Fermi arcs resulting from these chiral fermions are large, robust and untouched from the bulk states due to the near absence of bulk Fermi pockets. Spin-momentum locking in the presence of spin-orbit interaction is observed on the surface Fermi arcs. All these rich topological features make CoGe a promising candidate for future photo-emission and transport measurements.'
author:
- 'Chanchal K. Barman'
- Chiranjit Mondal
- Sumiran Pujari
- Biswarup Pathak
- Aftab Alam
title: Symmetry protection and large Fermi arcs in double Weyl semimetal CoGe
---
@matrix\[1\]\[\*@MaxMatrixCols c\][ - ifnextchar@ifnextchar ]{}
[^1]
[^2]
[*Introduction*]{}: The discovery of chiral fermions in solid state quantum materials has kick-started a recent revolution in the field of condensed-matter physics. A methodological approach towards the understanding and search of new topological semimetals is to examine how crystalline symmetries in a material enforce or “symmetry-protect" the degenerate band-crossing points.[@Rappe2012; @Andrei2012] These new type of quasiparticles[@Bradlyn2016; @PBPal2011; @Alexey2015; @Ashvin2018] in the solid state[@CKB2019; @dDirac2016; @CM2019; @MoP2017; @NLS-1; @NLS-2; @NLS-3; @NLS-4; @RhSi2017; @FeSi2018; @SCZHANG2017] may not even have elementary particle counterparts.
Some of the new, unexpected excitations predicted recently are spin-1,[@RhSi2017; @FeSi2018; @SCZHANG2017; @TZHANG2018] charge-2 Dirac,[@SCZHANG2017; @TZHANG2018] and spin-$\frac{3}{2}$[@SCZHANG2017] chiral fermionic excitations. In three dimensional (3D) lattices, the well-known two-fold Weyl chiral fermions can be present in the absence of either the parity inversion ($\mathcal{P}$) or time reversal ($\mathcal{T}$) symmetry. They are characterized by non-zero topological charges called Chern numbers C=$\pm$1.[@Alexey2015; @Ashvin2018] These Weyl fermions can be described by an effective spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Hamiltonian $H \propto \hbar \: \delta \vec{\textbf {k}}\cdot\vec{\mathbf{\sigma}}$ at lowest order. $\delta\vec{\textbf {k}}$ is small deviations from Weyl node in momentum space. $\vec{\mathbf{\sigma}} \equiv \{\sigma_x, \sigma_y, \sigma_z \}$ are the 2$\times$2 Pauli matrices. However, certain symmetries can also protect spin-1 or spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ chiral fermions[@SCZHANG2017; @TZHANG2018] that are three-fold and four-fold respectively. Their effective low-energy Hamiltonians are $H \propto \hbar \: \delta \vec{\textbf {k}}\cdot\vec{\mathbf{L}}$, where $L_i$’s are (3$\times$3) spin-1 and (4$\times$4) spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ rotation generators respectively. The low energy dispersions follow from the corresponding model Hamiltonians, e.g. spin-1 fermions possess a combination of a Dirac-type linear band crossing and a flat band, as shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a), with C=$\pm2$ and $0$ respectively.
![(Color online) (a) Schematic band structure of Dirac, Weyl, Spin-1 and Charge-2 fermion. (b) Unit Cell of CoGe structure (space group P2$_1$3). (c) Bulk Brillouin zone (BZ) and (001) surface BZ (represented by dashed square). The high symmetry points are shown in the BZ. []{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}
Additionally, two identical copies of spin-$\frac{1}{2}$ Weyl nodes can also be symmetry-protected.[@FeSi2018; @TZHANG2018] This leads to $C=\pm2$ with four-fold degeneracy. The effective Hamiltonian for such a “multi-Weyl" node[@FeSi2018; @TZHANG2018] can be described as $H \propto \hbar \: \delta \vec{\textbf {k}}\cdot\vec{\mathbf{\sigma}}\otimes \mathbb{I}_{2\times2}$, which are also called charge-2 Dirac nodes. The schematic diagram of low energy dispersions for Dirac, Weyl, spin-1 and charge-2 Dirac nodes are shown in Fig. \[fig1\](a). The symmetry-protected band-crossings which carry C=$\pm2$ are referred to as double Weyl nodes. These band-crossings are topologically robust under infinitesimal changes of the Hamiltonian parameters[@chern_footnote] and lead to quite interesting phenomena.[@Ashvin2018]
In the search for such multi-Weyl systems, there have been few studies on binary transition metal silicides (in SG 198) which are predicted to be double Weyl semimetals.[@RhSi2017; @FeSi2018; @SCZHANG2017; @TZHANG2018; @CoSiARPES2019; @CoSi2019; @AlPt2018] Here, we focus on the experimentally synthesizable binary alloy CoGe,[@CoGeExpt] which is a representative of the Germanide family. We provide a detailed analysis including *ab initio* simulations of bulk and surface excitations and symmetry protection arguments for the various multi-fold degeneracies. Unlike other reports, our symmetry arguments are not limited to binary $AB$ systems alone, and we will look at some non-binary systems as well. We performed *ab initio* electronic structure calculations using Vienna Ab-initio Simulation Package (VASP)[@GKRESSE1993; @JOUBERT1999] with Perdew-Burke-Ernzerhof (PBE)[@JOUBERT1999] exchange correlation. Chern numbers were calculated using Wilson charge center (WCC) evolution of Maximally Localized wannier functions (MLWF)[@MARZARI1997; @SOUZA2001; @VANDERBIT] obtained from wannier90[@w90]. Surface spectra and Fermi arcs were simulated using iterative Green’s function method.[@DHLEE_I; @DHLEE_II; @SANCHO1985] Further information on computational details can be found in the supplementary.[@supp]
![(Color online) (a) Electronic structure of CoGe without spin-orbit interaction (SOI). Length in (a) gives different band index. (b) Evolution of Wannier charge center (WCC) around a spherical surface enclosing the three-fold degeneracy at $\Gamma$ point calculated for different bands (24$^{th}$ to 27$^{th}$). This is shown as a representative example of Chern number computations for all the multi-fold band crossings. $\theta$, $\phi$ are the usual spherical coordinates. (c,d) Berry Curvature plotted in k$_z$=0 (left) and k$_x$=k$_y$ (right) plane. (e) 3D Fermi surface in the cubic Brillouin zone of CoGe without SOI. []{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}
[*Crystal structure Information*]{}:The crystal structure and the corresponding BZ for CoGe are shown in Fig. \[fig1\](b,c). CoGe crystallizes in cubic structure with P2$_1$3 under high pressures.[@CoGeExpt] The primitive cell contains four formula units with both Co and Ge atoms lying on threefold axes (which lie along the body diagonal), occupying the same Wyckoff sites 4a ($x,x, x$). The internal co-ordinates are $x_{Co}$ = 0.1359(9) and $x_{Ge}$ = 0.8393(7). The theoretically optimized lattice parameter of CoGe is found to be 4.64 Åwhich matches fairly well with experimental value, 4.637 Å.[@CoGeExpt] Each Co(Ge) atom has primary coordination of seven Ge(Co) atoms at a distances of 2.385, 2.403 ($\times$3) and 2.615 ($\times$3) Å. The next-nearest neighbors of each Co atom are six Co atoms of equivalent type at a distance 2.846 Å. Similarly, each Ge atom is surrounded by six next-nearest neighbor of Ge atoms at a distance 2.881 Å. Though both Co and Ge occupy same Wyckoff sites, the position of second nearest neighbors subtly dictates the different coordination environment for both of them.
![(Color online) (a) Electronic structure of CoGe in the presence of SOI. The various degeneracies at the nodal points in this figure and in Fig. \[fig2\] are protected by non-symmorphic screw rotation, three fold rotation symmetries of SG 198 and time-reversal symmetry. (b) 3D Fermi surface at isolevel E$_F$. (c,d) Berry Curvature plotted in k$_z$=0 (left) and k$_x$=k$_y$ (right) plane highlighting its flows between $R$ and $\Gamma$ points in agreement with the sign of the topological charges. []{data-label="fig3"}](Fig3.png){width="0.9\linewidth"}
[*Symmetry Arguments*]{}:The crystal structure of CoGe has tetrahedral (T$_4$) point group symmetry with the following information germane to our analysis.[@CracknellBook] The point group has three generators at $\Gamma$ point: two screws, $S_{2z}=\{C_{2z}|\frac{1}{2},0,\frac{1}{2}\}$, $S_{2y}=\{C_{2y}|0,\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}\}$ and a three-fold rotation $S_3=\{C^{+}_{3,111}|0,0,0\}$. They satisfy $S_{2z} S_3 = S_3 S_{2y}$ and $S_3 S_{2z} S_{2y} = S_{2y} S_3$. Due to $S_3$, the third screw symmetry $S_{2x}=\{C_{2x}|\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2},0\}$ is also present. On the otherhand at the $R$ point, the three generators are $S_{2x}=\{ C_{2x}|\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},0\}$, $S_{2y}=\{C_{2y}|0,\frac{3}{2},\frac{1}{2}\}$, and $S_{3}=\{C^{-1}_{3,111}|0,1,0\}$. They satisfy $S_{2x} S_3 = S_3 S_{2y}$ and $S_3 S_{2x} S_{2y} = S_{2y} S_3$.
We will start with the spinless case for which time reversal operator ($\mathcal{T}$) squares to identity ($\mathbb{I}$). At the $\Gamma$-point, the electronic structure can potentially show a three-fold band degeneracy. However, the $\Gamma$ point symmetries do not necessarily imply three-fold degeneracies. For a three-fold degeneracy, the two screw symmetries $S_{2y}$ and $S_{2z}$ should *commute* and square to $\mathbb{I}$ as is the case at $\Gamma$, as well as $S_{3}$ should act non-trivially ($S_3 |\psi\rangle \neq |\psi\rangle$ where $|\psi\rangle$ is a simultaneous eigenstate of $S_{2y}$ and $S_{2z}$; see supplementary Sec. I.C of Ref. ). It turns out that there can also be two-fold degeneracies or one-fold states at $\Gamma$ point consistent with the symmetries if $S_3$ is trivial.
The symmetry properties at $R$ point are crucially different. At this point, the two screws $S_{2x}$ and $S_{2y}$ now *anticommute* and square to $-\mathbb{I}$, and hence the previous three-fold degeneracy argument does not apply anymore. Ref. offered an intuition that the degeneracy at $R$ point has to be even dimensional with a lower bound of four.[@zhang_footnote] From our analysis, we shall show that it has to be even with an upper bound of four in presence of $S_3$.
Firstly, we can get a two-fold degeneracy using the anticommutation of the screws: $|\psi\rangle$ and $S_{2x} |\psi\rangle$ are distinct eigenstates under $S_{2y}$, say with eigenvalues of $i$ and $-i$ respectively without loss of generality. We can get a further two-fold degeneracy due to $S_{2z} S_3 = S_3 S_{2y}$: $S_3 |\psi\rangle$ and $S_{2y} S_3 |\psi\rangle$ are distinct eigenstates now under $S_{2x}$ with eigenvalues $i$ and $-i$ respectively. If $S_3$ is non-trivial[@s3_footnote] and takes us out of the subspace of $|\psi\rangle$ and $S_{2x} |\psi\rangle$, i.e. minimally $\langle \psi | S_3 \psi \rangle=0$, then mutual orthogonality of the two pairs is ensured.[@verbose] Time reversal (effectively complex conjugation) does not generate any new states for spinless electrons. Since we have accounted for all the symmetries present at $R$, we can at most get a symmetry-protected four-fold degeneracy and *no higher*. Combining with the argument of Ref. , we arrive at an *exactly* four-fold node protected by symmetries.
Going to the spinfull case for which $\mathcal{T}^2=-\mathbb{I}$, the Kramer’s degeneracies are lifted throughout the zone except at the time-reversal invariant momenta in presence of spin-orbit interaction, (SOI) because the crystal does not possess space-inversion symmetry. Adding the spin to a potential three-fold spinless degeneracy at $\Gamma$, we would like to understand what happens to the six states under SOI. It turns out that they can not give rise to a six-fold degeneracy, but at least have to split into two nodal points with four-fold degenerate and two-fold degenerate states. This is because only a four-fold degeneracy can at most be protected by $\Gamma$ point symmetries. The reason for this is that now the screws $S_{2y}$ and $S_{2z}$ anticommute (and square to $-\mathbb{I}$) at $\Gamma$ point instead of $R$ point for the spinless case.[@2pirot] Thus, we can again get a four-fold degeneracy by the argument previously made for the spinless case at $R$ point. However, for spinfull case, time reversal could potentially generate new eigenstates. But, *mutual* orthogonality of $S_{2y}$ and $S_{2z}$ eigenstates and their time-reversed partners is *not* ensured due to imaginary eigenvalues under the screws.[@verbose] Thus, we can only conclude a four-fold degeneracy and no higher. This completes the splitting argument. Also, a single-fold spinless band at $\Gamma$ (if $S_3$ is trivial) will give rise to Kramer’s two-fold degeneracy in the spinfull case. Similarly, a four-fold spinfull degeneracy arising from a two-fold spinless degeneracy is also consistent with the symmetries. On the other hand, at $R$ point there can be six-fold degeneracies.[@Bradlyn2016]
To explain the spinfull four-fold degeneracy at the $\Gamma$ point for $AB$ systems, an alternate “top-down" argument was given in Ref. . Chang *et al* started with a eight dimensional representation of the Hamiltonian after making (minimal) assumptions on the nature of the orbitals in the unit cell. They then wrote down the distinct symmetry allowed “mass" terms in the $\mathbf{k}\cdot\mathbf{p}$ Hamiltonian based on the procedure laid down in Ref. to reduce down to a four-fold degeneracy. Our arguments [@verbose] above are rather “bottom-up" and purely based on symmetries of the SG. On the other hand, comparing with the arguments of Ref. for the case of commuting screws, we have paid attention to the interplay of $S_3$ symmetry of SG 198 with anticommuting screws which forbids any degeneracies higher than four-fold (and *only* four-fold for spinless case at $R$ point). In particular, our arguments also predict that systems beyond $AB$ class, e.g. ternaries in SG 198 will also host these four-fold degeneracies.
We finally note that the four-fold degeneracies at $R$ point have charge-2 Dirac nodal character. This is ensured because of the presence of two-fold line degeneracies along $R$-$X$ and $M$-$X$ directions (in fact, the whole $k_x=\pi$ and symmetry-related planes). Such additional symmetry protection obtains from a product of time reversal and screw symmetries (e.g. $\mathcal{T} S_{2x}$)[@verbose] leading to Kramer’s-like two-fold degeneracies. Four-fold degeneracies at $\Gamma$ point are not so constrained and thus have spin-$\frac{3}{2}$ character instead.
[*Bulk Excitations*]{}:Figure \[fig2\](a) shows the electronic band structure of CoGe in the absence of SOI. Different colored lines in Fig. \[fig2\](a) indicate band index (24 to 27). At $\Gamma$, we see a three-fold degeneracy as discussed earlier. There are also two-fold degeneracies and one-fold states at $\Gamma$ at other energies (not highlighted). The shift of wannier charge centers at $\Gamma$-point for 24$^{th}$-27$^{th}$ bands are shown in Fig. \[fig2\](b). Since the WCCs shift by -4$\pi$, 0, 4$\pi$, the Chern number for 25$^{th}$ to 27$^{th}$ bands are C(25)=$-$2, C(26)=0 and C(27)=+2 respectively. These excitations are dubbed as spin-1 double Weyl excitations.
On the other hand at $R$ point, we find *only* four-fold degeneracies in line with the symmetry arguments. One such four-fold degeneracy is highlighted in Fig. \[fig2\](b). Few more examples involving binary $AB$ as well as ternary systems with the same SG are shown in the supplementary.[@supp] The calculated Chern number at this four-fold degenerate node (referred to as charge-2 Dirac node in Fig. \[fig1\] (a) is $\pm2$. Hence, the total Chern number is *zero* in the entire zone in accordance with the Nielsen-Ninomiya theorem.[@nogo] We further show the Berry curvature ($\vec{\Omega}$) on k$_z$=0 and k$_x$=k$_y$ plane in Fig. \[fig2\](c,d) to highlight that it flows between $R$ and $\Gamma$ points in agreement with the sign of the topological charges. Figure \[fig2\](e) describes the 3D Fermi surface (FS) topology at isolevel E$_F$. The tiny sphere at the zone center arises due to electron-like Fermi pocket, as shown by magenta color band in Fig. \[fig2\](a). Along $\Gamma$-R direction, the Fermi level hardly touches the blue colored band. Near the corner of the zone, the red and blue surfaces of FS come from the doubly degenerate electron-like band at/around R point. A tiny hole-like Fermi pocket appears at M point as shown in Fig. \[fig2\](a,e).
{width="0.8\linewidth"}
Next, we include the effect of SOI into our calculations, and the results are shown in Fig. \[fig3\]. At $\Gamma$, we get at most a four-fold degeneracy as dictated by symmetry arguments. One such four-fold degeneracy is highlighted in Fig. \[fig3\](a). Whereas at $R$-point, six-fold degeneracy is also allowed by symmetries as highlighted in Fig. \[fig3\](a). Figure \[fig3\](b) illustrates the Fermi surface (FS) map with SOI. At $\Gamma$ point, two concentric spherical shape FSs are found, which arise from the four-fold spin-3/2 excitations. The bands in the inner(outer) sphere possess Chern number -1(-3). At $R$, FS corresponds to four electron-like bands from double spin-1 excitations with C=$\pm2$. Along $\Gamma$-R and at M point in the BZ, tiny Fermi pockets are observed. berry curvature maps on k$_z$=0 and k$_x$=k$_y$ plane. the flow of curvature between $R$ and $\Gamma$. Notably, under ambient conditions, CoGe crystallizes in the SG $C2/m$,[@CoGeSPG92] where none of the above band topology is observed in our calculations.[@supp]
[*Surface Excitations*]{}:Figure \[fig4\] shows the surface state results for these unconventional fermions. Fermi arcs on the surface, if present, are generally expected to connect topological nodes of opposite chirality. We studied the (001) surface in which R and $\Gamma$ points fall at different locations (as shown in Fig. \[fig1\](c)), in contrast to (111) surface to allow for distinct arcs. Figure \[fig4\](a) shows the (001) surface spectrum for CoGe without including SOI. The Fermi arcs (FAs) spectral weights in absence of SOI are shown in Fig. \[fig4\](b-d) (see caption for different energy cuts.) A pair of FAs runs between the $\bar{\Gamma}$ point and $\bar{R}$ point, as anticipated between the opposite Chern number multi-Weyl nodes.
Under the effect of SOI the Chern number ($|C|=4$) at R and $\Gamma$ point, the essential new feature involves two pairs of FA states that emerge from the bulk projected states at $\bar{\Gamma}$ and $\bar{M}$ point, as clearly observed in Fig. \[fig4\](e). Furthermore, Fig. \[fig4\](f) reveals the spin-momentum-locked spin texture of the FAs when SOI is included. Without SOI, two doubly-spin-degenerate FAs appear. SOI lifts the spin-degeneracy everywhere except at time-reversal invariant momenta, and thus two pairs of FAs appear with anti-parallel spin polarization. Such spin polarized textures may offer promising applications in spintronics.[@spintronics2019; @SParkin2010]
[*Conclusion*]{}:It is important to note that the Weyl nodes that appear in systems such as WTe$_2$,[@Alexey2015] MoTe$_2$,[@MoTe2] LiAlGe,[@LiAlGe] TaAs(P)[@TaAsNbAs], NbAs(P)[@TaPNbP] and so on are accidental band crossings with the FAs relatively smaller in size. In contrast, the $\Gamma$ and $R$ point band-crossings in CoGe are robustly protected by the crystal space group symmetries. Also the FAs on the (001) surface in CoGe are much larger since the nodes are well-separated in BZ. Other promising feature of CoGe is the “clean" nature of FAs are because of the near absence of spectral weights from bulk states at $E_F$, as obvious from Fig. \[fig4\]. This makes CoGe relatively superior than many other reported binary alloys (of SG \# 198), such as GaPt,[@GaPt] GaPd,[@GaPd] AlPd,[@AlPd] AlPt,[@AlPt2018; @AlPt] RhGe,[@RhGe] AuBe,[@AuBe] $M$Si ($M$=Fe, Mn, Ru, Re)[@TZHANG2018] which suffer from large spectral weight contributions of extra bulk band crossings across E$_F$. Very recently, experiments[@CoSiARPES2019; @CoSi2019] have borne out these advantages for the related compound CoSi,[@SCZHANG2017] which is motivating for further experiments on CoGe which can be synthesized.[@CoGeExpt]
In summary, we predict an ideal higher Chern-number topological semimetal in CoGe in agreement with previous bulk studies on $AB$ systems (with SG 198). This class of binary systems, in general, exhibit rich underlying symmetry gives rise to interesting topological properties. We gave new, alternate Kramer’s theorem-like arguments based on the inter-relationships between two non-symmorphic screws and three-fold rotations to explain the four-fold degeneracies at $R$ for the spinless case (only possibility) and at $\Gamma$ for the spinfull case. Large, clean Fermi arcs are predicted on the $(001)$ surface for CoGe. The energy offset between spin-1 and the double Weyl nodes at $\Gamma$ and R point makes this compound suitable for possible quantized circular photogalvanic effect with possibilities of technological applications.[@RhSi2017; @photogalvanic] All these promising features of CoGe attracts future experimental investigations to reconfirm the topological chiral semimetals with topological charges larger than C=$\pm$1.
CKB acknowledges IIT Bombay for financial support in the form of teaching assistantship. CM acknowledges MHRD-India for financial support. AA acknowledges DST-SERB (Grant No. CRG/2019/002050) for funding to support this research. SP acknowledges financial support from IRCC, IIT Bombay (17IRCCSG011) and SERB, DST, India (SRG/2019/001419 ).
[113]{}
S. M. Young, S. Zaheer, J. C. Y. Teo, C. L. Kane, E. J. Mele, and A. M. Rappe, **108**, 140405 (2012).
Chen Fang, Matthew J. Gilbert, Xi Dai, and B. Andrei Bernevig, **108**, 266802 (2012).
B. Bradlyn Science 353, aaf5037 (2016)
P. B. Pal, Am. J. Phys. **79**, 485 (2011).
Alexey A. Soluyanov, Dominik Gresch, Zhijun Wang, QuanSheng Wu, Matthias Troyer, Xi Dai & B. Andrei Bernevig, Nature volume **527**, 495 (2015).
N. P. Armitage, E. J. Mele, and Ashvin Vishwanath, Rev. Mod. Phys. **90**, 015001 (2018).
C. K. Barman, Chiranjit Mondal, Biswarup Pathak, and Aftab Alam, **99**, 045144 (2019).
B. J. Wieder, Y. Kim, A. M. Rappe, and C. L. Kane, **116**, 186402 (2016).
Chiranjit Mondal, C. K. Barman, Aftab Alam, and Biswarup Pathak, **99**, 205112 (2019).
B. Q. Lv Nat. Lett. **546**, 627 (2017).
R. Yu, H. Weng, Z. Fang, X. Dai, and X. Hu, **115**, 036807 (2015).
Y. Kim, B. J. Wieder, C. L. Kane, and A. M. Rappe, **115**, 036806 (2015).
J.-T. Wang, H. Weng, S. Nie, Z. Fang, Y. Kawazoe, and C. Chen, **116**, 195501 (2016).
G. Bian, Nat. Commun. [**7**]{}, 10556 (2016).
Guoqing Chang, **119**, 206401 (2017).
H. Miao, T. T. Zhang, L. Wang, D. Meyers, A. H. Said, Y. L. Wang, Y. G. Shi, H. M. Weng, Z. Fang, and M. P. M. Dean, **121**, 035302 (2018).
Peizhe Tang, Quan Zhou, and Shou-Cheng Zhang, **119**, 206402 (2017).
Tiantian Zhang, Zhida Song, A. Alexandradinata, Hongming Weng, Chen Fang, Ling Lu, and Zhong Fang, **120**, 016401 (2018).
Daichi Takane **122**, 076402 (2019).
Daniel S. Sanchez Nature **567**, 500 (2019)
Niels B. M. Schröter, Ding Pei, Maia G. Vergniory, Yan Sun, Nat. Phys. [**15**]{}, 759 (2019).
The topological charges or Chern numbers being integral can not change continuously.
N. Audebrand, M. Ellner, and E. J. Mittemeijer, Powder Diffr. [**15(2)**]{} 120-122 (2000). V.I. Larchev and S. V. Popova, Journal of the Less-Common Metals **87**, 53 (1982).
G. Kresse and J. Hafner, , 558(R) (1993)
G. Kresse and D. Joubert, , 1758 (1999)
P. E. Böchl, , 17953 (1994).
Nicola Marzari and David Vanderbilt, ,12847 (1997).
Ivo Souza, Nicola Marzari, and David Vanderbilt, , 035109 (2001).
Nicola Marzari, Arash A. Mostofi, Jonathan R. Yates, Ivo Souza, and David Vanderbilt, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**84**]{}, 1419 (2012).
AA Mostofi, JR Yates, G Pizzi, YS Lee, I Souza, D Vanderbilt, N Marzari, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**185**]{}, 2309 (2014)
D. H. Lee and J. D. Joannopoulos, , 4988 (1981).
D. H. Lee and J. D. Joannopoulos, , 4997 (1981).
M P Lopez Sancho, J M Lopez Sancho, J M L Sancho and J Rubio, J. Phys. F:Met. Phys. [**15**]{}, 851 (1985).
QuanSheng Wu, ShengNan Zhang, Hai-Feng Song, Matthias Troyer, Alexey A. Soluyanov, Computer Physics Commnications [**224**]{}, 405 (2018).
The Mathematical Theory of Symmetry in Solids: Representation Theory for Point Groups and Space Groups, P. Cracknell and Christopher J. Bradley, ISBN: 9780199582587, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972.
Basically, the presence of three mutually anticommuting screws in presence of time-reversal symmetry can not admit two-fold (real) representations, but only four-fold or higher. (See pg. 2, column 2, bottom paragraph in Ref. )
A trivial $S_3$, i.e. $S_3 |\psi\rangle = |\psi\rangle$, is not allowed, since two anticommuting operators can not share a simultaneous eigenstate with non-zero eigenvalue. $S_3$ can not exchange $|\psi\rangle$ and $S_{2x}|\psi\rangle$ as well for the same reason. $S_3$ can however in principle create some linear combination of $|\psi\rangle$ and $S_{2x}|\psi\rangle$, in which case this argument would give a two-fold degeneracy.
This difference in screw commutation relations at $\Gamma$ and $R$ points is due to the different action of a $2\pi$ rotation for spinless and spinfull cases.
B. J. Wieder and C. L. Kane, , 155108 (2016).
Verbose details are give in Supplemental Information.[@supp]
H. B. Nielsen and M. Ninomiya, Phys. Lett. **105B**, 219 (1981).
Xiangang Wan, Ari M. Turner, Ashvin Vishwanath, and Sergey Y. Savrasov, , 205101 (2011).
Supplemental information at \[URL\]. It contains auxiliary computational details, elaborations on the symmetry arguments presented concisely in the main text, and supplementary evidence from other binary/ternary systems.
Yoshinori Tokura, Kenji Yasuda & Atsushi Tsukazaki, Nature Reviews Physics [**1**]{}, 126-143 (2019).
S.D. Bader and S.S.P. Parkin, Annu. Rev. Condens. Matter Phys. 2010. 1:71–88
Lunan Huang, Timothy M. McCormick, Masayuki Ochi, Nat. Mat. **15**, 1155 (2016).
Su-Yang Xu1, Nasser Alidoust, Guoqing Chang Science Advances, **3**(6), e1603266 (2017).
Hongming Weng, Chen Fang, Zhong Fang, B. Andrei Bernevig, and Xi Dai Phys. Rev. X **5**, 011029 (2015).
S.-M. Huang, S.-Y. Xu et al., Nat. Commun. **6**, 7373 (2015).
E. Hellner and F. Laves, Zeitschrift Naturforschung Teil A [**2**]{}, 177 (1947)
Marc Armbrüster, Horst Borrmann, Michael Wedel, Yurii Prots, Rainer Giedigkeit, Peter Gille, Zeitschrift für Kristallographie - New Crystal Structures, **225**(4), 617 (2014).
M. Ettenberg, K. L. Komarek, and E. Miller, Metallurgical Transactions [**2**]{}, 1173 (1971).
K. Schubert et al., Naturwissenschaften [**43**]{}, 248 (1956).
V. Larchev and S. Popova, Journal of the Less Common Metals **87**, 53 (1982).
Drew J. Rebar, Serena M. Birnbaum, John Singleton, Mojammel Khan, J. C. Ball, P. W. Adams, Julia Y. Chan, D. P. Young, Dana A. Browne, and J. F. DiTusa, 094517 (2019).
Fernando de Juan, Adolfo G. Grushin, Takahiro Morimoto & Joel E Moore, Nat. Commun.[**8**]{}, 15995 (2017).
[^1]: These two authors have contributed equally to this work
[^2]: These two authors have contributed equally to this work
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A fourth chiral generation, with $m_{t^\prime}$ in the range $\sim (300 - 500)$ GeV and a moderate value of the CP-violating phase can explain the anomalous like-sign dimuon charge asymmetry observed recently by the D0 collaboration. The required parameters are found to be consistent with constraints from other $B$ and $K$ decays. The presence of such quarks, apart from being detectable in the early stages of the LHC, would also have important consequences in the electroweak symmetry breaking sector.'
---
[**A fourth generation, anomalous like-sign dimuon charge asymmetry and the LHC\
**]{} 0.5cm Debajyoti Choudhury $^{a}$ and Dilip Kumar Ghosh$^{b}$\
[$^a$ *Department of Physics & Astrophysics,\
University of Delhi, Delhi - 110 007, India* ]{}\
[$^b$ *Department of Theoretical Physics,\
Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science,\
2A & B Raja S.C. Mullick Road, Kolkata 700 032, India*]{}\
Introduction
============
Charge-parity (CP) violation is one of the key ingredients for the dominance of matter over anti-matter in the present day universe. The presence of a complex phase in the Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskwaw (CKM) matrix [@cabibbo; @koba_maska] leads to CP violation in the Standard Model(SM). Since the first observation of the CP violation in the Kaon system [@cpv_kaon], several measurements have been performed to observe the same in $B$ and $D$ mesons and the experimental findings have, so far, been largely consistent with the prediction of the SM. However, the SM neither admits sufficient CP violation nor is the phase transition strong enough to explain the observed magnitude of the baryon asymmetry of the universe. This has led to a sustained effort over decades to look for an evidence of CP-violation going beyond what the SM predicts. Indeed, during the past few years some experimental data collected at Tevatron and B-factories in the heavy flavour-sector indicates mild conflict with the CKM picture of CP violation within the SM [@lunghi-soni123; @lenz; @utfit]. Several new scenarios have been proposed to explain these anomalies[@agashe; @blanke1; @blanke2; @neubert; @barger; @buras]. Much interest has been garnered by the recent observation[@D0_dimuon], by the D0 Collaboration, of an anomalous like-sign dimuon charge asymmetry. They find an excess of negatively-charged dimuon pair over positively charged ones, namely $ N^{--} \equiv N(\mu^- \mu^-) > N^{++}$. Reconstructing the events, and subtracting the backgrounds, they conclude that the only possible explanation is offered by the conjecture that a $b + \bar b$, created in a hard process, hadronize into a pair of neutral $B$-mesons (say, $B_s + \bar B_s$) each of which suffers a semileptonic \[$B({\overline B}) \to
\mu^{-}(\mu^{+}) + X $\] decay. The oscillation of one into the other allows for a ‘wrong-sign’ decay leading to like-sign dimuons. The asymmetry, then, would be a consequence of unequal probabilities of $B_s \to \overline B_s$ and $\overline B_s \to B_s$ oscillations, a manifestation of CP-noninvariance. Thus, the D0 measurement[@D0_dimuon], using $6.1 {\rm fb}^{-1}$ of data, of $$\begin{aligned}
A^b_{sl} \equiv \frac{N^{++}_b - N^{--}_b}{N^{++}_b + N^{--}_b} =
-(9.57 \pm 2.51 \pm 1.46)\times 10^{-3} \,
\label{D0_Absl}\end{aligned}$$ would amount to a $3.2\sigma $ deviation away from the SM prediction of $-0.2\times 10^{-3}$. On the other hand, the CDF Collaboration [@cdf_dimuon], using $1.6~{\rm fb}^{-1}$ of data has also measured $A^b_{sl}$ with a positive central value, namely $A^b_{sl} = (8.0 \pm 9.0 \pm 6.8)\times 10^{-3}$. Because of the large errors in the CDF measurements, it is still compatible with the D0 one within $1.5\sigma $ level. Combining the two, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
A^b_{sl}\approx -(8.5 \pm 2.8) \times 10^{-3} \, ,
\label{Absl_comb}\end{aligned}$$ which still is $3\sigma $ away from the SM value.
It should be noted at this stage that the like-sign charge asymmetry $A^b_{sl}$ measured by D0 Collaboration [@D0_dimuon] is related to the semileptonic decay asymmetries $a^d_{sl}$ and $a^s_{sl}$ in the $B_d$ and $B_s$ mesons, respectively, through $$\begin{aligned}
A^b_{sl} = (0.506 \pm 0.043) \, a^d_{sl} + (0.494 \pm 0.043) \,
a^s_{sl} \, ,
\label{Absl_Bd_Bs}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
a^q_{sl} \equiv \frac{\Gamma({\bar B_q} \to \mu^+ X)-\Gamma(B_q \to
\mu^- +X)} {\Gamma({\bar B_q} \to \mu^+ X)+\Gamma(B_q \to \mu^- +X)}
\qquad (q =d,s) \, .
\label{aqsl_def}\end{aligned}$$ The D0 Collaboration has also directly measured $a^s_{sl}$, albeit with much large errors[@D0_single_asym] a\^s\_[sl]{} = -(1.7 9.1\^[+1.4]{}\_[-1.5]{})10\^[-3]{} , \[assl\_D0\] whereas the current direct bound on $a^d_{sl}$ reads[@hfag] a\^d\_[sl]{} = (4.7 4.6)10\^[-3]{} . \[adsl\_hfag\] At this stage, it should be realized that, within the SM, $a^d_{sl}$ would contribute negligibly to $A^b_{sl}$. And since the new physics (NP) scenario that we would be considering entails almost a vanishingly small contribution to this quantity, it is meaningful to assume a SM value for the same. Thus, combining all the data, we have[@bogdan] a\^s\_[sl]{} -(12.7 5.0)10\^[-3]{}. \[assl\_comb\] This result is still $2.5\sigma $ away from the SM value[@lenz], namely, a\^s\_[sl]{}0.02 10\^[-3]{} . \[absl\_sm\] While a discrepancy of this magnitude cannot be considered a definitive discovery of NP effects, it certainly adds to the existing list of deviations from the SM expectations seen in the $b$-sector. It, thus, becomes interesting to consider well-motivated NP scenarios that might lead to an coherent explanation of such anomalies while leading itself to experimental verification in other independent channels [@bogdan; @kundu; @axigluon; @gion_isidori; @ligeti; @babu; @desh]. Perhaps the simplest such extension is the postulation of a fourth family of quarks that mix with the three known families, thereby altering the structure of meson-mixings, CP violation, flavour-changing neutral currents (FCNC) etc. [@hou1; @hou2; @hou3; @soni1; @hung1; @arhrib-hou_bs; @alwall; @Bobrowski; @soni-alok2; @buras_2010; @hou_ma; @Eberhardt; @soni-alok1]. A striking consequence of such a fourth family would be the introduction of additional phases in the analogue of the CKM matrix, or in other words, the existence of new Jarlskog invariants [@jarlskog]. As some of these are no longer suppressed by the first generation quark masses, there is an enormous enhancement in the effective magnitude of CP violation available to the mechanism of baryogenesis [@hou_baryo].
Although the addition of vector-representations of quarks is, in some sense, minimal and also suffices to explain the long-standing anomaly in the forward-backward asymmetry in $b$-pair production at LEP/SLC [@c_t_w], the introduction of such representations typically results in tree-level FCNCs [@morrissey]. We, rather, choose to work with the more canonical scenario, namely a chiral fourth generation $(t', b')$ quark model (SM4).
The CDF collaboration has looked for the existence of such quarks and quote bounds of $m_{t'} > 335 \gev$ [@cdf_tpr] and $m_{b'} > 338
\gev$ [@cdf_bpr] respectively. However, as both these analyses assume a 100% decay branching fraction into particular modes, the model-independent bounds would be relaxed somewhat and heavy quarks of $m_{t', b'}~\gtap~300 \gev$ are still quite consistent. On the other hand, the introduction of chiral fermions can cause deviations in electroweak precision test variables (in particular, the custodial symmetry parameter $\rho$) from their SM values, and this severely constrains the allowed mass splitting between the quarks to $| m_{t'} - m_{b'} |~\ltap~70 $ GeV [@polonsky; @langacker; @novikov1; @novikov2; @Kribs_EWPT; @chanowitz; @hashimoto].
The rest of this article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we discuss the like-sign dimuon charge asymmetry from $B_s - {\bar B_s}$ mixing in the SM4. We also show the constraints on the parameters space of SM4 obtained from $b \to s \gamma $ process. In Section 3, we discuss the possible mechanisms for a direct search of heavy $t'/b'$ quarks at the LHC. Finally, in Section 4, we summarize our findings.
$ B_s - {\bar B_s}$ mixing
==========================
The lighter $(L)$ and the heavier $(H)$ mass eigenstates of the $B_s$ system are split with sizeable differences for both mass ($\Delta M_{s} \equiv M_{sH} - M_{sL} $) and decay widths ($\Delta \Gamma_{s} \equiv
\Gamma_{sL} - \Gamma_{sH} $). Within the SM, $B_s - {\bar B_s}$ mixing is dominated mainly by the box diagrams with top quarks and $W$-boson circulating in the loop. With the introduction of a fourth family, and allowing for it to mix with the known three, the CKM matrix is now extended to a $4\times 4 $ unitary one. As a consequence, additional diagrams with a $t'$ replacing one or both of the $t$-quarks in the loop now contribute. The expression for the mass difference is now altered to [@arhrib-hou_bs] $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta M_{s} = 2 \, | M_{12}| \ , \end{aligned}$$ where M\_[12]{} = m\_[B\_s]{} B\_[bs]{} f\_[B\_s]{}\^2 {\_t \^2\_t S\_0(x\_t) + \_[t\^]{} \^2\_[t\^]{} S\_0(x\_[t’]{}) + 2 \_[t\^]{} \_t \_[t\^]{} S\_0(x\_t,x\_[t’]{}) } , \[del\_m12\] with $x_t=m_t^2/m_W^2$, $x_{t'}=m_{t'}^2/M_W^2$ and $\lambda_{t} = V_{ts}^{*} V_{tb} $, $\lambda_{t^\prime } = V_{t^\prime s}^{*} V_{t^\prime b}$. The loop integrals $S_0(x), S_0(x,y)$ can be found in Ref.[@arhrib-hou_bs]. The quantities $\eta_t, \eta_{t'} $ and $\tilde \eta_{t'}$ represent the QCD corrections accrued from running the effective operator obtained by integrating out the heavy fields down to the $B$-meson scale. For example, the SM QCD factor $ \eta_t = 0.5765\pm 0.0065 $ [@buras_jamin], while \_[t\^]{} = \^[6/23]{} \^[6/21]{} \^[6/19]{} with analogous expressions for $\tilde \eta_{t^\prime}$. Owing to the relatively small running of $\alpha_s$ between these scales, numerically, $\eta_{t^\prime}, \tilde \eta_{t^\prime} \approx
\eta_t$.
The unitarity of the CKM-4 matrix implies $\lambda_u + \lambda_c + \lambda_t + \lambda_{t^\prime} = 0$. Neglecting $\lambda_u$ in comparison with the others (an excellent approximation), we may write \_t -\_c -\_[t\^]{} with $\lambda_c = V^{*}_{cs}V_{cb}$ being real by convention. For $V_{cb}$, we use the value quoted in Table \[tab:input\_data\]. Parametrizing \_[t\^]{} = r\_[t’]{} (i\_[t’]{}) \[rsb\_phisb\] where $\phi_{t'}$ is the new CP violating phase, we can now express all the NP effects essentially in terms of $m_{t'}, r_{t'}$ and $\phi_{t'}$.
parameter value
-------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------
$m_t(m_t)$ $ (163.5 \pm 1.7) $ (GeV)
$ \alpha_s(M_Z)$ 0.118
$V_{cb} $ $(40.8 \pm 0.6)\times 10^{-3} $
${\rm BR}(B\to X_s\gamma) $ $ (3.55 \pm 0.25)\times 10^{-4}$ [@hfag]
${\rm BR}(B \to X_c\ell \nu) $ $(10.61\pm 0.17)\times 10^{-2}$ [@soni-alok2]
$ f_{bs}\sqrt{B_{bs}} $ $ (0.275 \pm 0.013) $ GeV [@buras_2010]
: Values of different input parameters used in this analysis.[]{data-label="tab:input_data"}
Within the SM, M\_[s]{}\^[SM]{} & = & (19.82 1.87) [ps]{}\^[-1]{}\
\_[s]{}\^[SM]{} & = & (0.096 0.039) [ps]{}\^[-1]{} \[Bs\_theo\] where the theoretical uncertainty in $\Delta M_{s}^{\rm SM}$ arises mainly from the uncertainty in the combination $f_{bs}\sqrt{B_{bs}}$ (see Table \[tab:input\_data\]) of the $B_s$ decay constant and the bag parameter. Consequent to the remarkable sensitivity of both the D0 and CDF experiments, the average decay width $\Gamma_{s}\equiv
(\Gamma_{sL} + \Gamma_{sH})/2$ and the mass difference $\Delta M_s $ have been measured with an accuracy better than $2\%$ [@Amsler; @D01; @CDF1; @utfit; @kundu] and we now have \_[s]{} & = & 1.472\^[+0.024]{}\_[-0.026]{} [ps]{}\^[-1]{}\
M\_[s]{} & = & 17.77 0.10 0.07 [ps]{}\^[-1]{} . \[Bs\_data\] On the other hand, measurements done at CDF and D0 experiments [@Aaltonen1; @Aaltonen2] using the technique of angular analysis in $B_s \to J/\psi + \phi \; (b \to s c {\bar c} ) $ decay [@dighe1; @dighe2], provide [@hfag] \_[s]{} & = & ( 0.154\^[+0.054]{}\_[-0.070]{}) [ps]{}\^[-1]{}\
\^[J/]{}\_s & & (0.39\^[+0.18]{}\_[-0.14]{}) (1.18\^[+0.14]{}\_[-0.18]{}) , \[bs\_mixing\] where the last line reflects the two-fold ambiguity ($\beta_s^{J/\psi \phi} \leftrightarrow \pi - \beta_s^{J/\psi \phi}$) in the experimental determination of $\beta_s^{J/\psi \phi}$. Note also that only the magnitude of $\Delta \Gamma_{s}$ is determined, and not the sign.
Finally, the semileptonic decay asymmetry $a^s_{sl}$ as defined in eq. (\[aqsl\_def\]) can be related to the $B_s$–${\bar B_s}$ mixing parameters, [*viz.*]{}, \_[s]{} = \_s a\^s\_[sl]{} \[asl\_rsb\_phi\_sb\] where $\phi_{s} $ contains both the SM phase $(\sim 0)$ and the NP phase $\phi_{t'}$.
The above equation is, in some sense, the master formula for our analysis. Of the three quantities defining $\chi_s$, the mass difference $\Delta M_s$ has been measured very accurately (\[Bs\_data\]). On the other hand, the large error bars in $\Delta \Gamma_s$, combined with the ambiguity in its sign, allows for large (and disjoint) swathes of $\chi_s$.
Note that there exists some tension between $\Delta \Gamma_{s}^{\rm SM}$ and $\Delta \Gamma_{s}^{\rm exp}$, although they cannot yet be deemed to be inconsistent with each other. The difference could be attributable to theoretical uncertainties in the estimation of $\Delta \Gamma_{s}^{\rm SM}$ from the higher order corrections as well as from the long distance effects, as also to experimental ones. However, if the central values are given any credence, this apparent difference would have profound consequences. The width difference is given by \_s = 2 | \_[12s]{}| \_s where, $\phi_s \equiv Arg(-M_{12s}/\Gamma_{12s})$ and $\Gamma_{12s}$ is the absorptive part of the $B_s - {\bar B_s}$ mixing amplitude. Within the SM [@lenz] \_s = 0.0041 0.0007 \[sm\_phase\] and, therefore, $ \Delta \Gamma_s^{\rm SM} \approx 2 \left| \Gamma_{12s}\right| $. It is worth emphasizing that in SM4, there is no room for additional contribution to $\Gamma_{12s}$ which implies that $\Delta \Gamma_s \leq \Delta \Gamma_s^{\rm SM}$. This is true not only for SM4, but for all theories wherein no additional absorptive parts appear. In other words, any new physics scenario that seeks to enhance $a^s_{sl}$ without enhancing $\Gamma_{12s}$ runs the risk of rendering $|\sin\phi_s | \geq 1$. Thus, the only way, for all such theories, to explain the D0 result would be to appeal to the theoretical uncertainties in $\Delta \Gamma_s^{SM}$ determination and rather assume that the experimentally measured value reflects the truth accurately. This is the approach we adopt and with this, we may now proceed to find solutions in the three-dimensional parameter space ($m_{t'}, r_{t'}, \phi_{t'}$) that are consistent both mathematically and with the data.
Before we do so, though, it is useful to consider an approximate symmetry in the problem. Given the fact that $\phi_s^{SM}$ is a small quantity (see eq.\[sm\_phase\]), in the limit of neglecting it, the allowed parameter space would have a $\phi_{t'} \leftrightarrow 2 \, \pi - \phi_{t'}$ symmetry. We may, thus, restrict ourselves essentially to $\phi_{t'} \in [0, \pi]$. Having done this, for a given combination of ($\chi_s, m_{t'},
r_{t'}$), eq.\[asl\_rsb\_phi\_sb\] turns out to be quartic one in $\cos\phi_{t'}$ leading to four solution families. The inclusion of experimental errors would expand each curve into a band, and in Fig.\[fig:delm\_asl\] we display the $1\sigma$ allowed regions in the $\phi_{t'}$–$r_{t'}$ plane for two representative values of $m_{t'}$. Only the (four) strips, each enclosed between a pair of similar curves, are allowed. As expected, the origin (corresponding essentially to a fourth generation decoupled from the known three) lies clearly outside the allowed region.
![*Parts of the parameter space allowed at $1\sigma $ by eq.\[asl\_rsb\_phi\_sb\] are given by the four upward convex strips enclosed by red or blue lines. The range allowed by $\Delta M_s$ is denoted by the downward convex strip (enclosed by green lines). The four areas ${\cal A}_{1,2,3,4}$ are allowed by both observables. The two panels correspond to different values of $m_{t'}$.*[]{data-label="fig:delm_asl"}](asl_delm_300.ps "fig:"){width="8cm" height="9.8cm"} ![*Parts of the parameter space allowed at $1\sigma $ by eq.\[asl\_rsb\_phi\_sb\] are given by the four upward convex strips enclosed by red or blue lines. The range allowed by $\Delta M_s$ is denoted by the downward convex strip (enclosed by green lines). The four areas ${\cal A}_{1,2,3,4}$ are allowed by both observables. The two panels correspond to different values of $m_{t'}$.*[]{data-label="fig:delm_asl"}](asl_delm_500.ps "fig:"){width="8cm" height="9.8cm"}
This parameter space is further constrained by the precise measurement of $\Delta M_s$. Solving eq.\[del\_m12\] for a given $m_{t'}$, we once again get a $1\sigma$ allowed band in the $(\phi_{t'},r_{t'})$ plane (see Fig.\[fig:delm\_asl\]). Now, of course, the origin is included in the allowed set. The intersection of the two sets, then, gives us the allowed region consistent (within $1\sigma $) with the experimental measurements of both the single charge asymmetry parameter $a^s_{sl}$ as well as $\Delta M_s$. Note that the said intersection is a union of four disjoint areas of the parameter space, denoted in Fig.\[fig:delm\_asl\] by ${\cal A}_{1,2,3,4}$. It has been argued[@soni-alok1; @chanowitz] that the measurement of $Z \to b \bar b$ at LEP and SLC puts very strong constraints on $r_{t'}$ [^1]. If we take this at face value, then, of the four disjoint areas, only part of ${\cal A}_4$ remains. However, apart from the fact that the constraints of Ref.[@soni-alok2] have been obtained with a slightly differing set of inputs and cannot be imposed directly, note that that both our allowed ranges as well as the bounds of Ref.[@soni-alok2] are at $1\sigma$ and, even at only $1.5 \sigma$, the overlap is quite extensive. Furthermore, the said strong bounds do hinge upon the assumption of no other new physics being of relevance. In view of this, we would advocate that all the four regions be considered seriously and the final outcome be decided by further analyses, both experimental and theoretical.
We now consider possible constraints on the NP parameter space from the measurement of the inclusive $b \to s \gamma$ transition, namely ${\rm B} (B \to X_s \gamma )$. This one-loop process, in the SM, is dominated by the diagram involving a virtual top quark and $W$ boson. The not-so-inconsiderable branching ratio, combined with the theoretical cleanliness make this an ideal theater for testing any new theory bearing on flavour. In the presence of the fourth generation, additional contribution to the $b \to s\gamma $ amplitude would accrue from the $t^\prime $–loop.
The effective Hamiltonian for the $ b \to s \gamma $ process can be written as \_[eff]{} = V\^[\*]{}\_[ts]{}V\_[tb]{} \_[i=1]{}\^[8]{} C\_i() Q\_i(). where the operators $O_i(\mu)$ and the Wilson coefficients $C_i(\mu)$ may be found in Ref.[@buras_munz]. The fourth general manifests itself essentially in the modification of the two Wilson coefficients $C_7$ and $C_8$ [@soni-alok2], namely C\^[tot]{}\_[7,8]{}() = C\_[7,8]{}\^[SM]{}() + C\^[t’]{}\_[7,8]{}() where the new contributions $C^{t'}_{7,8}$ can be obtained from $C^{SM}_{7,8}$ simply by replacing the top quark mass $m_t$ in the latter by $m_{t'}$. There exists a large uncertainty in the estimation of the different Wilson coefficients due to the definition of the bottom quark mass. This uncertainty can be reduced by considering, instead, the ratio [@soni-alok2] R = where $ {\rm BR}(B \to X_c e {\bar \nu_e}) $ represents the semi-leptonic branching ratio of the $B$ meson into charmed states. In the leading logarithmic approximation, the ratio $R$ can be conveniently expressed as R = where, $x_c \equiv m_c/m_b$ and the phase space factor $f(x_c)$ and the QCD correction factor $\kappa(x_c)$ can be found in Refs.[@soni-alok2; @nir_1989].
![*The $1\sigma $ allowed bands for the ratio ${\rm B}(B \to X_s\gamma)/ B(B \to X_c e \bar \nu_e)$ in the $(\phi_{t'}, r_{t'})$ plane for two sample choices of $m_{t'}$. The dependence on the choice of the scale $\mu$ is also displayed.*[]{data-label="fig:bsg_cont"}](bsg_300.ps "fig:"){width="8cm" height="9.8cm"} ![*The $1\sigma $ allowed bands for the ratio ${\rm B}(B \to X_s\gamma)/ B(B \to X_c e \bar \nu_e)$ in the $(\phi_{t'}, r_{t'})$ plane for two sample choices of $m_{t'}$. The dependence on the choice of the scale $\mu$ is also displayed.*[]{data-label="fig:bsg_cont"}](bsg_500.ps "fig:"){width="8cm" height="9.8cm"}
In Fig. \[fig:bsg\_cont\], we display the $1\sigma$ allowed bands for the ratio $R$ in the $r_{t'}$–$\phi_{t'}$ plane for two representative choices of $m_{t'}$. Note that there is a very strong dependence on the choice of the scale $\mu$. Given the uncertainty in this choice, it is thus impossible to further constrain the allowed parameter space using this data (as can be easily ascertained by a comparison of Figs. \[fig:delm\_asl\] and \[fig:bsg\_cont\]). For a give value of the scale $\mu$, it is obvious that a heavier $t^\prime$ implies a smaller $r_{t'}$. This is quite analogous to what we also observe in Fig.\[fig:delm\_asl\] and is easy to understand. Both $\Delta M_s$ and $C_7^{\rm tot}$ receive a large positive contribution from the $t'$ loop, with the contribution growing[^2] with $m_{t'}$. Thus, to compensate for such large enhancements, $r_{t'} $ must become smaller. Indeed, it is the same effect that led Ref.[@chanowitz] to conclude that electroweak precision tests allow for a smaller $r_{t'}$ for larger $m_{t'}$.
LHC Signals
===========
It is instructive, at this stage, to consider $t' \, (b')$ signals at the Tevatron and the LHC [@HoldomYan; @Bholdom; @Arik; @Ozcan; @Saavedra; @Burdman; @Skiba]. Pair production of such quarks is overwhelmingly a pure QCD process (with the $q \bar q$ initial state dominating at the Tevatron and the $g g $ state at the LHC) and is analogous to that of top-production, the analytic expressions for which can be found in Ref.[@Combridge:1978kx]. The decay processes, though, depend on the mass splittings and the magnitudes of the CKM-4 matrix elements. Several channels are of interest here. For $m_{t'} > m_{b'}$, the $t'$ dominantly decays into $b' + f_1 + \bar
f_2$ with $f_i$ being the SM fermions that are kinematically allowed. The only exception to this would be the case where $t'$ and $b'$ are closely degenerate and/or the off-diagonal coupling $V_{t'
b}$ is large. The $b'$ decay is more parameter dependent. In general, the dominant decay mode would be $b' \to q + W$ where $q$ is the quark with the dominant off-diagonal coupling with the $b'$ (nominally, the top). Again, the exception is provided by the case where $b'$ is closely degenerate with the top-quark. In such cases, the loop-mediated decays into $b + Z/H$ could compete with that into $u/c
+ W$ [@arhrib_hou_bpdk]. On the other hand, for $m_{t'} > m_{b'}$, the $b'$ would like to decay into the $t'$ and two soft fermions, unless the $b'$ and $t'$ are closely degenerate, in which case the $t'$ would be replaced by the $t$. As for the $t'$, its decay would now be almost overwhelmingly into $b + W$ leading to top-like events[@Choudhury:2009kz] but with some differences in the kinematical distributions. Issues such as this have been studied extensively in the context of the Tevatron both experimentally[@cdf_tpr; @cdf_bpr] and theoretically[@Flacco:2010rg].
Turning to the LHC, we display, in Fig. \[fig:cross-sect\], the cross sections for pair-production of a heavy quark $Q$ (whether $t'$ or $b'$) as a function of its mass. While the calculation for the higher order corrections to $t \bar t$ production[@ttbar] could be adapted for this case, we desist from doing so. Note that the pair-production could also be accompanied by one or more hard jets. Inclusion of such processes would enhance the cross-section by about 40–50% almost independent of the heavy-quark mass[@Choudhury:2009kz]. Since signal and the background (typically dominated by $t \bar t$ production) are enhanced in a similar fashion, the inclusion of such events would be expected to increase the statistical significance. This is also helped by the fact that the ISR for $Q \bar Q$ production would, typically, tend to be harder than that for $t \bar t$ [@Plehn:2005cq; @Alwall:2008qv].
![*Variation of $t'$ production cross sections in different modes as a function of its mass for [*(a)*]{} $\sqrt{s} = 7 \tev$ and [*(b)*]{} $\sqrt{s} = 14 \tev$. In each the solid (green), short-dashed (red), long-dashed (blue) and dotted (black) curves refer to $t' \bar t'$, $t' + \mbox{light}-q$, $t' + W$ and $t' + b$ modes respectively. All cross sections are at the leading order and computed with CTEQ6L parton densities. The weak cross sections scale with $|V_{t'b}|^2$ and have been computed with $|V_{t'b}|^2 = 0.04$.*[]{data-label="fig:cross-sect"}](tpr_7tev.ps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="9.0cm"} ![*Variation of $t'$ production cross sections in different modes as a function of its mass for [*(a)*]{} $\sqrt{s} = 7 \tev$ and [*(b)*]{} $\sqrt{s} = 14 \tev$. In each the solid (green), short-dashed (red), long-dashed (blue) and dotted (black) curves refer to $t' \bar t'$, $t' + \mbox{light}-q$, $t' + W$ and $t' + b$ modes respectively. All cross sections are at the leading order and computed with CTEQ6L parton densities. The weak cross sections scale with $|V_{t'b}|^2$ and have been computed with $|V_{t'b}|^2 = 0.04$.*[]{data-label="fig:cross-sect"}](tpr_14tev.ps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="9.0cm"}
Perhaps of equal interest is the weak production of these quarks. It is well-known that, at the LHC, single-production of the top-quark is quite comparable to the QCD-driven pair-production, the smallness of the weak coupling being nearly compensated for by the larger phase-space, enhanced flux and the dynamics. Indeed, such a production mode is of great interest both at the Tevatron and the LHC on account of it being a direct probe of $V_{tb}$.
A similar effect occurs here too. However rather than consider the Cabibbo-unsuppressed process (driven by $V_{t' b'}$), we consider the Cabibbo-suppressed processes driven by $V_{t' b}$. Note that a hierarchy similar to that present in the CKM-3, coupled with $|V_{t'
b} \, V_{t' s}^*| \sim 0.02$ would typically mean $|V_{t' b}| \gtap
0.2$. Indeed, a large class of models [@Froggatt:1978nt; @Buras:2010pi] predict that $|V_{t' b}| \sim |V_{u d}|$. In Fig.\[fig:cross-sect\], we also present the cross sections for three different weak sub-processes, computed with $|V_{t'b}|^2 = 0.04$. It should be understood that these are leading order results and would, in general, suffer considerable higher order corrections. Nonetheless, it is instructive to note that, for large $t'$-masses, the weak processes are comparable with, or even dominate, the strong-production process. With the final states being quite different, only a detailed analysis of the corresponding background can tell us about the experimental viability of this mode.
It might be argued at this stage that a very heavy fourth generation with considerable mixing with the third family is disfavoured by the electroweak precision tests [@chanowitz]. This would render irrelevant our observation of single $t'$-production being important for large $m_{t'}$ values. Note, however, that such observations are contingent upon the 4th family being the only NP source close to the electroweak scale. If this assumption is relaxed, the constraints do change considerably. Direct observation, or the lack of it, would consist the best test.It should be realized, nonetheless, that a very large value of the quark masses would imply a large Yukawa coupling, bordering on nonperturbativity.
![*The $Q \bar Q h $ production cross section at the LHC as a function of $m_Q$ for [*(a)*]{} $\sqrt{s} = 7 \tev$ and [*(b)*]{} $\sqrt{s} = 14 \tev$. In each the solid (green), short-dashed (red), long-dashed (blue) and dotted (black) curves refer to $m_h = 120,160,200,240 $ GeV respectively. All cross sections are at the leading order and computed with CTEQ6L parton densities.*[]{data-label="fig:tth_cross-sect"}](tth_7tev.ps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="9.0cm"} ![*The $Q \bar Q h $ production cross section at the LHC as a function of $m_Q$ for [*(a)*]{} $\sqrt{s} = 7 \tev$ and [*(b)*]{} $\sqrt{s} = 14 \tev$. In each the solid (green), short-dashed (red), long-dashed (blue) and dotted (black) curves refer to $m_h = 120,160,200,240 $ GeV respectively. All cross sections are at the leading order and computed with CTEQ6L parton densities.*[]{data-label="fig:tth_cross-sect"}](tth_14tev.ps "fig:"){width="7cm" height="9.0cm"}
A further consequence of the existence of such heavy quarks, and one almost independent of the magnitude of $V_{t'b}$ is the associated production of the Higgs boson. The process $p p \to t \bar
t h + X$ has been well-studied in the context of the LHC and both both ATLAS[@ttbh_ATLAS] and CMS collaborations[@ttbh_CMS] have run extensive simulations. While initially it seemed that, experimentally, the channel was of marginal relevance, a recent reanalysis [@Plehn] argues otherwise and, indeed, advocates its use to even measure the top Yukawa coupling. With the addition of the fourth family, both $p p \to t' \bar t' h + X$ and $p p \to b' \bar b' h + X$ become relevant. While the higher masses of the quarks would cause kinematic suppression, they also imply an enhanced Yukawa coupling. Although the former effect does win (see Fig.\[fig:tth\_cross-sect\]) the suppression in the cross section with $m_Q$ is not very steep. Indeed, for $m_{t'} \ltap 500 \gev$ (the preferred range, as discussed above), the two modes above, together, lead to a sizable increase in the associated Higgs production cross section, rendering it a very interesting mode at the LHC. It should also be realized that the presence of such quarks would enhance the $ g g \to h$ cross section as well [@Kribs_EWPT]. While, for a light Higgs, the experimentally important two-photon decay mode also suffers a change, the last effect is not relevant for $m_h \gtap 160 \gev$.
Summary
=======
To summarise, we have sought to explain the recently claimed evidence for an anomalous asymmetry in like-sign dimuon events by the D0 Collaboration[@D0_dimuon] in terms of a possible four-generation extension of the Standard Model. While a degenerate fourth-family is protected from both electroweak precision tests as well as tree-level FCNCs, the inclusion of such extra quarks, immediately leads to the possibility of additional quark-mixing, and, hence, to additional sources of CP-violation. Assuming, for simplicity, that the mixing of the 4th generation with the first one is negligibly small, allows one to significantly reduce the number of relevant new parameters, essentially to the mass of the $t'$ and $b'$ (which need to be relatively degenerate to protect deviations from custodial symmetry), and the magnitude and phase of $\lambda_{t'} \equiv V_{t' b} \, V_{t'
s}$. Confronting such a model with the experimental data, we find that the measured value of the single-lepton decay asymmetry $a^s_{sl}$ and the mass difference $\Delta M_s$ impose complementary constraints on the parameter space. For a given $m_{t'}$, only four narrow regions in the mixing parameter space are allowed.
If no other new physics effects are around the corner, then the LEP and SLC data on $Z \to b \bar b$ would disfavor two of the allowed regions. However, any such new physics effects and/or a shift in the values of the hadronic parameters (such as $B_{b s} \, f_{bs}^2$) would change this conclusion to a significant degree. As for $b \to s \gamma$ transitions, the solutions found herein are consistent with the data. Given the large QCD uncertainties and the strong dependence on the scale at which the Wilson coefficients are calculated, the constraints from this arena turns out to be not so crucial.
With a not too-heavy $t'$ being favoured by the data, the prospects for detection at the LHC are very good. What is particularly interesting is that the preferred value of $\lambda_{t'}$ indicates that single production of $t'$-quarks may be an interesting channel to consider. And while such modes do win over the QCD-driven process for very high $m_{t'}$ values, it should be noted that such large Yukawa couplings would tend to make the theory non-perturbative relatively early, thereby necessitating the introduction of other new physics, an eventuality also indicated by the electroweak precision tests. And, finally, the presence of such quarks would have a very important bearing on Higgs physics, both in terms of enhancing the glue-glue fusion cross-section as well as through direct associated production (with either of $t'$ and $b'$) rendering it quite important in the LHC context. In other words, if the D0 anomaly stands the test of time and if a fourth generation is the explanation of the same, the experiments at the LHC would soon be in a position to validate it.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
DKG acknowledges partial support from the Department of Science and Technology, India under grant SR/S2/HEP-12/2006. The authors would like to thank A. Kundu, A. Lenz for very useful discussions and the Theory Division, CERN for hospitality when this work was initiated.
[999]{}
N. Cabibbo, Phy. Rev. Lett. [**10**]{}, 531 (1963).
M. Kobayashi and T. Maskawa, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**49**]{}, 652 (1973).
J. H. Christenson, J. W. Cronin, V. L. Fitch and R. Turlay, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**13**]{}, 138 (1964).
E. Lunghi and A. Soni, JHEP [**0709**]{}, 053 (2007); Phys. Lett. B [**666**]{}, 162 (2008); JHEP [**0908**]{}, 051 (2009).
A. Lenz and U. Nierste, JHEP [**0706**]{}, 072 (2007).
M. Bona [*et al.*]{} \[UTfit Collaboration\], arXiv:0803.0659 \[hep-ph\].
K. Agashe, G. Perez and A. Soni, Phys. Lett. [**93**]{}, 201804 (2004); Phys. Rev. [**D 71**]{}, 016002 (2005).
M. Blanke, A. J. Buras, B. Duling, S. Gori and T. Weiler, JHEP [**0903**]{},001 (2009).
M. Blanke, A. J. Buras, B. Duling, K. Gemmler and S. Gori, JHEP [**0903**]{},108 (2009).
S. Casagrande, F. Goertz, U. Haisch, M. Neubert and T. Pfoh, JHEP [**0810**]{}, 094 (2008).
V. Barger, L. L. Everett, J. Jiang, P. Langacker, T. Liu and C. E. M. Wagner, JHEP [**0912**]{},048 (2009).
W. Altmannshofer, A. J. Buras, S. Gori, P. Paradisi and D. M. Straub, Nucl. Phys. [**B 830**]{},17 (2010).
V. M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[D0 Collaboration\], arXiv:1005.2757\[hep-ex\].
CDF Collaboration, [*Measurement of CP asymmetry in semileptonic $B$ decays*]{}, Note 9015, October 2007.
V. M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[D0 Collaboration\], [*Search for CP violation in semileptonic $B_s$ decay*]{}, arXiv:0904.3907\[hep-ex\].
E. Barberio [*et al.*]{} \[HFAG Collab.\], arXiv:0808.1297\[hep-ex\].
B. A. Dobrescu, P. J. Fox and A. Martin, arXiv:1005.4238\[hep-ph\].
A. Dighe, A. Kundu and S. Nandi, arXiv:1005.4051 \[hep-ph\].
C. H. Chen and G. Faisel, arXiv:1005.4582 \[hep-ph\].
A. J. Buras, M. V. Carlucci, S. Gori, and G. Isidori, arXiv:1005.5310 \[hep-ph\].
Z. Ligeti, M. Papucci, G. Perez and J. Zupan, arXiv:1006.0432 \[hep-ph\].
K. S. Babu and J. Julio, arXiv:1006.1092 \[hep-ph\].
N. G. Deshpande, X. G. He and G. Valencia, arXiv:1006.1682 \[hep-ph\]
W. -S. Hou, R. Willey and A.Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**58**]{}, 1608 (1987).
W. -S. Hou, A. Soni and H. Steger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**59**]{}, 1521 (1987).
W. -S. Hou, A. Soni and H. Steger, Phys. Lett. [**B 192**]{}, 441 (1987).
C. Hamzaoui, A. I. Sanda and A. Soni, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**63**]{}, 128 (1989).
P. H. Frampton, P. Q. Hung and M. Sher, Phys. Rept. [**330**]{},363,(2000).
A. Arhrib and W. S. Hou, Eur. Phys. J. C [**27**]{}, 555 (2003).
J. Alwall, R. Frederix, J.-M. Gerard, A. Giammanco, M. Herquet, S. Kalinin, E. Kou, V. Lemaitre, F. Maltoni, Eur. Phys. J. C [**49**]{},791, (2007).
M. Bobrowski, A. Lenz, J. Riedl and J. Rohrwild, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{} (2009) 113006.
A. Soni, A. K. Alok, A. Giri, R. Mohanta and S. Nandi, arXiv:1002.0595\[hep-ph\].
A. J. Buras, B. Duling, T. Feldmann, T. Heidsieck, C. Promberger, and S. Recksiegel, arXiv:1002.2126\[hep-ph\].
W. S. Hou and C. Y. Ma, arXiv:1004.2186\[hep-ph\]. O. Eberhardt, A. Lenz and J. Rohrwild, arXiv:1005.3505 \[hep-ph\].
A. Soni, A. K. Alok, A. Giri, R. Mohanta and S. Nandi, Phys. Lett. [**B683**]{},302 (2010).
C. Jarlskog, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**55**]{}, 1039 (1985); W. S. Hou, Y.-Y. Mao and C.-H. Shen, arXiv:1003.4361 \[hep-ph\]
W. S. Hou, arXiv:0803.1234\[hep-ph\].
D. Choudhury, T. M. P. Tait and C. E. M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 053002 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0109097\]. D. E. Morrissey and C. E. M. Wagner, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 053001 (2004) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0308001\].
A. Lister \[CDF Collaboration\], arXiv:0810.3349 \[hep-ex\]. T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 091801 (2010) \[arXiv:0912.1057 \].
H. -J. He, N. Polonsky and S. Su, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 053004 (2001). J. Erler and P. Langacker, Acta Phys. Polon. B [**39**]{}, 2595 (2008) \[arXiv:0807.3023 \[hep-ph\]\]; arXiv:1003.3211 \[hep-ph\].
V. A. Novikov, L. B. Okun, A. N. Rozanov and M. I. Vysotsky, Phys. Lett. B [**529**]{}, 111 (2002).
V. A. Novikov, L. B. Okun, A. N. Rozanov and M. I. Vysotsky, JETP Lett. [**76**]{}, 127 (2002) \[Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**76**]{}, 158 (2002)\].
G. D. Kribs, T. Plehn, M. Spannowsky and T. M. P. Tait, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 075016 (2007)
M. S. Chanowitz, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 113008 (2009). M. Hashimoto, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, 075023 (2010).
A.J.Buras, M.Jamin and P.H. Weisz, Nucl. Phys. [**B 347**]{}, 491 (1990).
P. Ball and R. Fleischer, Eur. Phys. J. C [**48**]{}, 413 (2006).
C. Amsler [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. [**B667**]{}, 1 (2008), \[URL:http://pdg.lbl.gov\].
V. M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[D0 Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 021802 (2006).
A. Abulencia [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 062003 (2006).
T. Aaltonen [*et al.*]{} \[CDF Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 161802 (2008); V. M. Abazov [*et al.*]{} \[DØ Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. Lett. [**101**]{}, 241801 (2008).
CDF/D0 $\Delta \Gamma_s, \beta_s$ Combination Working Group, CDF/PHYS/BOTTOM/CDFR/9787, D0 Note 5928-CONF, Version 1.1 (July 2009).
A.S. Dighe, I. Dunietz, H.J. Lipkin and J.L. Rosner, Phys. Lett. [**B 369**]{},144 (1996).
A.S. Dighe, I. Dunietz and R. Fleischer, Eur. Phys. J. C [**6**]{}, 647 (1999).
A.J.Buras and M. Munz, Phys. Rev. D [**52**]{}, 186 (1995).
Y. Nir, Phys. Lett. [**B 221**]{}, 184 (1989).
B. Holdom and Q. S. Yan, arXiv:1004.3031\[hep-ph\].
B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B [**686**]{}, 146 (2010); JHEP [**0608**]{}, 076 (2006); JHEP [**0703**]{}, 063 (2007); JHEP [**0708**]{}, 069 (2007).
E. Arik [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**58**]{}, 117701 (1998). V. E. Ozcan, S. Sultansoy and G. Unel, arXiv:0802.2621 \[hep-ex\]. J. A. Aguilar-Saavedra, JHEP [**0911**]{}, 030 (2009) \[arXiv:0907.3155 \[hep-ph\]\]. G. Burdman, L. Da Rold, O. Eboli and R. Matheus, Phys. Rev. D [**79**]{}, 075026 (2009) \[arXiv:0812.0368 \[hep-ph\]\]. W. Skiba and D. Tucker-Smith, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 115010 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0701247\].
B. L. Combridge, Nucl. Phys. B [**151**]{} (1979) 429. A. Arhrib, W. S. Hou, JHEP [**0607**]{}, 009 (2006).
D. Choudhury, A. Datta and K. Ghosh, arXiv:0911.4064 \[hep-ph\].
C. J. Flacco, D. Whiteson, T. M. P. Tait and S. Bar-Shalom, arXiv:1005.1077 . M. Cacciari et al., JHEP [**0809**]{} (2008) 127, \[arXiv:0804.2800 \[hep-ph\]\].
T. Plehn, D. Rainwater and P. Skands, Phys. Lett. B [**645**]{}, 217 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0510144\]. J. Alwall, S. de Visscher and F. Maltoni, JHEP [**0902**]{}, 017 (2009) \[arXiv:0810.5350 \[hep-ph\]\]. C. D. Froggatt and H. B. Nielsen, Nucl. Phys. B [**147**]{}, 277 (1979). A. J. Buras, B. Duling, T. Feldmann, T. Heidsieck, C. Promberger and S. Recksiegel, arXiv:1002.2126. G. Aad [*et al.*]{} \[The ATLAS Collaboration\], arXiv:0901.0512 \[hep-ex\]. G. L. Bayatian [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], J. Phys. G [**34**]{}, 995 (2007).
T. Plehn, G. P. Salam, M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 111801 (2010).
[^1]: The values of $m_{t'}, r_{t'}$ and $\phi_{t'}$ considered in [@soni-alok1] are consistent with constraint from $K^+ \to \pi^+ \nu \nu$ decay.
[^2]: The decoupling theorem does not hold here, since for large $m_{t'}$, it couples to very strongly with longitudinal mode of the $W$ boson.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Droplets abound in nature and technology. In general, they are [*multicomponent*]{}, and, when out of equilibrium, with gradients in concentration, implying flow and mass transport. Moreover, [*phase transitions*]{} can occur, with either evaporation, solidification, dissolution, or nucleation of a new phase. The droplets and their surrounding liquid can be binary, ternary, or contain even more components, and with several even in different phases. In the last two decades the rapid advances in experimental and numerical fluid dynamical techniques has enabled major progress in our understanding of the physicochemical hydrodynamics of such droplets, further narrowing the gap from fluid dynamics to chemical engineering and colloid & interfacial science and arriving at a quantitative understanding of multicomponent and multiphase droplet systems far from equilibrium, and aiming towards a one-to-one comparison between experiments and theory or numerics.
This review will discuss various examples of the physicochemical hydrodynamics of droplet systems far from equilibrium and our present understanding of them. These include immiscible droplets in a concentration gradient, coalescence of droplets of different liquids, droplets in concentration gradients emerging from chemical reactions (including droplets as microswimmers) and phase transitions such as evaporation, solidification, dissolution, or nucleation, and droplets in ternary liquids, including solvent exchange, nano-precipitation, and the so-called ouzo effect. We will also discuss the relevance of the physicochemical hydrodynamics of such droplet systems for many important applications, including in chemical analysis and diagnostics, microanalysis, pharmaceutics, synthetic chemistry and biology, chemical and environmental engineering, the oil and remediation industries, inkjet-printing, for micro- and nano-materials, and in nanotechnolgoy.
author:
- 'Detlef Lohse[^1] and Xuehua Zhang[^2]'
title: |
**Physicochemical Hydrodynamics of Droplets\
out of Equilibrium: A Perspective Review**
---
Introduction {#intro}
============
Classical hydrodynamics focuses on pure liquids. In nature and technology, fluid dynamical systems are however [*multicomponent*]{}, and often with gradients in concentration, even changing in time, i.e., they are out of equilibrium. These concentration gradients, be they smooth or sharp, can induce a flow. Moreover, phase transitions can occur, with either evaporation, solidification, dissolution, or nucleation of a new phase. The liquids can be binary, ternary, or contain even more components, with several across different phases. The non-equilibrium can be driven by flow, mixing, phase transitions, chemical reactions, electrical current, heat, etc.
To theoretically deal with such systems, in the 1950s, Levich wrote the wonderful book “Physicochemical Hydrodynamics” [@levich1962]. The central theme of the book is the “elucidation of mechanisms of transport phenomena and the conversion of understanding so gained into plain, useful tools for applications,” as L. E. Scriven describes it in the foreword to the book in its 1962 translation into English [@levich1962]. Levich can be viewed as a physical chemist and theoretical physicist at the same time, or, as Scriven puts it, above all, as an “engineering scientist” with a recognizable “blend of applied chemistry, applied physics, and fluid mechanics." V. Levich himself, in his foreword to the first Russian Edition (1952), describes the scope of physicochemical hydrodynamics as the “aggregate of problems dealing with the effect of fluid flow on chemicals or physicochemical transformations as well as the effect of physicochemical factors of the flow.”
First and foremost, Levich’s “Physicochemical hydrodynamics” is a book describing the relevant theoretical and mathematical concepts, given that in those days the experimental tools to actually measure the flow on the microscale were very limited and the possibility to perform direct numerical simulations of the underlying partial differential equations even absent. Today, more than 60 years later, the scientific and in particular the hydrodynamical and physicochemical communities have developed tremendously and the experimental, instrumental, and numerical means to actually deal with the problems Levich defined in his book have become available and are being used to do so.
These developments are more than timely, as the relevance of physicochemical hydrodynamics of multicomponent and multiphase liquids is ever increasing, in order to address the challenges of mankind for the 21st century. These challenges include energy, namely storage and batteries, hydrogen production by electrolysis, CO$_2$ capture, polymeric solar cell manufactering, biofuel production, and catalysis. They also include health and medical issues like chemical analysis and diagnostics or the production and purification of drugs, advanced material manufacturing, environmental issues like flotation, water cleaning, membrane management, and separation technology, or food processing and food safety issues. They also include issues in modern production technologies such as additive manufacturing on ever decreasing length scales and inkjet printing, and in the paint and coating industry.
These challenges have often been approached with a pure engineering approach, and less in the spirit of Levich as an engineering scientist. On the other hand, as said above, classical hydrodynamics has focused on pure and single-phase liquids. In the last two decades, the advent of new experimental and numerical tools has allowed for a more integrated understanding of physicochemical hydrodynamics and to further narrow the gap between classical hydrodynamics and chemical engineering and colloid & interfacial science. The objective of this effort is to improve the [*quantitative*]{} understanding of multicomponent and multiphase fluid dynamic systems far from equilibrium, in order to master and better control them. To achieve this objective, one has to perform controlled experiments and numerical simulations for idealized setups, allowing for a [*one-to-one comparison*]{} between experiments and numerics/theory, in order to test the theoretical understanding. This effort indeed is in the spirit of Levich’s “Physicochemical Hydrodynamics”, but now building on and benefiting from the developments of modern microfluidics, microfabrication, digital (high-speed) imaging technology, confocal microscopy, atomic force microscopy, and various computational techniques and opportunities for high-performance computing. These are, in a nutshell, the blessings from what can be considered as the golden age of fluid dynamics, which builds on the digital revolution, both on the experimental and the numerical side. Given these developments, and given the necessity in chemical engineering to move towards higher precision and enhanced control, this effort is indeed very timely.
There is a large number of physical phenomena and effects which come into play in multicomponent and multiphase liquids far from equilibrium. These include gradients in concentration, either in the bulk of the liquid or on the surface, leading to diffusiophoresis and solutal Marangoni flow. They include (selective) dissolution of (multicomponent) droplets and bubbles in host liquids or vice versa their nucleation and growth. They also include the coalescence of droplets consisting of different liquids, possibly with chemical reactions and/or solidification and other transitions from one phase to another. The material parameters which become important are the various diffusivities and viscosities of the liquids, their surface tensions and how they depend on the concentrations, the volatilities and mutual solubilities, latent heats, reaction rates, etc.
Obviously, the field of multicomponent and multiphase hydrodynamics is too large to give an exhaustive review. So we restrict ourselves to small length scales, focusing on the physicochemical hydrodynamics of (multicomponent) droplets far from equilibrium. The objective of this perspective review is to show examples of such systems for which a successful quantitative description and one-to-one comparison between well-controlled table-top experiments and theory and numerics has been achieved, to identify the complex interplay of the underlying principles, and to put these examples into the context of relevant applications of multicomponent and multiphase liquid systems. In particular, we want to identify the new directions of physicochemical hydrodynamics and want to outline the scientific challenges and their connections with the technological challenges.
The core of the review is section \[examples\]. In the five subsections, we give general examples for the physicochemical hydrodynamics of (multicomponent) droplets far from equilibrium. In the five subsections of section \[relevance\] we give application fields and examples for the relevance of physicochemical hydrodynamics in technology. Finally, in section \[conclusions\] we will try to identify the general lessons one learns from these examples and applications and will give an outlook to further directions and perspectives. For better readability, so that in the main sections we can better focus on the fluid dynamics and the physics, we have included three text boxes, namely one on the relevant dimensionless numbers in physicochemical hydrodynamics, one for the new experimental methods which have enabled the recent progress, and one on the new or improved numerical methods.
This perspective review convey ideas, rather than delve into detailed technical aspects or be encyclopedic. For these aspects we refer to specialized review articles on certain aspects, such as the one by Cates and Tjhung on binary fluid mixtures [@cates2018], by Lauga and Powers on swimmers [@lauga2009], by Maass [*et al.*]{} on swimming droplets [@maass2016], by Moran and Posner and by Golestanian on phoretic self-propulsion [@moran2017; @golestanian2020], by Manikantan and Squires on surfactant dynamics [@manikantan2020], by Cazabat & Guéna [@cazabat2010] and Erbil [@erbil2012] on evaporation of pure liquid sessile droplets, by Sefiane on patterns from drying drops [@sefiane2014], by Lohse and Zhang on surface nanobubbles and nanodroplets [@lohse2015rmp], by Jain on single-drop microextraction [@jain2011], by de Wit on chemo-hydrodynamic patterns and instabilities [@wit2020], etc.
[**Box 1: Dimensionless numbers for droplets in physicochemical hydrodynamics**]{}\
In fluid dynamics, it is common to express the ratio of the various forces (or time or length scales) in terms of dimensionless numbers. The most famous one is the
- [**Reynolds number $Re = U R/\nu$**]{}, which expresses the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces. In the context of droplets, $R$ is the droplet radius, $U$ the (relative) droplet velocity, and $\nu$ the kinematic viscosity of the continuous phase.
In the context of the physicochemical hydrodynamics of droplets, which dissolve or grow, the perhaps even more relevant dimensionless parameter is the
- (diffusive) [**Peclet number $Pe = U R/D$**]{}, which compares the advective and diffusive time scales, where $D$ is the mass diffusivity, which in general is much smaller than the viscosity $\nu$, reflecting the very slow process of molecular diffusion in liquids.
The ratio between viscosity and diffusivity is the
- [**Schmidt number $Sc = \nu / D$**]{}, which correspondingly in physicochemical hydrodynamics is quite large, namely $\sim 10^3$, which on the one hand is the reason for many peculiarities in physicochemical hydrodynamics, and on the other hand introduces many experimental and numerical difficulties.
Once also thermal effects come into play, the thermal diffusivity $\kappa$ will play a role. Its ratio to the molecular diffusivity and the kinematic viscosity is expressed as
- [**Lewis number $Le = \kappa / D$**]{} and [**Prandtl number $Pr = \nu/\kappa$**]{}, which are typically $\sim 400$ and $\sim 4$, respectively, reflecting that the thermal diffusion is much faster than the molecular one, and that for standard liquids thermal transport is slightly slower than viscous transport.
In hydrochemical hydrodynamics, surface tension effects are crucial. They can be expressed either in terms of the
- [**Weber number $We = \rho U^2 R/\sigma$**]{}, which is the ratio of inertia to capillarity, where $\sigma$ is the surface tension and $\rho$ the density of the liquid, or the
- [**Capillary number $Ca = \eta U/\sigma$**]{}, ratio of viscous to capillary forces, or the
- [**Ohnesorge number $Oh= \eta /\sqrt{\rho_w \sigma R} = We^{1/2} / Re$**]{}, ratio of time of viscous damping to time of the capillary oscillations, or the
- [**Bond number $Bo = \rho gR^2/\sigma$**]{}, ratio of gravity to capillary forces.
The full richness of hydrochemical droplet fluid dynamics only enters once [*several*]{} liquids and gases come into play, with different surface tensions, densities, etc. Then the gradient of the hydrodynamic forces along or across a droplets introduces net forces. The most relevant may be the
- [**Marangoni number $Ma= R \Delta \sigma / (\rho\nu D ) $**]{}, which compares the Marangoni forces with stabilizing viscous forces and stabilizing mass diffusion. The difference $\Delta\sigma$ in surface tension may be due to differences $\Delta c$ in the composition of the liquid, where $c(\x , t)$ is the concentration field, or due to differences $\Delta T$ in the temperature of the liquid. Roughly, $\Delta \sigma \approx \partial \sigma/\partial c ~ \Delta c$, and similarly for the temperature, but note that in general the dependence $\sigma (c)$ is very nonlinear [@vazquez1995]. In general, of course, $\sigma (T,c)$, and $\Delta \sigma \approx
\partial_T \sigma |_c \Delta T + \partial_c \sigma |_T \Delta c$.
Another way for the system to get out of equilibrium are density differences $\Delta \rho$ to which the gravitational acceleration $g$ couples, implying a
- [**Rayleigh number $Ra = g R^3 \Delta \rho / (\rho \nu D)$**]{}, which compares destabilizing buoyancy with stabilizing viscosity and diffusivity.
Once chemical reaction come into play, we will also need the
- [**Damköhler number Da**]{}, which expresses the ratio between chemical reaction rate and (diffusive or convective) mass transport rate.
We will encounter all these numbers in the discussions of the various physicochemical hydrodynamical effects featured in this review article.
[**Box 2: Recent progress in experimental tools to address physicochemical hydrodynamics**]{}\
A whole plethora of new and improved experimental techniques in fluid dynamics has enabled the recent progress in understanding the physicochemical hydrodynamics of droplets and bubbles far from equilibrium. The most relevant of these techniques are:
- [**Optical visualization**]{} with optical wavelength resolution and beyond: These techniques include standard, fluorescence, and confocal microscopy [@hell2009; @webb1996; @tan2016]. The latter allows for 3D visualizations, but the choice of proper dyes is essential, as adding dyes and/or fluorescent molecules (which are often surface active substances) may cause contamination to the system and artefacts.
- [**Digital Holographic Microscopy (DHM)**]{} can be seen as complementary to confocal microscopy, namely focusing on [*interfaces*]{} rather than on the bulk as standard confocal microscopy. The technique – developed only about a decade ago and up to now mainly used in the biological context [@marquet2005; @garcia2006; @merola2011] – is crucial and ideal for high-precision measurements and visualizations of growing and shrinking droplets with small contact angle, having a sub-nanometer [*in-depth*]{} resolution.
- [**Micro-particle-image-velocimetry ($\mu$-PIV)**]{} [@wereley2010] allows to obtain information on the velocity fields in and around droplets, even if they are moving, growing, or shrinking.
- [**High-speed imaging**]{} with frame rates up to several million frames per second [@versluis2012] and [**stroboscopic illumination**]{} by nanosecond laser pulses [@bos2011; @bos2014] allow for excellent temporal resolution. These techniques also include fluorescent high-speed imaging [@versluis2012].
- [**Atomic force microscopy (AFM)**]{} allows for nanometer or even atomic resolution both laterally and in-depth. In the last two decades, it has developed such that it can now routinely also be used in the liquid phase [@lohse2015rmp]. With techniques like shock-freezing [@switkes2004] or instantaneous polymerization with the help of UV radiation [@zhang2012softmatter] the nucleation and growth process of droplets can be terminated. The latter requires the use of UV polymerisable liquids as solutes. After solidification of the sessile droplet phase through UV radiation, the other liquid phase can be removed, paving the way for AFM of a solid phase in air, which is much easier than of a liquid phase in another liquid.
- [**Surface-enhanced Raman spectroscopy (SERS)**]{} [@schlucker2014] allows to follow the chemical composition of sessile droplets or bubbles in time.
- [**Microfluidics:**]{} Well-defined channels and substrates with designed structures and chemical patterns are possible by microfabrication techniques [@whitesides2006; @squires2005; @garstecki2006; @eijkel2005; @mello2006; @lach2016] to study the growth and collective interactions of bubbles and droplets.
[**Box 3: Recent progress in numerical tools to address physicochemical hydrodynamics**]{}\
Alongside the progress in the experimental techniques (see Box 2), also the progress on the numerical side was crucial in pushing the field ahead. Next to the ever enhancing pure computational power, also the development of new numerical methods and open-source codes and tools contributed to this progress, which now often make a one-to-one comparison between experiment and numerical simulations possible.
The main challenge for the numerical simulations in physicochemical hydrodynamics are the vastly different time scales for the momentum transfer and for the mass transfer, reflected in the large Schmidt number $Sc\approx
10^3$. This implies that the concentration field must live on a smaller grid than the velocity field and that the stepping time scale is extremely small. Here, multigrid resolution techniques are a possible way out [@spandan2018]. These can be used for various numerical schemes.
The most relevant techniques for the numerical simulations in physicochemical hydrodynamics are:
- [**Finite element methods:**]{} Moving droplets or droplets with mass-exchange require a well-resolved interface with the surrounding phases. This can be achieved with a sharp-interface finite element method, where the mesh is always conforming with the interface [@diddens2017num]. Since in general the droplet moves, this requires to co-move all mesh nodes accordingly with the interface. To that end, with Eulerian-Lagrangian methods originally developed for fluid-structure interaction [@heil2006; @heil2011], the mesh can be treated as pseudo-elastic body, so that the bulk nodes follow the motion of the interfacial nodes, which is connected via Lagrange multipliers to the kinematic boundary condition of the interface [@diddens2017num]. This technique has proven to be extremely versatile for binary and ternary droplets [@tan2016; @diddens2017; @li2019prl-yanshen; @li2019-yaxing], but the challenge remains to efficiently parallelize such codes.
- [ **Finite Difference (FD) with Immersed Boundary methods (IBM)**]{} [@seo2011; @spandan2018] are an alternative, allowing for massive parallelization and the calculation of tens of dissolving or growing droplets over a long time [@bao2018; @zhu2018]. Just as in finite element methods, a weak point of such simulations is that they require [*a-priori*]{} input in what mode (e.g. constant contact angle (CA-mode) vs constant contact radius (CR-mode) [@cazabat2010; @lohse2015rmp]) droplets or bubbles grow or shrink.
- [**Phase field methods and Cahn-Hilliard type approaches**]{} [@kim2012pf] employ a diffuse interface, but easily allow to describe spontaneous phase-separation and nucleation, such as occurring in the ouzo effect [@moerman2018].
- [**Level-set methods**]{} [@sussman1994; @sethian2003] have the advantage that the interfaces between the different phases are sharp. They have been extended to include phase changes and interfacial flows driven by surface tension gradients [@langavant2017; @gibou2018].
- [**Lattice Boltzmann (LB) methods**]{} [@chen1998] – coarse-grained versions of the molecular theory of fluids enabling massive parallelization – have been adopted and applied to multiphase flows [@aidun2010; @perlekar2014], including the selective evaporation or dissolution of multicomponent droplets [@hessling2017].
- [**Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations**]{} [@koplik1995arfm; @frenkel1996; @lauga2007springer; @bocquet2010] have the advantage that they do not require to predetermine whether the (sessile) droplet grows or shrinks in the CA or CR mode as in FD+IBM, but the mode will come up from the respective chemical properties of the substrate and the liquids involved, see e.g. refs. [@maheshwari2016b; @maheshwari2018]. The downsides of MD are that (i) only small nanodroplets ($\sim$50 nm) can be simulated, that (ii) one is restricted to short physical times of at most microseconds, and that (iii) molecular interaction potentials are needed, which are not from first principles.
Recent fundamental research on physicochemical hydrodynamics in droplet systems {#examples}
===============================================================================
In this section we will give examples for the physicochemical hydrodynamics in selected simple droplet systems. We will focus on systems in which modern experimental and numerical techniques have led to considerable progress in our understanding, often even allowing for a one-to-one comparison between experiments and numerics. These modern techniques are highlighted in boxes 2 (experimental) and 3 (computational). In the next section we will focus on the applications and the relevance of these examples. The focus is on droplets – for a very general overview on fundamental and applied aspect of bubble systems, we refer to our recent review [@lohse2018-bp].
![[ *(a) Immiscible droplet (red) in a concentration gradient, shown through the color gradient, with the heavier water in the bottom (bluish) and the lighter ethanol at the top (yellowish). We will stick to this color code in the sketches throughout the article. The surface tension at the top of the drop (A) is smaller than at the bottom (B), leading to some Marangoni flow, whose streamlines (calculated in the viscous limit, assuming constant density [@young1959]) are shown (in the frame of reference of the drop). Also shown is the Marangoni velocity $V_M$. The velocity fields for a more complicated configuration of a partially (but poorly) miscible anise oil drop in an ethanol-water concentration gradient are shown in (b) (experimental, from a snapshot and from PIV images) and (c) (numerical result). On the right of each of these figures, the velocity field is shown, both as color code and as stream lines (in the lab frame). On the left, in (b) the snapshot is shown and in (c) the ethanol concentration inside and outside the anise oil drop (also shown in the lab frame). Figures (b) and (c) refer to the situation of ref. [@li2019prl-yanshen]. (d) Maze solving by chemotactic droplet swimmers: A chemical gradient of the ionic surfactant tetradecyltrimethylammonium bromide (TTAB) was imposed; the oil droplet propelling in the gradient inside the maze consists of the nematic liquid crystal 4-pentyl-4’-cyano-biphenyl. The trajectories of the swimmers that passed both entrance and exit points are shown, with the line color corresponding to the time in the experiment. Figure taken from ref. [@jin2017pnas]. (e) Long-time spontaneous swimming velocity $U^\infty$ as function of the Peclet number $Pe$. The concentration field around the droplet (or particle) is shown for three different Peclet numbers. A clear bifurcation towards droplet motion thanks to spontaneous symmetry breaking is seen at $Pe=4$. Figure adapted from ref. [@michelin2013]. (f) Curling nematic droplet ($R \approx 25 \mu m$, phoretic) from the experiments of ref. [@krueger2016], where the Peclet number is estimated to be larger than 4. (g) Chaotic droplet motion for a phoretic droplet with an even larger Peclet number $Pe=13$. Figure taken from the numerical simulations of [@hu2019].* ]{}[]{data-label="young-diddens"}](figs/mega1.jpg){width="92.00000%"}
Immiscible droplet in a concentration gradient {#sec-yanshen}
----------------------------------------------
One of the most basic examples for a droplet far from physicochemical equilibrium is the one of an immiscible (oil) droplet (of radius $R$) in a concentration gradient of two other miscible liquids (with density lighter respectively heavier than the oil droplet), see figure \[young-diddens\]a. The two control parameters reflecting the non-equilibrium situation are the Marangoni number $Ma$ defined with the gradient of the surface tension, i.e., $\Delta \sigma = R \partial_z \sigma $, and the Rayleigh number $Ra$, defined with the gradient in density, $\Delta \rho = R \partial_z \rho $; see box 1 for the proper nondimensionalization. For the case of Stokes flow (small Reynolds number) and zero density gradient, the resulting velocity and the concentration fields can be analytically calculated [@young1959]. The former can be quantified by the Marangoni velocity $V_M$ at the equator of the droplet or, in dimensionless form, the [[(Marangoni-)Peclet]{}]{} number $Pe_{M} = V_M R/D$. If large enough, i.e., for a large enough concentration gradient, this Marangoni flow can make the droplet jump upwards in the stratified density gradient, against gravity [@li2019prl-yanshen]!
In more detail, what happens is the following series of events, that we will describe for the concrete example of an anise oil droplet in a stratified (fully miscible) mixture of water (bottom) and ethanol (top) with constant density gradient in between, see figure \[young-diddens\]a,b,c and ref. [@li2019prl-yanshen]: First, the oil droplet sinks in the gradient region, trying to find its equilibrium position with respect to density. Ethanol-rich liquid is entrained downwards during this motion. This entrainment is enhanced by the Marangoni flow along the drop surface, from the ethanol-rich top (low surface tension) to the ethanol-poor bottom, leading to further entrainment of ethanol-rich liquid. As the droplet asymptotically approaches the density matched position, the self-enhancing Marangoni flow eventually overcomes the sinking-induced buoyancy jet. This positive feed-back leads to a linear instability and exponential growth of the Marangoni flow, which pushes the liquid around the drop downwards and thus the drop upwards, like a micro-swimmer in the pulling mode [@lauga2009]. Once this Marangoni flow is dominant (typically after $\sim 60s$), the drop shoots upwards towards the low density region and the process can start over. Up to six hours of consecutive jumps have been observed. The process only comes to an end once the jumping droplet has sufficiently mixed the stratified liquid. The system can be seen as canonical example for the competition between Marangoni (surface tension forces) and Rayleigh (gravity). We will see further examples in other subsections.
In general, the velocity $U$ of a droplet in a concentration gradient is described with its so-called mobility $M$, namely $U = M \nabla c$, with the mobility being determined by the droplet radius $R$, the concentration dependence of the surface tension, and the dynamic viscosities $\eta_{i,o}$ of the inner and outer liquid, $M = R \partial_c \sigma / (2\eta_o + 3 \eta_i ) $ [@young1959; @anderson1989; @anderson1982jfm; @izri2014], provided no other phoretic forces play a role.
Flow driven by concentration gradients and restricted to a few nanometers close to a [*solid*]{} interface is called [*diffusiophoresis*]{} [@anderson1989; @anderson1982jfm; @marbach2017; @prieve2019]. This term in particular refers to the motion of a colloidal particle in a concentration gradient. Though both Marangoni flow and diffusiophoresis originate from the interplay of surfaces with compositional gradients, we will not focus on diffusiophoresis in this review, as in general the term refers to liquid-solid interfaces, and not to droplets. Note however that there are some exceptions; e.g. in refs. [@yang2018-stone; @morozov2019] the movement of a charged oil droplet in a solute gradient is referred to as diffusiophoresis, as then a discontinuity in the flow velocity across the droplet interface arises, while the hydrodynamic stresses at the interface are continuous, see figure 1 of ref. [@morozov2019].
![ *Various types of coalescence of two droplets consisting of different liquids. In (a1) a side-view sketch of a coalescent experiment of two [*sessile*]{} droplets is shown [@karpitschka2010; @karpitschka2012col]. The outcome is shown in (a2), where we show top-view snapshots for two different surface tension differences $\Delta\sigma$ established with different 1,2-butanediol/water mixtures, featuring enhanced (upper row) respective delayed (bottom row) coalescence. Figures adapted from [@karpitschka2010; @karpitschka2012col]. In (b1) we sketch a side view of two [*pendent*]{} droplets [@koldeweij2019], with the one with lower surface tension creeping over the one with higher surface tension. A detailed sketch of the process is shown in (b2), with the viscous velocity profile caused by the viscous force, counteracting the Marangoni force, which here however wins, leading to encapsulation. Sketches adapted from [@koldeweij2019]. (c) Similarly, an encapsulation is also possible for [*jetted*]{} droplets of different liquids [@visser2018]. Here, one droplet contains a cross-linker and the other a polymer, such that the coalescence leads to solidification. In (d1) we sketch two snapshots (at two different times $t_1$ and $t_2 > t_1$) of another geometry of droplet-droplet interaction, namely one sessile droplet sitting on another smaller one. When the two three-phase-contact-lines touch each other (left, $t_1$), part of the smaller droplet can be “spit out” (right, $t_2$). Three actual snapshots of confocal images at consecutive times are shown in (d2). Figures adopted from [@yu2019].* []{data-label="fig_coalesce"}](figs/coalesce.jpg){width="98.00000%"}
Coalescence of droplets of different liquids {#coales}
--------------------------------------------
A concentration gradient can instantaneously be imposed by a collision of two droplets consisting of two different liquids. In the case of coalescence of fully miscible droplets, the surface tension difference at the interface will lead to Marangoni flow, with the droplet of smaller surface tension being pulled over that with the larger one, while the counteracting force in general is of viscous nature. The droplets can either be sessile [@riegler2008; @karpitschka2010; @karpitschka2012col] or pendant [@koldeweij2019] from a nozzle with a large contact angle, or even hitting each other in flight [@yeo2003; @visser2018], or – both as sessile droplets – sitting on top of each other [@yu2019], see figure \[fig\_coalesce\].
Note that the droplets need not be of equal volume and that the coalescence of a droplet with a pool of a different liquid is included in case (b) of figure \[fig\_coalesce\]. In that case, for large enough Ohnesorge and Marangoni numbers (i.e., dominance of Marangoni forces), the spreading front $L(t)$ displays a universal scaling law $L(t) \sim t^{3/4} (\Delta\sigma)^{1/2} / (\rho \eta )^{1/4}$ or $L(t) / R \sim (Ma/Sc)^{1/2} ~ (t \nu /R^2)^{3/4}$ (where $R$ is the droplet radius) over many orders of magnitude [@berg2009; @koldeweij2019; @wodlei2018]. For case (a) of figure \[fig\_coalesce\] – sessile droplets – the dynamics can be much richer, as, depending on the surface tension difference $\Delta \sigma$, it can either show enhanced coalescence similar to the case in figure \[fig\_coalesce\]b , or, more remarkably, [*delayed*]{} coalescence, due to a competition between capillary pressure and dynamic pressure, induced by the Marangoni flow, see figure \[fig\_coalesce\]a.
The situation further complicates once the different liquids in the drops react with each other [@jehannin2015] or a solidification (e.g. with cross-linkers) is induced [@visser2018], see sketch of figure \[fig\_coalesce\]c. Then the crucial new parameter is the Damköhler number, which compares the time scale of the chemical reaction with that of the hydrodynamics. Yet another situation occurs when one larger sessile droplet is immersing a smaller one of a different liquid, as shown in figure \[fig\_coalesce\]d. When the two three-phase-contact-lines touch each other, for certain combinations of surface tensions part of the interior sessile droplet can be “spit out” by the larger one [@yu2019], see figure \[fig\_coalesce\]d.
Droplets in concentration gradients emerging from chemical reactions {#sec-swim}
--------------------------------------------------------------------
In the examples of the two previous subsections the concentration gradient leading to Marangoni flow was imposed from outside. However, such a gradient can also evolve, e.g. thanks to chemical reactions. A famous example for such gradients can be achieved with so-called Janus particles, i.e., particles with different chemical composition on different sides [@paxton2004]. In the particular work of Paxton [*et al.*]{} [@paxton2004] one side of the Janus particle consisted of gold and the other one of platinum. When put in a $H_2O_2$ solution, on the Pt side catalytically generated oxygen nanobubbles emerged, leading to a chemical potential gradient, which induced a (generalized) Marangoni flow along the particle surface, pushing the particle backwards. There are many variations of such systems, employing the concentration gradient between front and rear, e.g. in refs. [@golestanian2005; @jiang2010; @buttinoni2013; @michelin2014]. Note that only very small gradients $\nabla \sigma$ in surface tension are required to drive visible motion of the microparticles [@maass2016].
For Janus particles, the symmetry-breaking is imposed on the particle. However, even more interestingly, such symmetry breaking leading to a gradient in concentration around a particle or droplet can also emerge [*spontaneously*]{}, due to an instability. Michelin [*et al.*]{} [@michelin2013] theoretically showed that for large enough Peclet numbers the combined effect of solute dissolution (solubilization) (or solute reaction) at the droplet interface and Marangoni flow can produce an instability, resulting in spontaneous and self-sustained motion of the initially isotropic droplet [@golovin1989; @rednikov1994; @schmitt2013; @izri2014; @morozov2019b]. Here the Peclet number is defined with the mobility $M$ of the droplet, the surface emission rate $\alpha$ [@golestanian2005], and the droplet radius $R$, namely $Pe = M\alpha R^2 / D^2$. The crucial mechanism is that nonlinear mixing of the dissolved substance or the reagent establishes gradients in concentration, which then are converted into flow by Marangoni forces or diffusiophoresis [@anderson1989; @abecassis2008; @palacci2010prl; @banerjee2016pnas; @banerjee2019]. The bifurcation diagram of this process and the resulting swimming velocities are shown in figure \[young-diddens\]e, along with the concentration fields around the droplets for various Peclet numbers, see insets of figure \[young-diddens\]e. They and figure \[young-diddens\]a also give an idea on the flow field around the swimming droplet. For even larger Peclet numbers, the droplet can curl [@krueger2016], swim helically [@suga2018] or even chaotically [@izri2014; @hu2019; @morozov2019]; examples are shown in figure \[young-diddens\]f,g. Once two or even more of such droplets are close to each other, they show very rich and highly nontrivial collective behavior [@thutupalli2011; @palacci2013; @moerman2017; @lippera2020].
The solubilization or chemical reactions at the droplet interface can be of various nature. Many examples are given in the review article by Maass [*et al.*]{} [@maass2016]. These include simply dissolving or slowly reacting droplets, but also micellar solubilization [@pena2006; @herminghaus2014] of a surfactant on the oil droplet well above the critical micelle concentration (CMC), nematic liquid crystal droplets self-propelling in a highly concentrated surfactant solution [@krueger2016; @suga2018; @hokmabad2019], droplets with a surfactant undergoing a chemical reaction [@thutupalli2011], binary droplets with selective dissolution [@poesio2009], and many others [@maass2016]. Obviously, the driving strength of solubilization or dissolution will decrease as function of time and the droplet will shrink, leading to transitions in the motion pattern, e.g. from random, to helical, to straight [@suga2018], but this process is very slow and can take many hours. An interesting case is also when the droplet crosses its own trace. Another flabbergasting case is a surface-active chemotactic droplet which is even able to navigate through a complex maze, thanks to an imposed concentration gradient and the self-propelling property [@lagzi2010; @cejkova2014; @jin2017pnas]. Such an example is shown in figure \[young-diddens\]d.
![[ *Collective dissolution for droplets: (a) Time evolution of droplet dissolution: The upper row shows the experimental results for a 10$\times$10 oil droplet array with a spacing of 5 $\mu$m for a flow rate of $ 200 \mu L/min$ (corresponding to a Peclet number of $Pe = 237 $) for four difference times $t$, normalized using $T$, which is the total time for the droplet array to completely dissolve. The length of the scale bar is 45 $\mu$m. The lower row shows a pseudocolour plot of the concentration field from numerical simulations for a 7$\times$7 droplet array for corresponding flow conditions. Blue and red corresponds to oil and water, respectively. The water is injected into the chamber along the $ \hat e_\text x$ direction. (b) Total dissolution time ($T_i$) of droplets along the span-wise direction y and (c) the stream-wise direction x. In (b) and (c), on the left the experimental data are shown, and on the right the numerical ones. Figures adapted from [@bao2018].* ]{}[]{data-label="fig-lei-bao"}](figs/lei-bao.jpg){width="99.00000%"}
Droplets in concentration gradients emerging from phase transitions {#phase-trans}
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The simplest case of a droplet in an out-of-equilibrium situation may be a volatile droplet evaporating in air or a soluble droplet dissolving in another, originally pure liquid. For a spherical droplet in the [*bulk*]{} of a host liquid this problem was analytically solved by Epstein and Plesset [@epstein1950]. That calculation was originally made for dissolving bubbles, but later generalized to dissolving droplets [@duncan2006]. Also the evaporation or dissolution of a single [*sessile*]{} droplet consisting of a pure liquid in a solvent has meanwhile reasonably well been understood [@picknett1977; @deegan1997; @hu2002; @popov2005; @cazabat2010; @erbil2012; @gelderblom2011; @stauber2014; @lohse2015rmp] – even if it is not purely diffusive so that convective effects outside the droplet due to density differences of the liquids come into play [@dietrich2016a], enhancing the dissolution.
The situation becomes more interesting once [*multiple*]{} dissolving or evaporating sessile droplets interact, as in general they shield each other: The reason is that dissolving neighboring droplets reduce the concentration gradient at the interface and thus the outflux from the droplet, leading to longer (and heterogeneous – depending on the position of the droplet) life-times [@laghezza2016; @carrier2016; @zhu2018; @michelin2018; @bao2018; @wray2020; @chong2020], even when the solvent is flowing over the sessile droplets [@bao2018]. Such a situation has recently been explored both experimentally and numerically, leading to reasonable agreement, as seen in figure \[fig-lei-bao\]. Note that the dissolution delay by shielding only holds in the pure diffusive regime. Once convective effects come into play (i.e., density difference between the droplet and its host liquid with large resulting Rayleigh numbers), remarkably, collective effects can also [*enhance*]{} dissolution, due to the collective interaction of individual density plumes [@chong2020].
Coming back to single sessile droplets, concentration gradients can also emerge from selective evaporation (or dissolution) from a sessile [*binary*]{} droplet (or – again more generally – a droplet consisting of several miscible liquids). The reason lies in a combination of the (in general) different volatility of the components and the singularity of the evaporation (or dissolution) rate at the rim of the droplet [@deegan1997; @deegan2000; @popov2005; @cazabat2010] (provided the contact angle is smaller than $90^o$), leading to a concentration gradient at the interface of the droplet. The resulting surface tension gradient drives a Marangoni flow inside the droplet [@scriven1960; @hu2005; @bennacer2014; @tan2016; @kim2016; @dietrich2017; @karpitschka2017; @diddens2017; @kim2017-stone; @li2018-yaxing; @kim2018; @edwards2018; @li2019-yaxing; @marin2019], see figure \[mega2\]a. This effect is very similar to what leads to the so-called tears of wine [@hosoi2001] inside a partially filled wine-glass: In this case, selective evaporation of ethanol at the edge of the meniscus leads to larger surface tension, which thus pulls part of the remaining wine upwards along the alcohol-wetting glass, finally leading to an instability of the film and droplets sinking down the glass wall. In evaporating droplets, the Marangoni convection can be so violent – with velocity exceeding mm/s – that the axisymmetry breaks [@diddens2017; @kim2016]. The same can happen through moisture absorption: Shin [*et al.*]{} [@shin2016] show that the absorption of water vapor (i.e., moisture) to a sessile or pendent glycerol droplet can lead to an axisymmetry breaking Bénard-Marangoni instability of the resulting flow, which is driven by water concentration gradients at the droplet-air interface, emerging from preferential absorption of the water at the rim of the droplet. The evaporation, absorption, and dissolution dynamics of multicomponent sessile droplets presently is a very active area of research.
Depending on the nature of the two components of the binary liquid, the (stronger) evaporation of one component can lead to several different scenarios for the physicochemical hydrodynamics of the sessile binary droplet. In a first scenario [@li2018-yaxing; @kim2018; @karpitschka2018], the selective evaporation of one liquid can lead to segregation of this liquid in the center of the droplet thanks to shielding by the other, non-volatile liquid. This scenario occurs once the Marangoni flow arising through concentration differences at the droplet-air interface is too weak to fully mix the two liquids.
An even more interesting second scenario comes into play once the two miscible liquids of the binary droplet display a sufficiently large density gradient [@edwards2018; @li2019-yaxing], as can become the case for e.g. a droplet consisting of water and glycerol [@li2019-yaxing]. This density gradient is “activated” by selective evaporation of the more volatile liquid, which in ref. [@li2019-yaxing] is water. In dimensionless form, it is expressed as Rayleigh number $Ra$. The gravitational forces resulting from the density gradient compete with the Marangoni forces on the droplet-air interface, whose strength in dimensionless form is expressed as Marangoni number $Ma$. Once the gravitational forces win, Rayleigh convection rolls dominate and the flow pattern in sessile droplets (figure \[mega2\]b) is very different from that in pendant droplets (figure \[mega2\]c). For sub-millimeter droplets this is remarkable as the Bond number of such droplets is $Bo \ll 1$, on first sight implying that gravity does not play a role – but only as compared to capillarity (implying the spherical-cap-shape of the droplet), but not as compared to viscosity. The full phase diagram in the $Ra$ vs $Ma$ parameter space is displayed in figure \[mega2\]d, featuring either pure Rayleigh convection rolls, or pure Marangoni convection rolls, or both at the same time. Also for large Rayleigh numbers the axisymmetry can be broken, and a Rayleigh-Taylor instability can emerge [@li2020-yaxing].
Instabilities can also emerge once a binary droplet evaporates on a bath of an immiscible liquid [@keiser2017; @durey2018; @wodlei2018], see figure \[mega3\]a. Here, similarly as in subsection \[coales\], the Marangoni stress in the drop pulls the droplet outwards but is balanced by the viscous stress in the oil bath, leading to a bulk flow (black arrows in figure \[mega3\]a1). The evaporation causes a transition from partial to complete wetting, which sets the radius of the central drop in figures \[mega3\]a2,a3. In the limiting case of the bath height going to zero, one has the situation of a binary droplet on a thin film. Here the outwards Marangoni flow can get so violent that a hole emerges in the film [@hernandez2015].
![*(a) Marangoni bursting: Evaporation-induced emulsification of a two-component droplet (isopropanol and water) on an immiscible bath. (a1) Sketch of the mechanism. (a2) and (a3) Top view of the flow pattern for two different isopropanol concentrations of the deposited binary alcohol-water droplet, from lower ((a2), 0.4 mass fraction) to higher ((a3), 0.45 mass fraction). Figures taken from [@durey2018] (after adoption). (b1) Typical interaction between a droplet and the solidification front, showing the accumulation of solute and its redistribution around the droplet. Horizontal cross section. Here the temperature gradient leading to the freezing is 5 K/mm, with a sample velocity of $2\mu m/s$. Figure taken from [@dedovets2018]. The sketches (b2) (early times) and (b3) (later times when the front has passed over the oil droplet) visualize the process. (c) Two droplets of two different slightly soluble liquid are approached to each other in a third liquid and interact diffusively, even before they coalesce. (d) Classical single droplet microextraction, as developed by Pregl [@pregl1917]. (e) Principle of Dispersed Liquid-Liquid Microextraction (DLLME), as first suggested in ref. [@rezaee2006a]. For an explanation we refer to the text.* []{data-label="mega3"}](figs/mega3.jpg){width="96.00000%"}
The dynamics of an evaporating binary sessile droplet – be it on a substrate or a liquid – is further complicated once also surfactants come into play [@kim2016; @kim2017-stone]. Also in this case the Marangoni driving of the flow can be so strong that its axisymmetry is broken. The surfactants and the composition of the binary droplet also strongly affect the pattern of the deposit as Kim [*et al.*]{} demonstrated with evaporating whisky droplets [@kim2016].
Note that not only the dissolution of sessile binary droplets with the resulting Marangoni flows is highly non-trivial, as elaborated above, but even the dissolution of spherical binary droplets in the bulk: The reason is that, due to selective dissolution, concentration gradients inside the droplet between its surface and its bulk can arise [@maheshwari2017]. These can lead to considerable memory effects (in particular for small droplets), which do not exist for the dissolution of a pure droplet [@chu2016p; @lohse2016ff; @maheshwari2017].
Another example for a concentration gradient (i.e., an out-of-equilibrium situation) which emerges from phase transitions is a freezing miscible mixture of different liquids with different freezing temperatures. A particularly intriguing case is a pure immiscible droplet in a binary liquid undergoing solidification of one component [@deville2017]. Then a concentration gradient is emerging, acting on the droplet, either pushing it away from the solidification front or towards it, possibly finally leading to the engulfment of the droplet [@dedovets2018]. An example is shown in figure \[mega3\]b. A generalization of this problem are freezing colloids which show extremely rich and intriguing behavior [@deville2017].
Droplets in ternary liquids: Nucleation and growth {#ouzo}
--------------------------------------------------
The examples up to now dealt with miscible, sparingly miscible, and immiscible liquids, but the solubility of one liquid in another one was always constant. However, in ternary liquids, this need not be the case: The mutual solubilities in general depend on the relative concentrations of the liquid. This is commonly expressed in the so-called ternary diagram, see figure \[mega4\]a for a sketch of a typical situation. In particular, the ternary diagram can contain so-called ouzo-regions, in which sub-micrometer-sized droplets of one species can metastably exists. The best-known example for such liquids is indeed ouzo itself.
Ouzo is a transparent Greek liquor (equivalently, one can take as example the French Pastis, the Italian Sambuca, or the Turkish Raki), which chemically – in spite of its actual more complex composition – for our purposes can be considered as a ternary liquid consisting of ethanol, water, and (anise) oil. When served, water is usually added, which lowers the solubility of the oil (see the ternary diagram of figure \[mega4\]a), thus leading to oil oversaturation and subsequently to the nucleation of oil droplets in the bulk liquid and thus to the characteristic milky color. This process is called “ouzo effect” [@vitale2003; @ganachaud2005; @lepeltier2014] or also [*solvent exchange*]{} or [*solvent shifting*]{}. The ouzo emulsion is amazingly stable against Ostwald ripening [@voorhees1985; @solans2005], i.e., the capillary pressure driven shrinkage of the smaller droplets and the simultaneous growth of the larger ones (coarsening). Moreover, the nucleated droplets have a relatively sharp size distribution. Both features – the absence Ostwald ripening and the sharp droplet size distribution – are not fully understood and an active area of research [@zemb2016].
When the solvent exchange process takes place in the presence of a hydrophobic surface, [*sessile*]{} nanodroplets will nucleate at this surface and then grow [@zhang2012softmatter; @lohse2015rmp]. This offers the opportunity for a [*bottom-up approach*]{} in “building” droplets or also crystals. Nucleation and growth of the droplets strongly depend on the geometrical and chemical nature of the substrate and pinning of the contact line respective the absence thereof plays a paramount role [@joanny1984; @gennes1985] in determining the growth mode of the droplet (constant contact radius (CR) mode vs constant contact angle (CA) mode). It is this pinning that enables the stability of surface nanodroplets and nanobubbles against evaporation or dissolution [@liu2013pre; @lohse2015; @lohse2015rmp].
![[ *(a) Schematic ternary diagram of a ternary mixture of water (w), a solute (S) like ethanol, and an oil (O) like anise oil in the case of ouzo. At the corners, the respective liquid has a 100% concentration. The concentration then linearly decreases to zero at the other two corners, along the axes of the triangle. Above the binodal curve, the three liquids are fully miscible (blue region). Below the spinodal curve (red region), water and oil separate into two phases. In between the binodal curve and the spinodal curve, there is a small region (yellow) in which sub-micrometer-sized oil droplets in water (“ouzo region") or water droplets in oil (“reverse ouzo") are metastable. Figure adapted from [@solans2016]. More complicated ternary diagrams with so-called pre-ouzo regimes with oil nanodroplets in an otherwise miscible regime are possible [@lopian2016]. Principle of solvent exchange: (b1) A bad solvent (here water) is replacing a good solvent (here ethanol), leading to a front of oversaturation and thus to the nucleation of (here oil) droplets at the (hydrophobic) surface. Note that the plug-flow like nature of the oversaturation front is due to Taylor-Aris dispersion [@taylor1953dispersion; @aris1956dispersion; @aris1959dispersion; @yu2017]. The velocity profile itself remains parabolic. (b2) For fixed position at the wall, a front of oversaturation $\zeta(t) >0$ is passing by, leading to droplet growth. Figure adapted from [@zhang2015pnas]. (c1) Ternary liquid of oil, water, and ethanol brought into contact with an aqueous phase with a co-flow device [@anna2003; @utada2005], leading to phase-separation in the emerging droplets, which develop onion-like structures. (c2) Details of the developing onion-like structures of a phase-separating ternary liquid of (a). The time is given in seconds. The length-scale given in the first snapshot at $0.75s$ is $100\mu m$. Figure taken from [@haase2014].* ]{}[]{data-label="mega4"}](figs/mega4.jpg){width="98.00000%"}
The advances in modern microfluidics and microscopy of various kinds (see box 2) allowed to monitor the growth of the nucleated sessile nanodroplets as function of the control parameters [@zhang2015pnas; @yu2015; @yu2017; @zeng2019] – including on patterned surfaces [@bao2016; @peng2016-coll], as function of time [@dyett2018growth], and including collective effects of the nucleating droplets [@peng2015acsnano; @xu2017; @dyett2018-1].
The essence of the process is sketched in figure \[mega4\]b: A bad (but fully saturated with a solute) solvent in a narrow channel (of submillimeter height $h$) is replacing a good one (also saturated or at least containing sufficient solute), leading to a front of oversaturation of the solute, which passes by the substrate. This passage leads to nucleation of nanodroplets on the substrate (provided the wetability of the droplet liquid on the substrate allows for this) and to their growth. This growth is controlled by the thickness of the diffusive boundary layer around the droplets (which is set by the Prandtl-Blasius-Pohlhausen boundary layer theory [@schlichting1979]) and thus the mean flow velocity, or, in dimensionless numbers, the Peclet number $Pe$. One can theoretically derive $\left< Vol_f\right> \sim h^3 Pe^{3/4}$ for the final area averaged volume $\left< Vol_f\right> $ of the droplets [@zhang2015; @yu2017], which agrees very well with the experimental data.
The solvent shifting can also be driven by evaporation or dissolution of one of the solvents. Such experiments combine features of the Marangoni flow in ternary droplets triggered by evaporation or dissolution as described in subsection \[phase-trans\] with the nucleation of microdroplets triggered by solvent shifting as described in this subsection.
A very illustrative and simple example for such an experiment is the evaporation of an ouzo droplet on a substrate under ambient conditions [@tan2016; @diddens2017], see figure \[fig-ouzo\], where we show optical and confocal snapshots and sketches of the four different stages of the evaporation process of the ouzo droplet [@tan2016; @diddens2017]: In phase I, the spherical cap-shaped droplet remains transparent, while the more volatile ethanol is evaporating, preferentially at the rim of the drop due to the geometric singularity there, as explained in subsection \[phase-trans\]. This leads to a local ethanol concentration reduction and according to the ternary diagram figure \[mega4\]a to oil droplet nucleation at the rim. This is the beginning of phase II, in which oil microdroplets quickly nucleate in the whole drop, leading to the typical milky ouzo appearance. These microdroplets can coalesce and form an oil ring at the rim of the droplet (early in phase III). At some point all ethanol has evaporated and the drop, which now has a characteristic non-spherical-cap shape with the water drop sitting on top of the oil ring, thus is transparent again (late in phase III). Finally, in phase IV, also all water has evaporated, leaving behind a tiny spherical cap-shaped oil drop. The entire evaporation process takes about a quarter of an hour. Note that this example of an evaporating ouzo droplet on a substrate can also numerically be treated, employing finite element methods, resulting in a very good agreement between numerics and experiments [@tan2016; @diddens2017].
There are various variations of the theme of an evaporating or dissolving ternary droplet: In ref. [@tan2017] an ouzo droplet evaporating on a superamphiphobic surface is studied, again both experimentally and numerically. In this case the contact angle is much larger than $90^o$, resulting in a maximal evaporation rate at the apex of the droplet and correspondingly to a start of the oil microdroplet nucleation at that position. Obviously, the Marangoni flow is then also towards the apex of the droplet, and not towards the rim, as it was the case for contact angles smaller than $90^o$. In ref. [@tan2019] the dissolution of a water-ethanol drop in a bath of anise oil was analyzed: Here during the dissolution, two types of microdroplet nucleation was observed, namely oil microdroplet nucleation in the aqueous drop (“ouzo effect") and water microdroplet nucleation in the surrounding oil (“inverse ouzo effect"), see figure \[mega4\]a. Again, various physicochemical hydrodynamical processes such as Marangoni flow, Rayleigh convection, diffusion and nucleation compete in an extremely rich way, but can nonetheless be disentangled [@tan2019] by including the key physics in a simple model [@kirkaldy1963; @ruschak1972; @miller2007; @tan2019].
An even richer system with two big drops consisting of different aqueous liquids (one water drop, and one consisting of ethanol-water mixtures) in a bath of toluene as host liquid is studied in ref. [@otero2018]. The diffusion of the aqueous liquids through the toluene leads to the nucleation of aqueous microdroplets (inverse ouzo effect) in between the two bigger drops. A variation of this experiment is sketched in figure \[mega4\]c1: Two droplets of two different slightly soluble liquids are approached to each other in a third liquid. Even before they touch (a situation we had discribed in subsection \[coales\]), there will be diffusive exchange of matter. In figure \[mega3\]c the solubility of the yellow liquid is larger than that of the red one, leading to a concentration gradient of the yellow liquid on the red drop and thus in general to Marangoni forces and the resulting Marangoni flow in the red drop and in between the drops. This will dramatically change the diffusive process and the forces between the droplets. In case of ternary liquids with a solubility gap it can also lead to nucleation of microdroplets, as in ref. [@otero2018].
Droplets of ternary liquids can phase separate in many different ways [@choi2013; @haase2014; @zarzar2015; @lopian2016; @zemb2016; @lu2017; @moerman2018], showing extremely rich and complex behavior. For example, a miscible droplet of diethylphthalate (DEP) oil, water, and ethanol, which has a ternary diagram similar to that shown in the sketch of figure \[mega4\]a, demixes upon contact with an aqueous phase, to give alternating, onion-like layers of oil and water [@haase2014; @moerman2018], see figure \[mega4\]c. The detailed dynamics of this liquid-liquid phase separation and the type of emerging structures strongly depends on the exact relative initial composition of the ternary liquid and their viscosity. The process is controlled by diffusion of water into the ternary droplet and vice versa of its components out of the droplet. The liquid-liquid phase separation can be modelled with Cahn-Hilliard type approaches [@moerman2018].
A microfluidics co-flow device similar to that of figure \[mega4\]c1 operated with ternary liquids is also very well suited to impose a well-defined concentration gradient, in order to quantitatively study the competition between diffusion, Marangoni convection, and nucleation of microdroplets in the ouzo-region or inverse ouzo-regime of the ternary diagram [@hajian2015]. The reason is that, with the controlled and laminar flow profiles of such a device, detailed experimental information on the conditions for droplet formation and their radial migration in the ternary flow can be obtained and compared with the ternary phase diagrams.
Relevance and applications of physicochemical hydrodynamics in droplet systems {#relevance}
==============================================================================
After having shown some examples of recent fundamental work on the physicochemical hydrodynamics in well-defined droplet systems in the previous section, we will now come to the relevance of multicomponent droplet systems in applications. In the introduction we have already mentioned various application fields. In the following subsections we want to go into more detail for five quite different application fields. Also for these applications we cannot be encyclopedic, nor go into depth, but we hope to convey the flavor of the applications and their great potential. As in the previous section we ended with ternary droplets with a solubility gap, here we will directly continue with them, and only then come to miscible binary and multicomponent droplets.
Chemical analysis and diagnostics
---------------------------------
Liquid-liquid extraction – the transfer of a solute from one solvent to another – is one of the core processes in chemical technology and analysis. For chemical analysis such as chromatography, ever since the pioneering work of the Nobel Laureate Fritz Pregl [@pregl1917] on microanalysis, there have been continuous efforts to further miniaturize the extraction process of the analyte and to optimize the extraction recovery and preconcentration factor. The driving factors for the miniaturization have continued to increase in recent years [@jain2011], reflecting the urgency of the problem: First, the need to detect [*trace quantities*]{} of some substance is still increasing in the medical, biomedical, food safety, and environmental context. Next, the health monitoring systems of the future will be based on [*rapid*]{} measurements on [*small*]{} sample volumes. Finally, the miniaturization will lead to less chemical waste and environmental strain, i.e., towards “greener” analytical methods and process technologies.
In the last two decades so-called [*single-drop microextraction*]{} [@jain2011] has become very popular for sample preparation of trace organic and inorganic analysis. The principle of this method is shown in figure \[mega3\]d. Here a solute A dissolved in water accumulates in a droplet of water-immiscible liquid B, due to its higher solubility in B as compared to water. After an equilibrium has been achieved, the droplet, which now consists of a mixture of A and B, is extracted with a syringe, to be further analysed by e.g. chromatography.
The scale on which single-drop microextraction can be done obviously remains limited, but this limitation is overcome in the modern technique of [*dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction*]{} (DLLME), which was invented less than 15 years ago [@rezaee2006a; @rezaee2010; @zgola2011] and heavily makes use of the solubility gap of ternary liquids and thus the ouzo effect as explained in subsection \[ouzo\]. Here, a mixture of two miscible liquids B and C (with low concentration of B) is put into water containing the analyte A, with B being immiscible with water (say, carbon-tetrachloride [@zgola2011]), but C being miscible (say, acetone [@zgola2011]), see figure \[mega3\]e. When poured into the aqueous solution containing A, droplets of B will immediately nucleate and then further grow out of the oversaturated solution. The liquid B is chosen such that it has much higher solubility for the analyte A than water and is heavier than water and liquid C. The large total surface of the nucleated microdroplet ensemble will greatly help the extraction process. The final step is to centrifuge the dispersion and take out the A-B phase.
The relevant parameters to characterize the performance of liquid-liquid extraction processes are the so-called preconcentration factor, defined as the ratio of the analyte concentration in the centrifuged droplets, and the so-called extraction recovery, defined as the percentage of analyte which could be extracted. Hitherto, it has not been possible to [*a-priori calculate*]{} these parameters, hindering the optimalization of liquid-liquid extraction processes, which presently is often done by trial-and-error. Even liquid-handling robot systems [@parrilla2014] were built to automate the evolutionary process of finding the optimum. Clearly, a quantitative understanding of the nucleation and the diffusive dynamics of droplets in ternary systems is crucial to make progress towards a quantitative understanding and systematic optimization of DDLME.
Another diagnostic application of the physicochemical hydrodynamics of droplets far from equilibrium is nanoextraction of tracers [@ocana2016]. Sample preparation is considered to be the most difficult step in analytic workflow. Current methods for extraction and separation of minute amounts of substances in liquid samples are laborious, time-consuming, often involve large amounts of toxic organic solvents, and are difficult to automatize, implying high costs of man-power. However, liquid-liquid extraction and online analysis of traces of analytes in aqueous solutions, including in biomedical, health, pharmaceutical and environmental contexts, may be dramatically improved by surface nanodroplet-based sensing techniques [@li2019functional; @li2019automated; @qian2020one]. The basis of such nanoextraction are surface nanodroplets pre-formed by solvent exchange on a substrate within a microflow channel. The principle is that the partition coefficient of the compound in the droplets is much higher than in the solution. The compound in the liquid can thus be extracted into the surface nanodroplets and be quantified by surface-sensitive spectroscopic techniques [@qian2020one]. This approach can potentially achieve extraction-detection of analytes at extremely low concentrations in one single and simple step, allowing for fully automized sample analysis through programmable nanodroplet production for extraction and in-situ detection.
Pharmaceutics and chemical & environmental engineering
------------------------------------------------------
The ouzo effect is not only relevant for microextraction in chemical analysis and diagnosis, but also for drug production and delivery [@lepeltier2014] and in pharmaceutical science and cosmetics [@gutierrez2008], providing a basis for the preparation of pharmaceutical products, formulation of cosmetics and insecticides, liquid-liquid extraction and for many other practical processes. In this context the ouzo effect is also called “nano-precipitation”. Small hydrophobic organic molecules, lipids, or polymers also exhibit similar microphase separation and, by mixing them with a poor solvent, form nanodroplets or nanoparticles with homogeneous sizes. Note that often the details of the mixing process matter. Why this is the case has not yet been fully understood. E.g., in some case the mixing must be very rapid – a process then called “flash nanoprecipitation”, which has been demonstrated to be a simple way to produce drug-loaded polymeric nanoparticles, protein nanoparticles, and other multifunctional colloids with narrow size distribution [@zhang2012sm; @akbulut2009; @zeng2019ahm]. Droplet formation by solvent exchange is also highly relevant for separation and purification in other applications of the chemical and pharmaceutical industry, including undesirable oiling-out crystallization in production of pharmaceutical ingredients, amino acids, and proteins [@gerald2014].
Also on a larger scale, understanding and controlling nucleating and growing droplets in liquid-liquid phase separation is essential for improving the efficiency of industrial operations, e.g. in extraction of natural resources, recycling of valuables from waste and removing organics in waste water treatment, in flotation, and in renewable energy technologies.
Finally, dilution-induced phase separation (i.e., the ouzo effect) is important for advanced oil recovery processes [@sun2017application]. An example is paraffinic froth treatment in the industrial process of oil sands extraction [@qliu2013]. Heavy oil bitumen with a considerable amount of fine solids and water is separated from oil sands ore by warm-water extraction to form bitumen froth. Solids and water are removed by adding sufficient light alkane (which is a poor solvent for asphaltenes, a solubility family of extremely heavy species of bitumen) to achieve a critical solvent/bitumen ratio. Asphaltene precipitation triggered by this dilution then forms agglomeration with water drops and solids, sweeping the solids and water off under gravity and producing diluted bitumen of high quality which is easy to transport [@he2015interfacial]. Control of the size distribution and morphology of asphaltene precipitates may lead to a more efficient oil recovery approach, with less hydrocarbon loss to waste [@sun2017application].
Synthetic chemistry and biology
-------------------------------
Apart from encapsulation and precursors for nanoparticles as described in the previous subsection, the droplets and their physicochemical hydrodynamics also find many applications in chemical synthesis. They provide a confined environment in synthetic chemistry to realize cascade reactions in a fashion similar to artificial cells. The surface of microdroplets serves as a biphasic site for catalysts to access immiscible liquid phases inside and outside of droplets, significantly improving the specificity and efficiency of interfacial catalytic reactions for biofuel upgrading [@crossley2010]. The droplets generated from chemical reactions were found to preferentially and differentially segregate and compartmentalize RNA, suggesting that droplets may play a role in protecting essential chemical components for the origin of life [@jia2019]. Indeed, the droplets can grow and divide from addition of materials produced in droplet reaction, resembling prebiotic protocells [@zwicker2014; @zwicker2017; @golestanian2017].
Microdroplets can also act as microlabs or chemical microreactors, and often chemical reactions, which do not take place in bulk water, do occur in microdroplets [@lee2015; @lee2019]. To account for the enhanced chemical reactions in the microdroplets, a reaction-adsorption mechanism was proposed [@fallah2014]. According to this mechanism, the molecules at the interface are more active, which is attributed to the solvation energy getting available thanks to solubilization. The energy required for the molecules at the interface to react is therefore less than that in the bulk reaction [@fallah2014].
As an entity of microcompartment, droplets formed from aqueous liquid-liquid phase separation of polyelectrolytes have drawn intensive interest from biology and cell research. The process of phase separation of an aqueous solution consisting of two oppositely charged polyelectrolytes into two immiscible aqueous phases – coacervate droplets and supernatant – is called “coacervation” [@overbeek1957]. The dense coacervate droplets are rich in polymers while the supernatant is a dilute equilibrium phase, poor in polymers. Coacervation has a long history of utilization in encapsulation applications [@kizilay2011]. The process of coacervation was also proposed as crucial in theories of abiogenesis (the development of life) [@oparin1957]. Coacervation is driven by both entropy and electrostatic interactions between polyelectrolytes, influenced by molecule weight, charge distribution and chirality of polymers, the concentration and the weight ratio of the two polymers and the ionic strength of the aqueous medium. Prior to the macroscopic phase separation, the size distribution of the polyelectrolyte complexes becomes very narrow. Intermolecular complexes of several hundred nanometers form until macroscopic phase separation occurs.
The research interest in this subject has recently further intensified due to the functional roles of intracellular coacervates and their relation to diseases [@shin2017], and due to the extraordinary properties of coacervates as new materials, namely underwater superglue, deep tissue bonding or bone fixation, scaffold coatings, bone cement, and drug encapsulating materials [@seo2015]. What remains largely unknown is the evolution of nanoscale coacervates. Model polyelectrolytes with defined molecular weight and charge distribution have been studied to understand the effect of charge patterns [@chang2017]. It would be interesting to quantify the temporal evolution of the coacervate nanocolloids during the phase separation process, to better understand its fluid dynamics.
Inkjet printing
---------------
Binary and multicomponent droplets obviously are extremely relevant in inkjet printing [@wijshoff2010; @kuang2014; @hoath2016; @dijksman2019] as nearly all inks are multicomponent and not only contain pigments and surfactants, but also consist of various different liquids, with different surface tensions, volatilities, and viscosities. Moreover, different nozzles of an inkjet printer are operated with different inks. Both features imply that selective evaporation and coalescence of droplets of different liquids as described in subsections \[phase-trans\] and \[coales\] are very crucial processes in inkjet printing.
This not only holds for droplets on the substrate towards which the droplets are jetted but also on the nozzle-plate of the inkjet channel, close to the nozzle out of which the droplets are jetted, and to the meniscus of the ink itself. Here selective evaporation of one component of the ink can be a major problem, as we will demonstrate with two examples from piezoacoustic inkjet printing [@wijshoff2010], which is one of the most advanced and most controlled forms of inkjet printing:
- In piezoacoustic inkjet printing, the ink in the nozzle is well mixed, thanks to the acoustic field driving the jetting of the droplets. Therefore the material properties of the ink such as surface tension or viscosity are determined by the composition of the various liquid components. Now imagine a nozzle at rest for some printing cycles, as that particular ink is not needed. In that time – say many seconds – one or more components of the ink can selectively evaporate out of the nozzle. This changes the material properties of the remaining ink such as the surface tension and therefore the required pulse strength for jetting once the nozzle is activated again – a major source of inaccuracy.
- Even worse, droplets of ink on the nozzle plate can selectively evaporate, introducing a concentration gradient and thus surface tension gradient on the nozzle, leading to a Marangoni flow [@jong2007; @beulen2007]. Once this flow is directed towards the nozzle it can lead to transport of dirt particle into the nozzle which can lead to air bubble entrainment and nozzle failure [@jong2006b; @fraters2019] – a major disaster for the printing process.
Also on the substrate on which the droplets are jetted Marangoni flow within one droplet [@scriven1960; @tan2016; @kim2016; @dietrich2017; @karpitschka2017; @diddens2017; @kim2017-stone; @li2018-yaxing; @kim2018; @edwards2018; @li2019-yaxing; @marin2019] (see figures \[mega2\]a,b,c) or in between different droplets [@karpitschka2010] (figure \[fig\_coalesce\]) can lead to unwanted effects, in particular as these flows transport pigments. Or does the emerging Marangoni flow between the droplets perhaps even help in mixing the droplets (“bleeding of mixed colors”)? Yet another question is how the multicomponent nature of the evaporating droplet and the resulting flows affect the coating pattern [@kim2016; @sefiane2014; @kuang2014; @han2012; @cai2008]. The jetted multicomponent droplets on the substrate may in addition undergo phase changes by evaporation, solidification, or chemical reactions. In the latter case of [*chemical reactions*]{} inside the droplets, including reactions leading to [*solidification*]{}, as e.g. with crosslinkers [@visser2018], many questions arise: What does exactly happen when one reactant diffuses into a droplet of another reactant, e.g. from a neighboring droplet or from some reservoir? How does the reaction propagate from the droplet surface where the two reactants first make contact? How does a two-component paint “chemically dry” through cross-linkers? “Watching paint dry” is in fact interesting, relevant, and largely unexplored science! It is also very timely, because of sharpened environmental regulations with respect to the evaporation of (toxic) solvents.
Nanotechnology and nano- & micro-materials
------------------------------------------
The solidification process after drop-drop coalescence – with one droplet filled with crosslinkers and the other one with a liquid responsive to it – has indeed been used to manufacture micro-particles of controlled shape and size at very high rate [@visser2018]. As the process takes place after collision of such droplets in air (see figure \[fig\_coalesce\]e), Visser [*et al.*]{} [@visser2018] called it “in-air microfluidics”. Its control parameters are – next to the droplet sizes and their velocities – the droplet compositions, through which different degrees of Marangoni-flow-driven encapsulation can be achieved, leading to controlled mono-disperse emulsions, particles, and fibers with diameters of 20 to 300 $\mu m$.
Also ternary liquids have been used to manufacture micro- and even nanoparticles, namely by employing the ouzo effect – or then also called nano-precipitation. In fact, with this process micro and nanomaterials can be built bottom-up in a well-controlled way [@reverchon2007; @chan2011; @huang2018].
Another important material science application for which the physicochemical hydrodynamics of droplets is relevant are freezing colloids [@deville2017], as e.g. shown in figure \[mega3\]b. Here the crucial question is: How do immersed droplets interact with the freezing front in binary or multicomponent freezing liquids? On the one hand particle-reinforced metal alloys require homogeneous distribution of particles in the matrix, and an immediate engulfment is therefore preferred. On the other hand, for single-crystal growth, a complete rejection of impurities is obviously crucial [@dedovets2018; @zhang2006steel]. A rejection is also preferred whenever engulfed droplets or bubbles would introduce uncontrolled defects into a cooling alloy.
Finally, a very important application of the physicochemical hydrodynamics of droplets is in the semiconductor industry and in nanotechnology where surfaces like wafers have to be extremely clean and dry. This can be achieved by the so-called Marangoni drying [@leenaars1990; @marra1991; @obrien1993; @thess1999; @matar2001; @karpitschka2017], where gradients in surface tension are imposed to drive the liquid of a thin film outwards, e.g. through local vapor deposition of a different fluid (often isopropyl alcohol – IPA), which absorbs on the film, or through deposition of a multicomponent droplet [@hernandez2015]. For Marangoni drying to work properly, the interaction of sessile droplets on the wafer is of course essential and unexpected hinderance of coalescence of droplets of different liquids as shown in refs. [@karpitschka2010; @karpitschka2012col] (see figure \[fig\_coalesce\]a2) are obviously a major problem.
In the context of drying wafers with their nanoscale structures, capillary forces can also cause major problems [@okorn2014]: When a sessile droplet attached to different structures on a surface is evaporating, the capillary forces, which are tremendous on the tiny length scales relevant on wafers, pull these structures together, which can make them break [@bico2004; @duprat2012; @bico2018].
General Lessons {#conclusions}
===============
We hope to have given an idea how in the last years the community is working towards a deepened quantitative understanding of physicochemical hydrodynamics of droplets far from equilibrium, in order to illuminate the fundamental fluid dynamics of immersed (multicomponent) (surface) droplets. To do so we have shown controlled experiments and numerical simulations for idealized setups, allowing for a one-to-one comparison between experiments and numerics/theory, in order to test the theoretical understanding.
Much remains to be done, both from a fundamental point of view, but also from the application side, with many new and extremely relevant applications of the physicochemical hydrodynamics of droplets far from equilibrium popping up at a very high rate. But we expect that the rapid progress in this field is continuing, as from our point of view we are living in the golden age of fluid dynamics: The reasons are the continuous increase in computational power, so that simulations which we did not dare to dream of even ten years ago are now possible and that a similar revolution (for the same reason) is taking place in digital high-speed imaging, thanks to which we can now routinely resolve the millisecond time scale and even smaller scales, revealing new physics on these scales, which up to now was inaccessible, and producing a huge amount of data on the flow. Moreover, other advanced equipment like confocal microscopy, digital holographic microscopy and atomic force microscopy are coming to be used more and more in fluid dynamics. Considering all of these advances together, the gap between what can be measured and what can be simulated [*ab initio*]{} is narrowing more quickly than we had anticipated at the end of the last century. Other gaps are also closing. Fluid dynamics is bridging out into various neighboring disciplines, such as chemistry, and in particular colloid science, chemical analysis and diagnostics, lab-on-a-chip mircrofluidics, catalysis, electrolysis, medicine, biology, computational and data science, among many others. Here the techniques, approaches and traditions from fluid dynamics can offer a great deal of help to solve outstanding problems. Vice versa, these fields can offer wonderful questions to fluid dynamics.
Finally, anyone who dismissed the experiments with tears of wine or with coffee, whisky or ouzo drops as a gimmick is very much mistaken: On the one hand, as we have seen, we learn important physics, chemistry, fluid dynamics, and colloid and materials science from these systems and processes, with many modern applications in diagnostics, pharmaceutics, biology, medicine, chemical and environmental engineering, inkjet printing, nanotechnology, and micro-manufacturing, all of huge relevance. On the other hand – and here we come to the education in science which may be even more important than one or the other application – the deciphering of these everyday phenomena are examples [*par excellence*]{} of the physicist’s approach: first translate an observed phenomenon into a clean experiment with well-defined control parameters, then make precise observations and record data, then develop a theory and a model and confirm these by calculations and numerical simulations, and finally make predictions about how the system will behave with values for the control parameters from an even wider range. Studying the fluid physics of these everyday systems is therefore also very suitable for the conceptual training of PhD students, who can learn in this way, simultaneously and by example, clean experimentation, theory formulation, modelling and numerical simulation, which from our point of view is much more motivating and broader than being a small cog for a specific detail of a large large-scale experiment with thousands of scientists involved.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
We thank our colleagues, postdocs, Ph.D. students, and students for all their work and contributions to our understanding of physicochemical hydrodynamics of droplets and for the stimulation and intellectual pleasure we have enjoyed when doing physics together. In the context of the subjects covered in this review we would like to name Lei Bao, Kai Leong Chong, Pallav Kant, Ziyang Lu, Andrea Prosperetti, Vamsi Spandan, Michel Versluis, Claas-Willem Visser, Herman Wijshoff, Haitao Yu, and in particular Christian Diddens, Yanshen Li, Yaxing Li, and Huanshu Tan. Moreover, we thank Anne Juel, Stefan Karpitschka, Corinna Maas, Andrea Prosperetti, Jacco Snoeijer, and Howard Stone for comments on the manuscript. D.L. also acknowledges Dennis van Gils for drawing many figures and support from NWO under several projects, from the ERC-Advanced Grant “DDD” under the project number 740479, and from the ERC-Proof-of-Concept Grant “NanoEX” under the project number 862032. X.H.Z. acknowledges support from the Natural Science and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC) and from the Canada Research Chairs program.
[100]{}
V. G. Levich, [*Physicochemical hydrodynamics*]{} (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1962).
M. E. Cates and E. Tjhung, [*Theories of binary fluid mixtures: from phase-separation kinetics to active emulsions*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**836**]{}, P1 (2018).
E. Lauga and T. R. Powers, [*The hydrodynamics of swimming microorganisms*]{}, Reports on Progress in Physics [**72**]{}, 096601 (2009).
C. C. Maass, C. Kr[ü]{}ger, S. Herminghaus, and C. Bahr, [*Swimming droplets*]{}, Annu. Rev. Cond. Matter Phys. [**7**]{}, 171 (2016).
J. L. Moran and J. D. Posner, [*Phoretic self-propulsion*]{}, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. [**49**]{}, 511 (2017).
R. Golestanian, Phoretic Active Matter, arXiv: 1909.03747.
H. Manikantan and T. M. Squires, [*Surfactant dynamics: hidden variables controlling fluid flows*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**892**]{}, P1 (2020).
A. M. Cazabat and G. Guéna, [*Evaporation of macroscopic sessile droplets*]{}, Soft Matter [**6**]{}, 2591 (2010).
H. Y. Erbil, [*Evaporation of pure liquid sessile and spherical suspended drops: A review*]{}, Adv. Colloid & interface Sci. [**170**]{}, 67 (2012).
K. Sefiane, [*Patterns from drying drops*]{}, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. [ **206**]{}, 372 (2014).
D. Lohse and X. Zhang, [*Surface nanobubble and surface nanodroplets*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**87**]{}, 981 (2015).
A. Jain and K. K. Verma, [*[Recent advances in applications of single-drop microextraction: A review]{}*]{}, [Analytica Chimica Acta]{} [**[706]{}**]{}, 37 ([2011]{}).
A. de Wit, [*Chemo-Hydrodynamic Patterns and Instabilities*]{}, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. [**52**]{}, 531 (2020).
G. Vazquez, E. Alvarez, and J. M. Navaza, [*Surface Tension of Alcohol Water + Water from 20 to 50 degrees C*]{}, J. Chem. Eng. Data [**40**]{}, 611 (1995).
S. W. Hell, [*[Microscopy and its focal switch]{}*]{}, [Nature Methods]{} [ **[6]{}**]{}, 24 ([2009]{}).
R. H. Webb, [*Confocal optical microscopy*]{}, Rep. on Progress in Phys. [ **59**]{}, 427 (1996).
H. Tan, C. Diddens, P. Lv, J. G. M. Kuerten, X. Zhang, and D. Lohse, [ *Evaporation-triggered microdroplet nucleation and the four life phases of an evaporating Ouzo drop*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [**113**]{}, 8642 (2016).
P. Marquet, B. Rappaz, P. Magistretti, E. Cuche, Y. Emery, T. Colomb, and C. Depeursinge, [*[Digital holographic microscopy: a noninvasive contrast imaging technique allowing quantitative visualization of living cells with subwavelength axial accuracy]{}*]{}, [Optics Lett.]{} [**[30]{}**]{}, 468 ([2005]{}).
J. Garcia-Sucerquia, W. Xu, S. Jericho, P. Klages, M. Jericho, and H. Kreuzer, [*[Digital in-line holographic microscopy]{}*]{}, [Appl. Optics]{} [**[45]{}**]{}, 836 ([2006]{}).
F. Merola, L. Miccio, M. Paturzo, A. Finizio, S. Grilli, and P. Ferraro, [ *[Driving and analysis of micro-objects by digital holographic microscope in microfluidics]{}*]{}, [Optics Lett.]{} [**[36]{}**]{}, 3079 ([2011]{}).
S. T. Wereley and C. D. Meinhart, [*Recent advances in micro-particle image velocimetry*]{}, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. [**42**]{}, 557 (2010).
M. Versluis, [*High-speed imaging in fluids*]{}, Exp. Fluids [**54**]{}, 1458 (2013).
A. van der Bos, A. Zijlstra, E. Gelderblom, and M. Versluis, [*iLIF: illumination by Laser-Induced Fluorescence for single flash imaging on a nanoseconds timescale*]{}, Exp. in Fluids [**51**]{}, 1283 (2011).
A. van der Bos, M.-J. van der Meulen, T. Driessen, M. van den Berg, H. Reinten, H. Wijshoff, M. Versluis, and D. Lohse, [*Velocity Profile inside Piezoacoustic Inkjet Droplets in Flight: Comparison between Experiment and Numerical Simulation*]{}, Phys. Rev. Appl. [**1**]{}, 014004 (2014).
M. Switkes and J. W. Ruberti, [*Rapid cryofixation/freeze fracture for the study of nanobubbles at solid-liquid interfaces*]{}, App. Phys. Lett. [**84**]{}, 4759 (2004).
X. H. Zhang, J. M. Ren, H. J. Yang, Y. H. He, J. F. Tan, and G. G. Qiao, [ *From Transient Nanodroplets to Permanent Nanolenses*]{}, Soft Matter [**8**]{}, 4314 (2012).
S. Schl[ü]{}cker, [*Surface-Enhanced raman spectroscopy: Concepts and chemical applications*]{}, Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. [**53**]{}, 4756 (2014).
G. M. Whitesides, [*The origins and the future of microfluidics*]{}, Nature [**442**]{}, 368 (2006).
T. Squires and S. Quake, [*[Microfluidics: Fluid physics at the nanoliter scale]{}*]{}, [Rev. Mod. Phys.]{} [**[77]{}**]{}, 977 ([2005]{}).
P. Garstecki, M. J. Fuerstman, H. A. Stone, and G. M. Whitesides, [ *Formation of droplets and bubbles in a microfluidic T-junction: scaling and mechanism of break-up*]{}, Lab on Chip [**6**]{}, 437 (2006).
J. C. T. Eijkel and A. van den Berg, [*Nanofluidics: what is it and what can we expect from it?*]{}, Microfluidics and Nanofluidics [**1**]{}, 249 (2005).
A. J. deMello, [*[Control and detection of chemical reactions in microfluidic systems]{}*]{}, [Nature]{} [**[442]{}**]{}, 394 ([2006]{}).
S. Lach, S. M. Yoon, and B. A. Grzybowski, [*Tactic, reactive, and functional droplets outside of equilibrium*]{}, Chem. Soc. Rev. [**45**]{}, 4766 (2016).
V. Spandan, D. Lohse, M. D. de Tullio, and R. Verzicco, [*A fast moving least squares approximation with adaptive Lagrangian mesh refinement for large scale immersed boundary simulations*]{}, J. Comp. Phys. [**375**]{}, 228 (2018).
C. Diddens, [*Detailed finite element method modeling of evaporating multi-component droplets*]{}, J. Comp. Phys. [**340**]{}, 670 (2017).
M. Heil and A. L. Hazel, [*Fluid-structure interaction*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 2006), pp. 19–49.
M. Heil and A. L. Hazel, [*Fluid-structure interaction in internal physiological flows*]{}, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. [**43**]{}, 141 (2011).
C. Diddens, H. Tan, P. Lv, M. Versluis, J. G. M. Kuerten, X. Zhang, and D. Lohse, [*Evaporating pure, binary and ternary droplets: thermal effects and axial symmetry breaking*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**823**]{}, 470 (2017).
Y. Li, C. Diddens, A. Prosperetti, K. L. Chong, X. Zhang, and D. Lohse, [ *Bouncing Oil Droplet in a Stratified Liquid and its Sudden Death*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**122**]{}, 154502 (2019).
Y. Li, C. Diddens, P. Lv, H. Wijshoff, M. Versluis, and D. Lohse, [ *Gravitational effect in evaporating binary microdroplets*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**122**]{}, 114501 (2019).
J. H. Seo and R. Mittal, [*A sharp-interface immersed boundary method with improved mass conservation and reduced spurious pressure oscillations*]{}, J. Comp. Phys. [**230**]{}, 7347 (2011).
L. Bao, V. Spandan, Y. Yang, B. Dyett, R. Verzicco, D. Lohse, and X. Zhang, [*[Flow-induced dissolution of femtoliter surface droplet arrays]{}*]{}, [Lab on Chip]{} [**[18]{}**]{}, 1066 ([2018]{}).
X. Zhu, R. Verzicco, X. Zhang, and D. Lohse, [*Diffusive interaction of multiple surface nanobubbles: shrinkage, growth, and coarsening*]{}, Soft Matter [**14**]{}, 2006 (2018).
J. Kim, [*Phase-field models for multi-component fluid flows*]{}, Commun. in Comput. Phys. [**12**]{}, 613 (2012).
P. G. Moerman, P. C. Hohenberg, E. Vanden-Eijnden, and J. Brujic, [*Emulsion patterns in the wake of a liquid–liquid phase separation front*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [**115**]{}, 3599 (2018).
M. Sussman, P. Smereka, and S. Osher, [*A level set approach for computing solutions to incompressible two-phase flow*]{}, J. Comp. Phys. [**114**]{}, 146 (1994).
J. A. Sethian and P. Smereka, [*Level set methods for fluid interfaces*]{}, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. [**35**]{}, 341 (2003).
C. C. de Langavant, A. Guittet, M. Theillard, F. Temprano-Coleto, and F. Gibou, [*Level-set simulations of soluble surfactant driven flows*]{}, J. Comp. Phys. [**348**]{}, 271 (2017).
F. Gibou, R. Fedkiw, and S. Osher, [*A review of level-set methods and some recent applications*]{}, J. Comp. Phys. [**353**]{}, 82 (2018).
S. Chen and G. D. Doolen, [*Lattice Boltzmann method for fluid flows*]{}, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. [**30**]{}, 329 (1998).
C. K. Aidun and J. R. Clausen, [*Lattice-Boltzmann method for complex flows*]{}, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. [**42**]{}, 439 (2010).
P. Perlekar, R. Benzi, H. J. Clercx, D. R. Nelson, and F. Toschi, [*Spinodal decomposition in homogeneous and isotropic turbulence*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **112**]{}, 014502 (2014).
D. Hessling, Q. Xie, and J. Harting, [*Diffusion dominated evaporation in multicomponent lattice Boltzmann simulations*]{}, The Journal of chemical physics [**146**]{}, 054111 (2017).
J. Koplik and J. R. Banavar, [*[Continuum Deductions from Molecular Hydrodynamics]{}*]{}, [Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech.]{} [**[27]{}**]{}, 257 ([1995]{}).
D. Frenkel and B. Smit, [*Understanding molecular simulations: From algorithm to applications*]{} (Academic Press, San Diego, 1996).
E. Lauga, M. P. Brenner, and H. A. Stone, in [*Handbook of [E]{}xperimental [F]{}luid [D]{}ynamics*]{}, edited by C. Tropea, A. Yarin, and J. F. Foss (Springer, New York, 2007), pp. 1219–1240.
L. Bocquet and E. Charlaix, [*[Nanofluidics, from bulk to interfaces]{}*]{}, [Chem. Soc. Rev.]{} [**[39]{}**]{}, 1073 ([2010]{}).
S. Maheshwari, M. van der Hoef, X. Zhang, and D. Lohse, [*Stability of Surface Nanobubbles: A Molecular Dynamics Study*]{}, Langmuir [**32**]{}, 11116 (2016).
S. Maheshwari, M. van der Hoef, J. Rodriguez Rodriguez, and D. Lohse, [ *[Leakiness of Pinned Neighboring Surface Nanobubbles Induced by Strong Gas-Surface Interaction]{}*]{}, [ACS Nano]{} [**[12]{}**]{}, 2603 ([2018]{}).
D. Lohse, [*Bubble Puzzles: From fundamentals to applications*]{}, Phys. Rev. Fluids [**3**]{}, 110504 (2018).
N. Young, J. Goldstein, and M. J. Block, [*The motion of bubbles in a vertical temperature gradient*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**6**]{}, 350 (1959).
C. Jin, C. Kr[ü]{}ger, and C. C. Maass, [*Chemotaxis and autochemotaxis of self-propelling droplet swimmers*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [**114**]{}, 5089 (2017).
S. Michelin, E. Lauga, and D. Bartolo, [*Spontaneous autophoretic motion of isotropic particles*]{}, Phys/ Fluids [**25**]{}, 061701 (2013).
C. Kr[ü]{}ger, G. Kl[ö]{}s, C. Bahr, and C. C. Maass, [*Curling liquid crystal microswimmers: A cascade of spontaneous symmetry breaking*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**117**]{}, 048003 (2016).
W.-F. Hu, T.-S. Lin, S. Rafai, and C. Misbah, [*Chaotic Swimming of Phoretic Particles*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**123**]{}, 238004 (2019).
J. L. Anderson, [*Colloid transport by interfacial forces*]{}, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. [**21**]{}, 61 (1989).
J. L. Anderson, M. E. Lowell, and D. C. Prieve, [*Motion of a particle generated by chemical gradients Part 1. Non-electrolytes*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**117**]{}, 107 (1982).
Z. Izri, M. N. Van Der Linden, S. Michelin, and O. Dauchot, [ *Self-propulsion of pure water droplets by spontaneous [[Marangoni]{}]{}-stress-driven motion*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**113**]{}, 248302 (2014).
S. Marbach, H. Yoshida, and L. Bocquet, [*Osmotic and diffusio-osmotic flow generation at high solute concentration. I. Mechanical approaches*]{}, J. Chem. Phys. [**146**]{}, 194701 (2017).
D. C. Prieve, S. M. Malone, A. S. Khair, R. F. Stout, and M. Y. Kanj, [ *Diffusiophoresis of charged colloidal particles in the limit of very high salinity*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [**116**]{}, 18257 (2019).
F. Yang, S. Shin, and H. A. Stone, [*Diffusiophoresis of a charged drop*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**852**]{}, 37 (2018).
M. Morozov and S. Michelin, [*Nonlinear dynamics of a chemically-active drop: From steady to chaotic self-propulsion*]{}, J. Chem. Phys. [**150**]{}, 044110 (2019).
S. Karpitschka and H. Riegler, [*Quantitative experimental study on the transition between fast and delayed coalescence of sessile droplets with different but completely miscible liquids*]{}, Langmuir [**26**]{}, 11823 (2010).
S. Karpitschka and H. Riegler, [*Noncoalescence of sessile drops from different but miscible liquids: hydrodynamic analysis of the twin drop contour as a self-stabilizing traveling wave*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 066103 (2012).
R. B. Koldeweij, B. F. Van Capelleveen, D. Lohse, and C. W. Visser, [ *Marangoni-driven spreading of miscible liquids in the binary pendant drop geometry*]{}, Soft matter [**15**]{}, 8525 (2019).
C. W. Visser, T. Kamperman, L. P. Karbaat, D. Lohse, and M. Karperien, [ *In-air microfluidics enables rapid fabrication of emulsions, suspensions, and 3D modular (bio) materials*]{}, Science Advances [**4**]{}, eaao1175 (2018).
H. Yu, P. Kant, B. Dyett, D. Lohse, and X. Zhang, [*Splitting droplet through coalescence of two different three-phase contact lines*]{}, Soft Matter [**15**]{}, 6055 (2019).
H. Riegler and P. Lazar, [*Delayed coalescence behavior of droplets with completely miscible liquids*]{}, Langmuir [**24**]{}, 6395 (2008).
Y. Yeo, O. A. Basaran, and K. Park, [*A new process for making reservoir-type microcapsules using ink-jet technology and interfacial phase separation*]{}, J. Controlled Release [**93**]{}, 161 (2003).
S. Berg, [*Marangoni-driven spreading along liquid-liquid interfaces*]{}, Phys. Fluids [**21**]{}, 032105 (2009).
F. Wodlei, J. Sebilleau, J. Magnaudet, and V. Pimienta, [*Marangoni-driven flower-like patterning of an evaporating drop spreading on a liquid substrate*]{}, Nature Communications [**9**]{}, 820 (2018).
M. Jehannin, S. Charton, S. Karpitschka, T. Zemb, H. Moehwald, and H. Riegler, [*Periodic precipitation patterns during coalescence of reacting sessile droplets*]{}, Langmuir [**31**]{}, 11484 (2015).
W. Paxton, K. Kistler, C. Olmeda, A. Sen, S. St Angelo, Y. Cao, T. Mallouk, P. Lammert, and V. Crespi, [*[Catalytic nanomotors: Autonomous movement of striped nanorods]{}*]{}, [J. Am. Chem. Soc.]{} [**[126]{}**]{}, 13424 ([2004]{}).
R. Golestanian, T. B. Liverpool, and A. Ajdari, [*Propulsion of a molecular machine by asymmetric distribution of reaction products*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**94**]{}, 220801 (2005).
H.-R. Jiang, N. Yoshinaga, and M. Sano, [*Active motion of a Janus particle by self-thermophoresis in a defocused laser beam*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [ **105**]{}, 268302 (2010).
I. Buttinoni, J. Bialk[é]{}, F. K[ü]{}mmel, H. L[ö]{}wen, C. Bechinger, and T. Speck, [*Dynamical clustering and phase separation in suspensions of self-propelled colloidal particles*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**110**]{}, 238301 (2013).
S. Michelin and E. Lauga, [*Phoretic self-propulsion at finite [[P[é]{}clet]{}]{} numbers*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**747**]{}, 572 (2014).
A. Golovin, Y. P. Gupalo, and Y. S. Ryazantsev, [*Change in shape of drop moving due to the chemithermocapillary effect*]{}, J. Appl. Mech. and Tech. Phys. [**30**]{}, 602 (1989).
A. Y. Rednikov, Y. S. Ryazantsev, and M. G. Velarde, [*Drop motion with surfactant transfer in a homogeneous surrounding*]{}, Phys. Fluids [**6**]{}, 451 (1994).
M. Schmitt and H. Stark, [*Swimming active droplet: A theoretical analysis*]{}, EPL [**101**]{}, 44008 (2013).
M. Morozov and S. Michelin, [*Self-propulsion near the onset of Marangoni instability of deformable active droplets*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**860**]{}, 711 (2019).
B. Ab[é]{}cassis, C. Cottin-Bizonne, C. Ybert, A. Ajdari, and L. Bocquet, [ *Boosting migration of large particles by solute contrasts*]{}, Nature Materials [**7**]{}, 785 (2008).
J. Palacci, B. Abecassis, C. Cottin-Bizonne, C. Ybert, and L. Bocquet, [ *Colloidal Motility and Pattern Formation under Rectified Diffusiophoresis*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**104**]{}, 138302 (2010).
A. Banerjee, I. Williams, R. N. Azevedo, M. E. Helgeson, and T. M. Squires, [*Soluto-inertial phenomena: Designing long-range, long-lasting, surface-specific interactions in suspensions*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [ **113**]{}, 8612 (2016).
A. Banerjee and T. M. Squires, [*Long-range, selective, on-demand suspension interactions: Combining and triggering soluto-inertial beacons*]{}, Science Advances [**5**]{}, eaax1893 (2019).
M. Suga, S. Suda, M. Ichikawa, and Y. Kimura, [*Self-propelled motion switching in nematic liquid crystal droplets in aqueous surfactant solutions*]{}, Physical Review E [**97**]{}, 062703 (2018).
S. Thutupalli, R. Seemann, and S. Herminghaus, [*Swarming behavior of simple model squirmers*]{}, New J. Phys. [**13**]{}, 073021 (2011).
J. Palacci, S. Sacanna, A. P. Steinberg, D. J. Pine, and P. M. Chaikin, [ *Living crystals of light-activated colloidal surfers*]{}, Science [**339**]{}, 936 (2013).
P. G. Moerman, H. W. Moyses, E. B. Van Der Wee, D. G. Grier, A. Van Blaaderen, W. K. Kegel, J. Groenewold, and J. Brujic, [*Solute-mediated interactions between active droplets*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**96**]{}, 032607 (2017).
K. Lippera, M. Morozov, M. Benzaquen, and S. Michelin, [*Collisions and rebounds of chemically-active droplets*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**886**]{}, A17 (2020).
A. A. Pe[ñ]{}a and C. A. Miller, [*Solubilization rates of oils in surfactant solutions and their relationship to mass transport in emulsions*]{}, Adv. Colloid and Interface Sci. [**123**]{}, 241 (2006).
S. Herminghaus, C. C. Maass, C. Kr[ü]{}ger, S. Thutupalli, L. Goehring, and C. Bahr, [*Interfacial mechanisms in active emulsions*]{}, Soft Matter [**10**]{}, 7008 (2014).
B. V. Hokmabad, K. A. Baldwin, C. Kr[ü]{}ger, C. Bahr, and C. C. Maass, [ *Topological stabilization and dynamics of self-propelling nematic shells*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**123**]{}, 178003 (2019).
P. Poesio, G. P. Beretta, and T. Thorsen, [*Dissolution of a liquid microdroplet in a nonideal liquid-liquid mixture far from thermodynamic equilibrium*]{}, Phys. rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 064501 (2009).
I. Lagzi, S. Soh, P. J. Wesson, K. P. Browne, and B. A. Grzybowski, [*Maze solving by chemotactic droplets*]{}, J. Am. Chem. Soc. [**132**]{}, 1198 (2010).
J. Cejkova, M. Novak, F. Stepanek, and M. M. Hanczyc, [*Dynamics of chemotactic droplets in salt concentration gradients*]{}, Langmuir [**30**]{}, 11937 (2014).
P. S. Epstein and M. S. Plesset, [*On the stability of gas bubbles in liquid-gas solutions*]{}, J. Chem. Phys. [**18**]{}, 1505 (1950).
P. B. Duncan and D. Needham, [*[Microdroplet dissolution into a second-phase solvent using a micropipet technique: test of the Epstein-Plesset model for an aniline-water system]{}*]{}, [Langmuir]{} [**[22]{}**]{}, 4190 ([2006]{}).
R. G. Picknett and R. Bexon, [*[The evaporation of sessile or pendant drops in still air]{}*]{}, [J. Colloid Interface Sci.]{} [**[61]{}**]{}, 336 ([1977]{}).
R. D. Deegan, O. Bakajin, T. F. Dupont, G. Huber, S. R. Nagel, and T. A. Witten, [*[Capillary flow as the cause of ring stains from dried liquid drops]{}*]{}, [Nature]{} [**[389]{}**]{}, 827 ([1997]{}).
H. Hu and R. G. Larson, [*Evaporation of a Sessile Droplet on a Substrate*]{}, [J. Phys. Chem. B]{} [**[106]{}**]{}, 1334 ([2002]{}).
Y. O. Popov, [*[Evaporative deposition patterns: Spatial dimensions of the deposit]{}*]{}, [Phys. Rev. E]{} [**[71]{}**]{}, 036313 ([2005]{}).
H. Gelderblom, A. G. Marin, H. Nair, A. van Houselt, L. Lefferts, J. H. Snoeijer, and D. Lohse, [*How water droplets evaporate on a superhydrophobic substrate*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**83**]{}, 026306 (2011).
J. M. Stauber, S. K. Wilson, B. R. Duffy, and K. Sefiane, [*On the lifetimes of evaporating droplets*]{}, [J. Fluid Mech.]{} [**[744]{}**]{}, R2 ([2014]{}).
E. Dietrich, S. Wildeman, C. W. Visser, K. Hofhuis, E. S. Kooij, H. J. W. Zandvliet, and D. Lohse, [*Role of natural convection in the dissolution of sessile droplets*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**794**]{}, 45 (2016).
G. Laghezza, E. Dietrich, J. M. Yeomans, R. Ledesma-Aguilar, E. S. Kooij, H. J. W. Zandvliet, and D. Lohse, [*Collective and convective effects compete in patterns of dissolving surface droplets*]{}, Soft Matter [**12**]{}, 5787 (2016).
O. Carrier, N. Shahidzadeh-Bonn, R. Zargar, M. Aytouna, M. Habibi, J. Eggers, and D. Bonn, [*Evaporation of water: evaporation rate and collective effects*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**798**]{}, 774 (2016).
S. Michelin, E. Guérin, and E. Lauga, [*Collective dissolution of microbubbles*]{}, Phys. Rev. Fluids [**3**]{}, 043601 (2018).
A. W. Wray, B. R. Duffy, and S. K. Wilson, [*Competitive evaporation of multiple sessile droplets*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**884**]{}, A45 (2020).
K. L. Chong, Y. Li, C. S. Ng, R. Verzicco, and D. Lohse, [ *Convection-dominated dissolution for single and multiple immersed sessile droplets*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**892**]{}, A21 (2020).
R. D. Deegan, O. Bakajin, T. F. Dupont, G. Huber, S. R. Nagel, and T. A. Witten, [*[Contact line deposits in an evaporating drop]{}*]{}, [Phys. Rev. E]{} [**[62]{}**]{}, 756 ([1998]{}).
L. Scriven and C. Sternling, [*The [[Marangoni]{}]{} effects*]{}, Nature [**187**]{}, 186 (1960).
H. Hu and R. G. Larson, [*Analysis of the effects of Marangoni stresses on the microflow in an evaporating sessile droplet*]{}, Langmuir [**21**]{}, 3972 (2005).
R. Bennacer and K. Sefiane, [*Vortices, dissipation and flow transition in volatile binary drops*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**749**]{}, 649 (2014).
H. Kim, F. Boulogne, E. Um, I. Jacobi, E. Button, and H. A. Stone, [ *[Controlled Uniform Coating from the Interplay of Marangoni Flows and Surface-Adsorbed Macromolecules]{}*]{}, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**[116]{}**]{}, 124501 ([2016]{}).
E. Dietrich, M. Rump, P. Lv, E. S. Kooij, H. J. W. Zandvliet, and D. Lohse, [*Segregation in dissolving binary component sessile droplets*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**812**]{}, 349 (2017).
S. Karpitschka, F. Liebig, and H. Riegler, [*Marangoni contraction of evaporating sessile droplets of binary mixtures*]{}, Langmuir [**33**]{}, 4682 (2017).
H. Kim, K. Muller, O. Shardt, S. Afkhami, and H. A. Stone, [*[Solutal Marangoni flows of miscible liquids drive transport without surface contamination]{}*]{}, [Nature Physics]{} [**[13]{}**]{}, 1105 ([2017]{}).
Y. Li, P. Lv, C. Diddens, H. Tan, H. Wijshoff, M. Versluis, and D. Lohse, [ *Evaporation-triggered segregation of sessile binary droplets*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**120**]{}, 224501 (2018).
H. Kim and H. A. Stone, [*Direct measurement of selective evaporation of binary mixture droplets by dissolving materials*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**850**]{}, 769 (2018).
A. Edwards, P. Atkinson, C. Cheung, H. Liang, D. Fairhurst, and F. Ouali, [ *Density-driven flows in evaporating binary liquid droplets*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**121**]{}, 184501 (2018).
A. Marin, S. Karpitschka, D. Noguera-Mar[í]{}n, M. A. Cabrerizo-V[í]{}lchez, M. Rossi, C. J. K[ä]{}hler, and M. A. R. Valverde, [*Solutal Marangoni flow as the cause of ring stains from drying salty colloidal drops*]{}, Phys. Rev. Fluids [**4**]{}, 041601 (2019).
A. E. Hosoi and J. W. M. Bush, [*Evaporative instabilities in climbing films*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**442**]{}, 217 (2001).
S. Shin, I. Jacobi, and H. A. Stone, [*B[é]{}nard-Marangoni instability driven by moisture absorption*]{}, EPL [**113**]{}, 24002 (2016).
S. Karpitschka, [*The value of a fading tracer*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**856**]{}, 1 (2018).
C. Diddens, Y. Li, and D. Lohse, [*Competing Marangoni and Rayleigh convection in evaporating binary droplets*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**xx**]{}, xxx (2020).
Y. Li, C. Diddens, T. Segers, H. Wijshoff, M. Verluis, and D. Lohse, [ *Rayleigh-Taylor instability by segregation in an evaporating multicomponent microdroplet*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**xxx**]{}, xxx (2020).
L. Keiser, H. Bense, P. Colinet, J. Bico, and E. Reyssat, [*Marangoni bursting: evaporation-induced emulsification of binary mixtures on a liquid layer*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**118**]{}, 074504 (2017).
G. Durey, H. Kwon, Q. Magdelaine, M. Casiulis, J. Mazet, L. Keiser, H. Bense, P. Colinet, J. Bico, and E. Reyssat, [*Marangoni bursting: Evaporation-induced emulsification of a two-component droplet*]{}, Phys. Rev. Fluids [**3**]{}, 100501 (2018).
J. F. Hern[á]{}ndez-S[á]{}nchez, A. Eddi, and J. H. Snoeijer, [*Marangoni spreading due to a localized alcohol supply on a thin water film*]{}, Phys. Fluids [**27**]{}, 032003 (2015).
D. Dedovets, C. Monteux, and S. Deville, [*Five-dimensional imaging of freezing emulsions with solute effects*]{}, Science [**360**]{}, 303 (2018).
F. Pregl, [*Die quantitative organische Mikroanalyse*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 1917).
M. Rezaee, Y. Assadi, M. R. M. Hosseinia, E. Aghaee, F. Ahmadi, and S. Berijani, [*[Determination of organic compounds in water using dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction]{}*]{}, [J. Chromatography A]{} [**[1116]{}**]{}, 1 ([2006]{}).
S. Maheshwari, M. Van Der Hoef, A. Prosperetti, and D. Lohse, [*Molecular dynamics study of multicomponent droplet dissolution in a sparingly miscible liquid*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**833**]{}, 54 (2017).
S. Chu and A. Prosperetti, [*Dissolution and growth of a multicomponent drop in an immiscible liquid*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**798**]{}, 787 (2016).
D. Lohse, [*Towards controlled liquid-liquid microextraction*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**804**]{}, 1 (2016).
S. Deville, [*Freezing colloids: observations, principles, control, and use: applications in materials science, life science, earth science, food science, and engineering*]{} (Springer, Berlin, 2017).
S. Vitale and J. Katz, [*[Liquid droplet dispersions formed by homogeneous liquid-liquid nucleation: “The ouzo effect[”]{}]{}*]{}, [Langmuir]{} [**[19]{}**]{}, 4105 ([2003]{}).
F. Ganachaud and J. Katz, [*[Nanoparticles and nanocapsules created using the Ouzo effect: spontaneous emulsification as an alternative to ultrasonic and high-shear devices]{}*]{}, [Chem. Phys. Chem]{} [**[6]{}**]{}, 209 ([2005]{}).
E. Lepeltier, C. Bourgaux, and P. Couvreur, [*Nanoprecipitation and the [[“Ouzo effect"]{}]{}: Application to drug delivery devices*]{}, Adv. Drug Delivery Rev. [**71**]{}, 86 (2014).
P. W. Voorhees, [*The theory of Ostwald ripening*]{}, J. Stat. Phys. [**38**]{}, 231 (1985).
C. Solans, P. Izquierdo, J. Nolla, N. Azemar, and M. J. Garcia-Celma, [ *Nano-emulsions*]{}, Current Opinion Colloid & Interface Sci. [**10**]{}, 102 (2005).
T. N. Zemb, M. Klossek, T. Lopian, J. Marcus, S. Sch[ö]{}ettl, D. Horinek, S. F. Prevost, D. Touraud, O. Diat, S. Mar[č]{}elja, [*et al.*]{}, [*How to explain microemulsions formed by solvent mixtures without conventional surfactants*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [**113**]{}, 4260 (2016).
J. Joanny and P. de Gennes, [*[A model for contact angle hysteresis]{}*]{}, [J. Chem. Phys.]{} [**[81]{}**]{}, 552 ([1984]{}).
P. G. de Gennes, [*Wetting: statics and dynamics*]{}, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**57**]{}, 827 (1985).
Y. Liu and X. Zhang, [*Evaporation dynamics of nanodroplets and their anomalous stability on rough substrates*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**88**]{}, 012404 (2013).
D. Lohse and X. Zhang, [*Pinning and gas oversaturation imply stable single surface nanobubble*]{}, Phys. Rev. E [**91**]{}, 031003(R) (2015).
C. Solans, D. Morales, and M. Homs, [*Spontaneous emulsification*]{}, Current Opinion Colloid & Interface Sci. [**22**]{}, 88 (2016).
T. Lopian, S. Schöttl, S. Prevost, S. Pellet-Rostaing, D. Horinek, W. Kunz, and T. Zemb, [*Morphologies Observed in Ultraflexible Microemulsions with and without the Presence of a Strong Acid*]{}, ACS Central Science [**2**]{}, 467 (2016).
G. Taylor, [*Dispersion of soluble matter in solvent flowing slowly through a tube*]{}, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A [**219**]{}, 186 (1953).
R. Aris, [*On the dispersion of a solute in a fluid flowing through a tube*]{}, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A [**235**]{}, 67 (1956).
R. Aris, [*On the dispersion of a solute by diffusion, convection and exchange between phases*]{}, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A [**252**]{}, 538 (1959).
H. Yu, S. Maheshwari, J. Zhu, D. Lohse, and X. Zhang, [*[Formation of surface nanodroplets facing a structured microchannel wall]{}*]{}, [Lab on Chip]{} [**[17]{}**]{}, 1496 ([2017]{}).
X. Zhang, Z. Lu, H. Tan, L. Bao, Y. He, C. Sun, and D. Lohse, [*Formation of surface nanodroplets under controlled flow conditions*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [**112**]{}, 9253 (2015).
S. L. Anna, N. Bontoux, and H. A. Stone, [*Formation of dispersions using Òflow focusingÓ in microchannels*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**82**]{}, 364 (2003).
A. Utada, E. Lorenceau, D. Link, P. Kaplan, H. A. Stone, and D. Weitz, [ *Monodisperse double emulsions generated from a microcapillary device*]{}, Science [**308**]{}, 537 (2005).
M. F. Haase and J. Brujic, [*Tailoring of High-Order Multiple Emulsions by the Liquid–Liquid Phase Separation of Ternary Mixtures*]{}, Angew. Chemie Int. Ed/ [**53**]{}, 11793 (2014).
H. Yu, Z. Lu, D. Lohse, and X. Zhang, [*Gravitational Effect on the Formation of Surface Nanodroplets*]{}, Langmuir [**31**]{}, 12628 (2015).
B. Zeng, Y. Wang, X. Zhang, and D. Lohse, [*Solvent Exchange in a Hele–Shaw Cell: Universality of Surface Nanodroplet Nucleation*]{}, J. Phys. Chem. C [ **123**]{}, 5571 (2019).
L. Bao, Z. Werbiuk, D. Lohse, and Z. Zhang, [*Controlling the growth modes of femtoliter sessile droplets nucleating on chemically patterned surfaces*]{}, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. [**7**]{}, 1055 (2016).
S. Peng, T. L. Mega, and X. Zhang, [*Collective Effects in Microbubble Growth by Solvent Exchange*]{}, Langmuir [**32**]{}, 11265 (2016).
B. Dyett, A. Kiyama, M. Rump, Y. Tagawa, D. Lohse, and X. Zhang, [*Growth dynamics of surface nanodroplets during solvent exchange at varying flow rates*]{}, Soft Matter [**14**]{}, 5197 (2018).
S. Peng, D. Lohse, and X. Zhang, [*Spontaneous Pattern Formation of Surface Nanodroplets from Competitive Growth*]{}, ACS Nano [**9**]{}, 11916 (2015).
C. Xu, H. Yu, S. Peng, Z. Lu, L. Lei, D. Lohse, and X. Zhang, [*Collective interactions in the nucleation and growth of surface droplets*]{}, Soft Matter [**13**]{}, 937 (2017).
B. Dyett, H. Hao, D. Lohse, and X. Zhang, [*Coalescence driven self-organization of growing nanodroplets around a microcap*]{}, Soft Matter [**14**]{}, 2628 (2018).
H. Schlichting, [*Boundary layer theory*]{}, 7th ed. (McGraw Hill, New York, 1979).
X. Zhang, J. Wang, L. Bao, E. Dietrich, R. C. A. van der Veen, S. Peng, J. Friend, H. J. W. Zandvliet, L. Yeo, and D. Lohse, [*Mixed mode of dissolving immersed microdroplets at a solid-water interface*]{}, Soft Matter [**11**]{}, 1889 (2015).
H. Tan, C. Diddens, M. Versluis, H.-J. Butt, D. Lohse, and X. Zhang, [ *Self-wrapping of an ouzo drop induced by evaporation on a superamphiphobic surface*]{}, Soft Matter [**13**]{}, 2749 (2017).
H. Tan, C. Diddens, A. A. Mohammed, J. Li, M. Versluis, X. Zhang, and D. Lohse, [*Microdroplet nucleation by dissolution of a multicomponent drop in a host liquid*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**870**]{}, 217 (2019).
J. S. Kirkaldy and L. Brown, [*Diffusion behaviour in ternary, multiphase systems*]{}, Canadian Metallurgical Quarterly [**2**]{}, 89 (1963).
K. J. Ruschak and C. A. Miller, [*Spontaneous emulsification in ternary systems with mass transfer*]{}, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Fundamentals [**11**]{}, 534 (1972).
C. A. Miller and P. Neogi, [*Interfacial phenomena: equilibrium and dynamic effects*]{} (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2007), Vol. 139.
J. Otero, S. Meeker, and P. S. Clegg, [*Compositional ripening of particle-stabilized drops in a three-liquid system*]{}, Soft Matter [**14**]{}, 3783 (2018).
C.-H. Choi, D. A. Weitz, and C.-S. Lee, [*One step formation of controllable complex emulsions: from functional particles to simultaneous encapsulation of hydrophilic and hydrophobic agents into desired position*]{}, Adv. Materials [**25**]{}, 2536 (2013).
L. D. Zarzar, V. Sresht, E. M. Sletten, J. A. Kalow, D. Blankschtein, and T. M. Swager, [*Dynamically reconfigurable complex emulsions via tunable interfacial tensions*]{}, Nature [**518**]{}, 520 (2015).
Z. Lu, M. H. K. Schaarsberg, X. Zhu, L. Y. Yeo, D. Lohse, and X. Zhang, [ *[Universal nanodroplet branches from confining the Ouzo effect]{}*]{}, [Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci]{} [**[114]{}**]{}, 10332 ([2017]{}).
R. Hajian and S. Hardt, [*[Formation and lateral migration of nanodroplets via solvent shifting in a microfluidic device]{}*]{}, [Microfluidics and Nanofluidics]{} [**[19]{}**]{}, 1281 ([2015]{}).
M. Rezaee, Y. Yamini, and M. Faraji, [*[Evolution of dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction method]{}*]{}, [J. Chromatography A]{} [**[1217]{}**]{}, 2342 ([2010]{}).
A. Zgola-Grzeskowiak and T. Grzeskowiak, [*[Dispersive liquid-liquid microextraction]{}*]{}, [Trends in Analytical Chem.]{} [**[30]{}**]{}, 1382 ([2011]{}).
J. M. P. Guiterrez, T. Hinkley, J. W. Taylor, K. Yanev, and L. Cronin, [ *Evolution of oil droplets in a chemorobotic platform*]{}, Nature Comm. [**5**]{}, 5571 (2014).
J. A. Oca[ñ]{}a-Gonz[á]{}lez, R. Fern[á]{}ndez-Torres, M. [Á]{}. Bello-L[ó]{}pez, and M. Ramos-Pay[á]{}n, [*New developments in microextraction techniques in bioanalysis. A review*]{}, Analytica Chimica Acta [**905**]{}, 8 (2016).
M. Li, B. Dyett, H. Yu, V. Bansal, and X. Zhang, [*Functional Femtoliter Droplets for Ultrafast Nanoextraction and Supersensitive Online Microanalysis*]{}, Small [**15**]{}, 1804683 (2019).
M. Li, B. Dyett, and X. Zhang, [*Automated Femtoliter Droplet-Based Determination of Oil–Water Partition Coefficient*]{}, Analytical Chemistry [ **91**]{}, 10371 (2019).
J. Qian, D. Yamada, Z. Wei, R. Yukisada, Y. Tagawa, J. M. Shaw, and X. Zhang, [*One-Step Nanoextraction and Ultrafast Microanalysis Based on Nanodroplet Formation in an Evaporating Ternary Liquid Microfilm*]{}, Advanced Materials Technologies [**5**]{}, 1900740 (2020).
J. Gutiérrez, C. González, A. Maestro, I. Solé, C. Pey, and J. Nolla, [*Nano-emulsions: New applications and optimization of their preparation*]{}, Cur. Opinion in Colloid & Interface Sci. [**13**]{}, 245 (2008).
C. Zhang, V. J. Pansare, R. K. Prud[’]{}homme, and R. D. Priestley, [*Flash nanoprecipitation of polystyrene nanoparticles*]{}, Soft Matter [**8**]{}, 86 (2012).
M. Akbulut, P. Ginart, M. E. Gindy, C. Theriault, K. H. Chin, W. Soboyejo, and R. K. Prud’homme, [*Generic Method of Preparing Multifunctional Fluorescent Nanoparticles Using Flash NanoPrecipitation*]{}, Adv. Funct. Mater. [**19**]{}, 718 (2009).
Z. Zeng, C. Dong, P. Zhao, Z. Liu, L. Liu, H.-Q. Mao, K. W. Leong, X. Gao, and Y. Chen, [*Scalable Production of Therapeutic Protein Nanoparticles Using Flash Nanoprecipitation*]{}, Adv. Healthc. Mater. [**8**]{}, 1801010 (2019).
G. Coquerel, [*Crystallization of molecular systems from solution: phase diagrams, supersaturation and other basic concepts*]{}, Chem. Soc. Rev. [ **43**]{}, 2286 (2014).
X. Sun, Y. Zhang, G. Chen, and Z. Gai, [*Application of nanoparticles in enhanced oil recovery: a critical review of recent progress*]{}, Energies [ **10**]{}, 345 (2017).
F. Rao and Q. Liu, [*Froth treatment in Athabasca oil sands bitumen recovery process: A review*]{}, Energy Fuels [**27**]{}, 7199 (2013).
L. He, F. Lin, X. Li, H. Sui, and Z. Xu, [*Interfacial sciences in unconventional petroleum production: from fundamentals to applications*]{}, Chem. Soc. Rev. [**44**]{}, 5446 (2015).
S. Crossley, J. Faria, M. Shen, and D. E. Resasco, [*Solid Nanoparticles that Catalyze Biofuel Upgrade Reactions at the Water/Oil Interface*]{}, Science [**327**]{}, 68 (2010).
T. Z. Jia, K. Chandru, Y. Hongo, R. Afrin, T. Usui, K. Myojo, and H. J. Cleaves, [*Membraneless polyester microdroplets as primordial compartments at the origins of life*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [**116**]{}, 15830 (2019).
D. Zwicker, M. Decker, S. Jaensch, A. A. Hyman, and F. J[ü]{}licher, [ *Centrosomes are autocatalytic droplets of pericentriolar material organized by centrioles*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [**111**]{}, 2636 (2014).
D. Zwicker, R. Seyboldt, C. A. Weber, A. A. Hyman, and F. J[ü]{}licher, [ *Growth and division of active droplets provides a model for protocells*]{}, Nature Physics [**13**]{}, 408 (2017).
R. Golestanian, [*Division for multiplication*]{}, Nature Physics [**13**]{}, 323 (2017).
J. K. Lee, S. Kim, H. G. Nam, and R. N. Zare, [*Microdroplet fusion mass spectrometry for fast reaction kinetics*]{}, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. [**112**]{}, 3898 (2015).
J. K. Lee, D. Samanta, H. G. Nam, and R. N. Zare, [*Micrometer-Sized Water Droplets Induce Spontaneous Reduction*]{}, J. Am. Chem. Soc. [**141**]{}, 10585 (2019).
A. Fallah-Araghi, K. Meguellati, J.-C. Baret, A. El Harrak, T. Mangeat, M. Karplus, S. Ladame, C. M. Marques, and A. D. Griffiths, [*Enhanced chemical synthesis at soft interfaces: A universal reaction-adsorption mechanism in microcompartments*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 028301 (2014).
J. T. G. Overbeek and M. J. Voorn, [*Phase separation in polyelectrolyte solutions. Theory of complex coacervation*]{}, J. Cell. Comp. Physiol. [**49**]{}, 7 (1957).
E. Kizilay, A. Kayitmazer, and P. Dubin, [*Complexation and coacervation of polyelectrolytes with oppositely charged colloids*]{}, Adv. Colloid Interface Sci. [**167**]{}, 24 (2011).
A. I. Oparin [*et al.*]{}, [*The Origin of Life on the Earth.*]{} (Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh & London, 1957).
Y. Shin and C. P. Brangwynne, [*Liquid phase condensation in cell physiology and disease*]{}, Science [**357**]{}, eaaf4382 (2017).
S. Seo, S. Das, P. J. Zalicki, R. Mirshafian, C. D. Eisenbach, J. N. Israelachvili, J. H. Waite, and B. K. Ahn, [*Microphase Behavior and Enhanced Wet-Cohesion of Synthetic Copolyampholytes Inspired by a Mussel Foot Protein*]{}, J. Am. Chem. Soc. [**137**]{}, 9214 (2015).
L.-W. Chang, T. K. Lytle, M. Radhakrishna, J. J. Madinya, J. V[é]{}lez, C. E. Sing, and S. L. Perry, [*Sequence and entropy-based control of complex coacervates*]{}, Nature Communications [**8**]{}, 1273 (2017).
H. Wijshoff, [*The dynamics of the piezo inkjet printhead operation*]{}, Phys. Reports [**491**]{}, 77 (2010).
M. Kuang, L. Wang, and Y. Song, [*Controllable printing droplets for high-resolution patterns*]{}, Adv. Materials [**26**]{}, 6950 (2014).
S. D. Hoath, [*Fundamentals of inkjet printing: the science of inkjet and droplets*]{} (John Wiley & Sons, Weinheim, 2016).
J. F. Dijksman, [*Design of Piezo Inkjet Print Heads: From Acoustics to Applications*]{} (Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2019).
J. de Jong, H. Reinten, H. Wijshoff, M. van den Berg, K. Delescen, R. van Dongen, F. Mugele, M. Versluis, and D. Lohse, [*Marangoni flow on an inkjet nozzle plate*]{}, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**91**]{}, 204102 (2007).
B. Beulen, J. de Jong, H. Reinten, M. van den Berg, H. Wijshoff, and R. van Dongen, [*Flows on the nozzle plate of an inkjet printhead.*]{}, Exp. Fluids [**42**]{}, 217 (2007).
J. de Jong, R. Jeurissen, H. Borel, M. van den Berg, H. Wijshoff, H. Reinten, M. Versluis, A. Prosperetti, and D. Lohse, [*Entrapped air bubbles in piezo-driven inkjet printing: Their effect on the droplet velocity*]{}, Phys. Fluids [**18**]{}, 121511 (2006).
A. Fraters, M. van den Berg, Y. de Loore, H. Reinten, H. Wijshoff, D. Lohse, M. Versluis, and T. Segers, [*Inkjet Nozzle Failure by Heterogeneous Nucleation: Bubble Entrainment, Cavitation, and Diffusive Growth*]{}, Phys. Rev. Applied [**12**]{}, 064019 (2019).
W. Han and Z. Lin, [*Learning from ÒCoffee RingsÓ: Ordered Structures Enabled by Controlled Evaporative Self-Assembly*]{}, Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. [ **51**]{}, 1534 (2012).
Y. Cai and B.-m. Zhang-Newby, [*Marangoni flow-induced self-assembly of hexagonal and stripelike nanoparticle patterns*]{}, J. Am. Chem. Soc. [**130**]{}, 6076 (2008).
E. Reverchon, I. De Marco, and E. Torino, [*Nanoparticles production by supercritical antisolvent precipitation: a general interpretation*]{}, J. Supercritical Fluids [**43**]{}, 126 (2007).
H.-K. Chan and P. C. L. Kwok, [*Production methods for nanodrug particles using the bottom-up approach*]{}, Adv. Drug Delivery Reviews [**63**]{}, 406 (2011).
W. Huang and C. Zhang, [*Tuning the Size of Poly (lactic-co-glycolic Acid)(PLGA) Nanoparticles Fabricated by Nanoprecipitation*]{}, Biotech. J. [ **13**]{}, 1700203 (2018).
L.-f. Zhang, [*Indirect methods of detecting and evaluating inclusions in steel: a review*]{}, J. Iron & Steel Res. Int. [**13**]{}, 1 (2006).
A. Leenaars, J. Huethorst, and J. Van Oekel, [*Marangoni drying: a new extremely clean drying process*]{}, Langmuir [**6**]{}, 1701 (1990).
J. Marra and J. Huethorst, [*Physical principles of Marangoni drying*]{}, Langmuir [**7**]{}, 2748 (1991).
S. O’Brien, [*On Marangoni drying: nonlinear kinematic waves in a thin film*]{}, J. Fluid Mech. [**254**]{}, 649 (1993).
A. Thess and W. Boos, [*A model for Marangoni drying*]{}, Phys. Fluids [ **11**]{}, 3852 (1999).
O. Matar and R. Craster, [*Models for Marangoni drying*]{}, Phys. Fluids [ **13**]{}, 1869 (2001).
H. F. Okorn-Schmidt, F. Holsteyns, A. Lippert, D. Mui, M. Kawaguchi, C. Lechner, P. E. Frommhold, T. Nowak, F. Reuter, M. B. Piqu[é]{}, [*et al.*]{}, [*Particle cleaning technologies to meet advanced semiconductor device process requirements*]{}, ECS J. Solid State Sci. Tech. [**3**]{}, N3069 (2014).
J. Bico, B. Roman, L. Moulin, and A. Boudaoud, [*Adhesion: elastocapillary coalescence in wet hair*]{}, Nature [**432**]{}, 690 (2004).
C. Duprat, S. Protiere, A. Beebe, and H. A. Stone, [*Wetting of flexible fibre arrays*]{}, Nature [**482**]{}, 510 (2012).
J. Bico, [É]{}. Reyssat, and B. Roman, [*Elastocapillarity: When surface tension deforms elastic solids*]{}, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. [**50**]{}, 629 (2018).
[^1]: [email protected], Physics of Fluids Group, Max-Planck Center for Complex Fluid Dynamics, MESA+ Research Institute and J.M. Burgers Centre for Fluid Dynamics, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands, and Max Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self-Organization, Am Fassberg 17, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
[^2]: [email protected], Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 1H9, Canada, and Physics of Fluids Group, Max-Planck Center for Complex Fluid Dynamics, MESA+ Research Institute and J.M. Burgers Centre for Fluid Dynamics, University of Twente, P.O. Box 217, 7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
**Have mirror micrometeorites been detected?**
1.2cm
R. Foot$^{a}$ and S. Mitra$^{b}$[^1]
0.7cm
*$^{a}$ School of Physics,*
*University of Melbourne,*
*Victoria 3010 Australia*
0.5cm
*$^{b}$ Instituut voor Theoretische Fysica,*
*Universiteit van Amsterdam, 1018 XE Amsterdam,*
*The Netherlands*
Slow-moving ($v \sim 15$ km/s) ‘dark matter particles’ have allegedly been discovered in a recent experiment. We explore the possibility that these slow moving dark matter particles are small mirror matter dust particles originating from our solar system. Ways of further testing our hypothesis, including the possibility of observing these dust particles in cryogenic detectors such as NAUTILUS, are also discussed.
Drobyshevski et al[@drob; @drob2] have been searching for slow-moving ($v \sim 30\text{ km/s}$) dark matter objects and have obtained some interesting positive results. While they have interpreted their results in terms of Planckian mass objects with electric charge $\sim 10 e$ (daemon hypothesis), we will suggest an alternative interpretation in this note.
Their idea is very novel and straightforward. Dark matter could consist of massive particles with interactions strong enough to be captured by our solar system (or perhaps be a component of the gas cloud from which our solar system was formed). In this case such particles would have a velocity (relative to the Earth) of order $30$ km/s. If its interactions are weak enough and/or the dark matter particles are heavy enough then such particles will not be stopped in the Earth’s atmosphere and can enter the Earth’s surface with a velocity of order $30$ km/s. If such particles interact electromagnetically, then they may appear as a sort of cosmic ray, yet potentially distinguishable from ordinary cosmic rays because of their low velocity. Thus, one needs to design a suitable detector capable of searching for such slow-moving dark matter objects.
The detector devised by Drobyshevski et al is very simple. It consists of a tinned iron box containing two transparent polystyrene plates arranged horizontally one above the other separated by a distance of 7 cm. Each plate is coated on the downside with a layer of scintillator, ZnS (Ag) powder, with photomultiplier tubes at each end (i.e. the top and bottom). See Ref. [@drob; @drob2] for more details. The passage of a charged particle through each of these plates or the tin walls can potentially be detected by the photomultiplier tubes. The time difference between the pulses from the top and bottom photomultiplier tubes ($\Delta t$) will allow a determination of the velocity of the particle through their detector. A positive (negative) $\Delta t$ corresponds to the upper photomultiplier tubes being triggered before (after) the lower photomulitplier tubes. Background from cosmic rays and other conceivable backgrounds should occur equally for positive and negative $\Delta t$ bins (Drobyshevski et al use bins of duration $\Delta t = 20\mu s$). This can be exploited by defining an up-down asymmetry, $R_n$, ($n = 1, 2, 3 ...$) defined by $$\begin{aligned}
R_n = \frac{ N(-20n \ \mu s < \Delta t < -20(n-1) \ \mu s )}{
N(20(n-1) \ \mu s < \Delta t < 20n \ \mu s) }\end{aligned}$$ Clearly in the absence of exotic slow moving particles one expects $R_n$ to equal 1 (for each value of $n$). Any statistically significant deviation from unity would be an interesting signal for such new particles, with velocity of order $L/\Delta t$ (where $L$ is the size of their tin box). According to Ref.[@drob], there is a statistically significant anomaly occurring for $R_2$ (see figure 2 of Ref.[@drob]): $$\begin{aligned}
R_2 = 0.3 \pm 0.15\end{aligned}$$ However, the total number of events was statistically small, roughly 70 events (in the $20 \ \mu s< |\Delta t| < 40 \ \mu s$ bins) during a 700 hour exposure[@drob], and is as yet unconfirmed by any other experiment. Some interesting hints for a seasonal variation were also claimed[@drob; @drob2].
Taken at face value these results represent intriguing evidence for a flux of slow moving ($v \sim L/\Delta t \sim 10-15\text{ km/s}$) long lived massive particles, with fairly large penetrating ability and which interact sufficiently to produce an observable burst of photons. One possible, more specific interpretation of the experimental results is in terms of very heavy plankian mass objects with charge $\sim 10 e$[@drob]. Another possibility is that this experiment has observed the impacts of mirror dust particles, i.e. mirror micrometeorites, as we will shortly explain.
Mirror matter is predicted to exist if nature exhibits an exact unbroken mirror symmetry (for reviews and more complete set of references, see Ref.[@review]). For each type of the ordinary particle (electron, quark, photon etc) there is a mirror partner (mirror electron, mirror quark, mirror photon etc), of the same mass. The two sets of particles form parallel sectors each with gauge symmetry $G$ (where $G = SU(3) \otimes SU(2) \otimes U(1)$ in the simplest case) so that the full gauge group is $G \otimes G$. The unbroken mirror symmetry maps $x \to -x$ as well as ordinary particles into mirror particles. Exact unbroken time reversal symmetry also exists, with standard CPT identified as the product of exact T and exact P[@flv].
Ordinary and mirror particles can interact with each other by gravity and via the photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing interaction[^2], the effect of which is to give mirror charged particles a small effective ordinary electric charge $\epsilon e$[@flv; @hol]. Interestingly, the existence of photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing allows mirror matter to explain a number of puzzling observations, including the pioneer spacecraft anomaly[@p1; @p2], anomalous meteorite events[@fy; @doc] and the unexpectedly low number of small craters on the asteroid 433 Eros[@fm; @eros]. It turns out that these explanations and other constraints[@ortho; @fg2] suggest that $\epsilon$ is in the range $$\begin{aligned}
10^{-9} \lesssim |\epsilon | \lesssim 10^{-6}.\end{aligned}$$ In table \[tab\] we have summarized the observational effects of the mirror world for $\epsilon$ in this range.
[|l|l|l|]{}
---------------------
Observed phenomena/
prediction
---------------------
: Predicted effects of the mirror world.[]{data-label="tab"}
&
-------------------------
Observations consistent
with prediction?
Y/N
-------------------------
: Predicted effects of the mirror world.[]{data-label="tab"}
&
----------------------------
Preferred $\epsilon$ range
----------------------------
: Predicted effects of the mirror world.[]{data-label="tab"}
\
-------------
Dark matter
-------------
: Predicted effects of the mirror world.[]{data-label="tab"}
[@dark] & Y&-\
----------------------
Microlensing by
mirror stars [@mstr]
----------------------
: Predicted effects of the mirror world.[]{data-label="tab"}
& Y&-\
-------------------------
Mirror planets
orbiting stars [@mplnt]
-------------------------
: Predicted effects of the mirror world.[]{data-label="tab"}
& Y&-\
------------------------------
Ordinary planets
orbiting mirror stars [@isl]
------------------------------
: Predicted effects of the mirror world.[]{data-label="tab"}
& Y&-\
-------------------------
Orthopositronium-
mirror orthopositronium
oscillations [@fg]
-------------------------
: Predicted effects of the mirror world.[]{data-label="tab"}
& ?[@ortho] &${\left | \epsilon\right |}\lesssim
10^{-6}$\
----------------------
Pioneer spacecraft
anomaly [@pion; @fm]
----------------------
: Predicted effects of the mirror world.[]{data-label="tab"}
& Y [@p2]& ${\left | \epsilon\right |}\gtrsim 10^{-9}$\
----------------------------
Lack of small
craters on asteroids [@fm]
----------------------------
: Predicted effects of the mirror world.[]{data-label="tab"}
& Y [@eros]& $10^{-6} \gtrsim {\left | \epsilon\right |}\gtrsim 10^{-9}$\
----------------------
Anomalous meteoritic
events [@fy; @fm]
----------------------
: Predicted effects of the mirror world.[]{data-label="tab"}
& Y [@doc]& ${\left | \epsilon\right |}\gtrsim 10^{-9}$\
The properties of mirror matter space-bodies (SB) impacting on the Earth’s atmosphere has been studied in some detail in Ref.[@fm; @fy]. Things depend (mainly) on the following parameters: the velocity of the SB ($v$), the direction of its trajectory ($\cos \theta$), the SB diameter ($D_{\text{SB}}$), and the value of the fundamental parameter $\epsilon$. (Of course, while the parameters $v, \cos\theta, D_{\text{SB}}$, can all have different values, depending on each event, $\epsilon$ can only have one value which is fixed in nature, like the fine structure constant).
While previous work[@fy; @fm] focussed on the impacts of fairly large objects ($\gtrsim 1$ meter) which can potentially explain various anomalous impact events (such as the Jordan event, tunguska event etc[@doc]), the possible effects of small dust particle impacts on Earth was not specifically explored. In fact, the number of small mirror dust particles could potentially be quite large as collisions of large ($\gtrsim 1$ meter) mirror space bodies with themselves and ordinary bodies will generate them within our solar system. Thus, such small particles are potentially important because the number of such impacts on Earth should be much greater than the impacts of larger bodies. Furthermore, small dust particles can potentially retain their cosmic velocity impacting on the Earth’s surface with velocity of $11\text{ km/s}\lesssim v \lesssim 70\text{ km/s}$. [^3].
The condition that small mirror dust particles pass through the atmosphere without losing their velocity is that (from Eq.22 of Ref.[@fm])[^4]
$$\begin{aligned}
|\epsilon | \lesssim 2 \times 10^{-7} \sqrt{\cos \theta} (v_i/30
\text{ km/s})^2\end{aligned}$$
where $v_i$ is the initial velocity relative to the Earth. Thus, since $v_i \lesssim 70\text{ km/s}$ (for solar system objects), it follows that such cosmic velocity impacts can begin to occur for $|\epsilon | \lesssim 10^{-6}$.
At low velocities ($v \lesssim 70 \text{ km/s}$) the energy loss is dominated by Rutherford scattering. An important secondary process is bremsstrahlung, where a real photon is emitted when the ordinary nucleus (of electric charge $Ze$ and mass $M_A$) scatters off a mirror nucleus (of effective ordinary electric charge $\epsilon Z'e$ and mass $M_{A'}$). The kinetic energy of a mirror iron nucleus (taking the case of a mirror iron dust particle for definiteness) moving at a velocity $v$ is: $$\begin{aligned}
E_{\text{kin}} &=& {\frac{1}{2}}M_{\text{Fe}} v^2
\nonumber \\
&\approx & 260 \left( \frac{v}{30\text{ km/s}}\right)^2 \ eV
\label{t2}\end{aligned}$$ Clearly, there is sufficient energy to produce optical and UV photons via the bremsstrahlung process.
In the case where [^5] $M_{A} \ll M_{A'}$, and for photon energies ($k$) much less than $E_{\text{kin}}$, the cross section is given by[@broj] [^6] $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{d \sigma}{d\Omega} \right)_{\text{brem}} = \left( \frac{d\sigma}{
d\Omega}\right)_{\text{elastic}} \frac{2Z^2 \alpha}{\pi}
\frac{4}{3} v^2 \sin^2 \frac{\theta_s}{2}
\ln \frac{k_{\text{max}}}{k_{\text{min}}}
\label{mon}\end{aligned}$$ where the elastic cross section is given by[@merz]: $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\frac{d\sigma}{d\Omega}\right)_{\text{elastic}} =
\frac{4 M_A^2 \epsilon^2 \alpha^2 Z^2 Z'^2}{
(4M_A^2 v^2 \sin^2 \frac{\theta_s}{2} + \frac{1}{r_0^2})^2 }
\label{mon2}\end{aligned}$$ where $r_0 \sim 10^{-9}$ cm is the radius at which the screening effects of the atomic electrons becomes effective. The total bremsstrahlung cross section can easily be evaluated by integrating Eq.(\[mon\])[^7], $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\text{brem}} = \frac{16\epsilon^2 \alpha^3 Z^4 Z'^2}{3 M_A^2 v^2}\ln (r_0 M_A v)
\ \ln \frac{k_{\text{max}}}{k_{\text{min}}}
\label{mon3}\end{aligned}$$ Taking $k_{\text{min}} \sim $ 1 eV and $k_{\text{max}} \sim 50$ eV, we find: $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_{\text{brem}} \approx
3 \times 10^{-32}
\left(\frac{\epsilon}{10^{-7}}\right)^2 \left( \frac{Z}{26} \right)^4
\left( \frac{Z'}{26} \right)^2 \left( \frac{50 M_P}{M_A} \right)^2
\left( \frac{10\text{ km/s}}{v}\right)^2 \text{ cm}^2
\label{last}\end{aligned}$$ For the passage of a mirror iron nucleus through ordinary matter of atomic number density, $n \sim 10^{23}/{\rm cm^3}$, the mirror iron nucleus would have to travel an average distance of $L = 1/(n \sigma) \sim 10^9$ cm before a bremsstrahlung process, producing a photon in the energy range 1 eV $\lesssim k \lesssim k_{\text{max}}
\sim 50$ eV, occurs. However, a mirror dust particle contains, e.g. $ 10^{14}$ such mirror nuclei, so that $10^5$ photons (or more for larger dust particles) can be produced when such a dust particle passes through 1 cm of ordinary matter.
The importance of this is that these photons can be detected in a photo-multiplier tube, and could thereby explain the interesting experimental results of Drobyshevski et al[@drob; @drob2]. In this interpretation, the excess of down-going events occurs because of the passage of a mirror matter dust particle impacting with velocity $v \sim 10\text{ km/s}$. The dust particle produces optical and UV photons via the bremsstrahlung process upon passing through the detector. Hard elastic scattering in the scintillator, may also produce an observable signal (depending on their threshold, efficiency etc) [^8].
The flux estimated by Drobyshevski et al is $f \sim 10^{-5}
\text{ m}^{-2}\text{s}^{-1}$. This implies a solar system number density of order $n = f/v \sim
10^{-15}\text{ cm}^{-3}$ or one mirror dust particle per cubic kilometer of the solar system, which seems plausible. Such a tiny density of solar system mirror dust particles may have been generated by random collisions of larger mirror space bodies. Drobyshevski et al found an excess in the 10-15 km/s velocity region. This is close to the minimum value expected, which might indicate a flux of particles moving in roughly circular orbits, near Earth’s orbit. However the bremsstrahlung cross section favours low velocities, since, from Eq.(\[last\]), $\sigma_{\text{brem}} \propto 1/v^2$. This feature, together with the relatively low statistics collected so far, suggests that the distribution of mirror dust particles might extend to higher velocites, potentially up to the maximum ($v \approx 70$ km/s) for solar system particles.
The specific explanation presented here can be distinguished from the daemon hypothesis in a number of ways. Perhaps the best way to do this would be to use an up-down symmetric detector. The reason is that daemons are so heavy and compact that they can penetrate the entire diameter of the Earth without losing a significant proportion of their energy. This means that the up-going daemon flux should be the same as the down-going daemon flux. \[In contrast, the mirror dust particles stop in the Earth after a distance of $L \sim 10 (10^{-7}/\epsilon)^2 (v_i/30\text{ km/s})^4$ meters $\sim 10$ meters for $\epsilon \sim 10^{-7}$[@fm; @f]\]. Note that even though an up-down asymmetry was obtained in the experiment, the detector was not up-down symmetric, which could allow the daemon hypothesis to potentially explain the results[@drob]. Further experimental work, with an up-down symmetric detector should help distinguish the daemon hypothesis from the mirror matter one.
The bremsstrahlung process, although important because it generates easily detectable eV photons, is not the only way of detecting mirror matter dust particles. Most of the kinetic energy of the dust particle is dissipated not via the bremsstrahlung process but via Rutherford scattering. Let us now estimate the rate at which the kinetic energy of a mirror dust particle is dissipated into heat and vibration energy via Rutherford scattering. The rate of energy loss is simply the product of the collision rate, the (forward) momentum lost per collision and the total number of atoms in the mirror dust particle (${\cal N}$), which is easily evaluated to be $$\begin{aligned}
{dE_{\text{elastic}} \over dx} &=& -2{\cal N}\left( {M_{A'} \over M_A}
\right)
\int {d\sigma \over d\Omega} \rho v^2 \sin^2 {\theta_s \over 2} d\Omega
\nonumber \\
&\approx &
{4\pi {\cal N} Z^2 Z'^2 \rho \epsilon^2 \alpha^2 \over M_{A'} M_A v^2 } \ln (M_A v r_0)
\nonumber \\
& \sim &
\left({{\cal N} \over 10^{15}} \right)
\left( {\epsilon \over 10^{-7}}\right)^2 \left(
{30 {\rm km/s}\over v}\right)^2 \ 300 \ {\rm TeV/cm}
\label{gg}\end{aligned}$$ where $v$ (assumed to be $ \gtrsim 1$ km/s in the above calculation) is the velocity of the dust particle and $\rho$ is the mass density of ordinary matter medium which the dust particle is moving through.
Eq.(\[gg\]) can be compared with the energy loss due to the bremsstrahlung process, $$\begin{aligned}
{dE_{\text{brem}} \over dx} &=& {\cal N} n \sigma_{\text{brem}} \langle k_{\gamma}
\rangle
\nonumber \\
&\sim &\left({ {\cal N} \over 10^{15}} \right)
\left( {\epsilon \over 10^{-7}}\right)^2 \left( {30\ {\rm km/s} \over
v}\right)^2 \left( {\langle k_{\gamma} \rangle \over 10 \ eV}\right)
\ {\rm MeV/cm}\end{aligned}$$ where $\langle k_{\gamma} \rangle$ is the mean energy of the bremsstrahlung photons emitted (of order 10 eV). In fact, if one looks at the ratio, $(dE_{\text{brem}}/dx)/(dE_{\text{elastic}}/dx)$, then the dependence on $\epsilon, {\cal N}, v$ cancels, leaving $$\begin{aligned}
{ dE_{\text{brem}}/dx
\over
dE_{\text{elastic}}/dx} &=& {4Z^2 \alpha M_{A'} \over 3\pi M_A^2}
\ln {k_{\text{max}} \over k_{\text{min}}}
\langle k_{\gamma} \rangle
\nonumber \\
& \sim & 10^{-9} \end{aligned}$$
The heat and vibration energy generated in ordinary matter due to the passage of mirror matter dust particles can potentially be observed in sensitive cryogenic detectors, such as the NAUTILUS gravitational wave detector[@nautilus1]. NAUTILUS consists of an aluminum 2300 Kg bar cooled to 0.1 Kelvin. In addition, there is a cosmic ray detector system. Although designed to search for gravitational waves, NAUTILUS seems to be capable of detecting mirror matter - type dark matter via detection of the energy deposited in the bar via the elastic collisions $(dE/dx)_{\text{elastic}}$, and potentially sensitive to $(dE/dx)_{\text{brem}}$ in the cosmic ray detector. Interestingly, this collaboration has found anomalously large energy depositing events in the bar which feature a paradoxically low electromagnetic component in the cosmic ray detector[@nautilus]. It seems to be possible that these anomalous events are associated with the passage of a mirror dust particle, but it may also be due to some unexpected property of aluminum[@nautilus2]. Nevertheless it is interesting that the dark matter interpretation of the St. Petersburg and NAUTILUS experiments yield flux estimates which are roughly comparable: $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\text{drob}} &\sim & 10^{-5} \text{ m}^{-2}\text{s}^{-1}
\nonumber \\
f_{\text{Nautilus}} &\sim & 2\times 10^{-6} \text{ m}^{-2}\text{s}^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ The difference might be due to the detection thresholds being different for the two experiments.
In conclusion, we have shown that mirror matter dust particles impacting with the Earth might appear as a sort of ‘anomalous cosmic ray’. The anomalous features include a) it is slow-moving ($\sim 30$ km/s) and b) the energy loss is dominated by elastic collisions. Interestingly, there is evidence for particles with these anomalous features coming from two existing experiments. Further work and further experimental observations should clarify this interesting situation.
[**Acknowlegements:**]{} The authors would like to thank E. Drobyshevksi, for helpful correspondence regarding his experiment and Z. Silagadze for his comments on the paper.
[999]{}
E. M. Drobyshevski, M. V. Beloborodyy, R. O. Kurakin, V. G. Latypov and K. A. Pelepelin, Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions, Vol. 22, pp. 19-32 (2003) \[astro-ph/0108231\].
E. M. Drobyshevski, M. E. Drobyshevski, T. Yu Izmodenova and D. S. Telnov, astro-ph/0305597 (to appear in Astronomical and Astrophysical transactions).
R. Foot, hep-ph/0207175; R. Foot, Acta Phys. Pol B32, 2253 (2001) \[astro-ph/0102294\]; A. Yu. Ignatiev and R. R. Volkas, Talk given at the Australian Institute of Physics Congress, July 2002 \[hep-ph/0306120\]; Z. Silagadze, Acta Phys. Pol. B32, 99 (2001) \[hep-ph/0002255\]; R. Foot, Shadowlands: Quest for mirror matter in the Universe, Universal Publishers, FL, 2002.
R. Foot, H. Lew and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Lett. B272, 67 (1991).
R. Foot, H. Lew and R. R. Volkas, Mod. Phys. Lett. A7, 2567 (1992).
R. Foot, Mod. Phys. Lett. A9, 169 (1994) \[hep-ph/9402241\]; R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D52, 6595 (1995) \[hep-ph/9505359\].
B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B166, 196 (1986).
R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Lett. B517, 13 (2001) \[hep-ph/0108051\].
J. D. Anderson et al., Phys. Rev. D65, 08004 (2002) \[gr-qc/0104064\].
R. Foot, Acta Phys. Polon. B32, 3133 (2001) \[hep-ph/0107132\]; R. Foot and T. L. Yoon, Acta Phys. Polon. 33, 1979 (2002) \[astro-ph/0203152\].
M. Morawska-Horawska, A. Manechi, Przeglad Geofizyczny 40, 335 (1995); J. A. Docobo, R. E. Spalding, Z. Ceplecha, F. Diaz-Fierros, V. Tamazian and Y. Onda, Meteoritics & Planetary Science 33, 57 (1998); A. Ol’khovatov, http://olkhov.narod.ru/gr1997.htm. The Jordan event, http://www.jas.org.jo/mett.html; N. V. Vasilyev, Planet. Space Sci. 46, 129 (1998) and references there-in; P. W. Haines, R. J. F. Jenkins and S. P. Kelley, Geology, 29, 899 (2001).
R. Foot and S. Mitra, Astroparticle Phys. 19, 739 (2003) \[astro-ph/0211067\].
Z. Silagadze, Phys. Atom. Nucl. 60, 272 (1997); S. Blinnikov, astro-ph/9801015; R. Foot, Phys.Lett. B452, 83 (1999) \[astro-ph/9902065\].
R. Foot, Phys.Lett. B471, 191 (1999) \[astro-ph/9908276\]; R. Foot, Phys. Lett. B, 505, 1 (2001) \[astro-ph/0101055\].
R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, Phys.Lett. B517, 13 (2001) \[hep-ph/0108051\].
R. Foot, A. Yu. Ignatiev and R. R. Volkas, Astroparticle Phys. 17, 195 (2002) \[astro-ph/0010502\].
A. F. Cheng et al., Science 292, 484 (2001).
S. L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. B167, 35 (1986);
R. Foot and S. N. Gninenko, Phys. Lett. B480, 171 (2000) \[hep-ph/0003278\].
As shown in Ref.[@fg], photon-mirror photon kinetic mixing induces a small off-diagonal mass which mixes orthopositronium and mirror-orthopositronium. This mass term causes oscillations of orthopositronium into mirror-orthopositronium, effectively leading to a faster (apparent) decay rate for orthopositronium, since the decays of the mirror state are not observed. This effect could explain the anomalously high decay rate observed in the 1990 orthopositronium vacuum cavity experiment \[J. S. Nico et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 65, 1344 (1990)\], provided that $|\epsilon | \approx 10^{-6}$[@fg2]. However, a new vacuum cavity experiment was recently carried out by R. S. Vallery et al \[Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 203402 (2003)\] where the anomaly is absent. The negative result of the latter experiment, suggests that $|\epsilon | \lesssim 10^{-6}$.
S. I. Blinnikov and M. Yu. Khlopov, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 36, 472 (1982); Sov. Astron. 27, 371 (1983); E. W. Kolb, M. Seckel and M. S. Turner, Nature 314, 415 (1985); M. Yu. Khlopov et al., Sov. Astron. 35, 21 (1991); H. Hodges, Phys. Rev. D47, 456 (1993); Z. Berezhiani, A. Dolgov and R. Mohapatra, Phys. Lett. B375, 26 (1996); N. F. Bell and R. R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D59, 107301 (1999); S. Blinnikov, Surveys High Energy Phys. 15, 37 (2000); V. Berezinsky, A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D62, 083512 (2000); Z. Berezhiani, D. Comelli and F. L. Villante, Phys. Lett. B503, 362 (2001); A. Yu. Ignatiev and R. R. Volkas, hep-ph/0304260; R. Foot and R. R. Volkas, hep-ph/0304261.
J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell, Relativistic quantum mechanics, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1964, p.120-127.
See for example, E. Merzbacher, Quantum Mechanics, 2nd Edition, Wiley, New York, 1970, p.230.
E. Drobyshevski, Private communication.
P. Astone et al., Astroparticle Phys. 7, 231 (1997).
P. Astone et al., Class. Quantum Grav. 19, 1897 (2002).
P. Astone et al., Phys. Lett. B540, 179 (2002) \[gr-qc/0206079\].
[^1]: E-mail address: [email protected], [email protected]
[^2]: Given the constraints of gauge invariance, renomalizability and mirror symmetry it turns out[@flv] that the only allowed non-gravitational interactions connecting the ordinary particles with the mirror particles are via photon-mirror photons kinetic mixing, $\mathcal{L} =
\frac{\epsilon}{2} F^{\mu \nu} F'_{\mu \nu}$, where $F^{\mu \nu}$ ($F'_{\mu \nu}$) is the field strength tensor for electromagnetism (mirror electromagnetism) and via a Higgs-mirror Higgs quartic interaction, $\mathcal{L} = \lambda \phi^{\dagger} \phi \phi'^{\dagger}
\phi'$. If neutrinos have mass, then ordinary - mirror neutrino oscillations may also occur[@flv2; @f].
[^3]: The minimum impact velocity, 11 km/s, is equivalent to the escape velocity for a particle on Earth, while the upper limit of about 70 km/s assumes that the particle is bound within the solar system.
[^4]: Unfortunately Ref.[@fm] (and Ref.[@fy]) contains an error in the Rutherford cross section formula used ($\epsilon^2 e^4 \to
\epsilon^2 \alpha^2$). This means that the $\epsilon$ ranges in Ref.[@fm] should increase by roughly one order of magnitude.
[^5]: Note that even in the case where $M_A \sim M_{A'}$, the cross section will be of the same order of magnitude.
[^6]: Unless stated otherwise, we use natural units, $\hbar = c = 1$.
[^7]: Note that the cross section, above, is valid assuming that the particles are point particles. For our application, we have the scattering of nuclei (of size $R_N$). In general we need to add in a Form factor, but this effect is only important when the momentum transfer is greater than $1/R_N \gtrsim 10$ MeV. Given that we are concerned with solar system dust particles, with relatively low velocity, $v \lesssim 70$ km/s, the momentum transfer is always low enough so that we can treat the atomic nuclei as point particles.
[^8]: The seasonal dependence of the flux, if real, might be due to the Earth passing through a mirror matter dust stream, in much the same way that the Earth passes through ordinary meteor streams. For example, twice each year, in May and October we pass through the meteor stream from Halley’s comet. Perhaps there is a mirror meteor dust stream which we pass through in August and February?
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We extend the notion of parking functions to parking sequences, which include cars of different sizes, and prove a product formula for the number of such sequences.'
author:
- Richard Ehrenborg and Alex Happ
title: Parking Cars of Different Sizes
---
The result.
===========
Parking functions were first introduced by Konheim and Weiss [@Konheim_Weiss]. The original concept was that of a linear parking lot with $n$ available spaces, and $n$ cars with a stated parking preference. Each car would, in order, attempt to park in its preferred spot. If the car found its preferred spot occupied, it would move to the next available slot. A parking function is a sequence of parking preferences that would allow all $n$ cars to park according to this rule. This definition is equivalent to the following formal definition:
Let $\vec{a}=(a_1,a_2,\dots,a_n)$ be a sequence of positive integers, and let $b_1\leq b_2\leq\cdots\leq b_n$ be the increasing rearrangement of $\vec{a}$. Then the sequence $\vec{a}$ is a parking function if and only if $b_i\leq i$ for all indexes $i$.
It is well known that the number of such parking functions is $(n+1)^{n-1}$. This is Cayley’s formula for the number of labeled trees on $n+1$ nodes and Foata and Riordan found a bijective proof [@Foata_Riordan]. Stanley discovered the relationship between parking functions and non-crossing partitions [@Stanley_I]. Further connections have been found to other structures, such as priority queues [@Gilbey_Kalikow], Gončarov polynomials [@Kung_Yan_I] and hyperplane arrangements [@Stanley_II].
The notion of a parking function has been generalized in myriad ways; see the sequence of papers [@Chebikin_Postnikov; @Kung_Yan_I; @Kung_Yan_II; @Kung_Yan_III; @Yan]. We present here a different generalization, returning to the original idea of parking cars. This time the cars have different sizes, and each takes up a number of adjacent parking spaces.
Let there be $n$ cars $C_{1},\dots,C_n$ of sizes $y_{1},\dots,y_{n}$, where $y_{1}, \ldots, y_{n}$ are positive integers. Assume there are $\sum_{i=1}^{n} y_{i}$ spaces in a row. Furthermore, let car $C_{i}$ have the preferred spot $c_{i}$. Now let the cars in the order $C_{1}$ through $C_{n}$ park according to the following rule:
> Starting at position $c_{i}$, car $C_{i}$ looks for the first empty spot $j \geq c_{i}$. If the spaces $j$ through $j+y_{i}-1$ are empty, then car $C_{i}$ parks in these spots. If any of the spots $j+1$ through $j+y_{i}-1$ is already occupied, then there will be a collision, and the result is not a parking sequence.
Iterate this rule for all the cars $C_{1}, C_{2}, \ldots, C_{n}$. We call $(c_{1},\dots, c_n)$ a *parking sequence* for $\vec{y}=(y_{1},\dots,y_{n})$ if all $n$ cars can park without any collisions and without leaving the $\sum_{i=1}^{n} y_{i}$ parking spaces.
As an example, consider three cars of sizes $\vec{y}=(2,2,1)$ with preferences $\vec{c}=(2,3,1)$. Then there are $2+2+1=5$ available parking spaces, and the final configuration of the cars is $$\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.2]
%%%% Parking Spaces %%%%
\draw (0,0) -- (5,0);
\foreach \x in {0,...,5}
\draw (\x,0) -- (\x,0.5);
\foreach \x in {1,...,5}
\node[gray] at (\x-0.5,-0.2) {\small$\x$};
%%%% Cars %%%%
% \draw[fill=gray!20] (0.1,0.1) rectangle (2.9,0.45);
\draw[fill=gray!20] (0.1,0.1) rectangle (0.9,0.45);
\draw[fill=gray!20] (1.1,0.1) rectangle (2.9,0.45);
\draw[fill=gray!20] (3.1,0.1) rectangle (4.9,0.45);
% \node at (1.5,0.265) {\footnotesize $T$};
\node at (0.5,0.265) {\footnotesize $C_{3}$};
\node at (2,0.265) {\footnotesize $C_{1}$};
\node at (4,0.265) {\footnotesize $C_{2}$};
\end{tikzpicture}$$ All cars are able to park, so this yields a parking sequence.
There are two ways in which a sequence can fail to be a parking sequence. Either a collision occurs, or a car passes the end of the parking lot. As an example, consider three cars with $\vec{y}=(2,2,2)$ and preferences $\vec{c}=(3,2,1)$. Then we have $2+2+2=6$ parking spots, and the first car parks in its desired spot: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.2]
%%%% Parking Spaces %%%%
\draw (0,0) -- (6,0);
\foreach \x in {0,...,6}
\draw (\x,0) -- (\x,0.5);
\foreach \x in {1,...,6}
\node[gray] at (\x-0.5,-0.2) {\small$\x$};
%%%% Cars %%%%
\draw[fill=gray!20] (2.1,0.1) rectangle (3.9,0.45);
\node at (3,0.265) {\footnotesize $C_{1}$};
\end{tikzpicture}$$ However, the second car prefers spot $2$, and since spot $2$ is open, he tries to take spots $2$ and $3$, but collides with $C_{1}$ in the process. Hence, this is not a parking sequence.
If, instead, we had $\vec{y}=(2,2,2)$ and $\vec{c}=(2,5,5)$, then again the first two cars are able to park with no difficulty: $$\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=1.2]
%%%% Parking Spaces %%%%
\draw (0,0) -- (6,0);
\foreach \x in {0,...,6}
\draw (\x,0) -- (\x,0.5);
\foreach \x in {1,...,6}
\node[gray] at (\x-0.5,-0.2) {\small$\x$};
%%%% Cars %%%%
\draw[fill=gray!20] (1.1,0.1) rectangle (2.9,0.45);
\draw[fill=gray!20] (4.1,0.1) rectangle (5.9,0.45);
\node at (2,0.265) {\footnotesize $C_{1}$};
\node at (5,0.265) {\footnotesize $C_{2}$};
\end{tikzpicture}$$ But car $C_{3}$ will pass by all the parking spots after his preferred spot without seeing an empty spot. Hence, this also fails to be a parking sequence.
The classical notion of parking function is obtained when all the cars have size $1$, that is, $\vec{y}=(1,1, \ldots, 1)$. Note in this case that there are no possible collisions.
In the classical case, any permutation of a parking function is again a parking function. This is not true for cars of larger size. As an example, note for $\vec{y} = (2,2)$ that $\vec{c} = (1,2)$ is a parking sequence. However, the rearrangement $\vec{c}\,^{\prime} = (2,1)$ is not a parking sequence. This shows that the notion of parking sequence differs from the notion of parking function in the papers [@Chebikin_Postnikov; @Kung_Yan_I; @Kung_Yan_II; @Kung_Yan_III; @Yan].
The classical result is that the number of parking functions is given by $(n+1)^{n-1}$; see [@Konheim_Weiss]. For cars of bigger sizes we have the following result:
The number of parking sequences $f(\vec{y})$ for car sizes $\vec{y}=(y_{1},\dots,y_n)$ is given by the product $$f(\vec{y})=
(y_{1}+n)
\cdot (y_{1}+y_{2}+n-1)
\cdots (y_{1}+\cdots+y_{n-1}+2).$$ \[theorem\_parking\]
Circular parking arrangements.
==============================
Consider $M = y_{1} + y_{2} + \cdots + y_{n} + 1$ parking spaces arranged in a circle. We will consider parking cars on this circular arrangement, without a cliff for cars to fall off. Observe that when all the cars have parked, there will be one empty spot left over. We claim that there are $$M \cdot f(\vec{y})
=
(y_{1}+n)
\cdot (y_{1}+y_{2}+n-1)
\cdots
(y_{1}+\cdots+y_{n}+1) .
\label{equation_circular}$$ such circular parking sequences. The first car $C_{1}$ has $M$ ways to choose its parking spot.
The next step is counterintuitive. After car $C_{1}$ has parked, erase the markings for the remaining $y_{2}+ \cdots + y_{n} + 1$ spots and put in $n+1$ dividers. These dividers create $n+1$ intervals on the circle, where one interval is taken up by $C_{1}$. Furthermore, these dividers are on wheels and can freely move along the circle. Each interval will accept one (and only one) car. For example, consider the case where $n=5$ and $\vec{y}=(2,5,1,3,2)$ so that $M=2+5+1+2+3+1=14$, and $c_1=5$.
$$\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
%%%%%%%%% The Lot %%%%%%%%
\draw (0,0) circle (2.5);
\foreach \x in {0,...,13}
\draw (102.85+\x*25.7:2.5) -- (102.85+\x*25.7:3.1);
\foreach \x in {1,...,14}
\node at (115.7-\x*25.7:2.2) {\color{gray}\footnotesize $\x$};
%%%%%%%%%% Cars %%%%%%%%%
\draw[fill=gray!20] (-2.45:3) arc (-2.45:-48.85:3) -- (-48.85:2.6) arc (-48.85:-2.45:2.6) -- cycle;
\node[rotate=-115.65] at (-25.65:2.795) {\footnotesize $C_1$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\hspace{1cm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
%%%%%%%%% The Lot %%%%%%%%
\draw (0,0) circle (2.5);
\draw[thick] (0.55:2.55) -- (0.55:3.1);
\node at (0.55:2.55) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\node at (0.55:3.1) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\draw[thick] (-51.85:2.55) -- (-51.85:3.1);
\node at (-51.85:2.55) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\node at (-51.85:3.1) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\foreach \x in {1,...,4}
\draw[thick] (-51.85-\x*61.52:2.55) -- (-51.85-\x*61.52:3.1);
\foreach \x in {1,...,4}
\node at (-51.85-\x*61.52:2.55) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\foreach \x in {1,...,4}
\node at (-51.85-\x*61.52:3.1) {\tiny$\bullet$};
%%%%%%%%%% Cars %%%%%%%%%
\draw[fill=gray!20] (-2.45:3) arc (-2.45:-48.85:3) -- (-48.85:2.6) arc (-48.85:-2.45:2.6) -- cycle;
\node[rotate=-115.65] at (-25.65:2.795) {\footnotesize $C_1$};
\end{tikzpicture}$$
We will now create a circular parking sequence, but only at the end do we obtain the exact positions of cars $C_{2}$ through $C_{n+1}$. That is, instead of focusing on the number of specific spot preferences each car could have, we keep track of the order the cars park in, which will then determine the exact locations of the cars.
The second car has two options. The first is that it has a desired position already taken by $C_{1}$. In this case, it will cruise until the next empty spot. This can happen in $y_{1}$ ways, and then car $C_{2}$ obtains the next open interval after the interval $C_{1}$ is in. Otherwise, the car $C_{2}$ has a preferred spot not already taken. In this case $C_{2}$ has $n$ open intervals to choose from. The total number of options for $C_2$ is $y_{1} + n$.
The third car $C_{3}$ has the same options. First, it may desire a spot that is already taken, in which case it will have to cruise until the next open interval. This can happen in $y_{1} + y_{2}$ ways. Note that this count applies to both the case when $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ are parked next to each other, and when $C_{1}$ and $C_{2}$ have open intervals between them. Otherwise, $C_{3}$ has $n-1$ open intervals to pick from.
In general, car $C_{i}$ has $y_{1} + \cdots + y_{i-1} + n+2-i$ choices. This pattern continues up to $C_{n}$, which has $y_{1} + \cdots + y_{n-1} + 2$ possibilities. For example, suppose $C_2$ and $C_3$ in our above example have parked as below:
$$\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.7]
%%%%%%%%% The Lot %%%%%%%%
\draw (0,0) circle (2.5);
\draw[thick] (0.55:2.55) -- (0.55:3.1);
\node at (0.55:2.55) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\node at (0.55:3.1) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\draw[thick] (-51.85:2.55) -- (-51.85:3.1);
\node at (-51.85:2.55) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\node at (-51.85:3.1) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\draw[thick] (263:2.55) -- (263:3.1);
\node at (263:2.55) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\node at (263:3.1) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\draw[thick] (133.5:2.55) -- (133.5:3.1);
\node at (133.5:2.55) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\node at (133.5:3.1) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\draw[thick] (27.25:2.55) -- (27.25:3.1);
\node at (27.25:2.55) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\node at (27.25:3.1) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\draw[thick] (80.375:2.55) -- (80.375:3.1);
\node at (80.375:2.55) {\tiny$\bullet$};
\node at (80.375:3.1) {\tiny$\bullet$};
%%%%%%%%%% Cars %%%%%%%%%
\draw[fill=gray!20] (3.55:3) arc (3.55:24.25:3) -- (24.25:2.6) arc (24.25:3.55:2.6) -- cycle;
\node[rotate=-76.1] at (13.9:2.795) {\footnotesize $C_3$};
\draw[fill=gray!20] (-2.45:3) arc (-2.45:-48.85:3) -- (-48.85:2.6) arc (-48.85:-2.45:2.6) -- cycle;
\node[rotate=-115.65] at (-25.65:2.795) {\footnotesize $C_1$};
\draw[fill=gray!20] (260:3) arc (260:136.5:3) -- (136.5:2.6) arc (136.5:260:2.6) -- cycle;
\node[rotate=88.25+15] at (178.25+15:2.795) {\footnotesize $C_2$};
\end{tikzpicture}$$ Then $C_4$ may either cruise on $C_1$ and $C_3$ (in $y_1+y_3$ ways), it may cruise on $C_2$ (in $y_2$ ways), or it can pick one of the three available intervals directly. In total, $C_4$ has $(y_1+y_3)+y_2+3=11$ ways to park.
One can imagine that when we park a car, we do not set the parking brake, but put the car in neutral, so that the car and the dividers can move as necessary to make room for future cars.
Thus the total number of circular parking arrangements of this type is $$M
\cdot
(y_{1} + n)
\cdot
(y_{1} + y_{2} + n-1)
\cdots
(y_{1}+ \cdots + y_{n-1} + 2) ,$$ where the $i$th factor is the number of options for the car $C_{i}$. This proves the claim about the number of circular parking sequences in .
Hence, to prove Theorem \[theorem\_parking\] we need only observe that the circular parking sequences with spot $M$ empty are the same as our parking sequences. This follows from the observation that no car in the circular arrangement has preference $M$, since otherwise this spot would not be empty. Furthermore, no car would cruise by this empty spot.
Observe that the set of circular parking sequences is invariant under rotation. That is, if $(c_{1}, c_{2}, \ldots, c_{n})$ is a parking sequence, then so is the sequence $(c_{1}+a, c_{2}+a, \ldots, c_{n}+a)$, where all the additions are modulo $M$. In particular, the number of circular parking sequences with spot $M$ empty is given by $1/M \cdot M \cdot f(\vec{y}) = f(\vec{y})$.
Concluding remarks.
===================
The idea of considering a circular arrangement goes back to Pollak; see [@Riordan]. In fact, when all the cars have size $1$, this argument reduces to his argument that the number of classical parking functions is $(n+1)^{n-1}$.
The idea of not using fixed coordinates when placing cars in the circular arrangement is reminiscent of the argument Athanasiadis used to compute the characteristic polynomial of the Shi arrangement [@Athanasiadis].
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors thank two referees for their comments as well as Margaret Readdy for her comments on an earlier draft of this note. Both authors were partially supported by National Security Agency grant H98230-13-1-0280. The first author wishes to thank the Mathematics Department of Princeton University where this work was carried out.
[99]{}
[C. A. Athanasiadis, Characteristic polynomials of subspace arrangements and finite fields, [*Adv. Math.*]{} [**122**]{} (1996), 193–233.]{}
[D. Chebikin, A. Postnikov, Generalized parking functions, descent numbers, and chain polytopes of ribbon posets, [*Adv. in Appl. Math.*]{} [**44**]{} (2010), 145–154.]{}
[A. D. Foata, J. Riordan, Mappings of acyclic and parking functions, [*Aequationes Mathematicae*]{} [**10**]{} (1974), 10–22.]{}
[J. D. Gilbey, L. H. Kalikow, Parking functions, valet functions, and priority queues, [*Discrete Math.*]{} [**197–198**]{} (1999), 351–373.]{}
[A. G. Konheim, B. Weiss, An occupancy discipline and applications, [*SIAM J. Applied Math.*]{} [**14**]{} (1966), 1266–1274.]{}
[J. P. S. Kung, C. Yan, Gončarov polynomials and parking functions, [*J. Combin. Theory Ser. A*]{} [**102**]{} (2003), 16–37.]{}
[J. P. S. Kung, C. Yan, Exact formulas for moments of sums of classical parking functions, [*Adv. in Appl. Math.*]{} [**31**]{} (2003), 215–241.]{}
[J. P. S. Kung, C. Yan, Expected sums of general parking functions, [*Ann. Comb.*]{} [**7**]{} (2003), 481–493.]{}
[J. Riordan, Ballots and trees, [*J. Combinatorial Theory*]{} [**6**]{} (1969), 408–411.]{}
[R. P. Stanley, Parking functions and noncrossing partitions, [*Electron. Combin. *]{} [**4**]{} (1997), no. 2, Research Paper 20, 14 pp.]{}
(B. E. Sagan and R. P. Stanley, eds.), Birkhäuser, Boston, 1998, pp. 359–375.
(2001), 641–670.
[*Department of Mathematics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506\
[[email protected]]{}, [[email protected]]{}* ]{}
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'An approximate holographic dual of QCD is constructed and shown to reproduce the empirical linear trajectories of universal slope on which the square masses of radially and orbitally excited hadrons join. Conformal symmetry breaking and other IR effects are described exclusively by deformations of the anti-de Sitter background metric. The predictions for the light hadron spectrum include new relations between ground state masses and trajectory slopes and are in good overall agreement with experimental data.'
address:
- 'Departamento de Física, ITA-CTA, 12.228-900 São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil and Institut für Theoretische Physik, Universität Heidelberg, D-69120 Heidelberg, Germany'
- 'Institut für Physik, Universität Rostock, D-18051 Rostock, Germany'
- 'Departamento de Física, ITA-CTA, 12.228-900 São José dos Campos, São Paulo, Brazil'
author:
- '[HILMAR FORKEL]{}'
- '[MICHAEL BEYER ]{}'
- '[TOBIAS FREDERICO]{}'
title: 'LINEAR MESON AND BARYON TRAJECTORIES IN ADS/QCD '
---
The AdS/QCD program aims at constructing the holographic dual of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) on the basis of the AdS/CFT correspondence[@mal97] and experimental data. Since the pioneering work[@pol02], this approach has met with considerable success in describing vacuum and hadron properties by a local field theory for the QCD dual in IR-deformed AdS$_{5}$ spacetime (and potentially other background fields) whose form and parameters are constrained by experimental information. For various investigations in this direction see e.g. the references in[@for07].
Much of this work was based on the minimal “hard wall” implementation of IR effects and confinement[@pol02]. Although very useful in several respects, this abrupt compactification of the fifth dimension predicts quadratic instead of linear square mass trajectories both as a function of spin and radial excitation quantum numbers[@det05; @kat06], however, in contrast to experimental data and semiclassical string model arguments[shi05]{}.
Different ways to overcome this problem in the meson sector have been proposed in Refs.[@kar06; @and06], and a dual description for the similarly pronounced empirical trajectories[@kle02] in the baryon sector has been found recently[@for07]. The latter reproduces the linear trajectories[@kle02; @ani00] $M^{2}=M_{0}^{2}+W\left( N+L\right) $ of Regge type for radial ($N$) and orbital ($L$) excitations in both meson and baryon spectra. The holographic description relies on the identification of high angular momentum states with metric fluctuations[@det05; @bro04] and naturally accommodates the approximately universal empirical slope $W\sim 1.1
$ GeV$^{2}$ of all trajectories[@for07].
For an UV conformal gauge theory like QCD, the dual string spacetime is the product of a five-dimensional non-compact part which asymptotically becomes anti–de Sitter space $\mathrm{AdS}_{5}\left( R\right) $ of curvature radius $R$, and a five-dimensional compact Einstein space $X_{5}$. The line element therefore takes the form[@pol02]$$ds^{2}=e^{2A\left( z\right) }\frac{R^{2}}{z^{2}}\left( \eta _{\mu \nu
}dx^{\mu }dx^{\nu }-dz^{2}\right) +R^{2}ds_{X_{5}}^{2} \label{metric}$$where $\eta _{\mu \nu }$ is the four-dimensional Minkowski metric and $%
A(z)\rightarrow 0$ as $z\rightarrow 0$ in order to reproduce the conformal behavior of asymptotic freedom at high energies. The string modes $\phi
_{i}\left( x,z\right) =e^{-iP_{i}x}f_{i}\left( z\right) $ dual to physical states of the gauge theory are particular solutions of the wave equations in the geometry (\[metric\]) and fluctuations around it[@mal97]. Rewritten as eigenvalue problems, the field equations become $$\left[ -\partial _{z}^{2}+V_{M}\left( z\right) \right] \varphi \left(
z\right) =M_{M}^{2}\varphi \left( z\right) \label{eveqm}$$for the normalizable string modes $\varphi \left( z\right) =g\left( z\right)
f_{M}\left( z\right) $ dual to spin-0, 1 mesons as well as $$\left[ -\partial _{z}^{2}+V_{B,\pm }\left( z\right) \right] \psi _{\pm
}\left( z\right) =M_{B}^{2}\psi _{\pm }\left( z\right) \label{eveqb}$$for the string modes $\psi _{\pm }\left( z\right) =h\left( z\right) f_{B,\pm
}\left( z\right) $ dual to spin-1/2, 3/2 baryons ($\pm $ denote the fermion chiralities)[@det05]. The eigenvalues $M_{M,B}^{2}$ give the hadronic mass spectrum and the boundary conditions on the eigensolutions $\varphi $ and $\psi _{\pm }$ determine the corresponding gauge theory operator[mal97]{}. The duals of hadron states $\left| i\right\rangle $ behave as $%
f_{i}\left( z\right) \overset{z\rightarrow 0}{\longrightarrow }z^{\tau _{i}}$ where $\tau _{i}=\Delta _{i}-\sigma _{i}$ is the twist of the lowest-dimensional gauge theory operator which creates $\left|
i\right\rangle $. (Thereby $\tau _{i}$ enters the mass terms of the potentials $V_{M,B}$.) The lightest string modes are then associated with the leading twist operators, and therefore with the valence quark content of the low-spin (i.e. spin 0, 1/2, 1, and 3/2) hadron states[@det05]. The duals of orbital excitations are identified with fluctuations about the AdS background[@det05; @bro04].
The first part of our strategy is to find a minimal modification of the potentials $V_{M,B}$ in the AdS$_{5}$ background (given by Eq. (\[metric\]) with $A\left( z\right) \equiv 0$) which reproduce the desired linear trajectories with universal slopes. It turns out that this requires to break conformal symmetry via the replacement $\tau _{i}\rightarrow \tau
_{i}+\lambda ^{2}z^{2}$ in the AdS$_{5}$ potentials. With $\tau _{M}=L+2$ for the twist of the meson interpolators the mesonic potential becomes$$V_{M}^{\left( \text{LT}\right) }\left( z\right) =\left[ \left( \lambda
^{2}z^{2}+L\right) ^{2}-\frac{1}{4}\right] \frac{1}{z^{2}} \label{vMconf}$$while the baryon potential, associated with the interpolators of twist $%
\tau _{B}=L+3$, turns into $$V_{B,\pm }^{\left( \text{LT}\right) }\left( z\right) =\left\{ \left(
L+1\right) \left( L+1\mp 1\right) +\left[ 2\left( L+1\right) \pm 1\right]
\lambda ^{2}z^{2}+\lambda ^{4}z^{4}\right\} \frac{1}{z^{2}}. \label{vBconf}$$The eigenfunctions[@for07] have appreciable support only in the small region $z\lesssim \sqrt{2}\lambda ^{-1}\simeq \Lambda _{\text{QCD}}^{-1}$ close to the UV brane, which is an expected consequence of confinement. The corresponding eigenvalues $$M_{M}^{2}=4\lambda ^{2}\left( N+L+\frac{1}{2}\right) ,\text{ \ \ \ \ \ }%
M_{B}^{2}=4\lambda ^{2}\left( N+L+\frac{3}{2}\right) , \label{bspec}$$show that the square masses of both mesons and baryons are indeed organized into the observed $N+L$ trajectories. Moreover, Eqs. (\[bspec\]) predict the universal slope $$W=4\lambda ^{2} \label{slope}$$for both meson and baryon trajectories in terms of the IR scale $\lambda $ and exhibit a mass gap of order $\sqrt{W}$. The intercepts $M_{i,0}^{2}$ relate the trajectory slope in a new way to their ground state masses,$$M_{M,0}^{2}=\frac{W}{2},\text{ \ \ \ \ \ }M_{B,0}^{2}=\frac{3W}{2}.
\label{mwbrel}$$In order to show how the above potentials (\[vMconf\]), (\[vBconf\]) arise from a holographic dual by specific IR deformations of AdS$_{5}$, we now construct the corresponding background metric explicitly. This can be done by equating the field mode potentials in the geometry (\[metric\]) with *a priori* undetermined warp functions $A\left( z\right) $ to their counterparts (\[vMconf\]), (\[vBconf\]) and leads to the nonlinear, inhomogeneous differential equation$$\pm \left( zA^{\prime }-1\right) +le^{A}-\left[ l\left( l\mp 1\right)
+\left( 2l\pm 1\right) \lambda ^{2}z^{2}+\lambda ^{4}z^{4}\right] \left(
le^{A}\right) ^{-1}=0 \label{bode}$$of first order (where $l\equiv L+1$ and $\pm $ denotes the chirality) in the baryon sector and to the second-order equation $$z^{2}A^{\prime \prime }+\frac{3}{2}\left( zA^{\prime }\right)
^{2}-3zA^{\prime }+\frac{2}{3}\left( L^{2}-4\right) \left( e^{2A}-1\right) -%
\frac{2}{3}\lambda ^{2}z^{2}\left( \lambda ^{2}z^{2}+2L\right) =0
\label{mde}$$for the mesons. Of course, it is *a priori* uncertain whether there exists an approximate gravity dual whose IR deformation can reproduce a given five-dimensional potential and spectrum, simply because it may not result from a boundary gauge theory. This is reflected in the fact that the differential equations for $A\left( z\right) $ may not have physically acceptable solutions subject to the conformal boundary condition $A\left(
0\right) =0$.
In our case, however, such solutions exist. The exact solution of Eq. ([bode]{}) for both baryon chiralities can even be found analytically,$$A_{B}\left( z\right) =\ln \left( 1+\frac{\lambda ^{2}z^{2}}{L+1}\right) .
\label{bsoln}$$The solutions $A_{M}$ of Eq. (\[mde\]) are more multi-faceted and show new properties, including dynamical compactification of the $z$ direction (a dual signature for confinement) for the low-lying orbital excitations due to tachyonic (but stable) string modes. Those and other features, including the preservation of linear trajectories even in the compactified $z$ interval and the origin of the $L$ dependence, are discussed and compared to other holographic duals for linear meson trajectories in Ref.[@for07].
Our conformal symmetry breaking scale $\lambda $ is determined by experimental data for the trajectory slope $W=4\lambda ^{2}$. This entails the prediction $M_{\rho }=\sqrt{W/2}$ for the rho meson mass, which holds at the few-percent level, and implies $\lambda =M_{\rho }/\sqrt{2}=0.55\
\mathrm{GeV}.$ In the baryon sector we similarly predict $M_{\Delta }=\sqrt{%
3W/2}=1.27\ \mathrm{GeV}$ for the isobar mass. The alternative determination of $\lambda =M_{\Delta }/\sqrt{6}=0.50\ \mathrm{GeV}$ differs by less than 10% from that in the rho channel and confirms the approximate universality of $\lambda $ and $W=4\lambda ^{2}$. The slope $W$ is also related to the QCD scale, estimated as $\Lambda _{\mathrm{QCD}}\simeq \sqrt{W/8}=\lambda
/\sqrt{2}\simeq 0.35~$GeV and close to the empirical value $\Lambda _{\mathrm{%
QCD}}$ $\simeq 0.33$ GeV (at hadronic scales with three active flavors)[pdg]{}. The resulting trajectories match the experimental data well[for07]{}, with two expected exceptions: the pion and nucleon come out too heavy since the present, simplest version of our holographic dual lacks chiral symmetry.
We conclude that our construction of a rather efficient and predictive QCD gravity dual which generates the linear trajectories (\[bspec\]), including for the first time those empirically found in the baryon sector, provides new support for the AdS/QCD program. It establishes the basis for calculating gauge theory correlation functions and observables from the dual mode solutions[@for07] on the basis of the AdS/CFT dictionary[@mal97] and predicts new relations between the $\rho $ and $\Delta $ masses and their trajectory slopes. Our method of reconstructing the dual mode dynamics from spectral properties on the gauge theory side may be useful for other applications as well.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
This work was supported by DAAD/CAPES, CNPq and FAPESP.
[99]{} J. M. Maldacena, *Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.* **2** (1998) 231; S. S. Gubser, I. R. Klebanov and A. M. Polyakov, *Phys. Lett.* **B428** (1998) 105; E. Witten, *Adv.Theor. Math. Phys.* **2** (1998) 253.
J. Polchinski and M. J. Strassler, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **88** (2002) 031601; *JHEP* **05** (2003) 012; D.T. Son and M. Stephanov, *Phys. Rev.* **D69** (2004) 065020.
H. Forkel, M. Beyer and T. Frederico, arXiv:0705.1857.
G. F. de Téramond and S. J. Brodsky, *Phys.Rev. Lett.* **94** (2005) 0201601; S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Téramond, *Phys. Rev. Lett.* **96** (2006) 0201601.
E. Katz, A. Lewandowski, and M.D. Schwartz, *Phys. Rev.* **D74** (2006) 086004.
M. Shifman, arXiv:hep-ph/0507246.
A. Karch, E. Katz, D. T. Son and M. A. Stephanov, *Phys. Rev.* **D74** (2006) 015005.
O. Andreev, V.I. Zakharov, *Phys. Rev.* **D74** (2006) 025023; M. Kruczenski, L. A. P. Zayas, J. Sonnenschein and D. Vaman, *JHEP* **06** (2005) 046; S. Kuperstein and J. Sonnenschein, *JHEP* **11** (2004) 026.
E. Klempt, *Phys. Rev.* **C66** (2002) 058201; arXiv:nucl-ex/0203002.
A. V. Anisovich, V. V. Anisovich, and A. V. Sarantsev, *Phys. Rev.* **D62** (2000) 051502(R); D. V. Bugg, *Phys. Rep.* **397** (2004) 257.
S. J. Brodsky and G. F. de Téramond, *Phys. Lett.* **B582** (2004) 211.
W.-M. Yao *et al.*, *J. Phys.* **G33** (2006) 1.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Physical principles constrain the way nonlocal correlations can be distributed among distant parties. These constraints are usually expressed by monogamy relations that bound the amount of Bell inequality violation observed among a set of parties by the violation observed by a different set of parties. We prove here that much stronger monogamy relations are possible for nonsignalling correlations by showing how nonlocal correlations among a set of parties limit *any* form of correlations, not necessarily nonlocal, shared among other parties. In particular, we provide tight bounds between the violation of a family of Bell inequalities among an arbitrary number of parties and the knowledge an external observer can gain about outcomes of *any single* measurement performed by the parties. Finally, we show how the obtained monogamy relations offer an improvement over the existing protocols for device-independent quantum key distribution and randomness amplification.'
author:
- 'R. Augusiak'
- 'M. Demianowicz'
- 'M. Pawłowski'
- 'J. Tura'
- 'A. Acín'
title: Elemental and tight monogamy relations in nonsignalling theories
---
*Introduction.* It is a well established fact that entanglement and nonlocal correlations (cf. Refs. [@Hreview; @NLreview]), i.e., correlations violating a Bell inequality [@Bell], are fundamental resources of quantum information theory. It has been confirmed by many instances that, when distributed among spatially separated observers, they give an advantage over classical correlations at certain information-theoretic tasks, many of them being considered in the multipartite scenario. For instance, nonlocal correlations outperform their classical counterpart at communication complexity problems [@CommCompl], and allow for security not achievable within classical theory [@crypto].
Physical principles impose certain constraints on the way these resources can be distributed among separated parties; these are commonly referred to as monogamy relations. For instance, in any three–qubit pure state one party cannot share large amount of entanglement, as measured by concurrence, simultaneously with both remaining parties [@Wootters]. Analogous monogamy relations, both in qualitative [@NS; @BarrettMon; @BKP; @rodrigo] and quantitative [@TV; @T] form, were demonstrated for nonlocal correlations, with the measure of nonlocality being the violation of specific Bell inequalities. In particular, Toner and Verstraete [@TV] and later Toner [@T] showed that if three parties $A$, $B$, and $C$ share, respectively, quantum and general nonsignalling correlations, then only a single pair can violate the Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) Bell inequality [@CHSH]. These findings were generalized to more complex scenarios [@ns-mon; @Pawel] (see also Ref. [@Thiago]), and in particular in [@ns-mon] a general construction of monogamy relations for nonsignalling correlations from any bipartite Bell inequality was proposed.
In this work, we demonstrate that nonsignalling correlations are monogamous in a much stronger sense: the amount of nonlocality observed by a set of parties may imply severe limitations on any form of correlations with other parties. That is, instead of comparing nonlocality between distinct groups of parties, we rather relate it to the knowledge that external parties can gain on outcomes of any of the measurements performed by the parties (see Fig. \[fig:concept\]). To be more illustrative, consider again parties $A$, $B$, and $C$ performing a Bell experiment with $M$ observables and $d$ outcomes. We construct tight bounds between the violation of certain Bell inequalities [@BKP] among any pair of parties, say $A$ and $B$, and classical correlations that the third party $C$ can establish with outcomes of any measurement performed by $A$ or $B$. This means that the amount of *any* correlations — classical or nonlocal — that $C$ could share with $A$ or $B$ is bounded by the strength of the Bell inequality violation between $A$ and $B$. Our monogamies are further generalized to the scenario with an arbitrary number of parties $N$ \[$(N,M,d)$ scenario\] with nonlocality measured by the recent generalization of the Bell inequalities [@BKP] presented in Ref. [@rodrigo]. The obtained monogamy relations are logically independent from, and in fact stronger than, the existing relations involving only nonlocal correlations, as a bound on nonlocal correlations does not necessarily imply any nontrivial constraint on the amount of classical correlations.
(a)![(a) The usual monogamies compare nonlocality (measured by the value of some Bell inequality $I$) between different groups of parties (here between two pairs of parties $AB$ and $AC$). Instead, our monogamy relations compare nonlocality observed by a group of parties (here $AB$) to the knowledge, represented by the probability $p(A=C)$, that the third party $C$ can have about outcomes observed by either of the parties. As such, they are qualitatively different, and in fact stronger than those of type (a).[]{data-label="fig:concept"}](fig1a.pdf "fig:"){width="17.50000%"} (b)![(a) The usual monogamies compare nonlocality (measured by the value of some Bell inequality $I$) between different groups of parties (here between two pairs of parties $AB$ and $AC$). Instead, our monogamy relations compare nonlocality observed by a group of parties (here $AB$) to the knowledge, represented by the probability $p(A=C)$, that the third party $C$ can have about outcomes observed by either of the parties. As such, they are qualitatively different, and in fact stronger than those of type (a).[]{data-label="fig:concept"}](fig1b.pdf "fig:"){width="20.00000%"}
Our new monogamy relations prove useful in device-independent protocols [@device-ind; @DIRNG; @collbeck-renner; @andrzej; @qit]. First, we show that they impose tight bounds on the guessing probability, the commonly used measure of randomness, that are significantly better than the existing ones [@BKP; @rodrigo]. We then argue that this translates into superior performance in protocols for device-independent quantum key distribution (DIQKD) [@Lluis2] using measurements with more than two outputs. Finally, we show that they allow for a generalization of the results of [@collbeck-renner] on randomness amplification to any number of parties and outcomes, demonstrating, in particular, that arbitrary amount of arbitrarily good randomness can be amplified in a bipartite setup.
Before turning to the results, we provide some background. Consider $N$ parties $A^{(1)},\ldots,A^{(N)}$ (for $N=3$ denoted by $A,B,C$), each measuring one of $M$ possible observables $A^{(i)}_{x_i}$ $(x_i=1,\ldots,M)$ with $d$ outcomes (enumerated by $a_i=1,\ldots,d$) on their local physical systems. The produced correlations are described by a collection of probabilities $p(A^{(1)}_{x_1}=a_1,\ldots,
A^{(N)}_{x_{N}}=a_{N})\equiv p(a_1\ldots a_{N}|x_1\ldots x_{N})\equiv
p(\boldsymbol{a}|\boldsymbol{x} )$ of obtaining results $\boldsymbol{a}\equiv a_1\ldots a_{N}$ upon measuring $\boldsymbol{x}\equiv x_1\ldots x_{N}$. One then says that the correlations $\{p(\boldsymbol{a}|\boldsymbol{x})\}$ are (i) nonsignalling (NC) if any of the marginals describing a subset of parties is independent of the measurements choices made by the remaining parties and (ii) quantum (QC) if they arise by local measurements on quantum states (cf. [@NLreview]).
*Elemental and tight monogamies for nonsignalling correlations.* We start with the derivation of our monogamy relations in the case of nonsignalling correlations. For clarity, we begin with the simplest tripartite scenario. We will use the Bell inequality introduced by Barrett, Kent, and Pironio (BKP) [@BKP]. Denoting by $\langle \Omega\rangle$ the mean value of a random variable $\Omega$, that is, $\langle
\Omega\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}iP(\Omega=i)$, it reads $$\label{BKPNd}
I^{2,M,d}_{AB}:=\sum_{\alpha=1}^{M}\left({\langle[A_{\alpha}-B_{\alpha}]\rangle}
+{\langle[B_{\alpha}-A_{\alpha+1}]\rangle}\right)\geq
d-1$$ with $[\Omega]$ being $\Omega$ modulo $d$, and $\Omega_{M+1}:=[\Omega_1+1]$. For $d=2$, Ineq. (\[BKPNd\]) reproduces the chained Bell inequalities [@BC], while for $M=2$ the Collins-Gisin-Linden-Massar-Popescu (CGLMP) inequalities [@Collins]. The maximal nonsignalling violation of (\[BKPNd\]) is $I_{AB}^{2,M,d}=0$.
The only monogamy relations for (\[BKPNd\]) have been formulated in terms of its violations between Alice and $M$ Bobs [@ns-mon], which is a natural quantitative extension of the concept of $M$-shareability [@NS]. In the following theorem we show that the BKP Bell inequalities allow one to introduce *elemental* monogamies obeyed by any NC.
\[thm:BKPNd\] For any tripartite NC $\{p(abc|xyz)\}$ with $M$ $d$-outcome measurements, the inequality $$\label{thm:BKPNd:1}
I^{2,M,d}_{AB}+{\langle[X_i-C_j]\rangle}+{\langle[C_j-X_i]\rangle}\geq d-1$$ holds for any pair $i,j=1,\ldots,M$ and $X$ denoting $A$ or $B$.
Interestingly, all these inequalities are tight in the sense that for any values of $I_{AB}^{2,M,d}$ and ${\langle[X_i-C_j]\rangle}+{\langle[C_j-X_i]\rangle}$ saturating (\[thm:BKPNd:1\]), one can find NC realizing these values. Take, for instance, a probability distribution $\{p(a,b,c|x,y,z)=p(a,b|x,y)p(c|z)\}$, with $\{p(a,b|x,y)\}$ being a mixture of a nonlocal model maximally violating (\[BKPNd\]) and a local deterministic one saturating it. Then, $\{p(c|z)\}$ is the same distribution as the one used by $A$ or $B$ in the local model saturating (\[BKPNd\]). The physical interpretation of our monogamies can be now concluded if we rewrite them in a bit different form. Using the fact that for any variable $\Omega$, ${\langle[\Omega]\rangle}+{\langle[-\Omega]\rangle}=dP([\Omega]\neq 0)=d[1-P([\Omega]=0)]$ [@supplement], Ineqs. (\[thm:BKPNd:1\]) transform to $$\label{monogII}
I^{2,M,d}_{AB}+1\geq
dp(X_{i}=C_{j})$$ for $X=A,B$, and any pair $i,j=1,\ldots,M$. These relations hold if $AB$ is replaced by any pair of parties and if any $m=1,\ldots,d-1$ is added modulo $d$ to the argument of probability. The meaning of the introduced monogamy relations is now transparent. The probability $p(X_{i}=C_{j})$ that parties $X$ and $C$ obtain the same results upon measuring the $i$th and $j$th observables is a measure of how the outcomes of these measurements are classically correlated. Consequently, Ineqs. (\[thm:BKPNd:1\]) establish trade-offs between nonlocality, as measured by (\[BKPNd\]), that can be generated between any two parties and classical correlations that the third party can share with the results of any measurement performed by any of these two parties. Furthermore, they are tight. In fact, it is known that the maximal NC violation of (\[BKPNd\]), $I^{2,M,d}_{AB}=0$, implies $p(X_i=C_{j})=1/d$ for any $i,j=1,\ldots,M$, meaning that at the point of maximal violation $C$ cannot share any correlations with any other party’s measurement outcomes [@BKP]. On the other hand, it is well known that at the point of no violation $C$ can be arbitrarily correlated with $A$ and $B$. For intermediate violations, the best one can hope for is a linear interpolation between these two extreme values and this is precisely what our monogamy relations predict, see Fig. \[fig:comparison\].
Let us now move to the general case of an arbitrary number of parties each having $M$ $d$-outcome observables at their disposal. We will utilize the generalization of the Bell inequality (\[BKPNd\]) introduced in Ref. [@rodrigo], which can be stated as $$\label{BKPNMd}
I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,d}\geq d-1$$ with $\mathsf{A}=A^{(1)}\ldots A^{(N)}$. Since the form of $I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,d}$ is rather lengthy and actually not relevant for further considerations, for clarity, we omit presenting it here (see [@supplement]). We only mention that it can be recursively determined from $I_{AB}^{2,M,d}$ and that its minimal nonsignalling value is $I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,d}=0$. Then, the generalization of Theorem \[thm:BKPNd\] to arbitrary $N$ goes as follows.
\[thm:BKPNMd\] For any $(N+1)$–partite NC $\{p(\boldsymbol{a}|\boldsymbol{x})\}$ with $M$ $d$-outcome measurements per site, the following inequality $$\label{thm:BKPNMd:1}
I^{N,M,d}_{\mathsf{A}}+{\langle[A_{x_k}^{(k)}-A^{(N+1)}_{x_{N+1}}]\rangle}+{\langle[A^{(N+1)}_{x_{N+1}}-A_{x_k}^{(k)
} ]\rangle} \geq d-1$$ is satisfied for any $x_k,x_{N+1}=1,\ldots,M$ and $k=1,\ldots,N$.
All the properties of the three-partite monogamy relations persist for any $N$. In particular, all inequalities (\[thm:BKPNMd:1\]) are tight. Moreover, they can be rewritten as $$\label{monogII}
I^{N,M,d}_{\mathsf{A}}+1\geq
dp(A^{(k)}_{x_k}=[A^{(N+1)}_{x_{N+1}}+m])$$ for any $x_k,x_{N+1}=1,\ldots,M$, $k=1,\ldots,N$ and $m=0,\ldots,d-1$ and remain valid if the nonlocality is tested among any $N$-element subset of $N+1$ parties. Analogously to the three-partite case, Ineqs. (\[monogII\]) tightly relate the nonlocality observed by any $N$ parties, as measured by $I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,d}$, and correlations that party $(N+1)$ can share between measurement outcomes of any of these $N$ parties. It is worth pointing out that for $d=2$ it holds ${\langle[X-Y]\rangle}={\langle[Y-X]\rangle}$, and Ineqs. (\[thm:BKPNMd:1\]) simplify to $I^{N,M,2}_{\mathsf{A}}+2{\langle[A_{x_k}^{(k)}-A^{(N+1)}_{x_{N+1}}]\rangle}\geq
1$ which can be rewritten in a more familiar form as $|\langle A_{x_k}^{(k)}A^{(N+1)}_{x_{N+1}}\rangle|\leq
I^{N,M,2}_{\mathsf{A}}$, where $A_{x_k}^{(k)}$ stand now for dichotomic observables with outcomes $\pm1$, while $\langle
XY\rangle=P(X=Y)-P(X\neq Y)$. Thus, the strength of violation of (\[BKPNMd\]) imposes tight bounds on a *single* mean value $\langle A_{x_k}^{(k)}A^{(N+1)}_{x_{N+1}}\rangle$ for any $x_k,x_{N+1}$ and $k=1,\ldots,N$, which is also a measure of how outcomes of a measurement performed by the external party $A^{(N+1)}$ are correlated to those of $A^{(k)}$ for any $k$. In particular, when $I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,2}=0$ (maximal nonsignalling violation), all these means are zero, while maximal correlations between a single pair of measurements, i.e., $\langle A^{(k)}_{x_{k}}A^{(N+1)}_{x_{N+1}}\rangle=\pm1$ for some $x_k,x_{N+1}$, make the $N$ parties unable to violate $I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,2}\ge 1$.
*Bounds on randomness.* Our monogamies are of particular importance for device–independent applications since they imply upper bounds on the guessing probability (GP) of the outcomes of any measurement performed by any of the $N$ parties by the additional party, here called $E$. To be precise, assume that $E$ has full knowledge about all parties devices and their measurement choices and wishes to guess the outcomes of, say $A_{x_k}^{(k)}$. The best $E$ can do for this purpose is to simply measure one of its observables, say the $z$th one, and, irrespectively of the obtained result, deliver the most probable outcome of $A^{(k)}_{x_k}$. Then, $\max_{a_k}p(A_{x_k}^{(k)}=a_k)=p(E_{z}=A^{(k)}_{x_k})$, and Ineqs. (\[monogII\]) imply that for any $x_k$ and $k$, GP is bounded as $$\label{guessing}
\max_{a_k}p(a_k|x_k)\equiv\max_{a_k}p(A_{x_k}^{(k)}=a_k)\leq
\frac{1}{d}(1+I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,d}).$$ These bounds are tight and significantly stronger than the previously existing one, $$\label{guessing-bkp} \max_{a_k}p(a_k|x_k)\leq
\frac{1}{d}\left(1+\frac{d^N}{4}(N-1)I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,d}\right)$$ derived in Refs. [@BKP; @rodrigo] (see Fig. \[fig:comparison\]).
(a)![(a) Comparison of the upper bounds on GP: present bound (\[guessing\]) (red line) and (\[guessing-bkp\]) (purple line). Our bound is tight – for any value $0\leq
I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,d}\leq d-1$, it provides the maximum attainable value of GP. Instead, the bound (\[guessing-bkp\]) is nontrivial only in some restricted range of $I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,d}$, namely when $I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,d} <
4(d-1)/d^2$, which tends to zero for $d\to\infty$. (b) Minimal number of measurements $M$ on a maximally entangled state of local dimension $d$ necessary for the secret-key rate $R$ secure against non-signalling eavesdroppers to be at least: one (dots), $\log_23$ (squares), and two (triangles) bits, when (\[guessing\]) (green) and (\[guessing-bkp\]) (red) are used to bound $R$. Using our bound the parties need to use many fewer measurements to reach the same key rate. Moreover, contrary to what is predicted by the previous bound, the number of measurement decreases with the dimension. []{data-label="fig:comparison"}](fig2a.pdf "fig:"){width="22.50000%"} (b)
Let us now discuss how the bound (\[guessing\]) performs in comparison to (\[guessing-bkp\]) in security proofs of DIQKD against no-signalling eavesdroppers. At the moment, a general security proof in this scenario is missing and the strongest proof requires the assumption that the eavesdropper $E$ is not only limited by the no-signalling principle but also lacks a long-term quantum memory (so–called bounded-storage model) [@Lluis2]. Assume that Alice and Bob share a two-qudit maximally entangled state and they use it to maximally violate (\[BKPNd\]) by performing the optimal measurements for this setup (see, e.g., [@BKP]). To generate the secure key, Bob performs one more measurement that is perfectly correlated to one of Alice’s measurements. The key rate of this protocol is lower-bounded as $R\geq
-\log_2[\tau(I_{AB}^{2,M,d})]-H(A|B)$ [@Lluis2], where $\tau$ is any upper bound on GP for nonsignalling correlations. and $H(A|B)$ is the conditional Shannon entropy between Alice and Bob for the measurements used to generate the secret key. As the state is maximally entangled, this term is equal to zero. Fig. \[fig:comparison\] compares bounds on the secret key obtained by using our bound (\[guessing\]) and the previous bound (\[guessing-bkp\]) in this protocol. We fix the key rate and compute the minimal number of measurements needed to attain this rate using these bounds as a function of the number of outputs. As shown in Fig. \[fig:comparison\], the number of measurements when using our bound is much smaller and, in particular, decreases with the number of outputs.
*Randomness amplification.* Let us finally show the usefulness of our monogamy relations in randomness amplification. Assume that each party is given a sequence of bits produced by the Santha–Vazirani (SV) source (or the $\varepsilon$–source). Its working is defined as follows: it produces a sequence $y_1, y_2,\cdots, y_n$ of bits according to $$\label{sv}
\tfrac{1}{2}-\varepsilon \le p(y_k| w)\le
\tfrac{1}{2}+\varepsilon, \quad k=1,\ldots,n,$$ where $w$ denotes any space-time variable that could be the cause of $y_k$. Thus the bits are possibly correlated with each other retaining, however, some intrinsic randomness — we say that they are $\varepsilon$–free. The goal is now to obtain a perfectly random bit (or more generally $d$it) from an arbitrarily long sequence of $\varepsilon$–free bits by using quantum correlations that violate the Bell inequality (\[BKPNMd\]). This procedure is called randomness amplification (RA).
It is useful to recast this task in the adversarial picture [@collbeck-renner], in which one assumes that an adversary $E$, using the $\varepsilon$–sources, wants to simulate the quantum violation of (\[BKPNMd\]) by NC, in particular the local ones. The random variable $W$ is now held by $E$ who uses it to control both the $\varepsilon$-sources and the physical devices possessed by the parties. That is, for every value $w$ of $W$ the former provides settings $\boldsymbol{x}$ with probabilities obeying (\[sv\]), while these devices generate the $N$-partite probability distribution $\{p(\boldsymbol{a}|\boldsymbol{x},w)\}_{\boldsymbol{a},\boldsymbol{x}}$. Using (\[guessing\]), we can now restate and generalize Lemma 1 of [@collbeck-renner] (see [@supplement]).
Let $\{p(\boldsymbol{a}|\boldsymbol{x},w)\}_{\boldsymbol{a},\boldsymbol{x}}$ be a nonsignalling probability distribution for any $w$. Then for any $\boldsymbol{x}$ and $k=1,\ldots,N$: $$\label{VIB}
\sum_{a_k,w}\left|p(a_k,w|\boldsymbol{x})-\widetilde{p}(a_k)p(w|\boldsymbol{x})\right|
\leq
\tfrac{(d-1)^2+1}{d}\,Q_M(\boldsymbol{x})
I^{N,M,d}_{\mathsf{A}},$$ where $\widetilde{p}(a)=1/d$ for any $a$, $\{p(a_k,w|\boldsymbol{x})\}_{a_k,w}$ describes correlations between outcomes obtained by party $k$ and the random variable $W$ for the measurements choice $\boldsymbol{x}$, and $I^{N,M,d}_{\mathsf{A}}$ is taken in the probability distribution $\{p(\boldsymbol{a}|\boldsymbol{x})\}$ observed by the parties. Finally, $Q_M(\boldsymbol{x})=\max_{w}[p(w|\boldsymbol{x})/p_{\min}(w) ] $, where $p_{\min}(w)=\min_{\boldsymbol{x}}\{p(w|\boldsymbol{x})\}$ with minimum taken over those measurement settings $\boldsymbol{x}$ that appear in $I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,d}$.
It then follows that if correlations $\{p(\boldsymbol{a}|\boldsymbol{x})\}$ violate maximally the Bell inequality (\[BKPNMd\]), then the *dits* observed by the parties are perfectly random and uncorrelated from $W$ [@collbeck-renner].
Let us now show that one can amplify partially random input bits to almost perfectly random *dits* by using QC that produce arbitrarily high violation of $I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,d}$. To generate one of the $M$ measurement settings, each party uses its SV source $r=\lceil\log_2M\rceil$ times. Hence for any $\boldsymbol{x}$, $Q_r(\boldsymbol{x})\leq
[(1+2\varepsilon)/(1-2\varepsilon)]^{Nr}$ (cf. Ref. [@collbeck-renner]). Then, there is a state and measurement settings [@BKP; @rodrigo] such that for large $M$, $$\label{viol}
I^{N,M,d}_{\mathsf{A}}\approx
\lambda(d)/M\leq \lambda(d)/2^{r-1},$$ where $\lambda(d)$ is a function of $d$. After plugging everything into (\[VIB\]), one checks that its r.h.s. tends to zero for $M\to\infty$ iff $\varepsilon<\varepsilon_N:=(2^{1/N}-1)/[2(2^{1/N}+1)]$. As a result, QC violating (\[viol\]) can be used to amplify randomness of any $\varepsilon$-source provided $\varepsilon<\varepsilon_N$. In particular, for $N=2$, the above reproduces the value $\varepsilon_2=(\sqrt{2}-1)^2/2$ found in [@collbeck-renner], and, because $\varepsilon_N$ is a strictly decreasing function of $N$, the larger $N$, the lower the critical epsilon $\varepsilon_N$ for this method to work. Notice, however, that $\varepsilon_N$ is independent of $d$, so almost perfectly random *dits* are obtained from partially random bits. This means that using the setup from Ref. [@collbeck-renner] we can in fact achieve both amplification and expansion of randomness simultaneously. Recently, with the same Bell inequality but for $N=d=2$, the critical epsilon was shifted from $\varepsilon_2\approx0.086$ to $\varepsilon_2'\approx 0.0961$ [@andrzej]. We will now show that by using a slightly different approach the critical epsilon can be almost doubled. To this end, we exploit the fact that only $2M^{N-1}$ measurement settings out of all possible $M^N$ appear in $I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,d}$. However, to generate them a *common* source has to be used. Assuming then that this is the case, $R=\log_2(2M^{N-1})=1+(N-1)r$ (instead of $Nr$) uses of the SV source are enough to generate all measurement settings in $I_{\mathsf{A}}^{N,M,d}$. Thus, $Q_r(\boldsymbol{x})\leq
[(1+2\varepsilon)/(1-2\varepsilon)]^{1+(N-1)r}$, which together with (\[viol\]) imply that the right-hand side of (\[VIB\]) vanishes for $M\to\infty$ iff $\varepsilon<\varepsilon_N''=(2^{1/(N-1)}-1)/[2(2^{1/(N-1)}+1)]$, and in particular $\varepsilon''_2=1/6>\varepsilon_2'$.
*Conclusions.* We have presented a novel class of monogamy relations, obeyed by any nonsignalling physical theory. They tightly relate the amount of nonlocality, as quantified by the violation of Bell inequalities [@BKP; @rodrigo], that $N$ parties have generated in an experiment to the classical correlations an external party can share with outcomes of any measurement performed by the parties. Such trade–offs find natural applications in device-independent protocols and here we have discussed how they apply in quantum key distribution (cf. also Ref. [@2prot]) and generation and amplification of randomness. We have finally showed that bipartite quantum correlations allow one to amplify $\varepsilon$–free $d$its for any $\varepsilon<1/6$.
Our results provoke further questions. First, it is natural to ask if analogous monogamies hold for quantum correlations, and, in fact, such elemental monogamies can be derived in the simplest (3,2,2) scenario (see [@supplement]). From a more fundamental perspective, it is of interest to understand what is the (minimal) set of of monogamy relations generating the same set of multipartite correlations as the no-signalling principle.
*Acknowledgments.* Discussions with Gonzalo De La Torre are gratefully acknowledged. This work is supported by NCN grant 2013/08/M/ST2/00626, FNP TEAM, EU project SIQS, ERC grants QITBOX, QOLAPS and QUAGATUA, the Spanish project Chist-Era DIQIP. This publication was made possible through the support of a grant from the John Templeton Foundation. R. A. also acknowledges the Spanish MINECO for the support through the Juan de la Cierva program.
[99]{}
R. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys. **81**, 865 (2009).
N. Brunner *et al.*, Rev. Mod. Phys. **86**, 419 (2014).
J. S. Bell, Physics **1**, 195 (1964).
H. Buhrman, R. Cleve, S. Massar, and R. de Wolf, Rev. Mod. Phys. **82**, 665 (2010).
A. K. Ekert, Phys. Rev. Lett. **67**, 661 (1991); J. Barrett, L. Hardy, and A. Kent, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010503 (2005); A. Acín *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 230501 (2007).
V. Coffman, J. Kundu, and W. K. Wootters, Phys. Rev. A **61**, 052306 (2000).
Ll. Masanes, A. Acín, and N. Gisin, Phys. Rev. A [**73**]{}, 012112 (2006).
J. Barrett *et al.*, Phys. Rev. A **71**, 022101 (2005).
J. Barrett, A. Kent, S. Pironio, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 170409 (2006).
L. Aolita, R. Gallego, A. Cabello, and A. Acín, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 100401 (2012).
B. Toner, F. Verstraete, arXiv:quant-ph/0611001.
B. Toner, Proc. R. Soc. A [**465**]{}, 59 (2009).
J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**23**]{}, 880 (1969).
M. Paw[ł]{}owski, Č. Brukner, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**102**]{}, 030403 (2009).
P. Kurzyński *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 180402 (2011).
T. R. de Oliveira, A. Saguia, and M. S. Sarandy, Europhys. Lett. **100**, 60004 (2012).
A. Acín, N. Brunner, N. Gisin, S. Massar, S. Pionio, and V. Scarani, Phys. Rev. Lett. **98**, 230501, (2007).
S. Pironio *et al.*, Nature [**464**]{}, 1021, (2010).
R. Colbeck and R. Renner, Nature Phys. **8**, 450 (2012).
A. Grudka *et al.*, arXiv:1303.5591.
R. Gallego *et al.*, arXiv:1210.6514v1.
A. Acín, S. Massar, and S. Pironio, Phys. Rev. Lett. **108**, 100402 (2012).
S. L. Braunstein and C. Caves, Ann. Phys. **202**, 22 (1990).
D. Collins *et al.*, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 040404 (2002).
See Supplemental Material for the proof.
M. Paw[ł]{}owski, Phys. Rev. A [**82**]{}, 032313, (2010).
R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and M. Horodecki, Phys. Lett. A **200**, 340 (1995).
Ll. Masanes, quant-ph/0512100.
S. Pironio, Ll. Masanes, A. Leverrier, and A. Acín, Phys. Rev. X **3**, 031007 (2013).
appendices
==========
Here we present detailed proofs of Theorems 1, 2, and 3 of the main text. Also, in the simplest $(3,2,2)$ scenario we provide elemental monogamies for quantum correlations.
Appendix A: Monogamy relations
==============================
Monogamy relations for nonsignalling correlations {#detaliczne}
-------------------------------------------------
Let us start with a simple fact. Recall for this purpose that $\langle \Omega\rangle$ is the standard mean value of a random variable $\Omega$, that is, $\langle \Omega\rangle=\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}iP(\Omega=i)$ and $[\Omega]$ stands for $\Omega$ modulo $d$.
\[fact1\] It holds that for any random variable $\Omega$, $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1cm}&(a)&\hspace{1cm}{\langle[\Omega]\rangle}+{\langle[-\Omega-1]\rangle}=d-1,\\
\hspace{-1cm}&(b)&\hspace{1cm}{\langle[\Omega]\rangle}+{\langle[-\Omega]\rangle}=d[1-p([\Omega]=0)].\end{aligned}$$
Both equations follow from the very definition of ${\langle[\cdot]\rangle}$. To prove (a) we notice that $[-\Omega-1]+[\Omega]=d-1$, and hence $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle[-\Omega-1]\rangle}&{\negmedspace}={\negmedspace}&\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}i p([\Omega]=d-i-1)\nonumber\\
&{\negmedspace}={\negmedspace}&\sum_{i=0}^{d-2}(d-i-1)p([\Omega]=i)\nonumber\\
&{\negmedspace}={\negmedspace}&(d-1)\sum_{i=0}^{d-2}p([\Omega]=i)-\sum_{i=0}^{d-2}iP([\Omega]
=i)\nonumber\\
&{\negmedspace}={\negmedspace}&(d-1)\sum_{i=0}^{d-1}p([\Omega]=i)-{\langle[\Omega]\rangle}\nonumber\\
&{\negmedspace}={\negmedspace}&(d-1)-{\langle[\Omega]\rangle},\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality is a consequence of changing of the summation index, the fourth one stems from the definition of ${\langle[\Omega]\rangle}$ and rearranging terms, and the last equality follows from normalization.
To prove (b), we write $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle[\Omega]\rangle}+{\langle[-\Omega]\rangle}&=&\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}i[p([\Omega]=i)+p([-\Omega]=i)]
\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}i[p([\Omega]=i)+p([\Omega]=d-i)]\nonumber\\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}i p([\Omega]=i)+\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}(d-i)p([\Omega]=i)\nonumber\\
&=&d\sum_{i=1}^{d-1}p([\Omega]=i)\nonumber\\
&=&d[1-p([\Omega]=0)],\end{aligned}$$ where the second equality is a consequence of the fact that $[\Omega]+[-\Omega]=d$, while the third equality follows from shifting of the summation index in the second sum.
Let us now move to the proofs of the monogamy relations. In the tripartite case we make use of the Barrett, Kent, and Pironio (BKP) [@BKP] inequality $$\label{BKP-2d}
I^{2,M,d}_{AB}=\sum_{\alpha=1}^{M}\left({\langle[A_{\alpha}-B_{\alpha}]\rangle}
+{\langle[B_{\alpha}-A_{\alpha+1}]\rangle}\right)\geq d-1,$$ where the convention that $X_{M+1}=[X_1+1]$ is assumed.
\[thm:BKP2d:app\] For any three-partite nonsignalling correlations $\{p(a,b,c|x,y,z)\}$ with $M$ measurements and $d$ outcomes per site and any pair $\{i,j\}$ $(i,j=1,\ldots,M)$, the following inequality $$\label{thmm1:0}
I^{2,M,d}_{AB}+{\langle[X_i-C_j]\rangle}+{\langle[C_j-X_i]\rangle}\geq d-1$$ is satisfied with $X$ denoting either $A$ or $B$.
Let us start with the case of $X=A$ and then notice that for a random variable $\Omega$ it holds that ${\langle[\Omega]\rangle}+{\langle[-\Omega-1]\rangle}=d-1$ (see Fact \[fact1\]). Consequently, $$\label{zero_expr}
\hspace{-0.3cm}\sum_{\substack{\beta=1\\ \beta\neq
i}}^{M}({\langle[C_j-A_{\beta}-1]\rangle} +{\langle[A_{\beta}-C_j]\rangle})-(M-1)(d-1)$$ is equal to zero. The fact that for any $\beta$ and $j$ it holds that ${\langle[C_j-A_{\beta}-1]\rangle}
+{\langle[A_{\beta}-C_j]\rangle}=d-1={\langle[A_{\beta}-C_j-1]\rangle} +{\langle[C_j-A_{\beta}]\rangle}$ allows us to rewrite (\[zero\_expr\]) in the following way $$\begin{aligned}
\label{thmm1:2}
&&\sum_{\beta=1}^{i-1}({\langle[C_j-A_{\beta}-1]\rangle}
+{\langle[A_{\beta+1}-C_j]\rangle})\nonumber\\
&&+\hspace{-0.2cm}\sum_{\beta=i+1}^{M}({\langle[A_{\beta}-C_j-1]\rangle}+{\langle[C_j-A_{\beta}]\rangle}
)-(M-1)(d-1).\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ Then, by adding ${\langle[A_i-C_j]\rangle}+{\langle[C_j-A_i]\rangle}$ to both sides of the above and rearranging some terms in the resulting expression, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\label{thmm1:3}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm}{\langle[A_i-C_j]\rangle}+{\langle[C_j-A_i]\rangle}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.3cm}=\sum_{\beta=1}^{i-1}({\langle[C_j-A_{\beta}-1]\rangle}+{\langle[A_{\beta+1}-C_j]\rangle}
)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.1cm}+\sum_{\beta=i}^{M-1}({\langle[A_{\beta+1}-C_j-1]\rangle}+{\langle[C_j-A_{\beta}]\rangle}
)\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.1cm}+{\langle[A_1-C_j]\rangle}+{\langle[C_j-A_M]\rangle}-(M-1)(d-1).\end{aligned}$$ In an analogous way, we may decompose $I_{AB}^{2,M,d}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{thmm1:4}
I_{AB}^{2,M,d}&=&\sum_{\alpha=1}^{i-1}({\langle[A_{\alpha}-B_{\alpha}]\rangle}+{\langle[B_{\alpha}
-A_{\alpha+1}]\rangle})\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{\alpha=i}^{M-1}({\langle[A_{\alpha}-B_{\alpha}]\rangle}+{\langle[B_{\alpha}-A_{\alpha+1}]\rangle}
)\nonumber\\
&&+{\langle[A_M-B_M]\rangle}+{\langle[B_M-A_1-1]\rangle}.\end{aligned}$$ In the last step of these manipulations, we add line by line Eqs. (\[thmm1:3\]) and (\[thmm1:4\]) in order to finally obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{Saura}
I_{AB}^{2,M,d}+{\langle[A_i-C_j]\rangle}+{\langle[C_j-A_i]\rangle}&=&\sum_{\alpha=1}^{i-1}
({\langle[C_j-A_{\alpha}-1]\rangle}+{\langle[A_{\alpha}-B_{\alpha}]\rangle}+{\langle[B_{\alpha}-A_{\alpha+1}]\rangle}
+{\langle[A_{\alpha+1}-C_j]\rangle})\nonumber\\
&&+\sum_{\alpha=i}^{M-1}({\langle[C_j-A_{\alpha}]\rangle}+{\langle[A_{\alpha}-B_{\alpha}]\rangle}+{\langle[B_{
\alpha}-A_{\alpha+1}]\rangle}+{\langle[A_{\alpha+1}-C_j-1]\rangle})\nonumber\\
&&+{\langle[C_j-A_M]\rangle}+{\langle[A_M-B_M]\rangle}+{\langle[B_M-A_1-1]\rangle}+{\langle[A_1-C_j]\rangle}\nonumber\\
&&-(M-1)(d-1).\end{aligned}$$
What we have arrived at is basically the sum of $M$ Bell expressions $I^{2,2,d}$ but ‘distributed’ among three parties in such a way that Bob and Charlie measure only a single observable. It was shown in [@ns-mon] that the minimal value such an expression can achieve over nonsignalling correlations is precisely its classical bound $d-1$. As a result, $I^{2,M,d}_{AB}+{\langle[A_i-C_j]\rangle}+{\langle[C_j-A_i]\rangle}\geq
M(d-1)-(M-1)(d-1)=d-1$, finishing the proof for the case $X=A$.
If $X=B$ in Ineq. (\[thmm1:0\]), then it suffices to rewrite the Bell expression from (\[BKP-2d\]) as $$\label{Freddie}
I^{2,M,d}_{AB}=\sum_{\alpha=1}^{M}({\langle[B_{\alpha}-A_{\alpha+1}]\rangle}
+{\langle[A_{\alpha+1}-B_{\alpha+1}]\rangle}),$$ add to it the zero expression (\[zero\_expr\]) with $A$ replaced by $B$, and repeat the above manipulations. This completes the proof.
Now let us move to the general $(N,M,d)$ scenario. The inequality of interest is now the one from Ref. [@rodrigo], namely: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{BKPNMd}
I^{N,M,d}_{\mathsf{A}}=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{\alpha_{N-1}=1}^{M}I_{A^{(1)}\ldots
A^{(N-1)}}^{N-1,M,d}(\alpha_{N-1})\circ A^{(N)}_{\alpha_{N-1}}\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-1.8cm}\ge d-1.\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathsf{A}=A^{(1)}\ldots
A^{(N)}$. The notation $\circ A^{(i)}_\gamma$ means insertion of $A^{(i)}_\gamma$ to the average $\langle\cdot\rangle$ with the opposite sign to the one of $A^{(i-1)}_{\delta}$ with any $\gamma,\delta$, while $I_{A^{(1)}\ldots
A^{(N-1)}}^{N-1,M,d}(\alpha_{N-1})$ is the same Bell expression as in (\[BKPNMd\]), but for $N-1$ parties, and with observables of the last party relabeled as $\alpha_{N-2}\to
\alpha_{N-2}+\alpha_{N-1}-1$ with $\alpha_N=1,\ldots,M$.
\[thm:BKPNMd:app\] For any $(N+1)$-partite nonsignalling correlations $\{p(\boldsymbol{a}|\boldsymbol{x})\}$ with $M$ $d$-outcome measurements per site, the following inequality $$\label{thm:BKPNMd:app1}
I^{N,M,d}_{\mathsf{A}}+{\langle[A_{x_k}^{(k)}-A^{(N+1)}_{x_{N+1}}]\rangle}+{\langle[A^{(N+1)}_{x_{
N+1}}-A_{x_k}^{(k)}]\rangle}\geq
d-1$$ is satisfied for any $x_k,x_{N+1}=1,\ldots,M$ and $k=1,\ldots,N$.
The recursive formula in Ineq. (\[BKPNMd\]), which for convenience we restate here $$\label{recursive:app}
I^{N,M,d}_{\mathsf{A}}=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{\alpha_{N-1}=1}^{M}I_{A^{(1)}\ldots
A^{(N-1)}}^{N-1,M,d}(\alpha_{N-1})\circ A^{(N)}_{\alpha_{N-1}},$$ allows us to demonstrate the theorem inductively. The case of $N=2$ has already been proved as Theorem \[thm:BKP2d:app\], so we consider $N=3$. Exploiting Eq. (\[recursive:app\]), one can express $I^{3,M,d}_{A^{(1)}A^{(2)}A^{(3)}}$ as $$\label{thm:BKPNMd:app2}
I^{3,M,d}_{A^{(1)}A^{(2)}A^{(3)}}=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{\alpha_2=1}^{M}I^{2,M,d}_{A^{
(1)}A^{(2)}}(\alpha_2)\circ
A^{(3)}_{\alpha_2}.$$ It is clear that for every $\alpha_2=1,\ldots,M$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Almodovar}
\hspace{-0.2cm}I^{2,M,d}_{A^{(1)}A^{(2)}}(\alpha_2)&=&
\sum_{\alpha_1=1}^{M}({\langle[A^{(1)}_{\alpha_1}-A^{(2)}_{\alpha_1+\alpha_2-1}]\rangle}\\
&&\hspace{1cm}+{\langle[A^{(2)}_{\alpha_1+\alpha_2-1}-A^{(1)}_{\alpha_1+1}]\rangle})\geq
d-1\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ is a Bell inequality equivalent to (\[BKP-2d\]), in which the observables of the second party $A^{(2)}$ have been relabelled according to $\alpha_1\to \alpha_1+\alpha_2-1$. It must then fulfil the monogamy relations (\[thmm1:0\]) (with $N=2$) independently of the value of $\alpha_2$. In order to see it in a more explicit way, let us consider the case $k=1$, and in Eq. (\[Saura\]) just rename $A\to A^{(1)}$, $B\to A^{(2)}$, and $C\to A^{(3)}$, and also $\alpha\to \alpha_1$ for the first party, while $\alpha\to \alpha_1+\alpha_2-1$ for the second one. Then, for those observables $A^{(2)}_{\alpha_1+\alpha_2-1}$ for which $
\alpha_1+\alpha_2-1>M$ we use the rule $X_{i\times
M+\gamma}=[X_{\gamma}+i]$ to get $[A_{\gamma}^{(2)}+i]$ with some $\gamma$ and $i$, and later replace the latter by another variable $\widetilde{A}^{(2)}_{\gamma}$ (this is just $A_{\gamma}^{(2)}$ with outcomes shifted by a constant). With the aid of formula (\[Freddie\]) the same reasoning can be repeated for $k=2$.
Now, we prove that each term in Eq. (\[thm:BKPNMd:app2\]) fulfills (\[thm:BKPNMd:app1\]) for $N=3$, that is that the inequalities $$\label{Queen}
I^{2,M,d}_{A^{(1)}A^{(2)}}(\alpha_2)\circ A^{(3)}_{\alpha_2}
+{\langle[A_{x_k}^{(k)}-A^{(4)}_{x_4}]\rangle}+{\langle[A^{(4)}_{x_4}-A_{x_k}^{(k)}]\rangle}\geq
d-1$$ hold for any $\alpha_2=1,\ldots,M$, any pair $x_k,x_4=1,\ldots,M$, and any $k=1,2,3$.
First assume $k=1$. Let us write explicitly $I^{2,M,d}_{A^{(1)}A^{(2)}}(\alpha_2)\circ A^{(3)}_{\alpha_2}$ as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{rownanie}
&&\hspace{-0.1cm}I^{2,M,d}_{A^{(1)}A^{(2)}}(\alpha_2)\circ
A^{(3)}_{\alpha_2}=\sum_{\alpha_1=1}^M
({\langle[A^{(1)}_{\alpha_1}-A^{(2)}_{\alpha_1+\alpha_2-1}+A^{(3)}_{\alpha_2}]\rangle}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.7cm}+{\langle[A^{(2)}_{\alpha_1+\alpha_2-1}-A^{(1)}_{\alpha_1+1}-A^{(3)}_
{\alpha_2}]\rangle}).\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ For any fixed $\alpha_2$, the last party measures solely a single observable, and therefore we treat $A^{(2)}_{\alpha_1+\alpha_2-1}-A_{\alpha_2}^{(3)}$ as a single variable, or, in other words, for any $\alpha_2=1,\ldots,M$, $A^{(2)}_{\alpha_1+\alpha_2-1}-A_{\alpha_2}^{(3)}$ is a $d$-outcome observable \[recall that in Eq. (\[rownanie\]) all variables are modulo $d$\]. Effectively, (\[Queen\]) is a three-partite inequality of the form (\[thm:BKPNMd:app1\]) (with $N=2$) that has just been proven.
In the $k=2$ case we insert the third party into the alternative expression (\[Freddie\]) and further apply the same reasoning as above.
In order to show (\[thm:BKPNMd:app1\]) for $k=3$, we use the fact that the Bell inequality (\[BKPNMd\]) for $N=3$ is invariant under the exchange of the first and the third party [@rodrigo], meaning that we can, analogously to Eq. (\[thm:BKPNMd:app2\]), write it down as $$\label{thm:BKPNMd:app3}
I^{3,M,d}_{A^{(1)}A^{(2)}A^{(3)}}=\frac{1}{M}\sum_{\alpha_2=1}^{M}I^{2,M,d}_{A^{
(3)}A^{(2)}}(\alpha_2)\circ
A^{(1)}_{\alpha_2}.$$ Now, it is enough to repeat the above reasoning to complete the proof of the monogamy relations (\[thm:BKPNMd:app1\]) for $N=3$.
Having it proven for $N=3$, let us now assume that the theorem is true for $N$ parties (any $N$-partite nonsignalling probability distribution). In order to complete the proof we again refer to the recursive formula (\[recursive:app\]). By grouping together the last two parties, each term in the sum in Eq. (\[recursive:app\]) is effectively an $(N-1)$–partite Bell expression for which we have just assumed (\[thm:BKPNMd:app1\]) to hold for any $x_k,x_N$ and $k=1,\ldots,N$. Performing the summation over $\alpha_{N-1}$ and dividing further by $M^{N-2}$ we obtain (\[thm:BKPNMd:app1\]) for any $i,j$ and $k=1,\ldots,N-1$. The case $k=N$ can be reached by using the fact that $I^{N,M,d}$ is invariant under exchange of the last and the $(N-2)$th party [@rodrigo].
Elemental monogamies for quantum correlations
---------------------------------------------
Let us now discuss the case of quantum correlations in which case similar monogamy relations are also expected to hold. Their derivation, however, is much more cumbersome and we only consider the simplest $(3,2,2)$ scenario and derive quantum analogs of the nonsignalling monogamies (\[thmm1:0\]). To this end, we use a one-parameter modification of the CHSH Bell inequality [@CHSH] with the latter being a particular case of (\[BKP-2d\]) with $M=d=2$. Here, for convenience, we write it down in its “standard" form: $$\label{CHSHalfa}
\widetilde{I}^{\alpha}_{AB}:=\alpha(\langle A_1B_1\rangle+\langle
A_1B_2\rangle)+\langle A_2B_1\rangle-\langle A_2B_2\rangle\leq
2\alpha$$ with $\alpha\geq 1$. Here, $A_i$ and $B_i$ are local quantum observables with eigenvalues $\pm 1$ and $\langle
XY\rangle={\mathrm{Tr}}[\rho(X\otimes Y)]$ for some state $\rho$ and local observables $X,Y$. Actually, one proves the following more general theorem, generalizing the result of Ref. [@TV] for the Bell inequality (\[CHSHalfa\]).
\[thm:Qapp\] Any three-partite quantum correlations with two dichotomic measurements per site must satisfy the following inequalities $$\begin{aligned}
\label{in1}
&&\alpha^2\max\{(\widetilde{I}^{\alpha}_{AB})^2,(\widetilde{I}^{\alpha}_{AC})^2
\}
+\min\{(\widetilde{I}^{\alpha}_{AB})^2,(\widetilde{I}^{\alpha}_{AC})^2\}
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{4cm}\leq4\alpha^2(1+\alpha^2)\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{in2}
(\widetilde{I}_{AB}^{\alpha})^2+4\langle A_iC_j\rangle^2\leq
4(1+\alpha^2)$$ for any $\alpha\geq 1$ and $i,j=1,2$.
The proof is nothing more but a slight modification of the considerations of Ref. [@TV] (see also Ref. [@Horodeccy]). Nevertheless, we attach it here for completeness.
We start by noting that the monogamy regions, that is, the two-dimensional sets of allowed (realizable) within quantum theory pairs $\{\widetilde{I}_{AB}^{\alpha},\widetilde{I}_{AC}^{\alpha}\}$ for Ineq. (\[in1\]) and $\{\widetilde{I}_{AB}^{\alpha},\langle
A_iC_j\rangle\}$ with fixed $i$ and $j$ for Ineq. (\[in2\]), must be convex. Therefore, as it is shown in Ref. [@TV] (see also Ref. [@Lluis]), every point of their boundaries can be realized with a real three-qubit pure state and real local one-qubit measurements. Recall that the latter assumes the form $$\label{theform}
X=\boldsymbol{x}\cdot\boldsymbol{\sigma}$$ with $\boldsymbol{x}\in\mathbbm{R}^2$ being a unit vector and $\boldsymbol{\sigma}=[\sigma_x,\sigma_z]$ denoting a vector consisting of the standard Pauli matrices $\sigma_x$ and $\sigma_z$.
Then, it follows from a series of papers [@Horodeccy; @TV; @AMP] that for a given two-qubit state $\rho_{AB}$, the maximal value of $\widetilde{I}_{AB^{\alpha}}$ over local, real, and traceless observables \[i.e., those of the form (\[theform\])\] measured by Alice $A_i$ and Bob $B_i$, amounts to $$\label{ElPrat}
\max_{A_i,B_j}(\widetilde{I}^{\alpha}_{AB})=2\sqrt{\alpha^2
\lambda_1+\lambda_2}.$$ Here, $\lambda_i$ $(i=1,2)$ denote the eigenvalues of $T_{AB}T_{AB}^{T}$ put in a decreasing order, i.e., $\lambda_1\geq\lambda_2$, and $T_{AB}$ is the following ŽreducedŽ correlation matrix $$\label{matrix}
T_{AB}=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\langle \sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x\rangle_{AB} & \langle
\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_z\rangle_{AB}\\
\langle \sigma_z\otimes\sigma_x\rangle_{AB} & \langle
\sigma_z\otimes\sigma_z\rangle_{AB}
\end{array}
\right).$$ We added the subscript $AB$ in (\[matrix\]) to indicate that the mean values are taken in the state $\rho_{AB}$. In particular, one can similarly compute the maximal value of a single average $\langle AB\rangle$ in the state $\rho_{AB}$ over local observables $A$ and $B$ of the form (\[theform\]) to be $$\max_{A,B}\langle AB\rangle=\lambda_1.$$ Equipped with these facts, we can now turn to the proof of the inequalities (\[in1\]) and (\[in2\]). We start from the first one and note that it suffices to demonstrate it in the case of $\widetilde{I}_{AB}^{\alpha}\geq \widetilde{I}_{AC}^{\alpha}$, in which it becomes $$\label{tintodeverano}
\alpha^2(\widetilde{I}_{AB}^{\alpha})^2+(\widetilde{I}_{AC}^{\alpha})^2\leq
4\alpha^2.$$ The opposite case will follow immediately by exchanging $B\leftrightarrow C$.
Let then ${|\psi_{ABC}\rangle}$ be a pure real three-qubit state. By $\rho_{AB}$ and $\rho_{AC}$ we denote its subsystems arising by tracing out the third and the second party, respectively, and by $T_{AB}$ and $T_{AC}$ the corresponding correlation matrices \[cf. Eq. (\[matrix\])\]. Finally, let $\lambda_i$ and $\widetilde{\lambda}_i$ $(i=1,2)$ be eigenvalues of $T_{AB}T_{AB}^T$ and $T_{AC}T_{AC}^T$, respectively, where we keep the convention that $\lambda_1\geq \lambda_2$ and $\widetilde{\lambda}_1\geq \widetilde{\lambda}_2$. It was pointed out in Ref. [@TV] that the latter matrices are diagonal in the same basis, which allows one to simultaneously maximize both $\widetilde{I}_{AB}^{\alpha}$ and $\widetilde{I}_{AC}^{\alpha}$ with the same observables on Alice site. This, together with Eq. (\[ElPrat\]), means that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{girona}
\hspace{-0.1cm}\max_{\substack{A_i,B_j,\\C_k}}\!\!\left[\alpha^2(\widetilde{I}_{
AB}^{\alpha})^2+(\widetilde{I}_{AC}^{\alpha})^2\right]
&\negmedspace=\negmedspace&
4[\alpha^2(\alpha^2\lambda_1+\lambda_2)+\alpha^2\widetilde{\lambda}_1+\widetilde
{\lambda}_2]\nonumber\\
&\negmedspace=\negmedspace&4[\alpha^4\lambda_1+\alpha^2(\lambda_2+\widetilde{
\lambda}_1)+\widetilde{\lambda}_2].\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ In order to complete the proof, we make use of the Toner-Verstraete monogamy relation for the CHSH Bell inequality [@TV], which we state here in terms of $\lambda_i$ and $\widetilde{\lambda}_i$ as $$\label{CHSHmonL}
\lambda_2+\widetilde{\lambda}_1\leq
2-\lambda_1-\widetilde{\lambda}_2.$$ When applied to (\[girona\]), it leads us to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{girona2}
\hspace{-0.1cm}\max_{\substack{A_i,B_j,\\C_k}}\!\left[\alpha^2(\widetilde{I}_{AB
}^{\alpha})^2+(\widetilde{I}_{AC}^{\alpha})^2\right]
&\negmedspace\leq\negmedspace&4[(\alpha^2-1)(\alpha^2\lambda_1-\widetilde{
\lambda}_2)+2\alpha^2]\nonumber\\
&\negmedspace=\negmedspace&4[\alpha^2(\alpha^2-1)+2\alpha^2]\nonumber\\
&\negmedspace=\negmedspace&4\alpha^2(1+\alpha^2),\end{aligned}$$ where the second line follows form the facts that $\lambda_1\leq
1$, $\widetilde{\lambda}_2\geq 0$, and $\alpha\geq 1$.
To prove Ineq. (\[in2\]), we follow the above reasoning to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\max_{A_i,B_j,C_l}\left[(\widetilde{I}^{\alpha}_{AB})^2+4\langle
A_kC_l\rangle^2\right]&=&4(\alpha^2\lambda_1+\lambda_2)+4\widetilde{\lambda}
_1\nonumber\\
&=&4\alpha^2\lambda_1+4(\lambda_2+\widetilde{\lambda}_1)\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ for $k=1,2$. Subsequent application of (\[CHSHmonL\]) to the term in parentheses in the second line of the above directly gives Ineq. (\[in2\]), completing the proof.
For $i=1$ and $j=1,2$, the relations (\[in2\]) are tight as any pair of values of $\widetilde{I}_{AB}^{\alpha}$ and $\langle
A_1C_j\rangle$ saturating them can be realized with the state $(\beta_{+}{|01\rangle}+\beta_{-}{|10\rangle}){|0\rangle}$, where $\beta_{\pm}=\tfrac{1}{2}(1\pm \sqrt{2}\sin\theta)^{1/2}$ and $\theta\in[0,\pi/4]$. It is, however, no longer true for $i=2$. In this case we numerically found tight monogamy relations for particular values of $\alpha$ (see Fig. \[fig:tight\]).
(a)![(a) Guessing probability (and simultaneously the tight analogs of monogamies in Theorem \[thm:Qapp\]) for $i=2$ as a function of $(\widetilde{I}_{AB}^{\alpha}-2\alpha)/2(\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}-\alpha)$ for various values of $\alpha$. All curves were found using two methods. First, we maximized the guessing probability for a given value of $\widetilde{I}_{AB}^{\alpha}$ over two-ququart states and one-ququart dichotomic measurements. Then, we used the hierarchy of Ref. [@NPA] and with its third level we arrived at curves that coincide with those obtained with the first method with precision $10^{-7}$. For comparison (b) presents the corresponding nontight monogamies proven in theorem \[thm:Qapp\] ($i=2$) for $\alpha=1,3$ (the curves for $\alpha=1.5,2$ fall in between these two). The black curve is the same on both plots.[]{data-label="fig:tight"}](pg-numeric.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"} (b)![(a) Guessing probability (and simultaneously the tight analogs of monogamies in Theorem \[thm:Qapp\]) for $i=2$ as a function of $(\widetilde{I}_{AB}^{\alpha}-2\alpha)/2(\sqrt{1+\alpha^2}-\alpha)$ for various values of $\alpha$. All curves were found using two methods. First, we maximized the guessing probability for a given value of $\widetilde{I}_{AB}^{\alpha}$ over two-ququart states and one-ququart dichotomic measurements. Then, we used the hierarchy of Ref. [@NPA] and with its third level we arrived at curves that coincide with those obtained with the first method with precision $10^{-7}$. For comparison (b) presents the corresponding nontight monogamies proven in theorem \[thm:Qapp\] ($i=2$) for $\alpha=1,3$ (the curves for $\alpha=1.5,2$ fall in between these two). The black curve is the same on both plots.[]{data-label="fig:tight"}](pg-theorem.pdf "fig:"){width="35.00000%"}
Let us finally notice that the quantum elemental monogamies impose the following upper bounds on the guessing probability $$\max_j p(X_i=j)\leq
\frac{1}{2}\{1+[1+\alpha^2-(\widetilde{I}_{AB}^{\alpha}/2)^2]^{1/2}\}$$ with $X=A,B$, $i=1,2$, and $\alpha\geq 1$. This bound was already derived in Ref. [@AMP], and, as already said, it is tight only for $i=1$. In the case $i=2$, we determined the tight bounds numerically for few $\alpha$s and they are presented in Fig. \[fig:tight\].
Appendix B: Randomness amplification
====================================
Let us begin with recalling the description of the Santha–Vazirani (SV) source (or the $\varepsilon$–source). Its working is defined as follows: it produces a sequence $y_1,
y_2,\cdots, y_n$ of bits according to $$\label{sv}
\tfrac{1}{2}-\varepsilon \le p(y_k| w)\le \tfrac{1}{2}+\varepsilon
\quad (k=1,\ldots,n),$$ where $w$ denotes any space-time variable that could be the cause of $y_k$. In particular, $y_k$ can depend on $y_1,\ldots,y_{k-1}$.
Let now $W$ be any random variable used by an adversary to control the $\varepsilon$-sources and the physical systems held by the parties. The random variable can be thought of a device, held by a villain $E$, with a knob that when set to a particular value $w$ of $W$ makes (i) the SV sources produce bits with certain probabilities obeying (\[sv\]) and (ii) the devices held by the parties generate a concrete nonsignalling probability distribution represented by $\{p(\boldsymbol{a}|\boldsymbol{x},w)\}_{\boldsymbol{a},\boldsymbol{x}}$. Let us then by $\{p(a_k,w|\boldsymbol{x})\}_{a_k,w}$ denote correlations between outcomes obtained by party $k$ and the random variable $W$ for a particular choice of measurement settings $\boldsymbol{x}$. Also, let $\{\widetilde{p}(a)\}$ be the one-party uniform probability distribution, i.e., $\widetilde{p}(a)=1/d$ for any $a$. Introducing then the variational distance $$D(\{p(x)\},\{q(x)\})=\frac{1}{2}\sum_x|p(x)-q(x)|$$ between two probability distributions $\{p(x)\}$ and $\{q(x)\}$, we can prove the following.
Let for any $w$, $\{p(\boldsymbol{a}|\boldsymbol{x},w)\}_{\boldsymbol{a},\boldsymbol{x}}$ be an $N$-partite nonsignalling probability distribution. Then for any $k=1,\ldots,N$ and any choice of measurement settings $\boldsymbol{x}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GaiaNova2}
&&\hspace{-1.cm}D(\{p(a_k,w|\boldsymbol{x})\}_{a_k,w},\{\widetilde{p}
(a_k)p(w|\boldsymbol { x } )\}_{a_k,w})\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{0.5cm}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a_k,w}\left|p(a_k,w|\boldsymbol{x}
)-\widetilde{p}(a_k)p(w|\boldsymbol{x})\right|\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{0.5cm}\leq
\frac{(d-1)^2+1}{2d}\,Q_M(\boldsymbol{x})I^{N,M,d}_{\mathsf{A}},\end{aligned}$$ where $I^{N,M,d}_{\mathsf{A}}$ is taken in the probability distribution observed by the parties $\{p(\boldsymbol{a}|\boldsymbol{x})\}$. Then $$Q_M(\boldsymbol{x})=\max_{w}\left[\frac{p(w|\boldsymbol{x})}{p_{\min}(w)}
\right ],$$ where $p_{\min}(w)=\min_{\boldsymbol{x}}\{p(w|\boldsymbol{x})\}$ with the minimum taken over all measurement settings $\boldsymbol{x}$ appearing in the Bell inequality (\[BKPNMd\]).
For simplicity, but without any loss of generality, we prove this theorem for the bipartite case. The generalization to the multipartite case is straightforward.
As before, we denote the parties by $A$ and $B$, while the adversary by $E$. Then, the corresponding inputs and outputs are denoted by $x$, $y$, $z$, and $a$, $b$, and $e$, respectively.
Let us start by noting that for any probability distribution $\{p(a,b|x,y,w)\}_{a,b,x,y}$, the maximal probability of local outcomes obtained by any of the parties, say for simplicity Alice, must obey the inequalities on the guessing probability \[see Ineq. (7) in the main text\]. That is $$\label{Barbastro2}
\max_{a}p(a|x,w)\leq \frac{1}{d}\left(1+I^{2,M,d}_w
\right)$$ for any $x=1,\ldots,M$, where by $I_w^{2,M,d}$ we have denoted the value of the Bell expression (\[BKP-2d\]) computed for the probability distribution $\{p(a,b|x,y,w)\}_{a,b,x,y}$. Clearly, this bound holds also for any $p(a|x,w)$ which together with the normalization $$p(a|x,w)=1-\sum_{\alpha\neq a}p(\alpha|x,w),$$ means that $p(a|x,w)\geq (1/d)[1-(d-1)I^{2,M,d}_w]$, and therefore the inequality $$\label{Campo2}
\left|p(a|x,w)-\frac{1}{d}\right|\leq
\frac{d-1}{d}I_w^{2,M,d}$$ holds for any $a$ and $x$. Using then the inequality (\[Barbastro2\]) for $\max_ap(a|x,w)$ and (\[Campo2\]) for the rest of $p(a|x,w)$, we obtain that for any strategy $w$ and a measurement setting $x$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Guimeraes2}
D(\{p(a|x,w)\}_{a},\{\widetilde{p}(a)\})
&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a}\left|p(a|x,w)-\widetilde{p}(a)\right|\nonumber\\
&\leq&\frac{(d-1)^2+1}{2d}I_w^{2,M,d}.\end{aligned}$$ The remainder of the proof goes along exactly the same lines as in Ref. [@collbeck-renner], however, for completeness, we will recall it here.
Due to the fact that the observers do not have access to the variable $W$, one has to average Ineq. (\[Guimeraes2\]) over the probability distribution $\{p(w|x,y)\}_w$ for a particular choice of measurements $x$ and $y$. Together with the facts that $p(a|x,w)=p(a|x,y,w)$ (no-signalling) and $p(w|x,y)p(a|x,y,w)=p(a,w|x,y)$, this allows one to write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ine332}
&&\hspace{-1cm}D(\{p(a,w|x,y)\}_{a,w},\{\widetilde{p}(a)p(w|x,y)\}_{a,w}
)\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a,w}\left|p(a,w|x,y)-\widetilde{p}(a)p(w|x,
y)\right|\nonumber\\
&&\leq \frac{(d-1)^2+1}{2d}\sum_w
p(w|x,y)I^{2,M,d}_w\end{aligned}$$ Let us now concentrate on the right-and side of Ineq. (\[ine332\]). By using Eq. (\[BKP-2d\]), we can bound it from above in the following way $$\begin{aligned}
\label{nier2}
&&\sum_w p(w|x,y)I^{2,M,d}_w=\nonumber\\
&&\sum_{w,\alpha}p(w|x,y)({\langle[A_{\alpha}-B_{\alpha}]\rangle}_w+{\langle[B_{\alpha}-A_{
\alpha+1}]\rangle}_w)\nonumber\\
&&=\sum_{w,\alpha}\left(p(w|\alpha,\alpha)\frac{p(w|x,y)}{p(w|\alpha,\alpha)}{\langle[A_{\alpha}-B_{\alpha}]\rangle}_w\right.\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{1.5cm}+\left.p(w|\alpha+1,\alpha)\frac{p(w|x,y)}{p(w|\alpha+1,\alpha)}
{\langle[B_{\alpha}-A_{\alpha+1}]\rangle}_w\right)\nonumber\\
&&\leq
Q_M(x,y)\sum_{w,\alpha}\left[p(w|\alpha,\alpha){\langle[A_{\alpha}-B_{\alpha}]\rangle}
_w\right.\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{2.5cm}+\left.p(w|\alpha+1,\alpha){\langle[B_{\alpha}-A_{\alpha+1}]\rangle}
_w\right]\nonumber\\
&&=Q_M(x,y)\sum_{\alpha}({\langle[A_{\alpha}-B_{\alpha}]\rangle}+{\langle[B_{\alpha}-A_{\alpha+1}]\rangle}
)\nonumber\\
&&=Q_M(x,y)I^{2,M,d}_{AB},\end{aligned}$$ where the subscript $w$ in the expectation values ${\langle[A_{\alpha}-B_{\alpha}]\rangle}_w$ and ${\langle[B_{\alpha}-A_{\alpha+1}]\rangle}_w$ means that they are computed for the probability distribution $\{p(a,b|x,y,w)\}_{a,b,x,y}$, and also the convention $p(M+1,M|w)\equiv
p(1,M|w)$ is used. Then, $I^{2,M,d}_{AB}$ is computed for the probability distribution $\{p(a,b|x,y)\}$ observed by $A$ and $B$.
By substituting Ineq. (\[nier2\]) to Ineq. (\[ine332\]), one finally obtains Ineq. (\[GaiaNova2\]), completing the proof.
One then recovers the inequality of Ref. [@collbeck-renner] from Ineq. (\[GaiaNova2\]) by exploiting the fact that $[(d-1)^2+1]/d\leq d-1$ $(d\geq2)$. Let us also notice that one can derive Ineq. (\[GaiaNova2\]) using a slightly different approach, which, for completeness, we present below.
Let $\{p(\boldsymbol{a}|\boldsymbol{x},w)\}_{\boldsymbol{a},\boldsymbol{x}}$ be a nonsignalling probability distribution for any $w$ and let the probabilities $p(\boldsymbol{x})$ be all equal. Then for any $k=1,\ldots,N$ and any choice of measurement settings $\boldsymbol{x}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{GaiaNova}
&&\hspace{-1cm}D(\{p(a_k,w|\boldsymbol{x})\}_{a_k,w},\{\widetilde{p}
(a_k)p(w|\boldsymbol
{ x } )\}_{a_k,w} )\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{0.5cm} =\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a_k,w}\left|p(a_k,w|\boldsymbol{x}
)-\widetilde{p}(a_k)p(w|\boldsymbol{x})\right|\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{0.5cm}\leq
\frac{(d-1)^2+1}{2d}\,\widetilde{Q}_M(\boldsymbol{x})I^
{N,M,d}_{\mathsf{A}},\end{aligned}$$ where $I^{N,M,d}_{\mathsf{A}}$ is taken in the probability distribution observed by the parties $\{p(\boldsymbol{a}|\boldsymbol{x})\}$ and $$\widetilde{Q}_M(\boldsymbol{x})=
\max_{w}\left[\frac{p(\boldsymbol{x}|w)}{\widetilde{p}_{\min}(w)}
\right ],$$ where $\widetilde{p}_{\min}(w)=\min_{\boldsymbol{x}}\{p(\boldsymbol{x}|w)\}$ with the minimum taken over all measurement settings $\boldsymbol{x}$ appearing in the Bell inequality (\[BKPNMd\]).
For simplicity but without any loss of generality, we prove this theorem for the bipartite case. The generalization to the multipartite case is straightforward.
As before, we denote the parties by $A$ and $B$, while the adversary by $E$. Then, the corresponding inputs and outputs are denoted by $x$, $y$, $z$, and $a$, $b$, and $e$, respectively.
Let us start by noting that, by analogy to the case considered in the main text \[see Ineq. (6) there\], for any $w$, the probability distribution $\{p(a,b|x,y,w)\}_{a,b,x,y}$ satisfies the following monogamy relations $$\label{monog_mod}
\frac{I_{w}^{2,M,d}}{\widetilde{p}_{\min}(w)}+1\geq d p(X_i=E_j|w) \qquad
(X=A,B)$$ for any pair $\{i,j\}$ $(i,j=1,\ldots,M)$. In the above $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace{-1cm}I_w^{2,M,d}&=&\sum_{\alpha=1}^{M}[p(\alpha,\alpha|w){\langle[A_{\alpha}
-B_ {\alpha} ]\rangle}
_w\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{0.5cm}+p(\alpha+1,\alpha|w){\langle[ B_ { \alpha} -A_ { \alpha+1} ]\rangle}_w ],\end{aligned}$$ is a modified BKP Bell expression taking into account that the inputs $x,y$ are generated with the biased probabilities $p(x,y|w)$, all correlators ${\langle[A_{\alpha} -B_ {\alpha} ]\rangle}_w$ and ${\langle[ B_{ \alpha } -A_ { \alpha+1} ]\rangle}_w$ are computed for the distribution $\{p(a,b|x,y,w)\}_{a,b,x,y}$, and now $$\widetilde{p}_{\min}(w)=\min_{\alpha=1,\ldots,M}\{p(\alpha,\alpha|w),p(\alpha+1,
\alpha|w)\},$$ where the convention $p(M+1,M|w)\equiv p(1,M|w)$ is used.
The monogamy relations (\[monog\_mod\]) imply (see the main text for the argument in favor of this fact) the bound on the probability of the adversary when using the strategy $w$ to guess the outcomes of any of the measurements performed by one of the parties, say for concreteness Alice (but the same bound holds for outcomes of party $B$): $$\label{Barbastro}
\max_a p(a|x,w)\leq
\frac{1}{d}\left(1+\frac{I^{2,M,d}_w}{\widetilde{p}_{\min}(w)}\right)\quad
(x=1,\ldots,M).$$
Clearly, this bound holds also for any $p(a|x,w)$ which together with the normalization $$p(a|x,w)=1-\sum_{\alpha\neq a}p(\alpha|x,w),$$ mean that $p(a|x,w)\geq (1/d)-(d-1)(I^{2,M,d}_w/d\widetilde{p}_{\min}(w))$, and therefore the inequality $$\label{Campo}
\left|p(a|x,w)-\frac{1}{d}\right|\leq
\frac{d-1}{d}\frac{I_w^{2,M,d}}{\widetilde{p}_{\min}(w)}.$$ holds for any $a$ and $x$. Using then the inequality (\[Barbastro\]) for $\max_ap(a|x,w)$ and (\[Campo\]) for the rest of $p(a|x,w)$, we obtain that for any strategy $w$, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Guimeraes}
D(\{p(a|x,w)\}_{a},\{\widetilde{p}(a)\})&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a}|p(a|x,
w)-\widetilde{p}(a)|\nonumber\\
&\leq&
\frac{(d-1)^2+1}{2d}\frac{I_w^{2,M,d}}{\widetilde{p}_{\min}(w)}.\end{aligned}$$ Now, since the parties do not have access to $W$, one needs further to average Ineq. (\[Guimeraes\]) over the probability distribution $\{p(w|x,y)\}_w$ for a particular choice of measurements $x$ and $y$. This, together with the facts that $p(a|x,w)=p(a|x,y,w)$ (no-signalling) and $p(w|x,y)=p(x,y|w)p(w)/p(x,y)$ implying that $p(w|x,y)p(a|x,y,w)=p(a,w|x,y)$, allows one to write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{ine33}
&&\hspace{-1cm}D(\{p(a,w|x,y)\}_{a,w},\{\widetilde{p}(a)p(w|x,y)\}_{a,w}
)\nonumber\\
&&=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{a,w}\left|p(a,w|x,y)-\widetilde{p}(a)p(w|x,
y)\right|\nonumber\\
&&\leq \frac{(d-1)^2+1}{2d}\sum_w
\frac{p(x,y|w)}{\widetilde{p}_{\min}(w)}\frac{p(w)}{p(x,y)}I^{2,M,d}
_w\nonumber\\
&&\leq
\frac{(d-1)^2+1}{2d}\widetilde{Q}_M(x,y)\sum_w\frac{p(w)}{p(x,y)}I^{2,M,d}_w,\end{aligned}$$ with $\widetilde{Q}_M(x,y)=\max_{w}\left[p(x,y|w)/\widetilde{p}_{\min}(w)\right]
.$ In order to obtain Ineq. (\[GaiaNova\]) from Ineq. (\[ine33\]) it is enough to notice that $$p(a,b|x,y)=\sum_{w}p(w|x,y)p(a,b|x,y,w)$$ which, with the aid of the assumption that all the probabilities $p(x,y)$ are equal, further translates to $$I^{2,M,d}_{AB}=\sum_{w}\frac{p(w)}{p(x,y)}I^{2,M,d}_w,$$ where $I^{2,M,d}_{AB}$ is computed for the observed probability distribution $\{p(a,b|x,y)\}$ and the probabilities $p(x,y)=\sum_wp(w)p(x,y|w)$ are assumed to be equal for all $x,y$. This completes the proof.
Let us finally notice that under the assumption, which we make above, that all $p(x,y)$ are equal, it holds that $Q_M(\boldsymbol{x})=\widetilde{Q}_M(\boldsymbol{x})$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
UDK 517.5
[**S.O. Chaichenko**]{}
Donbass State Pedagogical University
[**APPROXIMATIONS OF PERIODIC FUNCTIONS BY\
ANALOGUE OF ZIGMUND’S SUMS IN THE SPACES $L^{p(\cdot)}$**]{}
[In this work we found order estimates for the upper bounds of the deviations of analogue of Zigmund’s sums on the classes of $(\psi;\beta)$-differentiable functions in the metrics of generalized Lebesgue spaces with variable exponent.]{}
[**1. Definition and formulation of the problem.**]{} Let ${p}=p(x)$ be a $2\pi$-periodic measurable and essentially bounded function and let $L^{p(\cdot)}$ be space of measurable $2\pi$-periodic functions $f$ such that $$\int\limits_{-\pi}^\pi |f(x)|^{p(x)}~dx < \infty.$$
If $\underline{p}:={\rm ess}\inf\limits_{x} |p(x)|>1$ and $\bar{p}:= {\rm ess}\sup\limits_{x} |p(x)|<\infty,$ then $L^{{p(\cdot)}}$ are Banach spaces [@Sharapud.1979.Topolog] (see., also [@Kovacik-Rakosnik]) with the norm, which can be given by the formula $$\|f\|_{p(\cdot)}:=\inf
\Bigg\{{\alpha >0}:~ \int\limits_{-\pi}^\pi
\Bigg|\frac{f(x)}{\alpha} \Biggr|^{p(x)}~dx \le 1 \Bigg\}.$$
Here are some definitions which will used in the statement and proof of the results of this article.
It is said that a function $p=p(x)$ satisfies the Dini-Lipschitz condition of order $\gamma,$ if $$\omega (p; \delta) \Bigg(\ln \frac{1}{\delta} \Bigg)^\gamma \le K, \quad
0<\delta<1,$$ where $$\omega (p; \delta)=\sup_{x_1, x_2 \in [-\pi;\pi]}
\bigg\{|p(x_1)-p(x_2)|: \quad |x_1-x_2|\le \delta \bigg\}.$$
The set of $2\pi$-periodic exponents $p=p(x)>1,$ satisfying the Dini-Lipschitz condition of order $\gamma\ge 1$ in the period, is denoted by ${\cal P}^\gamma.$ Obviously, if $p \in {\cal P}^\gamma,$ then $\underline{p}>1$ and $\bar{p}<\infty.$
In the work [@Sharapud.1979.Topolog] shown that when $1< \underline{p},~ \bar{p} <\infty,$ space $L^{ q(\cdot)},$ where $q(x)=\frac{p(x)}{p(x)-1},$ is conjugate for $L^{{p(\cdot)}}$ and for arbitrary functions $f \in L^{{p(\cdot)}}$ and $g\in
L^{ q(\cdot)}$ an analogue of the classical Hölder’s inequality is true: $$\label{1}
\int\limits_{-\pi}^\pi |f(x)g(x)|~dx \le K_{p,q}
\|f\|_{{p(\cdot)}}\|g\|_{q(\cdot)}, \quad (K_{p,q}\le {1}/{\underline{p}}+{1}/{\underline{q}}),$$ which, in particular, implies embedding: $L^{p(\cdot)} \subset L,$ where $L$ is space of $2\pi$-periodic integrable on the period functions.
The space $L^{p(\cdot)}$ are called generalized Lebesgue spaces with variable exponent. It is clear, that if $p=p(x)={\rm
const}>0,$ spaces $L^{{p(\cdot)}}$ coincide with the classical Lebesgue spaces $L_p.$ In its turn, if $ \bar{p} <\infty,$ spaces $L^{{p(\cdot)}}$ are a special case of the so-called space Orlicz-Musielak [@Musielak1983]. For the first time, Lebesgue space with variable exponent appeared in the literature in the article W. Orlicz [@Orlicz]. In the work [@Nakano] spaces $L^{{p(\cdot)}}$ considered as an example of the more general function spaces and, furthermore, been studied by many authors in different directions. The basic results of the theory of these spaces are available, for example, in [@Sharapud.1979.Topolog; @Kovacik-Rakosnik; @Samko-1994; @Sharap-1996-ravn-ogran; @Fan-Zhao; @Sharap-2007-vopr-thory-aprox; @Bandaliev_2014]. Note also that the generalized Lebesgue spaces with variable exponent used in the theory elastic mechanics, the theory of differential operators, variations calculus [@Diening-Ruzicka; @Ruzicka; @Samko-2005].
Next, we need the definitions of the $(\psi; {\beta})$-derivative and the sets $L_{{\beta}}^\psi$, which belongs to A.I. Stepanetz [@Stepanetz-2002m1 c. 142 – 143].
Let $f\in L$ and $$\label{2}
S[f]=\frac{a_0(f)}{2}+\sum_{k=1}^\infty(a_k(f)\cos~kx+b_k(f)\sin~kx)
\equiv \sum_{k=0}^\infty A_k(f,x)$$ be its Fourier series. Let, further, $\psi(k)$ be arbitrary function of natural argument and $\beta \in \mathbb{R}$. Assume that the series $$\label{3}
\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{\psi(k)}
\left( a_k(f)\cos\bigg(kx+\frac{\beta \pi}{2}\bigg)+
b_k(f)\sin\bigg(kx+\frac{\beta \pi}{2}\bigg) \right)$$ is the Fourier series of some function from $ L.$ This function is denoted by $f_{{\beta}}^\psi(\cdot)$ (or $(D_{{\beta}}^\psi f)(\cdot)$) and called $(\psi;{\beta})$-derivative of a function $f(\cdot).$ The set of functions $f(\cdot),$ satisfying this condition is denoted by $L_{{\beta}}^\psi.$
Denote by $L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi}$ the classes $(\psi; {\beta})$-differentiable functions $f \in
L,$ such that $f_{{\beta}}^\psi \in L^{p(\cdot)}$, and by $\hat{Z}_n(f;x)$ the trigonometric polynomials of the form $$\label{4}
\hat{Z}_n(f;x):=\frac{a_0(f)}{2}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^\infty
\bigg(1-\frac{\psi(n)}{\psi(k)} \bigg) A_k(f;x).$$
In this paper, we study the value $${\cal E} (L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi};\hat{Z}_n)_{s(\cdot)}:=
\sup_{f \in L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi}} \|f- \hat{Z}_n(f)\|_{s(\cdot)}$$ upper bounds of deviations analogues of Zigmund’s sums $\hat{Z}_n(f;x)$ on the classes $L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi}:=\{f \in L_{\beta}^{\psi}L^{p(\cdot)}: f^\psi_\beta \in U_{p(\cdot)} \}$, where $ U_{p(\cdot)}:=\{\varphi \in L^{p(\cdot)}: ~ \|\varphi\|_{p(\cdot)}\le 1\} $ — the unit ball of $L^{p(\cdot)}.$
Note that in the case $\psi(k)=1/k^{r},~r>0,$ the sums (\[4\]) are well known Zigmund’s sums $$Z_n(f;x):=\frac{a_0(f)}{2}+\sum\limits_{k=1}^\infty
\bigg(1-\bigg(\frac{k}{n}\bigg)^r \bigg) A_k(f;x).$$
[**2. Auxiliary results.**]{} In the proof of the main assertions of this work we use the following well-known results.
\[T.A\][@Sharap-2007-vopr-thory-aprox] If $p\in {\cal P}^\gamma,$ then for an arbitrary function $f \in L^{{p(\cdot)}}$ the inequalities hold $$\label{5}
\| S_n(f)\|_{{p(\cdot)}} \le C_{p} \| f\|_{{p(\cdot)}},$$ $$\label{6}
\| \tilde{f}\|_{{p(\cdot)}} \le K_{p} \| f\|_{{p(\cdot)}},$$ where $\tilde{f}(\cdot)$ is a functions, trigonometric conjugate to $f(\cdot)$, and $C_{p}$ and $K_p$ are positive constants which does not depend on $n$ and $f.$
From the inequality (\[5\]) of Theorem \[T.A\], in particular, follows that for an arbitrary function $f \in L^{{p(\cdot)}},$ on condition $p\in {\cal P}^\gamma,$ its Fourier series converges to $f$ in the metric of the spaces $L^{{p(\cdot)}},$ that is $$\label{7}
\| f-S_n(f) \|_{{p(\cdot)}} \to 0, \quad n \to \infty,$$ and the relation holds $$\label{8}
E_{n}(f)_{{p(\cdot)}} \le \| f-S_{n-1}(f) \|_{{p(\cdot)}} \le K_{p} E_{n}(f)_{{p(\cdot)}},$$ where $$E_{n} (\varphi)_{{p(\cdot)}}:=\inf\limits_{t_{n-1} \in
{\cal T}_{n-1}} \| \varphi- t_{n-1}\|_{{p(\cdot)}},
\quad \varphi \in L^{{p(\cdot)}},$$ is the best approximation of $\varphi$ by subspace ${\cal T}_{n-1}$ trigonometric polynomials of order, not higher than $n-1,$ and $K_{p}$ is value which depends only on $p=p(x).$
\[L.A\] [@Kokilash_Samko_2009] Let the sequence $\mu(k),~k=0,1,2,\ldots,$ satisfies the conditions $$\nu_0=\nu_0(\mu)=\sup_k|\mu(k)| \le C, \qquad
\sigma_0=\sigma_0(\mu)=\sup_{m \in \mathbb{N}} \sum_{k=2^m}^{2^{m+1}} |\mu(k+1)-\mu(k)|\le C,$$ where $C$ is value which does not depend on $k$ and $m.$
Then, if $p\in {\cal P}^\gamma,$ for a given function $f \in L^{{p(\cdot)}}$ there exists a function $F\in L^{{p(\cdot)}}$ such that the series $$\frac{\mu(0)a_0(f)}{2}+\sum_{k=1}^\infty\mu(k)(a_k(f)\cos~kx+b_k(f)\sin~kx)$$ is the Fourier series of $F$ and the inequality is true $$\label{9}
\|F\|_{{p(\cdot)}}\le K \lambda \|f\|_{{p(\cdot)}}, \quad \lambda=\max\{\nu_0, \sigma_0\},$$ where the value $K$ does not depend on the function $f.$
In the case $p=p(x)\equiv {\rm const}$ this statement is a well-known lemma of Marcinkievicz for multipliers [@Marcinkievicz].
We will also use the following theorem of Hardy-Littlewood.
\[T.B\][@Hardy_Littlewood_1928] Let $1<p<s<\infty,~p,s={\rm const},$ $\alpha=p^{-1}-s^{-1}$ and $$D_\alpha(t)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{-\alpha} \cos kt.$$
Then, for an arbitrary function $\varphi \in L_p$ the convolution $$\Phi_\alpha(x)=\frac{1}{\pi} \int\limits_{-\pi}^\pi \varphi (x+t) D_\alpha(t)~dt$$ belongs to $L_s,$ and $$\|\Phi_\alpha\|_s \le C_{s,p} \| \varphi \|_p,$$ where the value $C_{s,p}$ depends only on $s$ and $p.$
Note that if $\varphi \in L_p$ and $S[\varphi]=\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty A_k(\varphi;x),$ then $$S[\Phi_\alpha]=\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty k^{-\alpha} A_k(\varphi;x),$$ that is $\Phi_\alpha=M_\alpha (\varphi),$ where $M_\alpha$ — operator-multiplier, which is determined by the sequence of $\mu_\alpha(k)=k^{-\alpha},~k=0,1,2,\ldots,$ and it acts from $L_p$ to $L_s,$ where indicators $1<p<s<\infty,~p,s={\rm const},$ are related by the equation $p^{-1}-s^{-1}=\alpha.$
[**2. Approximation by analogue of Zigmund’s sums.**]{}
We define the function $\mu_{n,\alpha}(k)$ and $\tilde{\mu}_{n,\alpha}(k)$ as follows: $$\label{10}
\mu_{n,\alpha}(k)=\cases{k^\alpha \psi(n) \cos \frac{\beta \pi}{2}, & $1 \le k \le n-1,$ \cr
k^\alpha \psi(k) \cos \frac{\beta \pi}{2}, & $n \le k;$}$$ $$\label{11}
\tilde{\mu}_{n,\alpha}(k)=\cases{k^\alpha \psi(n) \sin \frac{\beta \pi}{2}, & $1 \le k \le n-1,$ \cr
k^\alpha \psi(k) \sin \frac{\beta \pi}{2}, & $n \le k;$}$$
For each fixed $\alpha \ge 0$ we denote by $\Upsilon_{\alpha, n}$ the set of pairs $(\psi;\beta)$, such that for any positive number $n$ the conditions $$\label{12}
\nu_\alpha(\psi; \beta; n):=\sup_{k} |\mu_{n,\alpha}(k)| \le C \nu(n)n^\alpha<K,$$ $$\label{13}
\sigma_\alpha (\psi;\beta; n) := \sup_{m \in \mathbb{N}} \sum_{k=2^m}^{2^{m+1}}
|\mu_{n,\alpha}(k+1)-\mu_{n,\alpha}(k)| \le C \nu (n) n^\alpha< K,$$ and similar conditions for the function $\tilde{\mu}_{n,\alpha}(k)$ hold, where $\nu(n)=\sup_{k\ge n} |\psi(k)|,$ $C$ and $K$ are positive constants uniformly bounded on $n.$
At first we consider the case when the functions $p=p(x)$ and $s=s(x)$ on the period satisfy the inequality $ s(x)\le p(x).$ In our notation, the following assertion is true.
\[T.1\] Let $(\psi;\beta) \in \Upsilon_{0,n}$ и $ p, s \in \mathcal{P}^\gamma,$ $ s(x)\le p(x),~x\in [0;2\pi].$ Then, for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$ the inequality $$C_{p,s}\nu(n) \le {\cal E} (L_{\beta, p(\cdot)}^\psi; \hat{Z}_n)_{ s(\cdot)} \le K_{p,s}\nu (n),$$ holds, where $C_{p,s}$ and $K_{p,s}$ are some constants that do not depend on $n$.
[**Proof.**]{} Suppose first that $p(x)\equiv s(x),~x\in [0;2\pi].$ For an arbitrary function $f \in L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi},$ the equality is true $$f(x)-\hat{Z}_n(f;x)=\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \frac{\psi(n)}{\psi(k)} A_k(f;x)+
\sum_{k=n}^\infty A_k(f;x)=$$ $$\label{14}
=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \mu_{n,0} A_k(f^\psi_\beta; x)+
\sum_{k=1}^\infty \tilde{\mu}_{n,0} \tilde{A}_k(f^\psi_\beta; x)
:= M_0(f^\psi_\beta)+\tilde{M}_0(\tilde{f}^\psi_\beta),$$ where $M_0$ and $\tilde{M}_0$ are operators-multipliers, which are defined by the sequences (\[10\]) and (\[11\]) respectively, $\alpha=0.$
According to the conditions of the theorem, the couples $(\psi;\beta)$ belong to the set $\Upsilon_{0, n},$ therefore, the sequence (\[10\]) and (\[11\]) satisfy the conditions of lemma \[L.A\]. Applying this lemma, given the inequalities (\[6\]), (\[12\]) and (\[13\]), for an arbitrary function $f \in L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi}$ on the basis of the equality (\[14\]) we find $$\|f(\cdot)-\hat{Z}_n(f;\cdot) \|_{p(\cdot)} =
\|M_0(f^\psi_\beta)+\tilde{M}_0(\tilde{f}^\psi_\beta) \|_{p(\cdot)}\le$$ $$\label{15}
\le K\nu(n)(\| f^\psi_\beta\|_{p(\cdot)} + \| \tilde{f}^\psi_\beta\|_{p(\cdot)})\le C_p \nu(n),$$ where $C_p$ is positive constant that depends only on the function $p=p(x).$
In the article [@Sharapudinov_O_bazist_sist_Haara] was shown that if $1\le s(x)\le p(x) \le \bar{p}<\infty,$ then for an arbitrary function $f \in L^{p(\cdot)}$ the inequality hold $$\label{16}
\|f\|_{s(\cdot)}\le K_{s,p}\|f\|_{p(\cdot)}.$$
From the relations (\[15\]) and (\[16\]) we obtain the estimate $$\label{17}
{\cal E} (L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi};\hat{Z}_n)_{s(\cdot)} \le
{\cal E} (L_{\beta,s(\cdot)}^{\psi};\hat{Z}_n)_{s(\cdot)} \le C_{p,s} \nu (n),$$ where $C_{p,s}$ is positive constant that depends only on the functions $p=p(x)$ and $s=s(x).$
We now obtain the lower estimate for the value of ${\cal E} (L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi};\hat{Z}_n)_{s(\cdot)}.$ If for given function $\psi(k)$ and the number $n\in \mathbb{N}$ there exist the natural number $k_n,$ for which the equality $$\label{18}
\nu (n)=\sup_{k\ge n} | \psi(k)|=\psi(k_n),$$ is true, then the corresponding lower estimate can be obtained with help of the function $$\label{19}
f_n(x)=\frac{\psi(k_n)}{\|\cos k_n x\|_{p(\cdot)}} \cos (k_n x-\frac{\beta\pi}{2}).$$
Indeed, since $$\| (f_n(x))^\psi_\beta\|_{p(\cdot)}= \bigg\| \frac{\cos k_n x}
{\|\cos k_n x\|_{p(\cdot)}} \bigg\|_{p(\cdot)}=1,$$ then the function $f_n \in L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi}$ and $${\cal E} (L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi};\hat{Z}_n)_{s(\cdot)}\ge \|f_n-\hat{Z}(f_n) \|_{s(\cdot)}=$$ $$=\frac{\psi(k_n)}{\|\cos k_n x\|_{p(\cdot)}} \| \cos k_n x\|_{s(\cdot)}=C_{p,s} \nu(n).$$
But if for the function $\psi(k)$ and the number $n\in \mathbb{N}$ there not exist a natural number $k_n,$ for which the equality (\[18\]) holds, due to the limitation of the set $\{|\psi(k)|\}$ of values of the function $\psi(k)$ we will have $$\nu (n)=\sup_{k\ge n} | \psi(k)| = \sup_{k\ge n} \{|\psi(k)|\}.$$ In this case, there exists a sequence $k_j,~j\in \mathbb{N}$ such that $k_j\ge n$ and the numbers $\psi(k_j)$ don’t decrease and converge to $\nu(n).$ Let $\mathbb{A}=\cup_{j} f_j(x),$ where the function $f_j(x)$ defined by the equality (\[19\]). Since $f_j \in L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi}$ for any $j\in \mathbb{N},$ than $${\cal E} (L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi};\hat{Z}_n)_{s(\cdot)}=
\sup_{f \in L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi}} \|f-\hat{Z}_n(f) \|_{s(\cdot)}\ge
\sup_{f \in \mathbb{A}} \|f-\hat{Z}_n(f) \|_{s(\cdot)}=$$ $$=\sup_{j \in \mathbb{N}} \frac{\psi(k_j)}{\|\cos k_j x\|_{p(\cdot)}}
\| \cos k_j x\|_{s(\cdot)}=C_{p,s} \nu(n).$$
The theorem is proved.
We now obtain an estimate of the sequence ${\cal E} (L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi};\hat{Z}_n)_{s(\cdot)}$ in the case where the function $p=p(x)$ and $s=s(x)$ on the period satisfy the inequality $p(x)<s(x).$ The following result gives the upper estimate.
\[T.2\] Let $ p, s \in \mathcal{P}^\gamma,$ $ p(x)< s(x),~x\in [0;2\pi]$ and $(\psi;\beta) \in \Upsilon_{\alpha,n},$ $\alpha={1}/{\underline{p}}-{1}/{\overline {s}}.$ Then, for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$ the following inequality $$\label{20}
{\cal E} (L_{\beta, p(\cdot)}^\psi; \hat{Z}_n)_{ s(\cdot)} \le C_{p,s} n^\alpha \nu (n),$$ hold, where $C_{p,s}$ is a positive constant which independent of $n$.
[**Proof.**]{} For an arbitrary function $f \in L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi},$ the equality $$f(x)-\hat{Z}_n(f;x)=\sum_{k=1}^{n-1} \frac{\psi(n)}{\psi(k)} A_k(f;x)+
\sum_{k=n}^\infty A_k(f;x)=$$ $$\label{21}
=\sum_{k=1}^\infty \mu_{n,\alpha} k^{-\alpha} A_k(f^\psi_\beta; x)+
\sum_{k=1}^\infty \tilde{\mu}_{n,\alpha} k^{-\alpha}\tilde{A}_k(f^\psi_\beta; x)
:= M_\alpha (g_\alpha)+\tilde{M}_\alpha(\tilde{g}_\alpha),$$ holds, where $M_\alpha$ and $\tilde{M}_\alpha$ are operators-multipliers, which are defined by the sequences (\[10\]) and (\[11\]) respectively, $\alpha={1}/{\underline{p}}-{1}/{\overline {s}}$ and $$g_\alpha(x):=\sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{-\alpha} A_k(f^\psi_\beta; x)=
\frac{1}{\pi} \int\limits_0^{2\pi} f^\psi_\beta(x+t) D_\alpha(t)~dt,$$ $$\tilde{g}_\alpha(x):=\sum_{k=1}^\infty k^{-\alpha} \tilde{A}_k(f^\psi_\beta; x)=
\frac{1}{\pi} \int\limits_0^{2\pi} \tilde{f}^\psi_\beta(x+t) D_\alpha(t)~dt,$$ $D_\alpha(t)$ is function defined in Theorem \[T.B\].
Since $f \in L^{\psi}_{\beta,p(\cdot)},$ then $f^\psi_\beta \in L^{p(\cdot)}$, and moreover $f^\psi_\beta \in L^{\underline{p}}.$ By Theorem \[T.B\] we conclude that the convolution $g_\alpha(x)$ belongs $L^{\overline{s}},$ and moreover $g_\alpha \in L^{s(\cdot)}.$ From the condition $(\psi;\beta) \in \Upsilon_{n,\alpha}$ by lemma \[L.A\] we conclude that the operator-multiplier $M_\alpha$ acts from $L^{s(\cdot)}$ to $L^{s(\cdot)}$ for any $s\in \mathcal{P}^\gamma.$ Using analogous arguments for the function $\tilde{g}_\alpha(x),$ taking into account the inequalities (\[6\]), (\[9\]), (\[12\]) and (\[13\]), for an arbitrary function $f \in L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi}$ on the basis of the equality (\[21\]) we find $$\|f-\hat{Z}_n(f)\|_{s(\cdot)} \le \|M_\alpha (g_\alpha)\|_{s(\cdot)}+\|\tilde{M}_\alpha(\tilde{g}_\alpha)\|_{s(\cdot)}\le
K n^\alpha \nu(n) (\|g_\alpha\|_{s(\cdot)}+\|\tilde{g}_\alpha\|_{s(\cdot)}) \le$$ $$\le C_{p,s} n^\alpha \nu(n) ( \| f^\psi_\beta \|_{p(\cdot)}+ \| \tilde{f}^\psi_\beta\|_{p(\cdot)})\le
C_{p,s} n^\alpha \nu(n).$$
To make formulate the following assertion, which gives a lower estimate for the quantity ${\cal E} (L_{\beta,p(\cdot)}^{\psi};\hat{Z}_n)_{s(\cdot)}$ in the case, if the function $p=p(x)$ and $s=s(x)$ satisfy the inequality $p(x)<s(x)$ on the period, we need following definition.
Denoted by $\mathfrak{B}$ the set of pairs $(\psi;\beta),$ such that for any $n \in \mathbb{N}$ the relations are true: $$\sup\limits_{n \le k \le 2n} \bigg| \frac{\nu(n)}{\psi(k)}\bigg| \le C, \quad
\sup_{m\in \mathbb{N}} \sum_{k=2^m}^{2^{m+1}} |\tau (k+1)-\tau(k)| \le C,$$ where $C$ is a positive constant which independent of $n,$ $\nu(n)=\sup_{k\ge n} \psi(k)$ and $$\label{25}
\tau(k):= \cases{0, & $1\le k \le n-1,$ \cr
\frac{\nu(n)}{\psi(k)}, & $n\le k \le 2n.$}$$
\[T.3\] Let $ p, s \in \mathcal{P}^\gamma,$ $ p(x)< s(x),~x\in [0;2\pi]$ and $(\psi;\beta) \in \mathfrak{B}.$ Then, for all $n \in \mathbb{N}$ the following inequality is true $$\label{22}
{\cal E}_n (L_{\beta, p(\cdot)}^\psi; \hat{Z}_n)_{ s(\cdot)} \ge
C_{p,s} \nu (n) n^{{1}/{\overline{p}}-{1}/{\underline {s}}},$$ where $C_{p,s}$ is a positive constant which independent of $n$.
[**Proof.**]{} For obtaining a lower estimate, let us show that for any positive integer $n$ in class $L_{\beta, p(\cdot)}^\psi$ there exists a function $f_n^*,$ for which the inequality is true $$\| f_n^* - \hat{Z}_n\|_{s(\cdot)} \ge C_{p,g} \nu(n) n^{{1}/{\overline{p}}-{1}/{\underline {s}}}.$$
For this we fix $n \in \mathbb{N}$ and consider the function $$f_n^*(x)=\sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \psi(k)\cos (kx-\frac{\beta \pi}{2}).$$ Since $$(f_n^*(x))^\psi_\beta=\sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \cos kx=\frac{\sin n x/2 \cos (3n+1)x/2}{\sin x/2},$$ then using the relation (\[16\]) and also well-known inequality $$\label{23}
\frac{x}{\pi} \le \sin x/2,\quad \sin x \le x, \quad x \in [0;\pi],$$ we obtain $$\| (f_n^*)^\psi_\beta\|_{p(\cdot)}=\bigg\| \sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \cos kx\bigg\|_{p(\cdot)}\le
K_p\bigg\| \sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \cos kx\bigg\|_{\overline{p}} =$$ $$=\bigg(2 \int\limits_0^{\pi} \bigg|\sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \cos kx \bigg|^{\overline{p}}dx
\bigg)^{1/\overline{p}} \le \bigg(2 \int\limits_0^{\pi} \bigg|\frac{\sin n x/2}{\sin x/2}
\bigg|^{\overline{p}} dx\bigg)^{1/\overline{p}} \le C^*_p n^{1-1/\overline{p}}.$$
This implies that the function $$g^*_n(x)=\frac{n^{1/\overline{p}-1}}{C^*_p} f_n^*(x)=
\frac{n^{1/\overline{p}-1}}{C^*_p} \sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \psi(k)\cos (kx-\frac{\beta \pi}{2})$$ belongs to the class $L_{\beta, p(\cdot)}^\psi$.
Again using the inequalities (\[16\]) and (\[23\]), we find $$\bigg\| \sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \cos kx\bigg\|_{s(\cdot)} \ge
\bigg(2 \int\limits_0^{\pi} \bigg|\frac{\sin n x/2 \cos(3n+1)x/2}{\sin x/2}
\bigg|^{\underline{s}}dx \bigg)^{1/\underline{s}} \ge$$ $$\label{24}
\ge C_{s} n^{1-1/\underline{s}} \bigg(\int\limits_0^{\pi/2}
(\cos x)^{\underline{s}}~dx \bigg)^{1/\underline{s}}\ge
K_{s} n^{1-1/\underline{s}}.$$
If now by $T_\psi$ we denote the operator-multiplier that generates a sequence (\[25\]), then by lemma \[L.A\] on condition $(\psi;\beta) \in \mathfrak{B}$ we will have $$\bigg\| \sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \cos (kx-\frac{\beta \pi}{2}) \bigg\|_{s(\cdot)}=
\bigg\| T_\psi \bigg(\sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \frac{\psi(k)}{\nu(n)}
\cos (kx-\frac{\beta \pi}{2})\bigg)\bigg\|_{s(\cdot)}\le$$ $$\le C \bigg\|\sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \frac{\psi(k)}{\nu(n)}
\cos (kx-\frac{\beta \pi}{2})\bigg\|_{s(\cdot)}.$$
Hence, considering the inequality (\[24\]) we find $$\bigg\|\sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \frac{\psi(k)}{\nu(n)}
\cos (kx-\frac{\beta \pi}{2})\bigg\|_{s(\cdot)} \ge
K \bigg\| \sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \cos (kx-\frac{\beta \pi}{2}) \bigg\|_{s(\cdot)}\ge$$ $$\label{26}
\ge C_s \bigg\| \sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \cos kx \bigg\|_{\underline{s}}
\ge K_{s} n^{1-1/\underline{s}}.$$
Using the relation (\[26\]), we obtain $${\cal E}_n (L_{\beta, p(\cdot)}^\psi; \hat{Z}_n)_{ s(\cdot)} \ge
\| g^*_n - \hat{Z}_n(g^*_n)\|_{s(\cdot)}= \bigg\|\frac{n^{1/\overline{p}-1}}{C^*_p}
\sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \psi(k)\cos (kx-\frac{\beta \pi}{2}) \bigg\|_{s(\cdot)}\ge$$ $$\ge \frac{n^{1/\overline{p}-1}}{C^*_p} \nu(n) \bigg\|
\sum\limits_{k=n}^{2n} \frac{\psi(k)}{\nu(n)}\cos (kx-\frac{\beta \pi}{2}) \bigg\|_{s(\cdot)}\ge$$ $$\ge C_{p,s} n^{1/\overline{p}-1} \nu(n) n^{1-1/\underline{s}}=C_{p,s} \nu(n)
n^{{1}/{\overline{p}}-{1}/{\underline {s}}}.$$
The theorem is proved.
[Lp]{}
Sharapudinov I. On the topology of the space $L^{p(x)}([0;1])$ // Math. notes. — 1979. — [**26,**]{} № 4. — P. 613 – 632. (in rissian)
Stepanets A.I. Methods of Approximation Theory. — VSP, Leiden–Boston, — 2005.
$\rm Kov\acute{a}\check{c}ik$ O., Rakósník J. On spaces $L^{p(x)}$ and $W^{k,p(x)}$ // Chach. Math. J. — 1991. — [**41 (116),**]{} № 4. — P. 592 – 618.
Musielak J. Orlicz spaces and modular spaces. — Berlin: Springer, 1983.
Orlicz W. Über conjugierte Exponentenfolgen // Studia Math. — 1931. — [**3.**]{} — C. 200 – 211.
Nakano H. Topology of linear topological spaces. — Tokyo: Maruzen Co. Ltd., 1951.
Samko S.G. Differentiation and integration of variable order and the spaces $L^{p(x)}$ // Proc. Int. Conf. Operator Theory and Complex and Hypercomplex Analysis (Mexico, 12 – 17 December 1994): Contemp. Math. — 1994. — [**212.**]{} — P. 203 – 219.
Sharapudinov I.I. On uniformaly bounded in $L^p, (p=p(x))$ some famelies of convolution operators // Math. notes. — 1996. — [**59 (2),**]{} — P. 291 – 302. (in russian)
Fan X., Zhao D. On the spaces $L^{p(x)}$ and $W^{m,p(x)}$ // J. Math. Anal. and Appl. — 2001. — [**263,**]{} № 2. — P. 424 – 446.
Sharapudinov I.I. Some problems of theory of aproximation in the spaces $L^{p(x)}(E)$ // Anal. Math. — 2007. — [**33,**]{} — P. 135 – 153. (in russian)
Bandaliev R. On the structure properties of wegithed space О структурных свойствах весового пространства $L_{p(x), \omega}$ for $0<p(x)<1$ // Math. notes. — 2014. — V. 95, № 4. — P. 492 – 506. (in russian)
Diening L., Ruzicka M. Calderon-Zigmund operators on generelized Lebesgue spaces $L^{p(x)}$ and problems releted to fluid dynamics. — Preprint / Albert-Ludwings-Univ. Freiburg, 21/2002, 04.07.2002.
Ruzicka M. Electroreological fluids: Modeling and mathematical theory // Lect. Notes Math. — 2000. — [**1748.**]{} — 176 p.
Samko S.G. On a progress in the theory of Lebesgue spaces whith variable exponent: Maximal and Singular operators // Integral Transforms Spec. Funct. — 2005. — [**16,**]{} № 5 – 6. — P. 461 – 482.
V. Kokilashvili and S. Samko, Operators of Harmonis Analysis in weighted spaces with nonstandard growth, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 352 (2009), 15-34.
Marcinkievicz J. Sur les multiplicateures des séries de Fourier // Studia Mathematica. — 1938. — T. VIII. — P. 78 – 91.
Hardy, G., and Littlewood, J. Some properties of fractional integrals, IMZ, 27, 565–606 (1928).
Sharapudinov I.I. On the basis of the Haar system in the space $L^{p (x)} ([0, 1])$ and the principle of localization in average // Мат. сборник. — 1986. — [**130 (1722),**]{} № 2 (6) — C. 275 – 283.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
**Less Decoherence and More Coherence in Quantum Gravity, Inflationary Cosmology and Elsewhere**\
Elias Okon${}^1$ and Daniel Sudarsky${}^2$\
${}^1$*Instituto de Investigaciones Filosóficas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.*\
${}^2$*Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Mexico City, Mexico.*
**Abstract:** In [@Crull] it is argued that, in order to confront outstanding problems in cosmology and quantum gravity, interpretational aspects of quantum theory can by bypassed because decoherence is able to resolve them. As a result, [@Crull] concludes that our focus on conceptual and interpretational issues, while dealing with such matters in [@Oko.Sud:14], is avoidable and even pernicious. Here we will defend our position by showing in detail why decoherence does not help in the resolution of foundational questions in quantum mechanics, such as the measurement problem or the emergence of classicality.
Introduction {#Int}
============
Since its inception, more than 90 years ago, quantum theory has been a source of heated debates in relation to interpretational and conceptual matters. The prominent exchanges between Einstein and Bohr are excellent examples in that regard. An avoidance of such issues is often justified by the enormous success the theory has enjoyed in applications, ranging from particle physics to condensed matter. However, as people like John S. Bell showed [@Bell1], such a pragmatic attitude is not always acceptable.
In [@Oko.Sud:14] we argue that the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics is inadequate in cosmological contexts because it crucially depends on the existence of observers external to the studied system (or on an artificial quantum/classical cut). We claim that if the system in question is the whole universe, such observers are nowhere to be found, so we conclude that, in order to legitimately apply quantum mechanics in such contexts, an observer independent interpretation of the theory is required. Nowadays, there are a number of versions of quantum theory, such as Bohmian mechanics [@Gold] and objective collapse models [@GRW], with the needed characteristic. In [@Oko.Sud:14] we focus on the latter to display an array of benefits that such theories offer regarding the resolution of long-standing problems in cosmology and quantum gravity. In particular, we explore applications of objective collapse theories to the origin of seeds of cosmic structure, the problem of time in quantum gravity and the information loss paradox.
In a recent paper entitled “Less Interpretation and More Decoherence in Quantum Gravity and Inflationary Cosmology,” E. M. Crull argues that our focus on conceptual and interpretational issues in [@Oko.Sud:14] is unjustified because quantum decoherence “addresses precisely those aspects of the measurement problem many believe require resolution before going onwards, and for resolving new issues within relativistic applications of the theory” [@Crull p. 1020]. Crull also maintains that decoherence is all is needed in order to explain the quantum-to-classical transition and the emergence of classicality. It seems, then, that it is not that she believes that the issues we raise, regarding, e.g., the necessity to use an observer independent version of quantum mechanics in cosmological settings, are not critical, but that she thinks that decoherence is capable of resolving them.
The objective of this work is twofold. We will defend our position by pointing out some of the most glaring shortcomings in [@Crull]. However, before doing so, we will explain in detail why decoherence fails as a tool to resolve foundational questions in quantum mechanics, such as the measurement problem and the quantum-to-classical transition. The plan for the manuscript is as follows: in section \[Deco\] we will critically evaluate the relevance of decoherence in foundational discussions, in section \[Crull\] we will directly address the criticism of Crull and in section \[Con\] we will present our conclusions.
Decoherence {#Deco}
===========
In recent years, decoherence has become an extremely popular subject, both in applied and fundamental physics. In the former, decoherence is a subject of enormous relevance, as the effect is one of the main concerns in the practical development of quantum computers as well as in other interesting experimental proposals. In the latter, it has often been promoted as the solution to long-standing foundational problems. In particular, decoherence is deemed to solve (at least important parts of) the measurement problem and to explain the quantum-to-classical transition. The idea is that decoherence, which is a straightforward consequence of a purely unitary evolution, is able to effectively explain or bring about the collapse of the wave function, which is, of course, at the root of the measurement problem. Similarly, decoherence is said to dynamically single out a preferred basis, which is supposed to coincide with the classical one, thus explaining the emergence of classicality. The objective of this section is to carefully show that, contrary to widespread believe, decoherence does not help in the resolution of these foundational questions. The main reason being, as we will see below in detail, that in order for decoherence to accomplish what it is supposed to, one needs to assume the very thing that is to be achieved.
Quantum decoherence arises from i) the fact that the inevitable interactions between a system and its environment typically lead to entanglement between the two and ii) the fact that the states of the environment entangled with the different states of the system, usually become, very quickly and to a very good approximation, orthogonal among themselves. These facts are often described in a more “poetic” language which, sometimes, is not straightforward to interpret formally. For example, Crull defines decoherence as follows:
> \[I\]t is a dynamical process whereby a system’s phase relations in particular bases become decohered or randomized by commuting \[sic\] with external (environmental) degrees of freedom.[^1] [@Crull p. 1021]
However, it is rather unclear what lies behind the idea that the system’s phase relations become “decohered or randomized.” Although one might have some intuitive feeling about things becoming random when they are too complicated, the fact is that the unitary evolution provided by the Schrödinger equation contains absolutely nothing random. Moreover, no clear, unambiguous and universally accepted definition of coherence (which is supposed to get lost in the process) is available, For example, in [@Sch], which has lately become the standard reference on the subject, a state is said to be in a *coherent superposition* when each of the component states $|\psi_n\rangle$ is simultaneously present in the state $|\Psi\rangle = \sum_n c_n|\psi_n\rangle$. It is hard to see what the adjective of “coherent” adds to the standard notion of a superposition and what is the part that gets lost through the purely unitary interaction at play. It could be that what is really meant is that when the state of a composite systems is entangled, then each component does not possess a well-defined state. However, if that is all there is to the loss of coherence, then one must conclude that any entangled system, such as an EPR pair, is not coherent. In fact, below we will describe in detail what is (probably) meant by the language in the quote above. All we want to point out here is that such expressions are often repeated without an adequate understanding of the fact that they are only figures of speech to be unpacked in formal terms, and that such unpacking is much more subtle and complex than is usually thought.
This way of talking about decoherence is even more pervasive, and more confusing, when the consequences of the process are discussed. For example, [@Sch p. 5] states:
> \[T\]he coupling to the environment now defines the observable physical properties of the system. At the same time, quantum coherence, a measure for the “quantumness” of the system, is delocalized into the entangled system–environment state, which effectively removes it from our observation.
in the classic [@Zur p. 5] Zurek writes:
> \[S\]ystems usually regarded as classical suffer (or benefit) from the natural loss of quantum coherence, which “leaks out” into the environment... The resulting “decoherence” cannot be ignored when one addresses the problem of the reduction of the quantum mechanical wave packet: Decoherence imposes, in effect, the required “embargo” on the potential outcomes by allowing the observer to maintain records of alternatives but to be aware of only one of the branches – one of the “decoherent histories” in the nomenclature of Murray Gell-Mann and James Hartle...
and Crull gives us:
> Decoherence of a system will suppress to extraordinary degree interference terms in the decohered basis, such that further interactions will practically always “see” the system in an eigenstate of the basis or bases most affected by decoherence (that is, with respect to system degrees of freedom that commute most rapidly and efficiently with environmental degrees of freedom). [@Crull p. 1021]
We believe that all these words in quotations only obscure the meaning of these phrases and, more importantly, complicate a conceptual appraisal of their validity. The point, as we said above, is that one must not forget that these expressions are only figures of speech and that, in order to fully evaluate them, they have to be unpacked in formal terms. The problem, as we will see below in detail, is that, in doing so, one finds that decoherence in fact does not accomplish what it is supposed to.
In order to start such unpacking, we note that decoherence is supposed to solve the measurement problem and to explain the emergence of classicality by accomplishing two things (see [@Sch p. 6]):
1. Suppression of macroscopic interference.
2. Selection of a preferred basis.
In words of Zurek:
> Decoherence destroys superpositions. The environment induces, in effect, a superselection rule that prevents certain superpositions from being observed. Only states that survive this process can become classical. [@Zur p. 21]
Therefore, in order to evaluate the ability of decoherence to solve foundational issues, one must check if decoherence accomplishes these two facts. Below we will show in detail why decoherence in fact does *not* explain the suppression of macroscopic interference nor selects a preferred basis. Therefore, decoherence is unable to solve the measurement problem and to explain the emergence of classicality. In order to fully back up these claims (sections \[si\] and \[pb\] below), we will start with some necessary preliminary material.
The standard formalism and the measurement problem
--------------------------------------------------
In order to properly discuss the merits of decoherence as a tool to solve foundational problems in quantum mechanics, it is very useful to start by considering first the standard interpretation and, in particular, by being explicit about what it consists of. The standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, for which we mean something along the lines of the version of Dirac [@Dirac], von Neumann [@von] or what one usually finds in contemporary textbooks, can be summarized as follows:
- The physical states of quantum systems are represented, at all times, by unit vectors in an appropriate Hilbert space.
- The physical properties of the system are represented by Hermitian operators.
- The time evolution of the system is governed by the, fully deterministic, Schrödinger equation.
- The connexion between the mathematical formalism and predictions is given by the Born rule, which allows one to compute the possible results for any experiment, along with the probabilities associated with each possible result.
- Finally, there is the projection or collapse postulate that states that, after a measurement, the state of the system instantaneously jumps to the eigenstate of the measured property with the eigenvalue corresponding to the measured value.
As it is well known, if the state of the system, before a measurement, is an eigenstate of what is going to be measured, then Born’s rule predicts that, with certainty, the result will be the associated eigenvalue. From this, together with some type of a realist criterion, along the lines of the famous EPR sufficient condition for an element of reality [@EPR], one can conclude what is usually called the Eigenvector-Eigenvalue (EE) rule, which states:
- A state possesses the value $\lambda$ of a property represented by operator the $O$ if and only if that state is an eigenvector of $O$ with eigenvalue $\lambda$.
At any rate, what is clear is that, within the standard interpretation, the only way to connect the mathematical representations (i.e., vectors and operators) with predictions, is trough the Born rule (and possibly through the EE rule as well). That is, the only way to extract a claim regarding what to expect with respect to the physical properties of a quantum system, from the fact that its quantum state is such and such, is via the Born rule (an possibly the EE rule as well). In this regard, the Born and EE rules play the role of *physical interpretations* of the mathematical formalism of standard quantum mechanics. That is, they constitute the dictionary that translates between the math and the world that the physics tries to describe.
But what happens if one decides to drop the Born rule and the collapse postulate, as is proposed, e.g., within the decoherence program in order to deal with the conceptual difficulties of quantum theory? Then one must necessarily substitute this interpretation of the mathematics of the formalism for something else. If one does not do that, then we do not have, properly speaking, a physical theory. That is, the link between the formalism and physical predictions is lost. Moreover, by considering a purely unitary formalism, i.e., by dropping the collapse postulate (and, with it, the Born rule), one must be very careful not to unwittingly, and of course invalidly, use the standard interpretation of the formalism in terms of collapses and probabilities. We will see below that much of the confusion regarding the reach of decoherence as a tool to resolve foundational questions arises from ignoring these aspects and making this type of mistakes.
The formalism described above is, of course, the most successful empirical theory ever constructed. The problem, however, is that, in spite of such an amazing predictive success, the formalism is not fully satisfactory – the culprit being the notorious measurement problem. But what is the measurement problem? Crull is right in pointing out that the measurement problem means different things to different people and that, in fact, it sometimes consists of a group of interrelated issues and not only one specific problem. She is also right in pointing out that there is a lot of confusion in the literature regarding its true nature, import and consequences. Unfortunately, we believe that the discussion of the problem in [@Crull] only deepens the misunderstanding.
The measurement problem is, of course, a problem of a theoretical framework. Therefore, in order to state the problem clearly, it is crucial to first specify in detail the theoretical framework in question. However, given the proliferation of views regarding quantum mechanics, it is no wonder that there exists an accompanying proliferation of ways to state the problem. And given that many of these different ways to present the quantum formalism are not always compatible among themselves, it is, again, no wonder that the many different ways to present the measurement problem are also not compatible among themselves. For example, in terms of the standard interpretation discussed above, the problem manifests as the fact that the formalism crucially depends on the notion of measurement, but that such notion is never precisely defined within the theory.[^2] The result is a formalism that, under some circumstances, is vague. To other characterizations of quantum mechanics correspond different formulations of the measurement problem: in Bohr’s formulation, the problem manifests as an ambiguity regarding where the classical-quantum cut should be drawn, and, in a theory with purely unitary evolution (like the one considered within the decoherence program) it manifests as a mismatch between experience and some predictions of the theory (e.g., Schrödinger cat states).
Among all the formulations of the measurement problem present in the literature, Crull decides to use the one in [@Sch]. According to Schlosshauer’s book, the measurement problem is composed of three distinct parts:
1. *The problem of the preferred basis*. What singles out the preferred physical quantities in nature – e.g., why are physical systems usually observed to be in definite positions rather than in superpositions of positions?
2. *The problem of the nonobservability of interference*. Why is it so difficult to observe quantum interference effects, especially on macroscopic scales?
3. *The problem of outcomes*. Why do measurements have outcomes at all, and what selects a particular outcome among the different possibilities described by the quantum probability distribution?
Schlosshauer argues that decoherence resolves the first two components and the first part of the third one (i.e., why measurements have outcomes at all). He also claims that it is debatable whether it solves the last bit of the third one since it is linked to the choice of interpretation. In any case, he claims that this last element of the problem is only of “philosophical” relevance and not important for practical purposes.
At any rate, given our previous discussion regarding the nature of the measurement problem, it is clear that this formulation of the problem is defective. That is because it does not, in any way, identify the precise problem it wants to display within a detailed and specific theoretical framework. Instead, particularly in parts 1 and 2, it simply states some empirical facts. It is clear that, what Schlosshauer actually has in mind, is a formalism with a purely unitary evolution in which, as we said above, the measurement problem manifests as a mismatch between experience and some predictions of the theory. However, by not being explicit about this in his presentation, he obscures some of the crucial issues regarding the conceptual analysis needed to evaluate his claims. In particular, by not stating precisely what is the concrete quantum formalism he endorses, he allows for some “wiggle room” at the moment of *physically interpreting* the formal results obtained by decoherence.
Therefore, in order to avoid confusion, we will be explicit about the quantum formalism in play. It consists of the first three elements of the standard formalism described above. That is: physical states are represented by vectors, properties by Hermitian operators and states *always* evolve according to the Schrödinger equation. Note, that by dropping the collapse postulate and the Born rule, as we explained above, one looses the standard physical interpretation of the mathematical formalism (this will play a crucial role later on when we evaluate the ability of decoherence to solve the measurement problem).
With this quantum formalism in place, it is easy to show the discrepancy between its predictions and experience. In this regards, Zurek in [@Zur p. 4] states:
> \[A\]t the root of our unease with quantum theory is the clash between the principle of superposition – the basic tenet of the theory reflected in the linearity of \[the Schrödinger Equation\] – and everyday classical reality in which this principle appears to be violated.
More formally, consider a quantum system $S$ with Hilbert space $H$ and consider an observable $A$ with eigenvectors $\{{|a_i\rangle}_S\}$. Consider also a measuring device $M$, with ready state ${|r\rangle}_M$, which interacts with the system in the following way $${|a_i\rangle}_S {|r\rangle}_M \xrightarrow{Schrödinger} {|a_i\rangle}_S {|a_i\rangle}_M$$ for all $i$, where ${|a_i\rangle}_M$ is the (macroscopic) state of $M$ which indicates that the result of the measurement is $a_i$. That is, $M$ is a good measuring device. Then, by the linearity of the Schrödinger equation, it is clear that $$\left( \sum_i c_i {|a_i\rangle}_S \right) {|r\rangle}_M \xrightarrow{Schrödinger} \sum_i c_i {|a_i\rangle}_S {|a_i\rangle}_M .$$ Therefore, the prediction of the theory is that the final state of the measurement is a superposition of different (macroscopic) states for $M$, which is not what we observe in the lab. Note however that Schlosshauer’s way of stating the measurement problem, i.e., the particular list of facts he chooses regarding the incompatibility between theory and experience, is suspiciously convenient for decoherence in light of what it is supposed to achieve (i.e., suppression of macroscopic interference and selection of a preferred basis). That is, from among all the discrepancies between a purely unitary formalism and experience, he chooses to highlight precisely those that exactly correspond to what he believes decoherence explains. For example, he highlights the absence of macroscopic interference but it is more than an absence of interference that is observed but not predicted. In fact, in order to claim that interference does not occur we would need to perform the appropriate experiments, but the discrepancy between experience and the predictions of a purely unitary quantum theory is there even if we do not perform such experiments. What we actually see is the absence of superpositions of $M$ in certain bases.
Below we will evaluate in detail the decoherence process and its alleged ability to solve foundational questions. However, before doing so, it is important to say a few words regarding the usage of density matrices within quantum theory.
Density matrices
----------------
A density matrix is an operator that encodes information about a quantum mechanical system. However, density matrices are used for different purposes and, in different situations, they contain different amounts and kinds of information regarding the quantum mechanical system (or systems) in question (see e.g., [@Sch; @despagnat]).
To begin with, we point out that, according to the standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, all closed or isolated quantum systems possess, at all times, well-defined quantum states. These states are refereed to as *pure* and are usually represented by vectors on an appropriate Hilbert space. However, as is well known, pure states can also be represented by density matrices. In particular, if the pure state of a system is given by $| \psi \rangle$, then one can define its associated density matrix by $\rho_p = | \psi \rangle \langle \psi|$, which satisfies $\rho_p^2=\rho_p$ and $Tr(\rho_p)=1$.[^3] It is clear that, in this pure state case, the density matrix $\rho_p$ contains exactly the same information that the original state vector $| \psi \rangle$. In fact given a density matrix satisfying $\rho_p^2=\rho_p$ and $Tr(\rho_p)=1$, one can recover the corresponding unity norm vector of the Hilbert space (up to an irrelevant complex phase). Moreover, it is easy to show that one can use $\rho_p$ to compute expectation values via $\langle O\rangle=Tr(\rho_p O)$. Note that this identification of the (mathematical notion) trace with the (physical concept) expectation value is legitimate only if one assumes the Born rule and the collapse postulate. That is, such mathematical object can be interpreted in terms of an expectation value, i.e., in terms of what one expects the average of a large number of measurements on an ensemble of identically prepared systems to be, only if one assumes that during each measurement, one finds as a result one of the eigenvalues of $O$, with probabilities given by the Born rule. This clarifications might seem trivial at this point but will be crucial latter when we evaluate the claims regarding the alleged achievements of decoherence.
Density matrices can also be used to describe ensembles of identical systems in which not all members of the ensemble are prepared in the same state. Instead, the states of the different members are distributed among a set of states $\{|\chi_i\rangle\}$, with respective frequencies $p_i$. To such situation, one assigns the density matrix $\rho_m=\sum_i p_i | \chi_i \rangle \langle \chi_i|$, which satisfies $Tr(\rho_m)=1$. It is clear that, in the $\{|\chi_i\rangle\}$ basis, the constructed matrix is diagonal, with diagonal elements given by the frequencies $p_i$. The motivation behind this definition for the density matrix comes from the fact that, in terms of $\rho_m$, the expectation values can, again, be calculated via $\langle O\rangle=Tr(\rho_m O)$. Note however that, in this case, the calculation of the expectation value depends on two types of probabilities: the quantum ones, as in the previous case, but also on the classical or *epistemic* ones, associated with a lack of knowledge of the exact state of any individual member of the ensemble. Therefore, in this case, the density matrix contains only statistical information regarding the possible state of any particular member. A closely related application of density matrices involves the description of situations in which one wants to study a closed quantum system, but one does not have full information regarding its pure state and only knows that the state is one of the members of $\{|\chi_i\rangle\}$ with respective probabilities $p_i$. In such case, one again assigns the density matrix $\rho_m=\sum_i p_i | \chi_i \rangle \langle \chi_i|$ and calculates expectation values via $\langle O\rangle=Tr(\rho_m O)$. Both of these cases are usually refereed to as *mixed* states or *proper* mixtures.
Before moving on, it is important to point out an ambiguity regarding mixed states. The problem is that, sometimes, *different* mixed states are assigned the *same* density matrix. As a result, if one is given a density matrix of a mixed state, one does not automatically know which are the possible states for the system(s) described. To illustrate the point, consider two ensembles of electrons, one with half of the electrons with spin-up and half with spin-down along $z$ and the other with half with spin-up and half with spin-down along $y$. Given that $$\label{e3}
\frac{1}{ 2}\left\{ |+ \rangle_{z} \langle+|_{z}+|- \rangle_{z} \langle-|_{z} \right\} = \frac{1}{ 2}\left\{ |+ \rangle_{y} \langle+|_{y}+|- \rangle_{y} \langle-|_{y} \right\} ,$$ it is clear that both ensembles, which clearly correspond to different physical situations, will be associated with the same density matrix.
Finally, there is the application of density matrices for the description of a subsystem of a (closed or isolated) quantum system. Suppose, then, that a system $S$ is composed of two subsystems $A$ and $B$. Of course, in general, the partition of $S$ into subsystems $A$ and $B$ is arbitrary. Now, given that $S$ is an isolated quantum system, it invariably possesses a well-defined quantum state. However, if such state is an entangled state between $A$ and $B$, it is impossible to assign well-defined states to such subsystems. That is, the quantum formalism entails that, in such situations, the subsystems simply do not possess well-defined states. There is, however, a way to encode *some* of the information regarding a subsystem in a density matrix. In order to do so, one first constructs the pure density matrix associated with the whole system $S$ and then takes the partial trace of such matrix over the rest of the system. That is, if $| \Psi \rangle$ is the state of $S$, one defines $\rho_A = Tr_B(\rho)$ with $\rho = | \Psi \rangle \langle \Psi|$. If, on one hand, the state of $S$ is separable, the subsystem $A$ possesses a pure state and $\rho_A$ is just the corresponding pure density matrix. If, on the other hand, the state of $S$ is entangled, $A$ does not possess a well-defined state so $\rho_A$ cannot represent its state. Now, if one considers observables of $S$ of the form $O_s= O_A \otimes \mathbb{I}$, then it is easy to show that $\langle O_s\rangle=Tr(\rho_A O_A)$. Therefore, as we said above, $\rho_A$ does not contain any information regarding the actual physical state of the subsystem in question – such subsystem simply does not possess one. Instead, it contains information regarding expectation values of *measurements* that could be performed on such a subsystem. Density matrices of this type are called *reduced* density matrices or *improper* mixtures, and satisfy $Tr(\rho_A)=1$.
At this point we would like to make a few comments that are crucial in order to evaluate the claims regarding the capacity of decoherence to solve foundational problems. These comments have to do with similarities and differences regarding mixed states and reduced density matrices. Regarding similarities, it is clear that, mathematically speaking, they are identical. That is, they are both generically represented by matrices with trace equal to one. As a result, entangled subsystems and ensembles are often described with matrices of identical form. Regarding differences, it is central to keep in mind that the physical situations described by mixtures (or proper mixtures) and reduced density matrices (or improper mixtures) are extremely different. In the first case, the systems described always possess well-defined quantum states, even though these might not be known to us. In the second case, if the subsystem one wants to describe is entangled, it simply does not possess a well-defined state. As a result, $\rho_A$ cannot be considered to represent the state of the system, so it becomes merely a mathematical tool to encode information regarding the behavior of $A$ in *measurement* situations. That is, it is only an instrument useful to make predictions regarding the results one expects to find while performing measurements on the system in question, assuming, of course, both the Born rule and the projection postulate.
Now we are in position to evaluate if, as advertised, decoherence is in deed able to suppress macroscopic interference and choose a preferred basis. We will discuss each of these in turn.
Suppression of interference {#si}
---------------------------
The starting point of the claim that decoherence explains the absence of macroscopic interference, is the fact that every object inevitably interacts with its environment and, furthermore, that through such interaction the environment “obtains certain information” regarding the system. Moreover, it is claimed that the states of the environment that correspond to different states of the system are almost orthogonal. The environment, then, is said to “continually measure” the system and it is stressed that such “measurement” does not require a human observer of any sort.
Now let us see how all this works more formally. Suppose we have a quantum system whose initial state is some superposition $\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( |\psi_1 \rangle + |\psi_2 \rangle \right)$ and we let it interact with its environment, with initial state $|E_0 \rangle$. As a result of what we said above, the evolution will look as follows $$\label{sE}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( |\psi_1 \rangle + |\psi_2 \rangle \right) |E_0 \rangle \xrightarrow{Schrödinger} \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( |\psi_1 \rangle |E_1 \rangle+ |\psi_2 \rangle |E_2 \rangle \right) ,$$ with $\langle E_1|E_2 \rangle \approx 0$. Next it is argued that, since we are interested in the system, and not the environment, we can trace over the degrees of freedom of the environment and construct a reduced density matrix for the system, $\rho_S$, which contains a complete description of its measurement statistics. The result is $$\begin{aligned}
\rho_S &=& \frac{1}{2} \left\{ |\psi_1\rangle\langle\psi_1|+|\psi_2\rangle\langle\psi_2|+|\psi_1\rangle\langle\psi_2|\langle E_2|E_1 \rangle+|\psi_2\rangle\langle\psi_1|\langle E_1|E_2 \rangle\right\} \nonumber \\
&\approx& \frac{1}{2} \left\{|\psi_1\rangle\langle\psi_1|+|\psi_2\rangle\langle\psi_2|\right\} .\end{aligned}$$ What we obtain, then, is a reduced density matrix, formally identical to that of a mixed state in which the system in question is in either the state $|\psi_1\rangle$ or the state $|\psi_2\rangle$, each with probability of $1/2$. Does this mean that this is then the case for the system we are considering? That is, that the system in question is suddenly, no longer in the state on the LHS of Eq. (\[sE\]), in which the system does not even have a well-defined state, but instead, the system is, definitely, either on the state $|\psi_1\rangle$ or on the state $|\psi_2\rangle$? Of course not. As we explained before, the fact that a reduced density matrix an a mixed state can have the same form does not mean that they represent the same physical situations and, in this case, it is crystal clear that they do not. The mere fact of deciding to ignore the degrees of freedom of the environment of course cannot have any physical impact on the state of the system. At any rate, the claim defended by decoherence enthusiasts is often more sophisticated than what we have discussing so far. The claim they maintain is not that, under the circumstances we have been discussing, the system is on either $|\psi_1\rangle$ or $|\psi_2\rangle$, but that, *for all practical purposes*, it will behave as if it where. Let us spell out the argument.
The state of the system is of course given by the LHS of Eq. (\[sE\]). However, it is noted that only measurements that include both the system and the environment will be able to corroborate it and that, in practice, it is impossible to keep track of all of the environmental degrees of freedom. As a result, it is argued that $\rho_S$ is, *for all practical purposes* the tool to use in order to make predictions regarding all possible measurements to be carried out on the system. And since $\rho_S$ is identical to a mixed state, the results of all these possible measurements are going to be identical to those of measurements performed on a mixed state. That is, *for all practical purposes* the system will behave as a mixture. Decoherence, then, is said to lead to *effectively non-unitary dynamics* for the system, which explains the absence of interference between the components of the superposition. In this regards, Zurek writes:
> The key advantage of \[a diagonal reduced density matrix\] is that its coefficients may be interpreted as classical probabilities. The \[reduced\] density matrix... can be used to describe the alternative states of a composite spin-detector system that has classical correlations. Von Neuman’s process 1 serves a similar purpose to Bohr’s “border” even though process 1 leaves all the alternatives in place. When the off-diagonal terms are absent, one can nevertheless safely maintain that the apparatus, as well as the system, is each separately in a definite but unknown state, and that the correlation between them still exists in the preferred basis defined by the states appearing on the diagonal. [@Zur p. 8]
All this sounds very attractive, the problem is that the above argument is fallacious. In order to understand why, we need to remember a couple of things. First, that the quantum formalism at play in decoherence is purely unitary. Therefore, in order to make empirical predictions, it cannot make use of the standard interpretation of the mathematical apparatus in terms of the probabilities dictated by the Born rule. Second, that the possibility to interpret a reduced density matrix as a tool to make predictions, i.e., the possibility to read its entries as probabilities, crucially depends on assuming the Born rule. Therefore, the interpretation of the reduced density matrix needed for decoherence to work as claimed is not available to decoherence. That is, in order for decoherence alone to solve the measurement problem, it would need to presuppose exactly what it is trying to explain. In fact, within a purely unitary formalism, such as the one considered by decoherence, not only one cannot interpret a reduced density matrix in terms of probabilities but, since no substitution for the standard interpretation is given, no predictions can be extracted at all. We conclude that, contrary to widespread believe, decoherence by itself is not able to explain the absence of macroscopic interference nor, as a result, to solve the measurement problem.
### A simple example {#ex}
If one takes seriously the claims regarding the achievements of decoherence, then Shrödinger’s cat, usually considered a paradoxical situation, is in fact fully and satisfactorily resolved when one decides to trace over the state of the atomic nucleus whose decay would trigger the release of poisonous gas. That is because, doing so, leads to a full decoherence of the density matrix characterizing the poor cat. We, after all, are only concerned about the cat. According to the program of decoherence, in its application to foundations, as we are only interested in the cat and not the atom, we are justified not only in tracing over the atom’s degrees of freedom but in interpreting the diagonal nature of the reduced density matrix as indicating that, *for all practical purposes*, the cat is either dead or alive. However, in order to be consistent, we must insist that a similar position be taken in all instances where the corresponding situation arises. That is, we must insist that whenever one obtains a density matrix that is diagonal as the result of tracing over certain degrees of freedom, one should be able to adopt the analogous position, i.e., that the system of interest is, *for all practical purposes*, in one of the states that are represented in that diagonal. Let us now test whether this is indeed a tenable position. In order to do that, we will consider a standard EPR-B type situation.
Assume that a spin-0 particle at rest decays into two identical spin-1/2 particles in an angular momentum conserving process. Let us call $x$ the axis aligned with the momenta of the emerging spin-1/2 particles. We characterize the two-particle state that results from the decay in terms of the $z$ polarization states of the two Hilbert spaces of the individual particles. As the angular momentum of the two particle state must vanish, it follows that the state must be $$|\phi \rangle= \frac{1}{\sqrt2} \left\{ |+ \rangle^{(1)}_{z} |- \rangle^{(2)}_{z} + |-\rangle^{(1)}_{z} |+ \rangle^{(2)}_{z} \right\} ,$$ and the density matrix for the system is given by $\rho= |\phi\rangle\langle\phi|$. Suppose now that we decide that we are not interested in one of the particles (call it $1$), and thus we regard it as an “environment” for the system of interest (particle $2$). We therefore, decide to trace over its degrees of freedom to obtain the following reduced density matrix for particle $2$ $$\rho^{(2)} = Tr_1 (\rho)= \frac{1}{ 2}\left\{ |+ \rangle^{(2)}_{z} \langle+|^{(2)}_{z}+|- \rangle^{(2)}_{z} \langle-|^{(2)}_{z} \right\} ,$$ which clearly is diagonal. Therefore, what we have is a completely decohered density matrix so, according to the attitude described above, particle $2$ must be considered as having a definite value, of either $+1/2 $ or $-1/2$, for its spin along the $z$ axis. However, it is clear that taking such position in not viable.
We can start by noting that the fact that the state $|\phi\rangle$ is symmetric with respect to rotations around the $x$ axis implies that we could have written the density matrix using instead the $y$ polarization states of the two Hilbert spaces of the individual particles (see Eq. (\[e3\])). That is, $$\label{DM}
\rho^{(2)} = \frac{1}{ 2} \left\{ |+ \rangle^{(2)}_{y} \langle+|^{(2)}_{y}+|-
\rangle^{(2)}_{y} \langle-|^{(2)}_{y} \right\} ,$$ leading this time to the conclusion that the particle must be considered as having its spin along the $y$ axis defined to be either $+1/2 $ or $-1/2$. So which one is it?, does particle $2$ have a well defined value of its spin along $z$ or $y$? Clearly the approach does not lead to a coherent position.
Furthermore, given Aspect’s experiments confirming the violation of Bell’s inequalities [@Aspect1; @Aspect2; @Aspect3], it follows that one cannot assume that particle $2$ has a definite (even if unknown) value for its spin before a measurement takes place. Clearly, such position would lead to the problematic conclusions highlighted by Bell [@Bell].
It could be pointed out that in order to verify the violation of Bell’s inequalities, one needs to compare results from both particles and that, at such point, it is no longer true that we are ignoring the environment (i.e., particle $1$). That is, at such point, the *for all practical purposes* clause is violated because it is no longer true that we, in effect, only have access to part of the system. That may be true but it does not solve the problem for decoherence. That is because, besides the issue of the basis ambiguity mentioned above, it is at this point that if one wants to describe particle $2$ with a reduced density matrix, and use it to make predictions regarding what one expects to see, one need to invoke the Born rule. That is, in order to interpret the diagonal elements of the reduced density matrix as *probabilities*, one need to assume that, upon measurement, one will find the particle on an eigenstate of what one measures, with probabilities given by Born’s rule.
Preferred basis {#pb}
---------------
As we explained before in detail, a standard way to state the measurement problem is as a mismatch between experience and some predictions of standard unitary quantum mechanics. More concretely, the problem corresponds to a discrepancy between the prediction of the widespread presence of macroscopic superpositions and the fact that observers always end up with determinate measurement results. An alternative way to present the measurement problem is as the fact that, even though the standard formulation of quantum mechanics depends crucially on the notion of measurement, such notion is never formally defined within the theory. Then, in order to apply the formalism, one needs to know, by means external to quantum mechanics, what constitutes a measurement, when a measurement is taking place, and what it is that one is measuring.
From all of the above, an important component of the measurement problem, usually refereed to as the *basis problem*, can be isolated. In the first case, it corresponds to the fact that not only the predictions of the formalism deviate form experience but, since it treats all bases on an equal footing, it does not even single out a particular basis in which such determinate results are supposed to occur (this in fact corresponds to the second point in Schlosshauer’s formulation). For the second formulation of the measurement problem above, the basis problem presents itself as the inability of standard quantum mechanics to ascertain in advance, and without information external to the formalism itself, what it is that is going to be measured in any particular measurement situation. It is clear then that any solution of the measurement problem needs also to address the basis problem.[^4]
Let us illustrate this with a simple example. Consider a quantum system $S$ (with a 2D Hilbert space) whose state, in the basis associated to observable $A$, is given by the following superposition $${|\psi\rangle}_S = \alpha {|a_1\rangle}_S + \beta {|a_2\rangle}_S .$$ Consider also, again, a measurement apparatus $M$ with ready state given by ${|r\rangle}_M$ and which interacts with the system in the following way $${|\psi\rangle}_S {|r\rangle}_M = \left ( \alpha {|a_1\rangle}_S + \beta {|a_2\rangle}_S \right ) {|r\rangle}_M \xrightarrow{Schrödinger} \alpha {|a_1\rangle}_S {|a_1\rangle}_M + \beta {|a_2\rangle}_S {|a_2\rangle}_M .$$ Of course, one can write the state ${|\psi\rangle}_S $ in the basis of observable $B$ instead $${|\psi\rangle}_S = \gamma {|b_1\rangle}_S + \delta {|b_2\rangle}_S ,$$ in which case the interaction with the apparatus looks as follows $${|\psi\rangle}_S {|r\rangle}_M = \left ( \gamma {|b_1\rangle}_S + \delta {|b_2\rangle}_S \right ) {|r\rangle}_M \xrightarrow{Schrödinger} \gamma {|b_1\rangle}_S {|b_1\rangle}_M + \delta {|b_2\rangle}_S {|b_2\rangle}_M .$$ Now consider the following question: if we perform the experiment in the laboratory, will we observe the final state of the apparatus to be either ${|a_1\rangle}_M$ or ${|a_2\rangle}_M$ or either ${|b_1\rangle}_M$ or ${|b_2\rangle}_M$ (or neither)? As we explained above, the standard interpretation is unable to answer such a question *unless* external information, to the effect that $M$ actually measures (let’s say) $A$, is provided. Given that such information is not contained in the standard fundamental description of the situation (given by the quantum states described above), we conclude that the standard interpretation does not solve the measurement problem. The purely unitary formalism, at least *prima facie*, is also not able to answer because it treats all bases on an equal footing. Decoherence, notwithstanding, is supposed to be able to fix the problem. Let us see how this is supposed to work.
The idea, as described in [@Sch p. 73] is the following:
> The *preferred states* of the system emerge dynamically as those states that are the least sensitive, or the most *robust*, to the interaction with the environment, in the sense that they become least entangled with the environment in the course of the evolution and are thus most immune to decoherence.
More formally, the preferred states are supposed to be the ones that satisfy $$|\psi_i\rangle|E_0\rangle \xrightarrow{Schrödinger} |\psi_i\rangle|E_i\rangle ,$$ with $\langle E_i|E_j \rangle \approx 0$. The idea, then, is that states that are not altered through the interaction with the environment are deemed stable and thus observable. Conversely, states that do change are said to decohere rapidly and to become, as a result, unobservable in practice. The reasoning behind this is that, on the one hand, initial superpositions in the preferred basis will evolve, as in Eq. (\[sE\]), to entangled states. As a result, their reduced density matrices will be diagonal, so such states are going to be observable. On the other hand, Initial superpositions in other bases will not decohere, in the sense that their reduced density matrices will not be diagonal. In consequence, such states are going to be unobservable in practice.
In praise of the proposal, Schlosshauer writes:
> The clear merit of the approach of environment-induced superselection to the preferred-basis problem lies in the fact that the preferred basis is not chosen in an *ad hoc* manner so as to simply make our measurement records determinate or to match our experience of which physical quantities are usually perceived as determinate (for example, position). Instead the selection is motivated on physical, observer-free grounds, namely, through the structure of the system–environment interaction Hamiltonian... The appearance of classicality is therefore grounded in the structure of the physical laws governing the system–environment interactions. [@Sch p. 85]
Still, a couple issues come to mind. The first one is whether the rule given to fix the preferred basis is really observer-free, as advertised. The answer, of course, is that it is not because the division of the world into a system and an environment is totally arbitrary. As a result, different decisions as to how to split a system will lead to different preferred bases. One could try to argue that our epistemic limitations as humans determine which degrees of freedom are accessible to us, and thus dictate a particular way so select the environment. However, that is very different from claiming, as in the quote above, that the selection of the basis is observer-free.
The second issue is the fact that the offered explanation of why it is that we have access to one basis, the preferred one, but not others, crucially depends on the alleged suppression of interference achieved by decoherence as long as the reduced density matrix in question is diagonal. However, we already saw that such link between diagonality and observability is fallacious. As a result, the fact that the density matrix in one basis is diagonal does not imply that such basis will be special in any empirically interesting sense. Therefore, even if one concedes the fact that the selection of the basis is observer-free, one still does not have a satisfactory explanation for the preferred basis.
Is decoherence helpful to foundations?
--------------------------------------
Summing up, decoherence is supposed to achieve two things: the suppression of macroscopic interference and the selection of a preferred basis. With respect to the former, we have seen that the claim that a decohered system behaves, *for all practical purposes*, like a classical mixture, is not warranted. The reason being that in order to show that the decohered system in deed behaves like the mixture, one needs to assume the Born rule. That is, one need to assume that when one measures, one always finds as a result an eigenstate of the measured operator. Therefore, in order to show that one will not find a superposition when one measures, one needs to precisely assume that one will not find a superposition when one measures, defeating the purpose of the whole enterprise.
Regarding the selection of a preferred basis, we have seen first that the process is not as observer-free as advertised because the partition of the world into a system and an environment is of course arbitrary. Furthermore, we have pointed out that the argument that allegedly explains why it is that there is a dynamically emergent preferred basis crucially depends on the ability of decoherence to suppress macroscopic interference. Given that decoherence fails in such a task, the argument in favor of the preferred basis crumbles. We conclude, then, that decoherence does not explain the nonobservability of interference nor the emergence of a preferred basis. As a result, it also does not solve the measurement problem nor explains the emergence of classicality.
The starting point of Crull’s criticism of our work is the fact that decoherence solves all the relevant interpretational and conceptual problems we worry about. Then she argues that, since such problems were the motivation behind our decision to consider non-standard interpretations, the invocation of a specific interpretation[^5] becomes not only unnecessary but burdensome. Here we have shown that decoherence does not address the pressing foundational issues of quantum mechanics. We trust that such state of affairs emphatically vindicates the motivations behind our work. In the next section we will examine in more detail specific criticisms of Crull regarding [@Oko.Sud:14].
Response to Crull {#Crull}
=================
Section 4 in [@Crull] opens with some remarks regarding our motivations, described in [@Oko.Sud:14], for focusing on objective collapse models, as well as with comments about our take on the measurement problem.[^6] Then, Crull discusses our application of objective collapse models to the three problems considered in [@Oko.Sud:14] and she describes what, according to her, decoherence reveals in each of those situations. Below we will directly address such an analysis, but before doing so, we will present a quick overview of what we defend in [@Oko.Sud:14].
“Benefits of Objective Collapse Models for Cosmology and Quantum Gravity” in a nutshell {#Ben}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we mentioned above, the notion of measurement plays a central role in the standard formulation of quantum mechanic; yet, such formalism offers no clear rules to determine which interactions should count as measurements or which subsystems as observers. The problem is that the predictions of the theory crucially depend on how this so-called “Heisenberg’s cut” is implemented. Moreover, when the system to be studied is the whole universe, the complications deepen because, in such case, there is nothing outside the system that could play the role of the observer. All this is, in essence, the measurement problem of quantum theory, the resolution of which has motivated the development of various alternative versions and modifications of quantum mechanics. Clearly, in order to apply quantum theory to cosmology, one of these alternatives, one that is observer-independent, is required.
Nowadays there are several proposals for a quantum formalism not fundamentally based on the notion of measurement or on that of an observer external to the system under consideration. They include (with various degrees of success) Bohmian mechanics, Many-world scenarios and several objective collapse models. In [@Oko.Sud:14] we focused on the latter in order to highlight their potential for the resolution of some long-standing problems in cosmology and quantum gravity. Objective collapse theories modify the dynamical equation of the standard theory, with the addition of stochastic and non-unitary terms, designed to account, on the basis of a single law, for both the quantum behavior of micro-systems and the absence of superpositions at the macro-level (without ever having to invoke observers or measurements). Early examples of such theories include CSL [@Pea:89] and GRW [@GRW:86], and recently even fully relativistic versions have been developed [@Tum:06; @Bed:11].
In [@Oko.Sud:14] we noted the potential of these theories to resolve three important open issues in cosmology and quantum gravity: the origin of the seeds of cosmic structure, the problem of time in quantum gravity and the black hole information loss paradox. Below we briefly describe how objective collapse models are able to help in their resolution.
- The inflationary period of cosmological evolution is supposed to erase all memory of initial conditions, leading to a completely flat, homogeneous and isotropic early universe with quantum fields in fully homogeneous and isotropic quantum states. The seeds of cosmological structure, which bring about the formation of galaxy clusters, galaxies and stars, and thus represent a departure from such symmetry, are then supposed to emerge as a result of quantum fluctuations. The standard account for the formation of such seeds implicitly assumes a transition from a symmetric quantum state to an essentially classical non-symmetric one. The problem is that a detailed understanding of the process that leads, in the absence of observers or measurements, from one to the other, is lacking, rendering the standard account unsatisfactory (in fact, it is easy to show that the standard quantum evolution, via Schrödinger equation, cannot account for the breakdown of the initial symmetry).[^7] The spontaneous reductions of objective collapse models, on the other hand, provide an explicit, observer-independent, mechanism for transitions form symmetric no non-symmetric states to occur. This feature was used in [@Origin] to address the problem in an inflationary cosmological context. Moreover, this application might not only account for the origin of the seeds of cosmic structure, but also may provide, through comparison with CMB data, with valuable clues for the construction of successful objective collapse models (see e.g., [@CC1; @CC2; @CC3]).
- The so-called problem of time in quantum gravity emerges from the broad disparity between the way the concept of time is used in quantum theory and the role it plays in general relativity. As a result, at least according to an important class of theories, the “wave function of the universe” does not seem to depend on time, rendering time inexistent at a fundamental level. Application of objective collapse models to quantum gravity, however, may dissolve the problem by providing objective means to anchor time fundamentally. That is because, in such theories, time evolution is governed by a modified equation that produces changes even if the Hamiltonian does not do so in the standard picture.
- The black hole information paradox arises from an apparent conflict between Hawking’s black hole radiation and the fact that time evolution in quantum mechanics is unitary. The problem is that while the former suggests that information of a system falling into a black hole disappears (because, independently of the initial state, the final one will be thermal as a result of the Hawking evaporation), the latter implies that information must be conserved (because such evolution can be encoded in a unitary matrix which is necessarily invertible). There is, in fact, an ongoing, prominent debate regarding this paradox (there is not even agreement on whether the situation truly represents a paradox). The disagreements involve, among others issues, different positions regarding the singularity inside the black hole (whether it can be seen as destroying, or even encoding, the missing information) or whether quantum gravity will resolve the singularity and its effect on the missing information. It is evident, however, that the issue crucially depends on taking quantum theory to be fully information preserving. Therefore, if the fundamental quantum theory is taken to involve a degree of information destruction/creation (as objective collapse models do) the conflict, at least in principle, disappears. The critical issue, of course, is whether it is possible to solve the problem not only qualitatively but also quantitatively. We have proposed that this is indeed achievable by making the degree of departure from the Schrödinger equation dependent on the local value of the Weyl curvature (a choice that, moreover, seems to connect nicely with Penrose’s famous “Weyl curvature hypothesis”). Therefore, by adopting an objective collapse model with these characteristics, the paradox seems to simply evaporate.
Inspired by the last point, in [@Oko.Sud:14] we have also put forward a speculative idea connecting the spontaneous collapse events of objective collapse theories with black holes. Perhaps, we thought, the lack of unitarity of such theories is simply a reflection of the effects of virtual black holes that are created and destroyed in association with quantum fluctuations of the space-time metric. Maybe, then, ordinary quantum theory is what remains from the fundamentally time-irreversible and information destroying quantum world in situations where the effects of virtual black holes can be ignored. Our proposal seems to match well with the old idea that the laws of black hole mechanics imply a deep connection between quantum theory, relativity and thermodynamics, as well with early discussions by Penrose, Hawking and others in this general direction (see e.g., [@Pen; @Haw]). Needless to say, much work is required before this scenario could be regarded as an acceptable description of nature.
Crull’s analysis of our work
----------------------------
Finally we will examine what Crull has to say regarding the application of objective collapse models to the three problems mentioned above and, as she says, what decoherence reveals in each of those situations. Of course, much of her analysis depends on the false premise that decoherence solves the measurement problem, but that is not the end of her confusion. Below we will expose the many limitations in her evaluation of our work. We will start with the issue of the seeds of cosmic structure.
### The seeds of cosmic structure
To start the discussion regarding the seeds of cosmic structure, Crull does little else than repeating the standard story of how quantum fluctuations are enough to solve the problem:
> \[I\]n a fundamentally quantum universe there is no true vacuum, as even fields in vacuum states undergo quantum fluctuations. It turns out that these fluctuations, when applied to the inflaton field, are sufficient to give rise to the variety of structure now observable; hence, quantum fluctuations are the seeds of cosmic structure. [@Crull p. 1038]
The first line is enough to recognize her profound confusion. The vacuum state in standard quantum settings, such as a quantum field on a stationary spacetime (i.e., one with a global time-like Killing filed) is a technical notion *defined* to be the state with the lowest possible energy. In non-stationary situations, such as an expanding universe, there is no well-defined notion of energy, and one has to face the fact that there are multiple constructions of the quantum field theory, leading to various possible vacuum states.[^8] In the cosmological scenario under consideration, the adequate state to choose is the so-called Bunch-Davies vacuum, which is the state that, in the asymptotic past, when the expansion rate was negligible, corresponded to the Minkowski vacuum.[^9] So, technically speaking, in an inflationary quantum universe, the vacuum state is a well-defined state, which is in fact the state used in computing, within the standard approach, the so-called power spectrum. The fact we highlight in [@Oko.Sud:14] is that such state is homogeneous and isotropic. Then, why is it, according to Crull, that in a fundamentally quantum universe there is no true vacuum? She does not seem to be referring to the issue of non-stationarity, but to the quantum aspects of the treatment.
The second part of her statement clarifies it for us. She argues that there is no true vacuum because “the state undergoes quantum fluctuations.” But this is not a tenable position because it implies, for example, that in the case of a simple harmonic oscillator there is no ground state because such state involves fluctuations in position and momentum. In fact, these so-called fluctuations are nothing else but the quantum uncertainties in the position and momentum operators evaluated on the ground state. This type of confusions are tied to an imprecise and often colloquial use of the word fluctuation. The truth is that the notion of a quantum fluctuation is often employed in conjunction of vague ideas associated with the developmental stages of quantum theory and is often used to hide poorly understood conceptual issues in modern quantum theory. For example, the vacuum state in a standard QFT is often said to undergo quantum fluctuations (see the last quote) and some even imagine these fluctuations as occurring in time or as statistical fluctuations in some ill defined ensemble. However, it is clear that the ground state of, say, a harmonic oscillator, even if it has fluctuations (i.e., uncertainties) in momentum and position, being an energy eigenstate, does not evolve in time. So which one is it, does it fluctuate in the usual meaning, as something changing rapidly and stochastically with time, or not? Of course it does not. So one has to take with a grain of salt any explanation given in terms of quantum fluctuations.
By looking at the often muddled discussions about these issues in some detail, one sees that the word “fluctuation” is frequently inadvertently used with different meanings, leading to confusion. In particular, in search for clarity, one must be careful not to confuse quantum uncertainties with statistical fluctuations. That is, we should distinguish between the variance of a certain quantity in an ensemble of systems and the quantum uncertainty of the corresponding quantity in the quantum state describing a single system. When Crull says “these fluctuations, when applied to the inflaton field, are sufficient to give rise to the variety of structure now observable; hence, quantum fluctuations are the seeds of cosmic structure” she is clearly failing to see the difference. Crull only rehearses the standard account of how *quantum fluctuations* are supposed to give rise to the seeds of cosmic structure. However, she just repeats these words without explaining how the process is supposed to work. That is, she does not, nor anybody else for that matter, give a precise account of how, with or without “quantum fluctuations” (which, as we have said, should be better referred to as “quantum uncertainties”), the symmetry of the initial state could be broken.
At any rate, the key argument against the standard explanation for the emergence of seeds of cosmic structure, particularly in the context considered by Crull in which *closed* quantum systems *always* evolve according to the Schrödinger equation, is the following:
i)
: The initial state for the whole universe is totally homogeneous and isotropic.
ii)
: The time evolution of such state, given that the universe is a closed system, is always controlled by a purely unitary dynamics.
iii)
: Such unitary dynamics preserves the homogeneity and isotropy of the initial state.
iv)
: As a result, regardless of possible interactions between different parts of the system, the state of the whole universe, at any time, is necessarily homogeneous and isotropic.
Therefore, regardless of the image that the words “quantum fluctuations” can bring to one’s mind, and in spite of the fact that different parts of the system may interact and get correlated, the standard story (even including decoherence) is incapable of explaining the emergence of structure out of the initially homogeneous and isotropic state. That is, no matter how complicated the internal dynamics may be, the basic assumptions of the standard story guarantee that the state will always be symmetric.[^10]
Regarding this extremely simple argument, Crull writes:
> What is wrong with this conclusion is that it fails to account for inevitable non-local quantum interactions when assuming that the initially symmetric state describes a closed system. Even were the system to begin in a pure state, it would not remain so for long; along comes decoherence, and things are not what they seem. [@Crull p. 1039]
First, note her strange use of the notion of “non-local quantum interactions.” All interactions in standard cosmology are of course local. Presumably what Crull has in mind are non-local *correlations* within the state but such correlations, as we explained above, have nothing to do with the breakdown of the symmetry. It seems, however, that she realizes that the complicated interactions by themselves cannot account for the breakdown of the symmetry thus she seeks help in decoherence. The idea seems to be that somehow, due to decoherence, an initially pure state for the universe as a whole will soon stop being so. Clearly this is absurd. Even if decoherence explains why states of subsystems lose purity, this would not apply to the state of the universe as a whole because there is nothing external to the universe, which could interact and get entangled with it.
Regardless, Crull then argues that “quantum dynamics alone explains that such symmetries are not in fact destroyed but only become hidden” and she points out that “\[t\]he only measurement required to explain evolution from symmetry to apparent asymmetry is a (likely arbitrary) interaction with some external degree(s) of freedom” [@Crull p. 1039]. We wonder what are supposed to be these degrees of freedom which are supposed to be external to the universe as a whole. Probably what Crull has in mind is not external degrees of freedom but internal ones that are *ignored* because we are not interested on them or even because we lack the ability to keep track of them (either due to technical limitations or even for some stronger reasons, e.g., the degrees of freedom might lie beyond our cosmological horizon). However, such position is untenable; let us see why.
According to standard inflationary cosmology, the quantum fluctuations of the inflaton field, which break the symmetries of homogeneity and isotropy of the vacuum state, are the starting point of the evolution of structures of the universe. That is, after such breakdown, the regions that turn out to have slightly larger densities than average, due to the attractive nature of the gravitational interaction, are supposed to become those region where matter accretes, leading eventually to the formation of galaxies, stars, planets, and eventually, in at least one of those, to the emergence of life. Life, of course, then is supposed to evolve according to the basic scheme proposed by Darwin and eventually, in one of the continents of that planet, a particular lineage of apes, takes an evolutionary path that leads to the development of relatively large brains and to what we call intelligence. These creatures then create civilizations and eventually invent science and discover quantum physics. Later, in contemplating their study of the universe, they, or at least some of them, decide to *ignore* (which, as far as we know, is an essentially human action) certain degrees of freedom, or perhaps they simply find that they are not able to keep tack of them. By doing so, they obtain a decohered density matrix for the other degrees of freedom. This decoherence, we are told, is then supposed to be essential for an account of the breakdown of the symmetry that leads to all that preceded it.
Clearly all this is very strange, to say the least. A human act is supposed to be, at least in part, the cause for the breakdown of the symmetry that leads to the emergence of galaxies, planets and, eventually, humans. That is, we are confronted with a clear case of closed causal explanation, for which the word circularity might be redundant but for which the word coherence certainly is inapplicable. It should be clear in any event that what humans decide or not to ignore cannot be part of a fundamental description of the world.
Crull then goes on to describe the work of Kiefer et al. (see e.g., [@Kie]), where various other arguments are brought into play. This we can see as an implicit acknowledgment that what was offered before did not provide a sufficiently good argument. The point is, however, that a collection, no matter how large, of bad arguments, does not make up for a good one.
One of these additional arguments relies on squeezing, which arises as a feature of the evolution of some simple modification of a quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator. Such modification can be a simple as making the mass dependent on time. The point is that if the system was prepared in the ground state of the Hamiltonian at say, $ t=0$, then at all latter times the system would be in an excited state in which the uncertainties of the original canonical variables are much larger. The interesting aspect of all this is that there exist other canonical variables where the uncertainties will be again minimal. In any event, the problem is that such modified evolution does not break the initial symmetry and thus the state, squeezed or not, remains homogeneous and isotropic. In order to move forward, Kiefer et. al. rely on an unjustified interpretation of quantum theory. They claim that, because certain uncertainties are too large, one can consider the squeezed states as classical. This is not just contrary to the view taken by experimentalists working in quantum optics, who view these states as extremely quantum mechanical, but also clearly unwarranted. Moreover, the fact that the uncertainties are small when using a different set of variables, clearly renders the position inconsistent.
A related argument, also put forward by Kiefer et. al., claims that, as a result of the squeezing, certain degrees of freedom become unobservably small and thus should be traced over. At such point the decoherence story is supposed to take over. However, it is clear that this would brings us back to a situation in which we explain our own existence in terms, at least in part, of our own limitations (for an in-depth discussion of the analysis presented by Keifer et. al. see [@Shortcommings]).
Finally, to put another nail in the coffin of these claims, we note that, in situations involving symmetries, such as the cosmological under discussion, the decoherence program is incapable of providing a preferential basis (i.e., the basis where the decohered matrix is diagonal). The issue can be seen in the EPR-B example presented in section \[ex\], where tracing over the spin degrees of freedom of one of the particles leads to a reduced density matrix for the other that is not only diagonal, but proportional to the identity. Therefore, it is diagonal in any orthogonal basis. That this situation would arise in the cosmological setting, follows from the following theorem first presented in [@Castagnino]:
**Theorem:** Consider a quantum system made of a subsystem $S$ and an environment $E$, with corresponding Hilbert spaces $H_{S}$ and $H_{E}$ so that the complete system is described by states in the product Hilbert space $H_{S}\otimes H_{E}$. Let $G$ be a symmetry group acting on the Hilbert space of the full system in a way that does not mix the system and environment. That is, the unitary representation $O$ of $G$ on $H_{S}\otimes H_{E}$ is such that $\forall g \in G$, $\hat O(g) = \hat O^{S}(g)\otimes\hat O^{E}(g)$, where $\hat O^{S}(g)$ and $\hat O^{E}(g)$ act on $H_{S}$ and $H_{E}$ respectively. Let the system be characterized by a density matrix $\hat\rho$ which is invariant under $G$. Then the reduced density matrix of the subsystem is a multiple of the identity in each invariant subspace of $H_{S}$.
Regarding the inflationary cosmology setting, this theorem indicates that, when offering an argument involving decoherence, even if one ignores all other shortcomings, when the selection of the degrees of freedom that will play the role of environment are made with any kind of objective criteria, (such as the argument that the modes of the scalar fields that as a result of inflation have a decreasing amplitude, and should thus be considered unobservable), the resulting reduced density matrix will not offer a unique selection of the preferred basis. This is simply because such matrix will be proportional to the identity in very large subspaces of the full Hilbert space of the theory.
### The problem of time in quantum gravity
Regarding the problem of time in quantum gravity, Crull says the following:
> The diffeomorphism invariance of general relativity, when carried into a quantized theory, results in a quantum state that cannot differentiate between space-times – i.e., the quantum description fails to pick out a unique hyper-surface corresponding to our physical universe. [@Crull p. 1041]
It is hard to decide what to make of the above explanations. For starters, it mixes up the comparison of different space-times with the comparison of different hyper-surfaces in one space-time. The actual problem is that, in theories involving gauge symmetries (i.e., symmetries that are associated with multiple representations of the same physical situation), the wave function must assign the same value to each representation. This is the basic conceptual foundation of Dirac’s quantization procedure for such systems. The problem is that in theories respecting general diffeomorphism invariance, such as general relativity, the data on any Cauchy hyper-surface is equivalent to the data on any other one corresponding to the same space-time. Thus, the wave function cannot depend on the choice of hyper-surface, and this leads to time disappearing from the theory.
At any rate, commenting on our proposal, Crull states:
> \[Okon and Sudarsky\]’s proposal to resolve the problem of time by simply introducing nonunitary terms is motivated by the false impression that the dynamics of the system under consideration is properly unitary – and we know this is hardly ever true. [@Crull p. 1041]
and then:
> \[C\]anonical approaches to quantum gravity have largely only considered “pure”, matterless gravity fields, taking for granted the pedestrian fact that any system short of the universe \[at\] large is in truth interacting and hence not evolving strictly in accordance with Schrödinger’s equation. [@Crull p. 1042]
Apparently, Crull believes that when a system is interacting, it does not evolve in accordance with Schrödinger’s equation. Perhaps what she is considering is the effective dynamics for just part of the quantum system. The confusion can be seen as arising from the belief that decoherence brings about a *fundamental* breakdown of unitarity, in contrast with the simple, but rather unhelpful, fact that the *effective* dynamics for a part of the system might not be unitary. This of course does not help in the context of interest because, at the fundamental level, one does not want to leave anything outside the quantum mechanical treatment since the system in question is the whole universe. In fact, as bringing gravity under the quantum umbrella would close the program of providing a quantum treatment of every fundamental degree of freedom in nature, deciding to leave something outside would be, in principle, unwarranted. Moreover, it is hard to consider situations where gravity is treated quantum mechanically and other fields are not.
In sum, while decoherence might explain why *subsystems* may effectively undergo non-unitary evolution, it could never imply that closed systems, such as the universe as a whole, would ever deviate from unitary evolution. We conclude that decoherence by itself is unable to help with the problem of time in quantum gravity.
### The black hole information loss paradox
Regarding the information loss paradox, Crull starts the discussion by acknowledging that the non-unitary behavior of the objective collapse models does resolve the issue. However, she argues that the problem can also be solved without having to assume non-unitary behavior at the fundamental level. In this respect, she states the following:
> \[O\]ne need not forsake unitary evolution, only the assumption of unitary evolution for systems partaking in Hawking radiation. This is the tactic described in \[[@Gam1] and [@Gam2] by Gambini et al.\]: the physical clocks picked out by decoherence are used to calculate the rate of information loss in black hole evaporation. [@Crull p. 1042]
Therefore, we are led again to consider a scheme where the underlying evolution is the standard unitary one, provided by the Schrödinger equation. However, it is argued that this refers only to a fundamental underlying time to which we have no access. Instead, we are directed to regard the evolution as described by an empirically accessible time, associated with a physical clock, the march of which, in terms of the fundamental time, is again ruled by its own Hamiltonian. The point made in [@Gam1] and [@Gam2] is that, when considering the evolution of the rest of the system, relative to the time measured by the physical clock, one does not recover an exact unitary evolution. This is then consider as a possible explanation for the apparent breakdown of unitarity in the complete evaporation of black holes.
Does this provide a satisfactory resolution of the paradox? At first sight it might seem that it does. However, a moment’s consideration reveals the deep flaw in the argument. Remember that, in terms of the fundamental time, the evolution would still be fully unitary. Therefore, what has been achieved, is to deviate attention from the truly fundamental question: where does the fundamental information reside, if in terms of the fundamental time the black hole eventually evaporates (even if the fundamental time for this is different from that indicated by the physical clock)? Instead, we have been led to consider a very different question regarding the description of things in terms of the physical clock.
As explained in detail in [@The-montevideans], the so-called “Montevideo Interpretation” described in [@Gam1] and [@Gam2], in which the measurement problem is to be solved by relying on the decoherence brought about by the intrinsic limitations of physical clocks, should be considered in a sort of Everettian scheme, in which the full information is invariably present in the complete state of the quantum system. The point is that when considering the situation at a time well after the evaporation of the black hole, and independently of how precisely such time might be specified by real physical clocks, one cannot see, in any such proposal, where the information is supposed to be preserved, i.e., what are the degrees of freedom where such information would be encoded.
In other words, the puzzle, when formulated in terms of the fundamental physical laws, is still present, and it only seems to disappear when we look at things in a less precise way. This seems to be in fact the general strategy of some advocates of the decoherence program when used to address the conceptual difficulties of quantum theory: to replace a deep real problem by a secondary one and to convince us not only that the latter is solved, but that doing so is equivalent to solving the former. No wonder that we feel like spectators in a magic show. The problem is that the tactic used by the advocates of such an approach is not very different than the one used by the magician.
Conclusions {#Con}
===========
Attempts to use decoherence by itself to resolve foundational questions in quantum theory, such as the measurement problem, suffer from the same basic shortcoming confronted by those who wish to, as they say, “have their cake and eat it too”. These attempts try to avoid modifications of quantum theory, but at the same time, want to obtain the benefits that such modifications can bring. In practice, people that adopt this attitude often end up adapting their interpretation of the theory in a case by case manner. Then, they try to justify such moves using arguments that rely on a combination of classical intuition and quantum mechanical elements, borrowed freely from either the old or the modern versions, without any concern for the fact that some of those arguments rest on assuming the very aspect they want to address.
On the other hand, even some of the strongest advocates of the decoherence program acknowledge that decoherence by itself is hardly enough to solve foundational problems and realize the need to rely on some extra input (see, e.g., [@Zura]). As a result, some are driven to look for the missing aspects by complementing decoherence with interpretational elements from, e.g., Many Worlds [@Wal] or the Consistent Histories formalism [@CH1; @CH2]. However, we do not believe that these approaches can at present be considered satisfactory. Regarding the Consistent Histories approach, we point the interested reader to the critical works [@aCH1; @aCH2; @aCH3]. As for the Many Worlds Interpretation, we can point to section 4 of [@MW]. At any rate, what is clear is that, without a clear interpretational framework, one is at a loss not only regarding the exceptional situations we have dealt with here in some detail, but also with respect to standard applications of the theory.
We find rather puzzling the relatively widespread willingness to accept analyses of foundational issues in quantum mechanics, which seem to work when advanced with an imprecise language, but that clearly fail dramatically when carried out in a rigorous and detailed manner. One cannot help but recall the impetus behind efforts to design perpetual motion machines, using complex contraptions of wheels, pulleys and levers, in the unexplainable and stubborn hope of somehow bypassing the second law of thermodynamics.
Perhaps, just as the desire to avoid confronting the inevitability of death predisposes people to accept rather fantastic stories, which they would not even consider in a different context, the desperate desire to avoid confronting the difficulties of quantum theory allows people to be deceived or even to deceive themselves. This is certainly understandable as a human psychological trait, but as far as the goal to achieve a deeper and better understanding of nature is concerned, it certainly is an impediment. On the contrary, what can be of help is a disciplined and unflinching commitment to maintain coherence in our theoretical and philosophical analyses. Carefully assessing the extent to which a proposal might work is the only path to advancement in a field where there are not too many empirical clues. It is far more productive to consider in detail clear ideas that might be wrong, that to entertain unclear and vague arguments in ways that might even be self-contradictory. As noted by Sir Francis Bacon when considering the scientific enterprise in general: “Truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion.”
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge partial financial support from DGAPA-UNAM project IG100316.
[10]{}
E. M. Crull, “Less Interpretation and More Decoherence in Quantum Gravity and Inflationary Cosmology,” Found. Phys. (2015) 45:1019-1045.
E. Okon and D. Sudarsky, “Benefits of Objective Collapse Models for Cosmology and Quantum Gravity,” Found. Phys. (2014) 44:114-143.
J. S. Bell, Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Cambridge University Press, 2nd. edition (2004).
S. Goldstein, “Bohmian Mechanics,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
G. C. Ghirardi, “Collapse Theories,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2011 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.).
M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence and the Quantum-to-Classical Transition, Springer (2008).
W. H. Zurek, “Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical – Revisited,” Updated version, available at arXiv:quant-ph/0306072, of W. H. Zurek, “Decoherence and the transition from quantum to classical,” Physics Today (1991) 44 (10), 36[44]{}.
P.A.M. Dirac, The Principles of Quantum Mechanics, Oxford University Press, Oxford (1930).
J. von Newmann, Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik, Springer, Berlin (1932).
A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?,” Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935).
B. d’Espagnat, Conceptual Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Addison Wesley, 2nd. edition (1976).
A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, “Experimental Tests of Realistic Local Theories via Bell’s Theorem,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **47**, 460 (1981).
A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, “Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **49**, 91 (1982).
A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, “Experimental Realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell’s Inequalities,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **49**, 1804 (1982).
J. S. Bell, “On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox.” Physics 1 (3): 195–200 (1964).
P. Pearle, “Combining stochastic dynamical state-vector reduction with spontaneous localization,” Phys. Rev. A **39** 2277–2289 (1989).
G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini and T. Weber, “Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems,” Phys. Rev. D **34** 470-491 (1986).
R. Tumulka, “A Relativistic Version of the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber Model,” Journal of Statistical Physics **125** 821-840 (2006).
D. Bedingham, “Relativistic State Reduction Model,” J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. **306** 1-7 (2011).
J. B. Hartle, “Generalizing quantum mechanics for quantum gravity,” Int.J.Theor.Phys., 45, 1390-1396 (2006).
A. Perez, H . Sahlmman, & D. Sudarsky, “On the Quantum Mechanical Origin of the Seeds of Cosmic Structure,” [*Classical and Quantum Gravity*]{} [**23**]{} 2317, (2006): arXiv: gr-qc/0508100.
S. J. Landau, C. G. Scoccola and D Sudarsky, “Cosmological constraints on nonstandard inflationary quantum collapse models,” Physics Review D [**85**]{}, 123001, (2012); arXiv:1112.1830 \[astro-ph.CO\].
P. Cañate, P. Pearl and D. Sudarsky, “‘CSL Quantum Origin of the Primordial Fluctuation.’’ Physics Review D [**87**]{}, 104024 (2013); arXiv:1211.3463\[gr-qc\].
G. León García, S. J. Landau and D Sudarsky, “Quantum Origin of the Primordial Fluctuation Spectrum and its Statistics,” Physics Review D [**88**]{} 023526 (2013); arXiv:1107.3054 \[astro-ph.CO\].
R. Penrose, The Road to Reality. Knopf, 2004.
S. Hawking, “Quantum black holes,” in The Nature of Space and Time (S. Hawking and R. Penrose, eds.), pp. 37–60, Princeton University Press, 2000.
R. M. Wald, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime and Black Hole Thermodynamics (Chicago Lectures in Physics). University of Chicago Press, (1994).
C. Kiefer and D. Polarski, “Why do cosmological perturbations look classical to us?,” Adv. Sci. Lett. 2(2), 164–173 (2009).
D. Sudarsky, “Shortcomings in the Understanding of Why Cosmological Perturbations Look Classical", Daniel Sudarsky,” [*International Journal of Modern Physics D*]{} [**20**]{}, 509, (2011); arXiv:0906.0315 \[gr-qc\].
M. Castagnino, S. Fortin, R. Laura & D. Sudarsky, “ Interpretations of Quantum Theory in the Light of Modern Cosmology,” arXiv:1412.7576 \[gr-qc\].
R. Gambini, R. A. Porto, and J. Pullin, “Realistic clocks, universal decoherence and the black hole information paradox,” Phys. Rev. Lett. **93**, 240401 (2004).
R. Gambini, R. A. Porto, and J. Pullin, “A relational solution to the problem of time in quantum mechanics and quantum gravity: a fundamental mechanism for quantum decoherence,” New J. Phys. 6, 45 (2004).
J. Butterfield “Assessing the Montevideo interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,” [*Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics*]{}, [**52**]{} 75 (2015).
W. H. Zurek, “Decoherence, Einselection, and the Quantum Origins of the Classical,” arXiv: quant-ph/0105127.
D. Wallace, The Emergent Multiverse. Oxford University Press (2012).
M. Gell-Mann and J. Hartle, in Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information, Addison Wesley (1990).
M. Gell-Mann and J. Hartle, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993).
F. Dowker and A. Kent, “On the consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics,” J. Statist.Phys., vol. 82 (1996).
E. Okon and D. Sudarsky, “On the consistency of the consistent histories approach to quantum mechanics,” Found. Phys., vol. 44, pp. 19–33 (2014).
E. Okon and D. Sudarsky, “The Consistent Histories Formalism and the Measurement Problem,” Stud. Hist. Phil. Mod. Phys. 52 (2015) 217–222.
S. Saunders et al. (eds.), Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality, Oxford University Press (2010).
[^1]: Probably she meant to say “coupling” instead of “commuting”.
[^2]: In section 2.1 of [@Crull] Crull briefly discusses the role measurements play in quantum mechanics, but by doing so she only contributes to a long tradition of fallacious statements regarding the issue. To start off, she claims that entanglement arises even in the absence of interaction, which is simply wrong. Then she tries to define a measurement entity as something capable of gaining information about some system, such that the information can later be gathered. Such definition is, of course, so vague that it is practically useless. Moreover, it is circular because in order to gather such information at a later time one, presumably, needs to somehow measure it!
[^3]: For any operator $A$, its trace is defined by $Tr(A)=\sum_i \langle\phi_i|A|\phi_i\rangle$ with $\{\phi_i\}$ any basis of the Hilbert space in question.
[^4]: In [@Crull], the basis problem is associated with the following question: “Given the statistical improbability of always observing bases that are classical, why should such preferences for them appear in nature?” We find the decision to state the problem in terms of a statistical improbability quite curious since one does not expect the observed basis to be chosen at random.
[^5]: Given that the particular interpretation we consider in [@Oko.Sud:14] is fundamentally indeterministic, we find it odd for Crull to claim that the urgency to consider a specific interpretation most often arises from a hesitation to accept that the world is indeterministic.
[^6]: Apparently, Crull finds our brief review of basic features of objective collapse models in [@Oko.Sud:14], which she takes to be a definition of such models, unsatisfactory: “one might argue that the way in which \[Okon and Sudarsky\] define objective collapse theories introduces as many black boxes as it purports to explain”. It is unclear what is it that she finds in need of further explanation. Evidently, if one is looking for a completely viable collapse model compatible with relativistic quantum field theory, one will not find it in our work, nor elsewhere, since such a theory is still very much under construction. Therefore, one should not compare it directly with finished proposals, such as “decoherence” or the “Consistent Histories” approach. That is, one cannot compare directly programs under development, such as quantum gravity proposals, with well established theories such as general relativity, and demand the former to be as precisely formulated at this stage as is the latter. On the other hand, one must recognize the potential of the former to deal with evident shortcomings of the latter (i.e., the incompatibility of GR with quantum theory). At any rate, the literature on objective collapse models is of course large and of excellent quality (see e.g., [@GRW] and references therein).
[^7]: It is worth mentioning that J. Hartle long ago noted the serious difficulties faced in attempting to apply quantum theory to cosmology, [@Hartle2005ie]. This lead him and his collaborators to conclude that some modified version of quantum theory was required. They turned to the Consistent Histories framework, about which we will say more later.
[^8]: Things get further complicated by the fact that these constructions turn out to be inequivalent. However, a careful analysis using the algebraic approach shows that these problems can be readily overcome [@Wald-QFTin; @CS].
[^9]: Strictly speaking, if the expansion of the universe is not exactly exponential, and the space-time is therefore not truly described by the de Sitter line element, the state is not the Bunch-Davies vacuum. However, the important point for our purposes is that in such scenario the vacuum is still homogeneous and isotropic.
[^10]: The simplicity of the structure of the previous argument can be illustrated with the following straightforward example: Suppose that we have a classical system, as complicated as you like, but such that, at $t=0$, its total energy is zero. Suppose, moreover, that the Hamiltonian of the system is time-translation invariant. As a result, the total energy of the system, at any other time, and independently of the details of the evolution, will also be zero. The same is true of the symmetry of the Bunch-Davies state under standard evolution.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'B. Y. Chen established sharp inequalities between certain Riemannian invariants and the squared mean curvature for submanifolds in real space form as well as in complex space form. In this paper we generalize Chen inequalities for submanifolds of Bochner Kaehler manifolds. Moreover, we consider CR-warped product submanifolds of Bochner Kaehler manifold and establish an inequality for scalar curvature.'
address:
- 'Department of Mathematics, Central University of Jammu, Jammu-180011, India.'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Al-Falah University, Haryana-121004, India.'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi-110 025, India.'
author:
- Mehraj Ahmad Lone
- Mohammed Jamali
- Mohammad Hasan Shahid
title: On some inequalities for submanifolds of Bochner Kaehler manifolds
---
`B`ochner Kaehler manifold, CR-warped product, slant submanifolds, Einstein manifold, Chen inequality.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification: 53C15, 53C25, 53C40.
Introduction
============
In [@biha4], B. Y. Chen established sharp inequality for a submanifold in a real space form involving intrinsic invariants of the submanifolds and squared mean curvature, the main extrinsic invariant and in [@biha2], B. Y. Chen obtained the same inequality for complex space form. After that many research articles [@biha5; @biha6; @biha1] have been published by different authors for different submanifolds and ambient spaces in complex as well as in contact version. In this article we obtain these inequalities for submanifolds in Bochner Kaehler manifold.
In [@bishopwrap] Bishop and O’Neil initiated the thoery of warped product submanifold as a generalization of pseudo-Riemannian product manifold. In [@chen; @warp] Chen introduced the notion of CR-warped products. In This paper we study the CR-warped product submanifolds of Bochner Kaehler manifolds.
Preliminaries
=============
Let $\mathcal{W}$ be a $n$-dimensional submanifold of a Bochner Kaehler manifold $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ of dimension $2m$. Let $\nabla$ and $\overline{\nabla}$ be the Levi-Civita connection on $\mathcal{W}$ and $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ respectively. Let $J$ be the complex structure on $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$. Then the Gauss and Weingarten formulas are given respectively by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a1}
\overline{\nabla}_{X}Y = \nabla_{X}Y + \omega(X,Y),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a2}
\overline{\nabla}_{X}V = - B_{V}X + \nabla_{X}^{\perp}Y ,\end{aligned}$$ for all $X, Y$ tangent to $\mathcal{W}$ and vector field $V$ normal to $\mathcal{W}$. Where $\omega$, $\nabla_{X}^{\perp}$, $B_{V}$ denotes the second fundamental form, normal connection and the shape operator respectively. The second fundamental form and the shape operator are related by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a3}
g(\omega(X,Y), V) = g(B_{V}X, Y).\end{aligned}$$ Let $R$ be the curvature tensor of $\mathcal{W}$, Then the Gauss equation is given by [@biha4] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a4}
\overline{R}(X,Y,Z,W) = R(X,Y,Z,W) + g(\omega(X,W),\omega(Y,Z)) - g(\omega(X,Z),\omega(Y,W))\end{aligned}$$ for any vector fields $X$, $Y$, $Z$, $W$ tangent to $\mathcal{W}$.
The curvature tensor of a Bochner Kaehler manifold $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ is given by [@biha7] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a5}
\overline{R}(X,Y,Z,W)\nonumber &=& L(Y,Z)g(X,W) - L(X,Z)g(Y,W) + L(X,W)g(Y,Z) \\ \nonumber && - L(Y,W)g(X,Z) + M(X,W)g(JX,W) - M(X,Z)g(JY,W)\\ \nonumber && + M(X,W)g(JY,Z) - M(Y,W)g(JX,Z) \\ && - 2M(X,Y)g(JZ,W) - 2M(Z,W)g(JX,Y)\end{aligned}$$
where $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a6}
L(Y,Z) = \frac{1}{2n+4}Ric(Y,Z) - \frac{\rho}{2(2n+2)(2n+4)}g(Y,Z),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a7}
M(Y,Z) = -L(Y,JZ),\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a8}
L(Y,Z) = L(Z,Y),\hspace{1cm} L(Y,Z) = L(JY, JZ), \hspace{1cm} L(Y, JZ) = -L(JY,Z),\end{aligned}$$ $Ric$ and $\rho$ are the Ricci tensor and scalar curvature of $\mathcal{W}$.
Let $x\in \mathcal{W}$ and $\{e_{1}, ... , e_{n}\}$ be an orthonormal basis of the tangent space $T_{x}\mathcal{W}$ and $\{e_{n+1}, ... , e_{2m}\}$ be the orthonormal basis of $T^{\perp}\mathcal{W}$. We denote by $\mathcal{H}$, the mean curvature vector at $x$, that is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a9}
\mathcal{H}(x) = \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\omega(e_{i},e_{i}),\end{aligned}$$ Also, we set $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a10}
\omega_{ij}^{r} = g(\omega(e_{i},e_{j}),e_{r}), \hspace{1cm} i,j \in \{ 1, ... , n\},\hspace{.3cm} r \in \{n+1, ... ,2m\}\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a11}
\|\omega\|^{2} = \sum_{i,j=1}^{n}(\omega(e_{i},e_{j}), \omega(e_{i},e_{j})).\end{aligned}$$ For any $x \in \mathcal{W}$ and $X \in T_{x}\mathcal{W}$, we put $JX = TX + FX$, where $TX$ and $FX$ are the tangential and normal components of $JX$, respectively.
We denote by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a12}
\|T\|^{2} = \sum_{i,j=1}^{n}g^{2}(Te_{i}, e_{j}).\end{aligned}$$ Let $\mathcal{W}$ be a Riemannian manifold. Denote by $\mathcal{K}(\pi)$ the sectional curvature of $\mathcal{W}$ of the plane section $\pi \subset T_{x}\mathcal{W}, x\in \mathcal{W}$. The scalar curvature $\rho$ for an orthonormal basis$ \{e_{1}, e_{2}, ..., e_{n}\}$ of the tangent space $T_{x}\mathcal{W}$ at $x$ is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{a121}
\rho(x) = \sum_{i<j} K(e_{i}\wedge e_{j}).\end{aligned}$$
[@biha4] Let $n \geq 2$ and $x_{1}, x_{2}, ... ,x_{n}$, b be real numbers such that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{l3}
( \sum_{i=1}^{n} x_{i} )^{2} = (n-1)( \sum_{i=1}^{n} x_{i}^{2} + b)\end{aligned}$$ then $2x_{1}x_{2} \geq b$, with equality holds if and only if $$x_{1} + x_{2} = x_{3} = ... = x_{n}.$$
In [@biha11] A. Bejancu introduced the notion of CR-submanifolds, which is the generalization of invariant and anti-invariant submanifolds. In [@biha3] B. Y. Chen introduced the notion of slant submanifolds as a generalization of CR-submanifolds.
A submanifold $\mathcal{W}$ of a Bochner Kaehler manifold $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ is said to be a slant submanifold if for any $x \in \mathcal{W}$ and $X \in T_{x}\mathcal{W}$, the angle between $JX$ and $T_{x}\mathcal{W}$ is constant, i.e., the angle does not depend on the choice of $x \in \mathcal{W}$ and $X \in T_{x}\mathcal{W}$. The angle $\theta \in [0, \frac{\pi}{2}]$ is called the slant angle of $\mathcal{W}$ in $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$.
Invariant and anti-invariant submanifolds are the slant submanifolds with slant angle $\theta = 0$ and $\theta =\frac{\pi}{2}$ respectively and when $0< \theta < \frac{\pi}{2}$, then slant submanifold is called proper slant submanifold.
Let $(N_{1}, g_{1})$ and $(N_{2}, g_{2})$ be two Riemannian manifolds and f, a positive differentiable function on $N_{1}$. The warped product of $N_{1}$ and $N_{2}$ is the Riemannian manifold $M = N_{1} \times N_{2} = (N_{1} \times N_{2}, g)$, where $g = g_{1} + f^{2}g_{2}$
A Riemannian manifold $\mathcal{W}$ is said to be Einstein manifold if the Ricci tensor is proportional to the metric tensor, that is, $Ric(X,Y) = \lambda g(X,Y)$ for some constant $\lambda$.
B. Y. Chen inequalities
=======================
In this section, we obtain B. Y. Chen inequalities for submanifolds of a Bochner Kaehler manifolds.
First we have,
Let $\mathcal{W}$ be a submanifold of a Bochner Kaehler manifold $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$. Then, for each point $x \in \mathcal{W}$ and each plane section $\pi \subset T_{x}\mathcal{W}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{t1}
\nonumber \mathcal{K}(\pi) \geq \bigg(\frac{5n^{2}+31n+26+3\|T\|^{2}}{2(2n+2)(2n+4)}\bigg)\rho - \frac{n^{2}(n-2)}{2(n-1)}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2} - \frac{6}{2(2n+4)}Ric(e_{i},Je_{j})g(e_{i},Je_{j}).\\\end{aligned}$$ Equality holds if and only if there exists an orthonormal basis $\{e_{1} ,e_{2}, ... , e_{n}\}$ of $T_{x}\mathcal{W}$ and orthonormal basis $\{e_{n+1}, e_{n+2} , ... , e_{2m}\}$ of $T^{\perp}\mathcal{W}$ such that the shape operators takes the following forms
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{t2}
B_{n+1} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & \beta & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \xi &\cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & \xi
\end{pmatrix} , \alpha+\beta = \xi\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{t3}
B_{r} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\omega_{11}^{r} & \omega_{12}^{r} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\omega_{12}^{r} & - \omega_{11}^{r} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 &\cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0
\end{pmatrix} , r = n+2, ..., 2m.\end{aligned}$$
Using Gauss equation, the Riemannian curvature tensor of $\mathcal{W}$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p1}
\nonumber R(X,Y,Z,W) &=& L(Y,Z)g(X,W) - L(X,Z)g(Y,W) + L(X,W)g(Y,Z)
\nonumber \\ && - L(Y,W)g(X,Z) + M(Y,Z)g(JX,W) - M(X,Z)g(JY,W)
\nonumber \\ && - M(X,W)g(JY,Z) - M(Y,W)g(JX,Z) - 2M(X,Y)(JZ,W)
\nonumber \\ && - 2M(Z,W)g(JX,Y) + g(\omega(X,W), \omega(Y,Z)) - g(\omega(X,Z), \omega(Y,W))\end{aligned}$$ for any X, Y, Z, W $\in$ T$\mathcal{W}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p2}
\sum_{i,j} R(e_{i}, e_{j}, e_{j}, e_{i}) &=& L(e_{j},e_{j})g(e_{i},e_{i}) - L(e_{i},e_{j})g(e_{j},e_{i}) + L(e_{i},e_{i})g(e_{j},e_{j})
\nonumber \\ && - L(e_{j},e_{i})g(e_{i},e_{j}) + M(e_{j},e_{j})g(Je_{i},e_{i}) - M(e_{i},e_{j})g(Je_{j},e_{i})
\nonumber \\ && - M(e_{i},e_{i})g(Je_{j},e_{j}) - M(e_{j},e_{i})g(Je_{i},e_{j}) - 2M(e_{i},e_{j})(Je_{j},e_{i})
\nonumber \\ && - 2M(e_{j},e_{i})g(Je_{i},e_{j}) + g(\omega(e_{i},e_{i}), \omega(e_{j},e_{j})) - g(\omega(e_{i},e_{j}), \omega(e_{j},e_{i}))\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p3}
\hspace{3cm} &=& L(e_{j},e_{j})g(e_{i},e_{i}) - L(e_{i},e_{j})g(e_{j},e_{i}) + L(e_{i},e_{i})g(e_{j},e_{j})
\nonumber \\ && - L(e_{j},e_{i})g(e_{i},e_{j}) - L(e_{j},Je_{j})g(Je_{i},e_{i}) + L(e_{i},Je_{j})g(Je_{j},e_{i})
\nonumber \\ && + L(e_{i},Je_{i})g(Je_{j},e_{j}) + L(e_{j},Je_{i})g(Je_{i},e_{j}) + 2L(e_{i},Je_{j})(Je_{j},e_{i})
\nonumber \\ && + 2L(e_{j},Je_{i})g(Je_{i},e_{j}) + g(\omega(e_{i},e_{i}), \omega(e_{j},e_{j})) - g(\omega(e_{i},e_{j}), \omega(e_{j},e_{i})).\nonumber \\\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[a8\]), (\[a9\]) and (\[a11\]) in (\[p3\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p4}
\sum_{i,j} R(e_{i}, e_{j}, e_{j}, e_{i})&=& 2nL(e_{i}, e_{i}) - 2L(e_{i}, e_{j})g(e_{i}, e_{j}) + 6L(e_{i}, Je_{j})g(e_{i}, Je_{j})
\nonumber \\ && + n^{2}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2} - \|\omega\|^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Which simplifies to, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p5}
2\rho &=& 2(n-1)L(e_{i}, e_{i}) + 6L(e_{i}, Je_{j})g(e_{i}, Je_{j}) + n^{2}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2} - \|\omega\|^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[a6\]) and (\[p5\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p6}
\hspace{2cm}2\rho &=& \frac{2(n-1)}{2n+4}Ric(e_{i}, e_{i}) - \frac{2(n-1)\rho}{2(2n+2)(2n+4)}g(e_{i}, e_{i})
\nonumber \\ && + \frac{6}{2n+4} Ric(e_{i}, Je_{j})g(e_{i}, Je_{j}) - \frac{6 \rho}{2(2n+2)(2n+4)} g(e_{i}, Je_{j})g(e_{i}, Je_{j})
\nonumber \\ && + n^{2}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2} - \|\omega\|^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p9}
\hspace{2cm}2\rho &=& \frac{6n^{2} + 2n - 8 - 6\|T\|^{2}}{2(2n + 2)(2n + 4)}\rho + \frac{6}{2n+4} Ric(e_{i}, Je_{j})g(e_{i}, Je_{j})
\nonumber \\ && + n^{2}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2} - \|\omega\|^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p10}
(2 - \frac{6n^{2} + 2n - 8 - 6\|T\|^{2}}{2(2n + 2)(2n + 4)})\rho = \frac{6}{2n + 4}Ric(e_{i}, Je_{j})g(e_{i}, Je_{j}) + n^{2}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2} - \|\omega\|^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Denoting by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p11}
\epsilon = (2 - \frac{6n^{2} + 2n - 8 - 6\|T\|^{2}}{2(2n + 2)(2n + 4)})\rho - \frac{n^{2}(n - 2)}{n - 1}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2} - \frac{6}{2n + 4}Ric(e_{i}, Je_{j})g(e_{i}, Je_{j}),\end{aligned}$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p12}
\epsilon = n^{2}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2} - \|\omega\|^{2} - \frac{n^{2}(n - 2)}{n - 1}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p13}
n^{2}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2} = (n - 1)(\epsilon + \|\omega\|^{2}).\end{aligned}$$
For chosen orthonormal basis, the above equation takes the form
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{p14}
(\sum_{i=1}^{n}\omega_{ii}^{n+1})^{2} = (n-1)\left[\sum_{i=1}^{n}(\omega_{ii}^{n+1})^{2} + \sum_{i\ne j}(\omega_{ij}^{n+1})^{2} + \sum_{r=n+1}^{2m}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}(\omega_{ij})^{2} + \epsilon \right].\end{aligned}$$
Using lemma 1 in (\[p14\]), we have
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{p15}
2\omega_{11}^{n+1}\omega_{22}^{n+1} \geq \sum_{i\ne j}(\omega_{ij}^{n+1})^{2} + \sum_{r=n+1}^{2m}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}(\omega_{ij}^{r})^{2} + \epsilon.\end{aligned}$$
On the other hand, from Gauss equation we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{p16}
\mathcal{K}(\pi) = L(e_{2}, e_{2}) + L(e_{1},e_{1}) + g(\omega(e_{1}, e_{1}), \omega(e_{2},e_{2}) - g(\omega(e_{1},e_{2}), \omega(e_{2},e_{1})).\end{aligned}$$
Combing (\[a6\]) and (\[p16\]), we derive $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p17}
\mathcal{K}(\pi) = \frac{4n+3}{(2n+2)(2n+4)}\rho + \omega_{11}^{n+1}\omega_{22}^{n+1} + \sum_{r=n+2}^{2m}\omega_{11}^{r}\omega_{22}^{r} - \sum_{r=n+1}^{2m}(\omega_{12}^{r})^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Incorporating (\[p15\]) in (\[p17\]), we arrive at the inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p18}
\mathcal{K}(\pi) &\geq& \frac{1}{2}\sum_{i\ne j}(\omega_{ij}^{n+1})^{2} + \frac{1}{2}\sum_{r=n+1}^{2m}\sum_{i,j=1}^{n}(\omega_{ij}^{r})^{2} + \frac{1}{2}\epsilon \nonumber \\ && + \frac{4n+3}{(2n+2)(2n+4)}\rho + \sum_{r=n+2}^{2m}\omega_{11}^{r}\omega_{22}^{r} - \sum_{r=n+1}^{2m}(\omega_{12}^{r})^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ Which implies that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p19}
\mathcal{K}(\pi) \geq \frac{4n+3}{(2n+2)(2n+4)}\rho + \frac{1}{2}\epsilon.\end{aligned}$$ or
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{p20}
\nonumber \mathcal{K}(\pi) \geq (\frac{5n^{2}+31n+26+3\|T\|^{2}}{2(2n+2)(2n+4)})\rho - \frac{n^{2}(n-2)}{2(n-1)}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2} - \frac{6}{2(2n+4)}Ric(e_{i},Je_{j})g(e_{i},Je_{j}). \\\end{aligned}$$
If the equality in (\[t1\]) at a point $p$ holds, then the inequality (\[p20\]) become equality. In this case, we have
$\begin{cases}
\omega_{1j}^{n+1} = \omega_{2j}^{n+1} = \omega_{ij}^{n+1} = 0, \hspace{1cm} i \neq j >2,\\
\omega_{ij}^{r} = 0, \forall i \neq j,\hspace{.5cm}i,j = 3, ..., 2m, \hspace{.5cm}r= n+1, ..., 2m,\\
\omega_{11}^{r}+\omega_{22}^{r} = 0, \forall r=n+2, ..., 2m,\hspace{2cm}\\
\omega_{11}^{n+2}+\omega_{22}^{n+1} = ... = \omega_{11}^{m}+\omega_{22}^{m}=0.\\
\end{cases}$
Now, if we choose $e_{1},e_{2}$ such that $\omega_{12}^{n+1}$= 0 and we denote by $\alpha = \omega_{11}^{r}, \beta = \omega_{22}^{r}$, $\xi = \omega_{33}^{n+1} = ... = \omega_{33}^{r}$. Therefore by choosing the suitable orthonormal basis the shape operators take the desired forms.
We conclude the following corollary from this theorem.
Let $\mathcal{W}$ be a submanifold of a Bochner Kaehler manifold $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ which is Einstein. Then, for each point $x \in \mathcal{W}$ and each plane section $\pi \subset T_{x}\mathcal{W}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p21}
\mathcal{K}(\pi) \geq (\frac{5n^{2}+31n+26+3\|T\|^{2}}{2(2n+2)(2n+4)})\rho - \frac{n^{2}(n-2)}{2(n-1)}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2} - \frac{6\lambda}{2(2n+4)} \|T\|^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ The equality at a point $x \in \mathcal{W}$ holds iff there exists an orthonormal basis $\{e_{1},e_{2}, ..., e_{n}\}$ of $ T_{x}\mathcal{W}$ and orthonormal basis $\{e_{n+1},e_{n+2}, ..., e_{2m}\}$ of $T^{\perp}\mathcal{W}$ such that shape operators of $\mathcal{W}$ in $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ at $x$ have the forms (\[t2\]) and (\[t3\]).
Similarly, in case if $\mathcal{W}$ is a slant submanifold of a Bochner Kaehler manifold $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$. We have the following theorem
Let $\mathcal{W}$ be a slant submanifold of a Bochner Kaehler manifold $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$. Then, for each point $x \in \mathcal{W}$ and each plane section $\pi \subset T_{x}\mathcal{W}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p22}
\nonumber \mathcal{K}(\pi) \geq (\frac{5n^{2}+31n+26+3cos^{2}\theta}{2(2n+2)(2n+4)})\rho - \frac{n^{2}(n-2)}{2(n-1)}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2} - \frac{6}{2(2n+4)}Ric(e_{i},Je_{j})cos\theta.\\\end{aligned}$$ Equality holds if and only if there exists an orthonormal basis $\{e_{1} ,e_{2}, ... , e_{n}\}$ of $T_{x}\mathcal{W}$ and orthonormal basis $\{e_{n+1}, e_{n+2} , ... , e_{2m}\}$ of $T^{\perp}\mathcal{W}$ such that the shape operator takes the following forms
$$\begin{aligned}
\label{p23}
B_{n+1} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & \beta & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & \xi &\cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & \xi
\end{pmatrix} , \alpha+\beta = \xi\end{aligned}$$
and $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p24}
B_{r} =
\begin{pmatrix}
\omega_{11}^{r} & \omega_{12}^{r} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
\omega_{12}^{r} & - \omega_{11}^{r} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 &\cdots & 0 \\
\vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & 0 & 0 & \cdots & 0
\end{pmatrix} , r = n+2, ..., 2m.\end{aligned}$$
From this theorem, following corollaries can be easily deduced.
Let $\mathcal{W}$ be a slant submanifold of a Bochner Kaehler manifold $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$, which is Einstein . Then, for each point $x \in \mathcal{W}$ and each plane section $\pi \subset T_{x}\mathcal{W}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p25}
\nonumber \mathcal{K}(\pi) \geq (\frac{5n^{2}+31n+26+3cos^{2}\theta}{2(2n+2)(2n+4)})\rho - \frac{n^{2}(n-2)}{2(n-1)}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2} - \frac{6\lambda}{2(2n+4)}cos^{2}\theta.\\\end{aligned}$$ The equality holds at a point $x \in \mathcal{W}$ if and only if there exists an orthonormal basis $\{e_{1},e_{2}, ..., e_{n}\}$ of $ T_{x}\mathcal{W}$ and orthonormal basis $\{e_{n+1},e_{n+2}, ..., e_{2m}\}$ of $T^{\perp}\mathcal{W}$ such that shape operators of $\mathcal{W}$ in $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ at $x$ have the forms (\[p23\]) and (\[p24\]).
Let $\mathcal{W}$ be a invariant submanifold of a Bochner Kaehler manifold $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ . Then, for each point $x\in \mathcal{W}$ and each plane section $\pi \subset T_{x}\mathcal{W}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p26}
\mathcal{K}(\pi) \geq (\frac{5n^{2}+31n+26+3}{2(2n+2)(2n+4)})\rho - \frac{n^{2}(n-2)}{2(n-1)}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2} - \frac{6}{2(2n+4)}Ric(e_{i}, Je_{j}).\end{aligned}$$ The equality at a point $x\in \mathcal{W}$ holds iff there exists an orthonormal basis $\{e_{1},e_{2}, ..., e_{n}\}$ of $ T_{x}\mathcal{W}$ and orthonormal basis $\{e_{n+1},e_{n+2}, ..., e_{2m}\}$ of $T^{\perp}\mathcal{W}$ such that shape operators of $\mathcal{W}$ in $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ at $x$ have the forms (\[p23\]) and (\[p24\]).
Let $\mathcal{W}$ be a anti-invariant submanifold of a Bochner Kaehler manifold $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ . Then, for each point $x \in \mathcal{W}$ and each plane section $\pi \subset T_{x}\mathcal{W}$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{p26}
\mathcal{K}(\pi) \geq (\frac{5n^{2}+31n+26}{2(2n+2)(2n+4)})\rho - \frac{n^{2}(n-2)}{2(n-1)}\|\mathcal{H}\|^{2}.\end{aligned}$$ The equality at a point $x \in \mathcal{W}$ holds iff there exists an orthonormal basis $\{e_{1},e_{2}, ..., e_{n}\}$ of $ T_{x}\mathcal{W}$ and orthonormal basis $\{e_{n+1},e_{n+2}, ..., e_{2m}\}$ of $T^{\perp}\mathcal{W}$ such that shape operators of $\mathcal{W}$ in $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ at $x$ have the forms (\[p23\]) and (\[p24\]).
Warped product of CR-submanifolds of Bochner Kaehler manifolds
==============================================================
Let $\mathcal{W} = \mathcal{W}_{T}\times_{f}\mathcal{W}_{\perp}$ be the warped product CR-submanifolds of Bochner Kaehler manifold $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ such that the invariant distribution is $D = T\mathcal{W}_{T}$ and anti-invariant distribution is $D^{\perp} = T\mathcal{W}_{\perp}$, where $f: \mathcal{W}_{T} \longrightarrow \mathbb{R}$. Then the metric $g$ on $\mathcal{W}$ is given by [@chen; @warp] $$\label{w1}
g(X,Y) = \langle \pi_{*}X, \pi_{*}Y\rangle + (f\circ\pi)^{2}\langle \sigma_{*}X, \sigma_{*}Y\rangle$$ where $\pi$ and $\sigma$ are the projection maps from $\mathcal{W}$ onto $\mathcal{W}_{T}$ and $\mathcal{W}_{\perp}$ respectively.
It is easy to see that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w6}
T\mathcal{W} = D \oplus D^{\perp}\hspace{.3cm} \text{and} \hspace{.3cm} T^{\perp}\mathcal{W} = JD^{\perp}\oplus \nu,\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu$ is the orthogonal distribution to $JD^{\perp}$ in the normal bundle $T^{\perp}\mathcal{W}.$
From (\[w6\]), we can write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w7}
\omega(X,Y) = \omega_{JD^{\perp}}(X,Y) + \omega_{\nu}(X,Y)\end{aligned}$$ Also for warped product submanifold $\mathcal{W}$ of $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$, we have [@chen; @warp] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w8}
\nabla_{X}Z = X(logf)Z = \frac{X(f)}{f}Z\end{aligned}$$ for any vector fields $X \in D$ and $Z \in D^{\perp}$.
Further, we can decompose $(\overline{\nabla}_{X}J)Y$ into the tangential and normal components as under $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w9}
(\overline{\nabla}_{X}J)Y = \mathcal{P}_{X}Y + \mathcal{Q}_{X}Y\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathcal{P}_{X}Y$ and $\mathcal{Q}_{X}Y$ denotes the tangential and normal components of $(\overline{\nabla}_{X}J)Y$
First we prove the following lemma
Let $\mathcal{W} = \mathcal{W}_{T}\times_{f}\mathcal{W}_{\perp}$ be a CR-warped product submanifold of a Bochner Kaehler manifold $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$. Then we have $$\omega_{JD^{\perp}}(JX,Z) = J\mathcal{P}_{Z}JX + X(log f)JZ$$ $$g(\mathcal{P}_{Z}JX, W) = g(\mathcal{Q}_{Z}X, JW)$$ and $$g(\omega(JX,Z), J\omega(X,Z)) -\|\omega_{\nu}(X,Z)\|^{2} = g(\mathcal{Q}_{Z}X, J\omega_{\nu}(X,Z))$$ for $X \in D$ and $Z \in D^{\perp}.$
From Gauss equation, we have $$\label{w10}
\nabla_{Z}JX + \omega(JX,Z) -J(\nabla_{Z}X) - J\omega(X,Z) = \mathcal{P}_{Z}X + \mathcal{Q}_{Z}X$$ Using (\[w8\]), we infer $$\label{w11}
\omega(JX,Z)= \mathcal{P}_{Z}X + \mathcal{Q}_{Z}X + J[X(log f)Z] + J\omega(X,Z) - JX(log f)Z .$$ Replace $X$ by $JX$, we get $$\label{w12}
-\omega(X,Z)= \mathcal{P}_{Z}JX + \mathcal{Q}_{Z}JX + JX(log f)JZ + J\omega(JX,Z) + X(log f)Z.$$ We can write the above equation as $$\label{w13}
-\omega(X,Z)= \mathcal{P}_{Z}JX + \mathcal{Q}_{Z}JX + JX(log f)JZ + J\omega_{JD^{\perp}}(JX,Z) + J\omega_{\nu}(JX,Z) + X(log f)Z.$$ On comparing the tangential components, we obtain $$\label{w14}
\mathcal{P}_{Z}JX + J\omega_{JD^{\perp}}(JX,Z) + X(log f)Z = 0,$$ or $$\label{w15}
J\omega_{JD^{\perp}}(JX,Z) = -\mathcal{P}_{Z}JX - X(log f)Z$$ which shows that $$\label{w16}
\omega_{JD^{\perp}}(JX,Z) = J\mathcal{P}_{Z}JX + X(log f)JZ,$$ for $X \in D$ and $Z \in D^{\perp}$.
Again on comparing the normal components in (\[w13\]), we have $$\label{w17}
-\omega(X,Z)= \mathcal{Q}_{Z}JX + JX(log f)JZ + J\omega_{\nu}(JX,Z)$$ from which we conclude that $$\label{w18}
\omega(JX,Z)= \mathcal{Q}_{Z}X + X(log f)JZ + J\omega_{\nu}(X,Z)$$ or $$\label{w19}
\omega(JX,Z) - J\omega_{\nu}(X,Z)= \mathcal{Q}_{Z}X + X(log f)JZ$$ By taking the inner product (\[w19\]) with $JW$, we get $$\label{w20}
g(\omega_{JD^{\perp}}(JX,Z), JW) = g(\mathcal{Q}_{Z}X,JW) + X(log f)g(JZ,JW)$$ Further using (\[w16\]) in (\[w20\]), we have $$\label{w21}
g(\mathcal{P}_{Z}JX, W) + X(log f)g(Z, W) = g(\mathcal{Q}_{Z}X,JW) + X(log f)g(Z, W)$$ from which we conclude that $$\label{w22}
g(\mathcal{P}_{Z}JX, W) = g(\mathcal{Q}_{Z}X,JW)$$ Also, by taking the inner product of (\[w19\]) with $J\omega(X,Z)$, we find $$\label{w23}
g(\omega(JX,Z),J\omega(X,Z)) - \|\omega_{\nu}(X,Z)\|^{2} = g(\mathcal{Q}_{Z}X,J\omega_{\nu}(X,Z)).$$
Let $\mathcal{W} = \mathcal{W}_{T}\times_{f}\mathcal{W}_{\perp}$ be a warped product CR-submanifolds of Bochner Kaehler manifold $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ with $\mathcal{P}_{D^{\perp}}D \in D$, then the squared norm of second fundamental form of $\mathcal{W}$ in $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$ satisfies the following inequality $$\label{w24}
\|\omega\|^{2} \geq \|\mathcal{P}_{D^{\perp}}D\|^{2} + q\|grad_{D}(log f)\|^{2}.$$
Let $\{X_{1}, ..., X_{p}, X_{p+1} = JX_{1}, ..., X_{2p}= JX_{p}\}$ be a local orthonormal frame of vector fields on $N_{T}$ and $\{Z_{1}, ..., Z_{q}\}$ be a local orthonormal frame of vector fields on $N_{\perp}$, where $2p+q = n$. Then we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w25}
\nonumber \|\omega\|^{2} = \sum_{i,j=1}^{2p}g(\omega(X_{i},X_{j}), \omega (X_{i},X_{j})) + \sum_{\alpha=1}^{q}\sum_{j=1}^{2p}g(\omega(X_{i},Z_{\alpha}),\omega(X_{i},Z_{\alpha}))\\ +\sum_{\alpha,\beta =1}^{q}g(\omega(Z_{\alpha},Z_{\beta}), \omega(Z_{\alpha},Z_{\beta}))\end{aligned}$$ from above equation we can say that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w26}
\|\omega\|^{2} \geq \sum_{j=1}^{2p}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{q}g(\omega(X_{i},Z_{\alpha}),\omega(X_{i},Z_{\alpha}))\end{aligned}$$ Now from (\[w16\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w27}
\|\omega\|^{2} \geq \sum_{j=1}^{2p}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{q}g(J\mathcal{P}_{Z_{\alpha}}X_{i} - JX_{i}(log f)JZ_{\alpha}, J\mathcal{P}_{Z_{\alpha}}JX_{i}- JX_{i}(log f)JZ_{\alpha})\end{aligned}$$ In view of the assumption $\mathcal{P}_{D^{\perp}}D \in D$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w28}
\nonumber\|\omega\|^{2} &\geq& \sum_{j=1}^{2p}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{q}\bigg[g(J\mathcal{P}_{Z_{\alpha}}X_{i} , J\mathcal{P}_{Z_{\alpha}}X_{i}) + g(JX_{i}(log f)JZ_{\alpha}, JX_{i}(log f)JZ_{\alpha})\bigg]
\nonumber \\ &=& \sum_{j=1}^{2p}\sum_{\alpha=1}^{q}\bigg[g(\mathcal{P}_{Z_{\alpha}}X_{i}, \mathcal{P}_{Z_{\alpha}}X_{i}) + (JX_{i}(log f))^{2}g(Z_{\alpha},Z_{\alpha})\bigg]
\nonumber \\ &=& \|\mathcal{P}_{D^{\perp}}D\|^{2} + \sum_{j=1}^{2p}\|JX_{i}(log f)\|^{2}q
\\ &=& \|\mathcal{P}_{D^{\perp}}D\|^{2} + q\|grad_{D}(log f)\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ where $grad_{D}$ denotes the gradient of some function on the distribution $D$.
Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w29}
\|\omega\|^{2} \geq \|\mathcal{P}_{D^{\perp}}D\|^{2} + q\|grad_{D}(log f)\|^{2}.\end{aligned}$$
Let $\mathcal{W} = \mathcal{W}_{T}\times_{f}\mathcal{W}_{\perp}$ be a compact orientable warped product CR-submanifold of Bochner Kaehler manifold $\overline{\mathcal{W}}$. If $\mathcal{P}_{D^{\perp}}D \in D$ and $B_{\nabla_{JX_{i}}^{\perp}JZ}X_{i} = B_{\nabla_{X_{i}}^{\perp}JZ}JX_{i}$, then we have $\rho \leq 0$, and the equality holds iff $grad_{D}(log f) = 0.$
Let $X \in D$, $Z \in D^{\perp}$, then from (\[a5\]), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w33}
\overline{R} (X, JX,Z,JZ) &=& -2M(X,JX)g(Z,Z) - 2M(Z,JZ)g(X,X)
$$ Now Codazzi equation is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w34}
\nonumber \bigg[\overline{R}(X,Y)Z\bigg]^{\perp} &=& \bigg \{ \nabla_{X}^{\perp}\omega(Y,Z) - \omega(\nabla_{X}Y,Z) - \omega(Y,\nabla_{X}Z)\bigg \}
\\ \nonumber & & - \bigg \{ \nabla_{Y}^{\perp}\omega(X,Z) - \omega(\nabla_{Y}X,Z) - \omega(X,\nabla_{Y}Z)\bigg \}\end{aligned}$$ In view of the last equation we may write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w35}
\nonumber \overline{R}(X, JX, Z, JZ) &=& g( \nabla_{X}^{\perp}\omega(JX,Z) - \omega(\nabla_{X}JX,Z) - \omega(JX,\nabla_{X}Z),JZ)
\\ & & - g(\nabla_{JX}^{\perp}\omega(X,Z) - \omega(\nabla_{JX}X,Z) - \omega(X,\nabla_{JX}Z),JZ)\end{aligned}$$ We now compute each term of (\[w35\]). First we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w36}
Xg(\omega(JX,Z),JZ) = g(\overline{\nabla}_{X}\omega(JX,Z), JZ) + g(\omega(JX,Z),\overline{\nabla}_{X}JZ)\end{aligned}$$ Using Weingarten formula we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w37}
g(\overline{\nabla}_{X}^{\perp}\omega(JX,Z), JZ) = Xg(\omega(JX,Z),JZ) -g(\omega(JX,Z),\overline{\nabla}_{X}JZ)\end{aligned}$$ Now from (\[w19\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w38}
\omega(JX, Z) - J\omega_{\nu}(X,Z) = \mathcal{Q}_{Z}X + X(log f)JZ\end{aligned}$$ Taking the inner product of (\[w38\]) with $JZ$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w39}
g(\omega(JX, Z),JZ) - g(J\omega_{\nu}(X,Z), JZ) = g(\mathcal{Q}_{Z}X, JZ) + X(log f)g(JZ,JZ)\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[w22\]) and (\[w39\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w41}
g(\omega(JX, Z),JZ) = g(\mathcal{\mathcal{P}}_{Z}JX, Z) + X(log f)\|Z\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover $$\begin{aligned}
g(\omega(JX,Z), JZ) = X(log f)g(Z,Z)\end{aligned}$$ Hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w42}
\nonumber Xg(\omega(JX,Z), JZ) &=& X\bigg\{ X( log f) g(Z,Z) \bigg\}
\\ \nonumber &=& X\big( X(log f)\big) g(Z,Z)+ 2X(log f)g(Z,\nabla_{X}Z)
\\ \nonumber &=& X\big( X(log f)\big)\|Z\|^{2}+ 2\big( X(log f)\big)^{2}\|Z\|^{2}
\\ &=& \bigg \{ X (X(log f))+ 2( X(log f))^{2} \bigg \} \|Z\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ From (\[w37\]) and (\[w42\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w43}
g(\nabla_{X}^{\perp}\omega(JX,Z), JZ) = \bigg \{ X (X(log f))+ 2( X(log f))^{2} \bigg \} \|Z\|^{2} - g(\omega(JX,Z), \overline{\nabla}_{X}JZ)\end{aligned}$$ Replacing $X$ by $JX$ in the above equation , we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w44}
-g(\nabla_{JX}^{\perp}\omega(X,Z), JZ) = \bigg \{ JX (JX(log f))+ 2( JX(log f))^{2} \bigg \} \|Z\|^{2} + g(\omega(X,Z), \overline{\nabla}_{JX}JZ)\end{aligned}$$ Also using (\[w16\]) and $\mathcal{P}_{D^{\perp}} D \in D$, we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w45}
g(\omega_{JD^{\perp}}(JX, \nabla_{X}Z), JZ ) = g(X(log f)J\nabla_{X}Z,JZ) = (X(log f))^{2}g(Z,Z) = (X(log f))^{2}\|Z\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ Replacing $X$ by $JX$ in the above equation, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w46}
g(\omega_{JD^{\perp}}(X, \nabla_{JX}Z), JZ ) = -(JX(log f))^{2}\|Z\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ Again using (\[w16\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w47}
\omega_{JD^{\perp}}( \nabla_{JX}X), Z ) = J\mathcal{P}_{Z}\nabla_{JX}X- J\nabla_{JX}X(log f)JZ\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w48}
g(\omega_{JD^{\perp}}( \nabla_{JX}X), JZ ) = g(\mathcal{P}_{Z}\nabla_{JX}X, Z)- J\nabla_{JX}X(log f)\|Z\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ The above equation can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w49}
g(\omega( \nabla_{JX}X), JZ ) = g(\mathcal{P}_{Z}\nabla_{JX}X, Z)- J\nabla_{JX}X(log f))\|Z\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ But $N_{T}$ is totally geodesic in $\overline{N}$ which implies that $\nabla_{JX}X \in D$. Hence $\mathcal{P}_{Z}J\nabla_{JX}X \in D$. This makes the first term in the above equation zero and hence we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w49}
g(\omega( \nabla_{JX}X), JZ ) = - J\nabla_{JX}X(log f))\|Z\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ Similarly on replacing $X$ by $JX$ in the above equation, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w50}
g(\omega( \nabla_{X}JX), JZ ) = - J\nabla_{X}JX(log f))\|Z\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ Using Gauss equation, the last equation simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w51}
g(\omega( \nabla_{X}JX), JZ ) = \nabla_{X}X(log f)g(Z,Z) + \nabla_{JX}JX(log f)g(Z,Z) - J\nabla_{JX}X(log f)g(Z,Z)\end{aligned}$$ Putting (\[w43\])$\sim$(\[w51\]) into (\[w35\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w52}
\nonumber \overline{R}(X,JX,Z,JZ ) &=& \bigg \{ X(X(log f)) + 2(X(log f))^{2} \bigg \}\|Z\|^{2} - g(\omega(JX,Z), \nabla_{X}^{\perp}JZ)
\nonumber \\ & & - \nabla_{X}X(log f)\|Z\|^{2} - \nabla_{JX}JX(log f)\|Z\|^{2} + J\nabla^{JX}X(log f)\|Z\|^{2}
\nonumber \\ & & - (X(log f))^{2}\|Z\|^{2} + \bigg \{ JX(JX(log f)) + 2(JX(log f))^{2} \bigg \}\|Z\|^{2}
\nonumber \\ & & + g(\omega(X,Z), \nabla_{JX}^{\perp}JZ) - J\nabla_{JX}X(log f)\|Z\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ From(\[w33\]) and (\[w52\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w53}
\noindent& &\nonumber - 2M(X,JX)g(Z,Z) - 2M(Z,JZ)g(X,X) \hspace{4cm}
\nonumber \\ \text{ } = & &\bigg \{ X(X(log f)) + 2(X(log f))^{2} \bigg \}\|Z\|^{2}
\nonumber \\ & & - g(\omega(JX,Z), \nabla_{X}^{\perp}JZ) - \nabla_{X}X(log f)\|Z\|^{2} - \nabla_{JX}JX(log f)\|Z\|^{2}
\nonumber \\ & & - (X(log f))^{2}\|Z\|^{2} + \bigg \{ JX(JX(log f)) + 2(JX(log f))^{2} \bigg \}\|Z\|^{2}
\nonumber \\ & & + g(\omega(X,Z), \nabla_{JX}^{\perp}JZ) - (JX(log f))^{2}\|Z\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ Putting $X = X_{i}$ and taking summation from 1 to $p$, we drive $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w54}
\noindent & &\nonumber -2\|Z\|^{2}\sum_{i=1}{p}M (X_{i}, JX_{i}) - 2M(Z, JZ)p
\nonumber \\ \text{ } = & & \sum_{i=1}^{p}\bigg \{ X_{i}(X_{i}(log f)) + JX_{i}(JX_{i}(log f)) - \nabla_{X_{i}}X_{i}(log f)) - \nabla_{JX_{i}}JX_{i}(log f)\bigg \}\|Z\|^{2}
\nonumber \\ & & + \sum_{i=1}^{p}\bigg \{ (X_{i}(log f))^{2} + (JX_{i}(log f))^{2}\bigg \}\|Z\|^{2}
\nonumber \\ & & + \sum_{i=1}{p}\bigg[ g(\omega(X_{i},Z), \nabla_{JX_{i}}^{\perp}JZ) - g(\omega(JX_{i},Z), \nabla_{X_{i}}^{\perp}JZ)\bigg]\|Z\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ from which we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w55}
\noindent \nonumber & &-2\|Z\|^{2}\sum_{i=1}{p} M (X_{i}, JX_{i}) - 2M(Z, JZ)p
\nonumber \\ & =& \Delta_{D}(log f)\|Z\|^{2} + \|grad_{D}(log f)\|^{2}\|Z\|^{2}
\nonumber \\ & &+ \sum_{i=1}{p}\bigg[ g(\omega(X_{i},Z), \nabla_{JX_{i}}^{\perp}JZ) - g(\omega(JX_{i},Z), \nabla_{X_{i}}^{\perp}JZ)\bigg]\|Z\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[a6\]) and (\[a7\]) in the last equation we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w56}
\noindent \nonumber \frac{-1}{n+2}\sum_{i=1}^{p}\bigg[\|Z\|^{2}Ric(X_{i}, X_{i}) + \|X_{i}\|^{2} Ric(Z,Z)\bigg] + \frac{\rho \|X_{i}\|^{2}\|Z\|^{2}}{2(n+1)(n+2)}
\nonumber \\ = \Delta_{D}(log f)\|Z\|^{2} + \|grad_{D}(log f)\|^{2}\|Z\|^{2}
\nonumber \\+ \sum_{i=1}^{p}\bigg[ g(\omega(X_{i},Z), \nabla_{JX_{i}}^{\perp}JZ) - g(\omega(JX_{i},Z), \nabla_{X_{i}}^{\perp}JZ)\bigg]\|Z\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ from which we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w58}
\noindent \nonumber \frac{-1}{n+2}\bigg[\|Z\|^{2}\sum_{i=1}^{p}Ric(X_{i}, X_{i}) + p Ric(Z,Z)\bigg] + \frac{\rho p\|Z\|^{2}}{2(n+1)(n+2)}
\nonumber \\ = \Delta_{D}(log f)\|Z\|^{2} + \|grad_{D}(log f)\|^{2}\|Z\|^{2}
\nonumber \\+ \sum_{i=1}^{p}\bigg[ g(B_{\nabla_{JX_{i}}^{\perp} JZ}X_{i}, Z) - g(B_{\nabla_{X_{i}}^{\perp} JZ}JX_{i}, Z)\bigg]\|Z\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ Since by assumption, we have $B_{\nabla_{JX_{i}}^{\perp} JZ}X_{i} = B_{\nabla_{X_{i}}^{\perp} JZ}JX_{i} $, then (\[w58\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w59}
\noindent \nonumber \frac{-1}{n+2}\bigg[\sum_{i=1}^{p}Ric(X_{i}, X_{i}) +\frac{p}{\|Z\|^{2}} Ric(Z,Z)\bigg] + \frac{p \rho \|Z\|^{2}}{2(n+1)(n+2)}
\nonumber \\ = \Delta_{D}(log f) + \|grad_{D}(log f)\|^{2}\end{aligned}$$ Integrating both sides and using Green’s equation, the last equation simplifies to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w60}
\nonumber\frac{-1}{n+2}\int\bigg[\sum_{i=1}^{p}Ric(X_{i}, X_{i}) +\frac{p}{\|Z\|^{2}} Ric(Z,Z)\bigg]dv + \int\frac{p \rho \|Z\|^{2}}{2(n+1)(n+2)}dv
\\ = \int \|grad_{D}(log f)\|^{2}dv\end{aligned}$$ Similarly we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w61}
\frac{-1}{n+2}\int\bigg[\sum_{i=1}^{p}Ric(JX_{i}, JX_{i}) +\frac{p}{\|Z\|^{2}} Ric(Z,Z)\bigg]dv + \int\frac{p \rho \|Z\|^{2}}{2(n+1)(n+2)}dv \nonumber \\ = \int \|grad_{D}(log f)\|^{2}dv\end{aligned}$$ Adding (\[w60\]) and (\[w61\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w62}
\frac{-1}{n+2}\int\bigg[\sum_{i=1}^{p}Ric(X_{i}, X_{i})+ \sum_{i=1}^{p}Ric(JX_{i}, JX_{i}) +\frac{2p}{\|Z\|^{2}} Ric(Z,Z)\bigg]dv \nonumber \\ + \int\frac{2p \rho \|Z\|^{2}}{2(n+1)(n+2)} dv = 2\int \|grad_{D}(log f)\|^{2}dv\end{aligned}$$ from which we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w63}
\frac{-1}{n+2}\int\bigg[\rho_{D} +\frac{2p}{\|Z\|^{2}} Ric(Z,Z)\bigg]dv + \int\frac{p \rho \|Z\|^{2}}{(n+1)(n+2)} dv = 2\int \|grad_{D}(log f)\|^{2} dv\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho _{D}$ is the scalar curvature of distribution $D$. Further replacing $Z$ by $Z_{\alpha}$ and taking summation from $1$ to $q$ on both sides. As $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w64}
q\int \|grad_{D}(log f)\|^{2}dv \geq 0\end{aligned}$$ we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w65}
\frac{-1}{n+2}\int\bigg[q\rho_{D} +2p\rho_{D^{\perp}}\bigg]dv + \int\frac{pq^{2} \rho}{(n+1)(n+2)} dv\geq 0\end{aligned}$$ This shows that $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w66}
\frac{pq^{2}}{(n+1)(n+2)}\int \rho dv\geq \frac{1}{n+2}\int\bigg[q\rho_{D} +2p\rho_{D^{\perp}}\bigg]dv\end{aligned}$$ or $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w67}
\int \rho dv \geq (n+1)\int\bigg[\frac{\rho_{D}}{pq} +\frac{2(n+1)}{q^{2}}\rho_{D^{\perp}}\bigg]dv\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{w68}
\int\bigg[\rho_{D} + \rho_{D^{\perp}}\bigg]dv \geq \int \bigg[\frac{(n+1)}{pq}\rho_{D} +\frac{2(n+1)}{q^{2}} \rho_{D^{\perp}}\bigg]dv\end{aligned}$$ From we have the following observations. Either $(n+1) \leq pq$ and $2(n+1) \leq q^{2}$ or $\rho_{D} \leq 0$ and $\rho_{D^{\perp}} \leq 0$ that id $\rho = \rho_{D} + \rho_{D^{\perp}} \leq 0$. Equality holds if and only if either $(n+1) = pq$ and $2(n+1) = q^{2}$ or $grad_{D}(log f) = 0.$
[11]{}
Bejancu A.: , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., 69, 1978, 135-142. Bishop R. L., O’Neill B.: *Manifolds of negative curvature*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 145, 1969, 01-49. Chen B. Y.: *A general inequality for submanifolds in complex space forms and its applications*, Arch. Math., 67, 1996, 519-528. Chen B. Y.: *Geometry of Slant submanifolds*, Katholieke Universitiet Leuven, 1990. Chen B. Y.: *Geometry of warped product CR-submanifolds in Kaehler manifolds*, Monatsh. Math. 133, 2001, 177-195. Chen B. Y.: *Some pinching and classification theorems for minimal submanifolds*, Arch. math., 60, 1993, 568-578. Cioroboiu D, Oiaga A.: *B. Y. Chen inequalities for slant submanifolds in Sasakian space forms*, Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo 10, 2004, 367-381. Kim J. S., Song Y. M., Tripathi M. M.: *B. Y. Chen inequalities for submanifolds in generilized complex space forms*, Bull. Korean Math. Soc., 40(3), 2003, 411-423. Oiaga A., Mihai I.: *B. Y. Chen inequalities for slant submanifolds in complex space forms*, Demonstratio Math., 32(4), 1990, 835-846. Shahid M. H., Husain S. I.: *CR-submanifolds of a Bochner Kaehler manifold*, Indian J. Pure. and Applied Math., 18, 1987, 605-610.
, *A general inequality for doubly warped product submanifolds*, Math. J. Okayama Univ., 52(2010), 133-142
A. OLTEANU, CR-doubly warped product submanifolds in Sasakian space forms, Bulletin of the Transilvania University of Brasov, 1 (50), III-2008, 269–278
Munteanu, M. I., Warped product contact CR-submanifolds of Sasakian space form, Publ. Math. Debrecen, 66(6)(2005), 75-120.
\] Chen, B. Y., Geometry of warped product CR-submanifolds in Kaehler manifold II, Monatsh. Math., 134(2001), 103-119
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'It has been known for a long time that the low temperature behavior shown by the dielectric constant of quantum paraelectric $SrTiO_{3}$ can not be fitted properly by Barrett’s formula using a single zero point energy or saturation temperature ($T_{1}$). As it was originally shown \[K. A. Müller and H. Burkard, Phys. Rev. B [**19**]{}, 3593 (1979)\] a crossover between two different saturation temperatures ($T_{1l}$=77.8K and $T_{1h}$=80K) at $T\sim10K$ is needed to explain the low and high temperature behavior of the dielectric constant. However, the physical reason for the crossover between these two particular values of the saturation temperature at $T\sim10K$ is unknown. In this work we show that the crossover between these two values of the saturation temperature at $T\sim10K$ can be taken as a direct consequence of (i) the quantum distribution of frequencies $g(\Omega)\propto\Omega^{2}$ associated with the complete set of low-lying modes and (ii) the existence of a definite maximum phonon frequency given by the structural transition critical temperature $T_{tr}$.'
author:
- 'Manuel I. Marqués'
- Carmen Aragó
- 'Julio A. Gonzalo'
title: |
The quantum paraelectric behavior of $SrTiO_{3}$ revisited:\
relevance of the structural phase transition temperature
---
The “quantum paraelectrics” or “incipient ferroelectrics” have been a topic of considerable interest during last decades. Quantum fluctuations associated to a non-negligible zero point energy prevent the onset of ferroelectric long-range order. Actually, some non-proper ferroelectric perovskites such as Strontium Titanate ($SrTiO_{3}$) or Potassium Tantalate ($KTaO_{3}$), with very large dielectric contant values, undergo ferroelectric phase transitions when doped with small amounts of polar impurities such as calcium or lithium [@Bianchi]. Recently there has been some controversy about the origin of this quantum fluctuations. It is not clear whether they come from a superposition of incoherent modes, or whether the coupling of the lowest transverse acoustic and the soft mode gives rise to a coherent quantum paraelectric state [@Mullerintro]. This conjecture has been stimulated by the observation of an anomaly, indicative of a possible phase transition near $T_{c}=35K$ measured on several experimental studies based on light [@Vacher; @Hehlen], neutron scattering [@Courtens], sound dispersion and attenuation [@Balashova; @Nes], EXAFS [@Fischer] and dielectric spectroscopy [@Viana; @Hemberger].
Almost thirty years ago Müller and Burkhard [@Muller] measured the dielectric constant ($\chi$) of $SrTiO_{3}$ in monodomain samples down to $T=0.3K$. The experiment showed that $\chi$ was temperature independent below $T=3K$. This constant region was in agreement with theoretical predictions from Barrett’s formula [@Barrett] which extended Slater’s mean field theory of perovskites, to include quantum effects. Barrett’s formula depends on the saturation or Einstein temperature $T_{1}$, which is related to the quantum mechanical zero point motion of the elementary dipoles ($T_{1}=\hbar\Omega/k$), being $\Omega$ the single dipole frequency. However, Müller et al. noted that Barrett’s formula was unable to fit $\chi(T)$ for all temperatures below $T=30K$ [@Muller]. Actually, two saturation temperatures ($T_{1h}$ and $T_{1l}$) were needed to fit the $30K>T>10K$ region and the $T<3K$ region respectively [@Muller]. No single saturation temperature was able to fit the complete $30K>T>0.3K$ region. This breaking from the experimental data was attributed to a coupling of the single soft mode to other occupied acoustic modes [@Muller] considering phonon dressing [@Cowley] and dipolar behavior [@Kind; @Migoni] in order to reduce the classical critical temperature. More recently, another approach to fit the experimental data for quantum paraelectrics in a large range of temperatures has been proposed. It is based on a generalization of Barrett’s formula to a quantum Curie-Weiss like formula by introducing a critical exponent $\gamma$ [@Dec]. The obtained value of $\gamma$ for pure $SrTiO_{3}$ is $\gamma=1.7$.
Barrett’s formula may be obtained rigorously [@Salje; @SaljeII] by introducing a quantum temperature scale related to the energy of the quantum oscillator
$$T_{q}=\frac{\hbar\Omega}{k}\left(\frac{1}{e^{\frac{\hbar\Omega}{kT}}-1}+\frac{1}{2}\right)$$
This quantum temperature has been successfully applied to the analysis of the susceptibility in quantum paraelectrics [@Kleemann] and, by means of a mean field approach, it has been also used to explain the quantum effects found in mixed classical ferroelectric systems such as tris-sarcosine calcium chloride/bromide systems [@Gonzalo; @Arago]. Using this quantum temperature instead of the classical temperature in Slater’s mean-field formula for the susceptibility we obtain Barrett’s formula for quantum paraelectrics:
$$\chi=\frac{C}{\frac{T_{1}}{2}\coth(\frac{T_{1}}{2T})-T_{c}}+A$$
where $C$ is the Curie-Weiss constant, $T_{c}$ is the extrapolated Curie temperature of the ferroelectric transition and $A$ is the temperature independent part of the dielectric constant. Fitting parameters for $SrTiO_{3}$ are given by $A=0$, $C=8\times10^{4}K$ and $T_{c}=35.5K$. As already mentioned, two saturation temperatures $T_{1}=T_{1l}$ and $T_{1}=T_{1h}$ are needed to fit the low ($T<3K$) and high temperature regimes ($30K>T>10K$). In particular, Muller et al. calculated that the best fists to the experimental data were found for $T_{1l}=77.8K$ and $T_{1h}=80K$ [@Muller]. These two particular values are independent fitting parametres lacking a rigorous theoretical justification.
Very recently, Yuan et al. [@Wang] have modeled this crossover beteween $T_{1l}=77.8K$ and $T_{1h}=80K$ by introducing a continuous, temperature dependent $T_{1}$, given by a hyperbolic tangent that fits very well dielectric experimental results for $SrTiO_{3}$ in the whole range of temperatures. The proposed temperature dependence is given by
$$T_{1}=T_{1l}+\frac{T_{1h}-T_{1l}}{2}\left[1+\tanh\left(\frac{T-\theta}{\alpha}\right)\right]$$
where $\theta$ and $\alpha$ are two new free parameters introduced to describe the crossover temperature (close to $10K$) and the crossover rate respectively. Note that four fitting parameters are needed to describe the crossover.
However, the reason for the existence of this crossover dependence on the saturation temperature is unknown. Why are the characteristic saturation temperatures associated with the quantum mechanical zero point energy of the elementary dipoles given by $T_{1l}=77.8K$ and $T_{1h}=80K$? Why is there a change on the dielectric behavior of the quantum paraelectric between these two particular values precisely at $T\sim10K$?
In the following, we will show how this crossover between this two particular saturation temperatures can be taken as due to the existence of the quantum distribution of frequencies $g(\Omega)\propto\Omega^{2}$ associated with the complete set of low-lying oscillations [@Rechester; @Khmelnitskii] and to a specific maximum value for the phonon frequencyes given by the structural transition critical temperature.
Let us consider the general case where, instead of $\Omega=cte$, the system presents a distribution of frequencies given by $g(\Omega)$. Due to the existence of this distribution it is not appropriate to relate the quantum temperature $T_{q}$ to a single frequency $\Omega$ but to an average value ($<\Omega>$) which is temperature dependent. The temperature dependence of the average frequency value is given by:
$$<\Omega>\left(\frac{1}{e^{\frac{\hbar<\Omega>}{kT}}-1}+\frac{1}{2}\right)=
\frac{\int_{0}^{\Omega_{max}}\Omega\left(\frac{1}{e^{\frac{\hbar\Omega}{kT}}-1}+\frac{1}{2}\right)g(\Omega)d\Omega}
{\int_{0}^{\Omega_{max}}g(\Omega)d\Omega}$$
being $\Omega_{max}$ the maximum possible value for the frequency of the phonon oscillations at low temperatures.
Once the frequency distribution of the system is fixed as $g(\Omega)\propto\Omega^{2}$, corresponding to the low-lying modes, it is possible to solve this equation numerically to obtain the temperature dependence of $<\Omega>$ and the behavior of $T_{1}=\hbar<\Omega>/k$. In order to know the value of $\Omega_{max}$ we consider the following: The structural cubic-tetragonal phase transition in $SrTiO3$ at $T_{tr}\sim104K$, associated with an acoustic soft mode behavior [@Shirane], should mark an upper boundary for the frequency of the oscillations at low temperatures. Higher values of $\Omega$ should be unstable at these low temperatures. The maximum possible value for the frequency of the phonon oscillations is then given by $\Omega_{max}=T_{tr}k/\hbar$.
The value of $T_{tr}$ for $SrTiO_{3}$ depends somewhat on the sample[@Hunnefeld], however most of the values found in the literature are close to $T\sim104K$. So, for the particular case studied in this work (sample A from [@Muller]) we take the value $T_{tr}=104K$ (corresponding to $\Omega_{max}=13.6THz$). Once this value for $\Omega_{max}$ is introduced in Eq.4, the existence of a crossover for $T_{1}(<\Omega>)$ between the two saturation temperatures ($T_{1l}=77.8K$ and $T_{1h}=80K$) appears as a natural consequence of the existence of the frequency distribution $g(\Omega)$ of low-lying modes with $\Omega_{max}=T_{tr}k/\hbar$ (see Fig.1). Note how the crossover starting point at approximately $\theta=10K$ appears also straightforwardly.
![Behavior of the saturation temperature of the system vs. temperature []{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="7cm" height="7cm"}
Of course, once we know the temperature dependence of $T_{1}$ it is possible to obtain the behavior of the dielectric constant using Barrett’s formula (Eq.2). The final result is shown in Fig.2 together with the two fittings given by K.A.Muller et al. [@Muller] for the low and high temperature regimes. Note how the data between both regimes ($30K>T>10K$ and $T<3K$) is now explained by means of a single distribution of frequencies in $SrTiO_{3}$ given by $g(\Omega)\propto\Omega^{2}$ with $\Omega_{max}=T_{tr}k/\hbar$.
This relation found between the structural critical temperature and the low temperature value of the dielectric constant, allows determining the critical temperature with very high precision. In order to get $T_{tr}$ we scan $\Omega_{max}$ to obtain successive $T_{1l}$ values until we match the particular value $T_{1l}=77.8K$ given by Muller et al [@Muller] to fit the dielectric constant in the low temperature region (sample A). In Fig.3 we present $\mid T_{1l}-77.8K\mid$ vs. $\hbar\Omega_{max}/k$. Note how the difference is zero at $\hbar\Omega_{max}/k=103.7K$, which is very close to the average critical value $T_{tr}\sim104K$ for SrTiO3.
Note that, in this way, we have obtained the structural transition critical temperature $T_{tr}=103.7K$ by means of an indirect method, using only data from low temperature dielectric constant measurements. Since the value for $T_{1l}$ or, equivalently, the dielectric constant at $T\sim0K$, is very sensitive to the value of $\hbar\Omega_{max}/k$ this method turns out to be a very precise way to determine the structural critical temperature of a particular sample (for example, knowing that the value of the dielectric constant at zero temperature of sample B in [@Muller] is $20^{-3}$ we get a critical temperature $T_{tr}=105.3K$, slightly higher than the one corresponding to sample A).
To conclude, as it is well known, Barrett’s formula is insufficient to explain the dielectric behavior in $SrTiO_{3}$ for $T<30K$ when using a single, contant value, for the frequency associated with the quantum mechanical zero point motion of the elementary dipoles. This problem is solved when considering a quantum distribution of frequencies $g(\Omega)\propto\Omega^{2}$ associated with the complete set of low-lying oscillations which are dominant at low temperatures and a upper frequency given by $\Omega_{max}=T_{tr}k/\hbar$. This distribution gives rise to the existance of a crossover between two saturation temperatures capable of explaining satisfactorily the behavior of the dielectric constant at any temperature. Since, the maximum value for the frequency in the $g(\Omega)$ distribution is given by the structural transition critical temperature, it is also possible to obtain very precise values for the structural critical temperatures by using the measured $T=0K$ dielectric constant of the quantum paraelectric.
Helpful comments from C.L. Wang are greatfully acknowledged. We acknowledge financial support through grant DGICyT, FIS2004-00437.
![Dielectric contant vs. temperature for $SrTiO_{3}$. Dotted lines are results from Barrett’s formula with $T_{1}=77.8K$ and $T_{1}=80K$ and using a constant value for the frequency associated with the quantum mechanical zero point motion. Full line is the result obtained using a distribution $g(\Omega)\propto\Omega^{2}$ and an structural critical temperature for the system equal to $104K$ []{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.eps){width="7cm" height="7cm"}
![Absolute value of the difference between the $T=0K$ saturation temperature ($T_{1l}$) and the saturation temperature that fits the dielectric behavior at $T\sim0K$ [@Muller] vs. $\hbar\Omega_{max}/k$. We find that the value corresponding to this particular $SrTiO_{3}$ system is $T_{tr}=103.7K$, which may be associated with the structural critical temperature of the sample. []{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.eps){width="7cm" height="7cm"}
[99]{}
See f.i. U. Bianchi, J. Dec, W. Kleeman and J. G. Bednorz, Phys. Rev. B [**51**]{}, 8737 (1995) and references therein.
K. A. Müller, W. Berlinger and E. Tosatti, Z. Phys. B [**48**]{} 277, (1991).
R. Vacher, J. Pelous, B. Hennion, G. Coddens, E. Courtens and K. A. Müller, Europhys. Lett. [**17**]{}, 45 (1992).
B. Hehlen, A. -L. Péron, E. Courtens and R. Vacher, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{} 2416, (1995).
E. Courtens, G. Coddens, B. Hennion, B. Hehlen, J. Pelous and R. Vacher, Phys. Scr. T [**49A**]{} 430 (1993).
E. V. Balashova, V. V. Lemanov, K. Kunze, G. Martín and M. Weihnacht, Solid State Commun. [**94**]{}, 17 (1995)
O. M. Nes, K. A. Müller, T. Suzuki and F. Fossheim, Europhys. Lett. [**19**]{}, 397 (1992).
M. Fischer, A. Lahmar, M. Maglione, A. San Miguel, J. P. Itié, A. Polian and F. Baudelet, Phys. Rev. B [**49**]{}, 12451 (1994).
R. Viana, P. Lunkenheimer, J. Hemberger, R. Böhmer and A. Loidl, Phys. Rev. B [**50**]{}, 601 (1994)
J.Hemberger, M. Nicklas, R. Viana, P. Lunkenheimer, A. Loidl and R. Böhmer, J. Phys: Condens. Matter [**8**]{}, 4673 (1996).
K. A. Müller and H. Burkard, Phys. Rev. B [**19**]{}, 3593 (1979).
J. H. Barrett, Phys. Rev. [**86**]{}, 118 (1952).
R. A. Cowley, Philos. Mag. [**11**]{}, 673 (1965).
R. Kind and K. A. Müller, Comm. Phys. [**1**]{}, 223 (1976).
R. Migoni, H. Bilz and D. Bäuerle, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**37**]{}, 1155 (1976).
J. Dec and W. Kleemann, Solid State Commun. [**106**]{}, 695 (1998).
W. Kleemann, J. Dec and B. Westwanski, Phys. Rev. B [**58**]{}, 8985 (1998).
E. K. H. Salje, B. Wruck and H. Thomas, Z. Phys. B-Condens. Matter, [**82**]{}, 399 (1991).
E. K. H. Salje, B. Wruck and S. Marais, Ferroelectrics, [**124**]{}, 185 (1991).
J. A. Gonzalo, Ferroelectrics, [**168**]{}, 1 (1995).
C. Aragó, J. García, J. A. Gonzalo, C. Wang, W. Zhong and X. Xue, Ferroelectrics, [**301**]{}, 113 (2004).
M. Yuan, C. L. Wang, Y. X. Wang, R. Ali and J. L. Zhang, Solid State Comm. [**127**]{}, 419 (2003).
A.B. Rechester, Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz. [**60**]{} (2), 782 (1971) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**33**]{}, 423 (1971)\].
D. E. Khmel’nitskii and V. L. Shneerson, Fiz. Tverd. Tela (Leningrad) [**13**]{} (3), 832 (1971) \[Sov. Phys.- Solid State [**13**]{}, 687 (1971)\].
G. Shirane, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**46**]{}, 437 (1974).
H. Hünnefeld, T. Niemöller, J. R. Schneider, U. Rütt, S. Rodewald, J. Fleiq and G. Shirane, Phys. Rev. B, [**66**]{}, 014113 (2002).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We provide integral formulae for the ADM mass of asymptotically flat hypersurfaces in Riemannian manifolds with a certain warped product structure in a neighborhood of spatial infinity, thus extending Lam’s recent results on Euclidean graphs [@L1] [@L2] to this broader context. As applications we exhibit, in [*any*]{} dimension, new examples of manifolds for which versions of the Positive Mass and Riemannian Penrose inequalities hold and discuss a notion of quasi-local mass in this setting. The proof explores a novel connection between the co-vector defining the ADM mass of a hypersurface as above and the Newton tensor associated to its shape operator, which takes place in the presence of an ambient Killing field.'
address:
- 'Federal University of Ceará, Department of Mathematics, Campus do Pici, Av. Humberto Monte, s/n, 60455-760, Fortaleza/CE, Brazil.'
- 'Federal University of Ceará, Department of Mathematics, Campus do Pici, Av. Humberto Monte, s/n, 60455-760, Fortaleza/CE, Brazil.'
author:
- Levi Lopes de Lima
- Frederico Girão
title: The ADM mass of asymptotically flat hypersurfaces
---
[^1]
[^2]
Introduction and statement of results {#intstate}
=====================================
An [*asymptotically flat end*]{} is a Riemannian manifold $(E, h)$ of dimension $n\geq 3$ for which there exists a diffeomorphism $\Psi:\mathbb R^n-\overline B_1(0)\to E$ introducing coordinates in $E$, say $x=(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$, such that the following decay conditions hold as $|x|\to +\infty$ for some $\tau>(n-2)/2$: $$\label{decay1}
h_{ij}=\delta_{ij}+O(|x|^{-\tau}),
\quad h_{ij,k}=O(|x|^{-\tau-1}).$$ Here, the $h_{ij}$’s are the coefficients of $h$ with respect to $x$, $h_{ij,k}=\partial h_{ij}/\partial x_k$ and $|\,\,|$ is the standard Euclidean norm. We also assume that the scalar curvature $R_h$ of $h$ is integrable. Under these conditions the [*ADM mass*]{} of $(E,h)$ is defined by $$\label{mass}
m_h=\lim_{r\to +\infty}c_n\int_{\Sigma_r}(h_{i,j}^j-h_{j,i}^j)\nu^id\Sigma_r,\quad c_n=\frac{1}{2(n-1)\omega_{n-1}},$$ where $\nu=(\nu^1,\cdots, \nu^n)$ is the outward unit normal to a large coordinate sphere $\Sigma_r$ of radius $r$ and $\omega_{n-1}$ is the volume of the unit sphere of dimension $n-1$. Unless otherwise stated, all manifolds considered here are connected and smooth. Also, throughout the paper we are summing over repeated indices.
Despite being phrased in local coordinates at infinity, it is known that the mass is well-defined and finite under the above decay conditions [@Ba1] [@Ch] [@M]. This invariant, which had its origins in the Hamiltonian formulation of General Relativity [@ADM], proved itself extremely useful in Geometric Analysis. It plays, for instance, a crucial role in questions of existence and compactness of solutions for the Yamabe problem [@S] [@LP] [@LZ] [@KMS] [@BM].
The [*rationale*]{} behind the concepts above is of course the Positive Mass Conjecture. Recall that a [complete]{} Riemannian manifold $(M,g)$ is [*asymptotically flat*]{} if there exists a compact subset $K\subset M$ such that $E_M=M-K$, the end of $M$, is asymptotically flat in the restricted metric. By definition, the mass of $(M,g)$ is the mass $m_g$ of $(E_M,g)$. The conjecture then says that $R_g\geq 0$ implies $m_g\geq 0$, with equality holding if and only if $(M,g)=(\mathbb R^n,g_0)$, where $g_0$ is the standard flat metric. This assertion has been first proved by Schoen and Yau if $n\leq 7$ [@SY] and subsequently a proof for spin manifolds, which works in any dimension, was provided by Witten [@W] [@Ba1] [@LP]. Recently, Lam [@L1] [@L2] gave an elementary proof of the mass inequality in the case that $(M,g)$ can be isometrically embedded as a complete graph in $(\mathbb R^{n+1},g_0)$; see also [@HW], where a related argument is presented for the case of embedded hypersurfaces. Our intention here is to revisit Lam’s argument and discuss a few generalizations.
In order to put our results in their proper perspective, one should discuss the contributions above in more detail. First, Schoen and Yau established their result by assuming $R_g\geq 0$ and $m_g<0$ and then using minimal surfaces techniques to reach a contradiction, a method that does not directly relate the energy density of the gravitational system modeled by $(M,g)$, represented by the scalar curvature, to its mass as measured at spatial infinity by (\[mass\]). On the other hand, Witten is able to express the mass as an integral of a quantity which is manifestly nonnegative if $R_g\geq 0$, but his formula is somewhat mysterious since it involves the choice of a suitable spinor on $M$. Lam’s approach in its turn, even though restricted to Euclidean graphs, effectively relates in a simple way the data of the problem through the remarkable formula $$\label{lam}
m_g=c_n\int_M\frac{R_g}{\sqrt{1+|df|^2}}dM,$$ where $f$ is the function defining the graph. Lam’s reasoning is based on a divergence type formula for the scalar curvature of graphs in nonparametric coordinates reminiscent of an old result due to Reilly [@R], so that (\[lam\]) follows by a simple integration by parts argument. Here, we essentially follow the same strategy but our starting point is instead a closely related flux-type formula (see (\[basic\]) below) for hypersurfaces (not necessarily graphs) in the presence of a Killing field, a result that appears in various guises in the literature; see, for instance, [@ABC] [@AdLM] [@AM] [@ARS] [@dL] [@Ro]. As confirmed by the arguments put forward below, this formula happens to provide a notable connection between the intrinsic geometry at infinity of an asymptotically flat hypersurface, as captured by the ADM mass, and its extrinsic geometry as encoded in the Newton tensor (see (\[zero\]) below) of the shape operator; see Remark \[novel\] below. Here we illustrate this principle by showing how Lam’s formula can be extended to asymptotically flat hypersurfaces in certain Riemaniann manifolds with a warped product structure in a neighborhood of spatial infinity. One should remark however that this method does not seem to be well suited to address the important issue of rigidity, which is so useful in applications.
Our approach also extends the Penrose-like formula in [@L1] to this broader context. Recall that the (Riemannian) Penrose inequality is a conjectured sharpening of the positive mass inequality when the asymptotically flat manifold is allowed to have a compact inner boundary $\Gamma$. Thus, if $\Gamma$ is a (possibly disconnected) outermost minimal hypersurface of area $A$, the inequality says that $$\label{pen}
m_g\geq\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{A}{\omega_{n-1}}\right)^{\frac{n-2}{n-1}},$$ whenever $R_g\geq 0$, with equality holding if and only if $(M,g)$ is the Riemannian Schwarzschild solution. Physically, $\Gamma$ is thought of as being the horizon of a collection of black holes whose overall contribution to the mass is through its total surface area as indicated above.
If $n=3$ the conjecture has been verified for $\Gamma$ connected by Huisken and Ilmanen [@HI] and in general by Bray [@Br]. More recently, Bray and Lee [@BL] established the conjecture for $n\leq 7$ with the extra requirement that $M$ be spin for the rigidity statement. Even though many partial results have been obtained [@H1] [@Sc] [@FS] [@J], the conjecture remains wide open in higher dimensions except for the case of Euclidean graphs recently investigated by Lam [@L1]. Thus, if $(M,g)\subset (\mathbb R^{n+1},g_0)$ is an asymptotically flat graph with an inner boundary $\Gamma$ whose connected components lie on (possibly distinct) horizontal hyperplanes and if we further assume that $M$ is orthogonal to the hyperplanes along $\Gamma$, it is proved in [@L1] that $$\label{penrmassger}
m_g=c_n\int_{\Gamma}s_1 d\Gamma+c_n\int_M\frac{R_g}{\sqrt{1+|df|^2}}\,dM,$$ where $s_1$ is the mean curvature of $\Gamma$, viewed as a planar hypersurface . In particular, if $R_g\geq 0$ and each connected component of $\Gamma$ is convex, (\[pen\]) follows by from the so-called Alexsandrov-Fenchel inequality as explained in [@L1]. It turns out that this circle of ideas can be considerably generalized, as we now pass to describe. As a consequence we will exhibit, in any dimension, new examples of manifolds for which versions of the Positive Mass and Penrose inequality hold. Also, as a by-product of our computation, we discuss an extension to this more general setting of a notion of quasi-local mass first considered in [@L2].
We now explain our setup. We consider an $n$-dimensional asymptotically flat end $(E,h)$. As usual, we fix asymptotically flat coordinates $x=(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ on $E$ by means of a diffeomorphism $\Psi:\mathbb R^n-\overline B_1(0)\to E$ and set $\eh_i=\partial/\partial x_i$, so that the coefficients of $h$ in these coordinates are $h_{ij}=\langle \eh_i,\eh_j\rangle$, where $\langle\,,\,\rangle$ is the inner product associated to $h$. These coefficients satisfy the corresponding decay conditions at infinity as in (\[decay1\]). We also fix a [*positive*]{} smooth function $\phi:E\to \mathbb R$ satisfying $$\label{um}
\lim_{r\to +\infty}\|\phi\circ\Psi-1\|_{C^1(\mathbb R^n-B_r(0))}=0,$$ and consider the warped product $(\overline{E},\overline h)$, with ${{\overline E}}=E\times {{I}}$ and $\overline h=h+\phi^2dt^2$, where $t$ is the standard linear coordinate in $I\subset \mathbb R$. Notice that each $t\in I$ defines a horizontal slice $E_t=E\times \{t\}\hookrightarrow \overline E$ which is totally geodesic, so that $E_t=E$ isometrically. This follows easily from the fact that $X=\partial/\partial t$, the vertical coordinate field, is Killing. Notice, moreover, that from $\phi=|X|_{\overline h}$ we find that $$\label{framevert}
\eh_0=\phi^{-1}X$$ is the unit normal to the slices. We finally consider an $(n+1)$-dimensional Riemannian manifold $(\overline M,\overline g)$ endowed with a globally defined Killing field $\overline X$. We assume that there exists a closed subset $\overline K\subset \overline M$ such that $\overline M-\overline K$ is [*isometric*]{} to our warped product model $(\overline E\times I,\overline h)$, with $\overline X$ corresponding to $X$ under the identification given by the isometry.
\[case\][An important special case of the above construction takes place when $(\overline M,\overline g)$ is [*globally*]{} a warped product. In this case, $(E,h)$ extends to a complete asymptotically flat manifold, still denoted $(E,h)$, and $\overline M=E\times I$ with $\overline g=h+{\phi}^2dt^2$, where now $\phi$ is a positive extension of our function previously defined only on the end. Here, $\overline X=\partial/\partial t$ everywhere and $\overline M$ is foliated by the totally geodesic slices $\overline E_{t}= E\times \{t\}$, $t\in I$, each of which has a globally defined unit normal vector field, namely, $\eh_0=\phi^{-1}\overline X$. Notice that in this setting we can extend $R_h$ to $\overline M$ and ${\rm Ric}_{h}$ to act on arbitrary horizontal vectors in the obvious manner.]{}
\[asympdef\] Let $(\overline M,\overline g)$ be as above. Then a complete, isometrically immersed manifold $(M,g)\looparrowright (\overline M,\overline g)$, possibly with a compact inner boundary, is [*asymptotically flat*]{} if $R_g$ is integrable and there exists a compact subset $K\subset M$ such that $E_M=M-K$, the end of $M$, can be written as a vertical graph over some slice $E\hookrightarrow \overline M-\overline K$ associated to a smooth function $f:E\to\mathbb R$ such that the following asymptotic relations hold at infinity for some $\tau>(n-2)/2$: $$\label{asym}
\phi f_i(x)=O(|x|^{-\frac{\tau}{2}}), \quad \phi f_{ij}(x)+\phi_i f_{j}(x)=O(|x|^{-\frac{\tau}{2}-1}).$$ Here, $f_i=\eh_i(f)=\partial f/\partial x_i$, etc.
In view of (\[um\]) and (\[mett1\]) below, these decay conditions are tailored so that the mass of $(M,g)$ is well defined and can be computed using nonparametric coordinates at infinity according to the following slightly modified version of (\[mass\]): $$\label{slight}
m_g=\lim_{r\to +\infty}c_n\int_{\Sigma_r}\left(\phi\left(g^j_{i,j}-g^j_{j,i}
\right)-\phi^jg_{ij}+\phi_ig^j_j\right)\nu^id\Sigma_r;$$ in this regard, see [@M].
We assume that $M$ is [*two-sided*]{} in the sense that it carries a globally defined unit normal $N$, which we choose so that $N=\eh_0$ at infinity. This allows us to consider the [*angle function*]{} $\Theta_{\overline X}=\langle \overline X,N\rangle:M\to\mathbb R$ associated to $\overline X$. We also remark that the corresponding orientation on $M$ induces, in the standard manner, an orientation on any inner boundary $\Gamma$. If we further assume that $\Gamma$ lies on some (connected) hypersurface $P\hookrightarrow \overline M$ and there it bounds a distinguished compact domain $\Omega$, then a choice of a unit vector field, say $\mu$, pointing inward with respect to $\Omega$, defines a unique orientation on $P$. With these preliminaries at hand, the following theorem computes, in the presence of an inner boundary $\Gamma$, which for simplicity we assume connected, the mass $m_g$ of $(M,g)$ in terms of the mass $m_h$ of $(E,h)$ and integrals over $\Gamma $ and $M$ involving geometric quantities. In the following, we denote by ${\rm Ric}_{\overline g}$ (respectively, $R_{\overline g}$) the Ricci tensor (respectively, the scalar curvature) of $(\overline M,\overline g)$.
\[mainwar\] Let $(M,g)\looparrowright (\overline M,\overline g)$ be a two-sided asymptotically flat hypersurface as above. Let $\Gamma\hookrightarrow M$ be a smooth, compact inner boundary lying on some totally geodesic hypersurface $P\hookrightarrow \overline M$ and assume that, along $\Gamma$, $M$ is orthogonal to $P$. Then, if orientations are fixed as above, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{massformeuc}
m_g & = & m_h-c_n\int_{\Gamma}\langle \overline X ,\eta\rangle s_1(N) d\Gamma+\nonumber\\
& & \qquad\quad +c_n\int_M\left(2S_2\Theta_{\overline X}+{\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,\overline X^T)\right) dM,\end{aligned}$$ where $s_1(N)$ is the mean curvature of $\Gamma\hookrightarrow P$ with respect to $N$, $\eta$ is the exterior unit co-normal to $M$, $S_2$ is the $2$-mean curvature of $M$ (see (\[twomean\]) below) and ${\overline X}^T$ is the tangential component of $\overline X$ along $M$.
\[ortho\][We note that the assumption that $M$ meets $P$ orthogonally along $\Gamma$ implies that $\Gamma\hookrightarrow M$ is minimal, a geometric condition a horizon should necessarily satisfy. In fact, it corresponds to the requirement that $|\nabla f|\to +\infty$ as $(x,f(x))$ approaches $\Gamma$ in the graph case considered in [@L1]; see Remark \[gather\] below for a clarification of this point.]{}
\[several\][The proof of Theorem \[mainwar\] straightforwardly extends to the case in which $M$ has finitely many ends. Thus, if we assume that each end, say $E^{(i)}_M$, of $M$ is asymptotically flat in the sense that it can be expressed as a graph over $E$ in terms of a function satisfying the decay conditions (\[asym\]), then (\[massformeuc\]) gets replaced by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{newww}
\sum_i\epsilon_im^{(i)}_g & = & m_h-c_n\int_{\Gamma}\langle\overline X,\eta\rangle s_1(N) d\Gamma+\nonumber\\
& & \qquad +c_n\int_M\left(2S_2\Theta_{\overline X}+{\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,\overline X^T)\right)\, dM,\end{aligned}$$ where the $m^{(i)}_g$’s are the masses attached to the ends in the usual manner and $\epsilon_i=\pm 1$ according to whether the unit normals to $E^{(i)}_M$ and $E$ agree or not at infinity. Also, the obvious generalization of (\[newww\]) holds in the presence of finitely many horizontal inner boundaries.]{}
\[chn\][In recent years there has been much interest in defining and computing mass-like invariants for non-compact Riemannian manifolds whose geometry at infinity approaches some model geometry other than the Euclidean one. A notable example occurs in the so-called asymptotically hyperbolic case; see for instance [@CH], [@CN], [@H2] and [@M]. In this regard we note that the methods leading to (\[massformeuc\]) are flexible enough do deal with this more general setting. In particular, integral formulae for the mass invariants of such hypersurfaces are also available, from which we are able to draw interesting consequences like Positive Mass and Penrose-like inequalities. These results will be presented in a companion paper [@dLG]. ]{}
Formula (\[massformeuc\]) becomes specially interesting in the setting of Remark \[case\]. In this case we will [*always*]{} assume that $P=E_{t_0}$, $t_0\in I$, i.e. $\Gamma$ lies on some horizontal slice. Also, given the distinguished compact domain $\Omega\subset E_{t_0}$ such that $\partial \Omega=\Gamma$, the orientation on $E_{t_0}$ corresponding to the choice of the inward pointing unit vector $\mu$ agrees with the one induced by $\eh_0$. Under these conditions, it is easy to check that the possibilities $\eta=\pm \eh_0$ imply that $\langle \overline X,\eta\rangle=\pm \phi$ and $N=\mp \mu$ along $\Gamma$, so that (\[massformeuc\]) reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{masswar}
m_g & = & m_h +c_n\int_{\Gamma} \phi s_1(\mu) d\Gamma+\nonumber\\
& & \qquad\quad +c_n\int_M\left(2S_2\Theta_{\overline X}+{\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,\overline X^T)\right) dM,\end{aligned}$$ where $s_1({\mu})$ is the mean curvature of $\Gamma \hookrightarrow E_{t_0}$ with respect to $\mu$. This formula already comprises a number of interesting subcases that certainly deserve being discussed here, but for the sake of brevity we only mention one important consequence, whose complete justification is deferred to Proposition \[postp\] below.
\[lam2\] Assume in Theorem \[mainwar\] that $(\overline M,\overline g)$ is a Riemannian product, i.e. we are in the setting of Remark \[case\] with $ \phi\equiv 1$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{massformeuclam}
m_g & = & m_{h}+c_n\int_{\Gamma}s_1({\mu}) d\Gamma+\nonumber\\
& & \qquad\quad +c_n\int_M\Theta_{\overline X}\left(R_g-R_{ h}+{\rm Ric}_{ h}(N^t,N^t)\right)\, dM,\end{aligned}$$ where $N^t$ is the horizontal component of $N$.
This has been proved in [@L2] in the graph case (but with the boundary term missing). To explore (\[massformeuclam\]) further, let us say that $(M,g)\hookrightarrow(\overline M,\overline g)$ as in Theorem \[lam2\] is a [*quasi-graph*]{} if $\Theta_{\overline X}\geq 0$ along $M$. We also say that $\Gamma\subset E_{t_0}$ is [*Alexsandrov-Fenchel*]{} if $\Gamma$ is contained in a domain $D\subset E_{t_0}$ which is [*isometric*]{} to an Euclidean domain and $\Gamma\subset D$ is convex (equivalently, the pair $\Gamma\subset D$ projects down to a pair $\Gamma_0\subset D_0$, where $D_0\subset E$, with the same properties, which means that this really amounts to an assumption on the geometry of $(E,h)$). Then the Alexsandrov-Fenchel inequality applies to estimate from below the boundary integral in (\[massformeuclam\]) in terms of the area $A$ of $\Gamma$ in the standard manner, which yields the following optimal [*relative*]{} Penrose-type inequality.
\[lam3\] If, under the conditions of Theorem \[lam2\], $M$ is a quasi-graph and $\Gamma$ is Alexsandrov-Fenchel then $$\label{lam5}
m_g\geq m_h+\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{A}{\omega_{n-1}}\right)^{\frac{n-2}{n-1}},$$ whenever $$\label{hyp}
R_g\geq R_h-{\rm Ric}_h(N^t,N^t)$$ outside of the zero set of $\Theta_{\overline X}$.
\[classes\][ Under the conditions of the theorem, assume that either $n\leq 7$ or $E$ is spin and (\[hyp\]) holds with $R_h\geq 0$. Then, $$\label{classes2}
m_g\geq \frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{A}{\omega_{n-1}}\right)^{\frac{n-2}{n-1}}.$$ ]{}
To check this, notice that $R_h\geq 0$ allows us to apply the Positive Mass Theorem [@SY] [@W] so that $m_h\geq 0$ and (\[classes2\]) follows.
\[streng\][Theorem \[lam3\] can be used to produce examples of asymptotically flat manifolds for which the super-optimal inequality $$\label{superopt}
m_g\geq \left(\frac{A}{\omega_{n-1}}\right)^{\frac{n-2}{n-1}}$$ holds. For example, in dimension $n=3$, Bartnik [@Ba2] constructed examples of scalar-flat, asymptotically flat metrics containing a domain $D_0$ isometric to an Euclidean ball. Moreover, if combined with a result by Corvino [@C], the metric can even be chosen to be isometric to the Schwarzschild solution in a neighborhood of infinity. Clearly, the corollary applies to this class of metrics provided $\Gamma\subset D$ and (\[hyp\]) holds with $R_h=0$, thus yielding the super-optimal lower bound $$\label{super}
m_g\geq \sqrt{\frac{A}{4\pi}},$$ since now both the horizon and the end of the quasi-graph each contribute to its mass with the standard Penrose lower bound. More generally, we can use a recent gluing result due to Brendle, Marques and Neves [@BMN] to obtain similar examples in any dimension $n\geq 3$. The idea is to glue a bowl metric in a spherical cap (so that the bottom of the bowl is flat) to the (exterior) Riemannian Schwarzschild solution along their common boundary, which is diffemorphic to $\mathbb S^{n-1}$. Since the boundary of the Schwarzschild solution is minimal, the conditions of Theorem 5 in [@BMN] are met, after possibly adjusting the size of the bowl, and in this way we obtain a manifold $(E,h)$ which contains a flat region and is Schwarzschild at infinity, so we again can find quasi-graphs $(M,g)$ for which (\[superopt\]) holds whenever (\[hyp\]) takes place. The negative part of the scalar curvature of the manifold $(E,h)$ so obtained gets concentrated in a small neighborhood of the common boundary, but notice that we can arrange so that $R_h\geq 0$ everywhere if, before the gluing procedure, we slightly modify a small neighborhood of the boundary of the Schwarzschild solution in a rotationally invariant manner so as to render its scalar curvature positive (and small). That this kind of modification can be performed is due to the fact that the mean curvature of the boundary of the bowl metric is positive.]{}
\[fs\][Another interesting example of a manifold to which we can attach bowl metrics as in the previous remark appears in the conformally flat case. Let us consider a bounded domain $\Omega\subset \mathbb R^n$ and the manifold $(E',h')$, where $E'=\mathbb R^n-\Omega$ and $h'=u^{\frac{4}{n-2}}g_0$, with $g_0$ being the flat metric and $u>0$ a smooth function on $E'$ satisfying $\Delta_{g_0}u\leq 0$ everywhere and $u\to 1$ at infinity, i.e. $R_{h'}\geq 0$ and $h'$ is asymptotically flat; see [@BI]. We assume that $\partial E'$ is minimal in $(E',h')$ and convex as an Euclidean hypersurface. In this case we can clearly attach a bowl type metric to $h'$ along $\partial E'$ so as to obtain a complete, asymptotically flat manifold $(E,h)$ whose scalar curvature is nonnegative except possibly in a small neighborhood of the common boundary. As in the previous remark, if before gluing we adjust the metric $h'$ so that its scalar curvature becomes slightly positive in a neighborhood of the boundary, the condition $R_{h}\geq 0$ can be globally restored. Since the background manifold is spin, Corollary \[classes\] applies to a suitable asymptotically flat quasi-graph $(M,g)$ satisfying (\[hyp\]). But notice that, by using the recent lower bound for $m_{h'}$ obtained by Freire and Schwartz [@Sc] [@FS], which of course turns into a lower bound for $m_h$, (\[classes2\]) improves to $$\label{improv1}
m_g\geq 2\left(\frac{V(\Omega)}{\beta_n}\right)^{\frac{n-2}{n}}+
\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{A}{\omega_{n-1}}\right)^{\frac{n-2}{n-1}},$$ where $V(\Omega)$ (respectively, $\beta_n$) is the volume of $\Omega$ (respectively, of the unit ball). Alternatively, we may appeal to a recent result by Jauregui [@J] in order to get $$\label{improv2}
m_g\geq \left(\frac{|\partial E'|}{\omega_{n-1}}\right)^{\frac{n-2}{n-1}}+
\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{A}{\omega_{n-1}}\right)^{\frac{n-2}{n-1}},$$ where $|\partial E'|$ is the Euclidean area of $\partial E'$. Notice that, if combined with the classical isoperimetric inequality, (\[improv2\]) yields a weakened version of (\[improv1\]), with the factor $2$ in the first term on the right-hand side missing. We remark, however, that the lower bound in [@J] applies to a much larger class of conformal metrics, and since our gluing procedure also works for such metrics, (\[improv2\]) holds in this generality.]{}
\[even\][Even in the rather special case $(E,h)=(\mathbb R^n, g_0)$ the corollary gives an optimal Penrose inequality in [*any*]{} dimension for quasi-graphs in $\mathbb R^{n+1}$ with $R_g\geq 0$ outside of the zero set of $\Theta_{\overline X}$ and whose inner boundary $\Gamma$ lies on a horizontal hyperplane $\Pi$, with $M$ meeting $\Pi$ orthogonally along $\Gamma$. This already strengthens a celebrated result verified for graphs in [@L1]. Notice that here the scalar curvature is even allowed to be [*negative*]{} somewhere in the zero set of $\Theta_{\overline X}$.]{}
Another interesting consequence of Theorem \[mainwar\] we mention here takes place when $(\overline M,\overline g)$ is Ricci-flat.
\[ricci\] If $(\overline M,\overline g)$ is Ricci-flat, then $$\begin{aligned}
\label{massformeuc2}
m_g & = & m_h-c_n\int_{\Gamma}\langle \overline X,\eta\rangle s_1(N) d\Gamma+\nonumber\\
& & \qquad\quad +c_n\int_M\Theta_{\overline X}R_g dM.\end{aligned}$$
In effect, Ricci flatness and (\[ger\]) imply ${\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,X^T)=0$ and $2S_2=R_g$. This yields a sort of positive mass inequality for certain hypersurfaces.
\[classes3\][ Assume, under the conditions of the theorem, that $m_h\geq 0$, $\Gamma=\emptyset$ and $\Theta_{\overline X}\geq 0$ along $M$. Then, $m_g\geq 0$ whenever $R_g\geq 0$ outside of the zero set of $\Theta_X$. ]{}
We note that the conclusion holds if we merely assume that $\Theta_{\overline X}R_g\geq 0$ everywhere along $M$. Also, it is not hard to check that (sub-optimal) versions of the Penrose inequality hold in the setting of the corollary under suitable assumptions on a inner boundary $\Gamma$. For example, one might ask that $\Gamma$ lies on one of the slices of the standard foliation of $\overline M-\overline K$. Since the slice is almost flat, Alexsandrov-Fenchel holds with an almost optimal constant if we assume that $\Gamma$ is convex in the obvious sense. Finally, we remark that an optimal Penrose inequality can be obtained if a neighborhood of $P$ is a Riemannian product, with $P$ as a slice, and $\Gamma$ is Alexsandrov-Fenchel.
The theorem also yields a scalar curvature rigidity result according to which one cannot, under proper conditions, deform the induced metric so that the scalar curvature increases at each point while keeping the geometry at infinity fixed. This is loosely related to results surveyed in [@Bre].
\[rigid\][ Assume, under the conditions of the theorem, that $\Gamma=\emptyset$, $\Theta_{\overline X}>0$ along $M$, $f$ is constant in a neighborhood of infinity and $R_g\geq 0$. Then, $(M,g)$ is scalar-flat.]{}
Indeed, one has $m_g=m_h$, which gives $$\int_M\Theta_{\overline X}R_g dM=0.$$
\[streng2\] We would like to point out that not every asymptotically flat manifold can be isometrically immersed in $(\mathbb{R}^{n+1},g_0)$ as an asymptotically flat hypersurface (in the sense of Definition \[asympdef\]). This is certainly the case of the three-dimensional Bartnik-Corvino’s examples in Remark \[streng\]. Indeed, if this were the case, the scalar-flatness of these manifolds would imply, by Lam’s formula (\[lam\]), that the mass of each of them is zero, a contradiction since they agree with a Schwarzschild solution at infinity. Similar remarks also hold for immersions in the Ricci-flat manifolds of Theorem \[ricci\]. This indicates the limitations of our methods and shows that our mass formulae can be seen as geometric obstructions to realizing certain asymptotically flat manifolds as asymptotically flat hypersurfaces in the ambient manifolds we consider.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section \[geograph\] we compute the shape operator of an asymptotically flat graph in $(\overline M,\overline g)$. The result, presented in Proposition \[data\] below, looks somewhat intractable at first sight, but we show in Proposition \[key\] that a remarkable cancelation takes place if one evaluates the corresponding Newton tensor on the tangential component of the vertical Killing field. In Section \[proof\] we then show, after integrating the flux formula by parts, that the above mentioned simplified expression, when restricted to large coordinate spheres, can be identified to the field of $1$-forms defining the ADM mass after discarding, by means of a careful analysis, higher order terms that vanish at infinity after integration over these spheres. This proves Theorem \[mainwar\] in case $\Gamma=\emptyset$ and an extra piece of argument is then presented to handle the general case. In Section \[quasilocal\] we discuss a notion of quasi-local mass in the class of hypersurfaces we are considering, showing in particular that, under suitable conditions, this quasi-local mass is nonnegative, monotone and converges to the ADM mass. Finally, in Section \[further\], we briefly discuss further generalizations of our results, including the case of (Riemannian or Lorentzian) manifolds carrying a conformal Killing field and whose geometry at infinity approaches our warped product model in a suitable sense.
[**Acknowledgements.**]{} The authors would like to thank F. Marques for many helpful suggestions and, in particular, for pointing out the gluing result in [@BMN]. They are also indebted to F. Schwartz for valuable comments on an earlier version of this paper.
The geometry of graphs in warped products {#geograph}
=========================================
If $(M,g)\looparrowright(\overline M,\overline g)$ is a two-sided asymptotically flat hypersurface as in Definition \[asympdef\] and $\overline \nabla$ is the Riemannian connection of $(\overline M,\overline g)$, let us denote by $B=-\overline \nabla N$ the shape operator of $M$ with respect to its unit normal vector $N$ and by $k_1,\ldots,k_n$ the eigenvalues of $B$ with respect to $g$ (the principal curvatures). Define $$\label{onemean}
S_1=\sum_ik_i$$ and $$\label{twomean}
S_2=\sum_{i<j}k_ik_j.$$ These are respectively the [*mean curvature*]{} and the $2$-[*mean curvature*]{} of $M$. Notice that from Gauss equation we have $$\label{ger}
R_g=R_{\overline g}-2{\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,N)+2S_2.$$ Also, we define the [*Newton tensor*]{} by $$\label{zero}
G=S_1I-B,$$ where $I$ is the identity map.
Later on we will need the expressions of some of these invariants along the end $E_M$ of $M$ which, by Definition \[asympdef\], is a graph over the end $E$. To achieve this we start by noticing that if, as before, $x=(x_1,\cdots,x_n)$ are asymptotically flat coordinates in $E$, then the tangent frame $$\label{tangent}
\eh_i=\frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}, \quad i=1,\cdots,n,$$ can be extended to a frame $\{\eh_{\alpha}\}_{\alpha=0}^n$ in $\overline E=E\times\mathbb R$ with $\langle\eh_0,\eh_i\rangle=0$, where $\eh_0$ is defined by ([\[framevert\]]{}). The following proposition describes the structure equations associated to such a frame.
\[struct\] One has $$\label{structw}
\overline\nabla_{\eh_i}\eh_0=0,\quad \overline\nabla_{\eh_0}\eh_i=\phi^{-1}\phi_i\eh_0,\quad
\overline\nabla_{\eh_0}\eh_0=-\phi^{-1}\nabla \phi,$$ where $\nabla$ is the gradient operator of $(E,h)$ and $\phi_i=\eh_i(\phi)$.
The first equation in (\[structw\]) follows from the fact that the slices are totally geodesic, as already remarked. From this we get $$\begin{aligned}
\overline\nabla_{\e_0}\e_i=\overline\nabla_{\e_i}\e_0+[\e_0,\e_i] & = & \left[\phi^{-1}\frac{\partial}{\partial t},\e_i\right]\\
& = &
\phi^{-1}\left[\frac{\partial}{\partial t},\e_i\right]-\e_i(\phi^{-1})\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\\
& = & -\e_i(\phi^{-1})\frac{\partial}{\partial t},\end{aligned}$$ and the second equation follows. Finally, $$\overline\nabla_{\e_0}\e_0=\phi^{-2}\overline\nabla_{\partial/\partial t}
\frac{\partial}{\partial t},$$ and, since $\partial/\partial t$ is Killing, this implies $$\langle \overline\nabla_{\e_0}\e_0,\e_0\rangle=\phi^{-3}
\left\langle\overline\nabla_{\partial/\partial t}\frac{\partial}{\partial t},
\frac{\partial t}{\partial t}\right\rangle=0,$$ where $\langle\,,\,\rangle$ is the inner product associated to $\overline g$. Thus, $$\overline\nabla_{\e_0}\e_0=\gamma^l\e_l,$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^l & = & h^{lm}\langle\overline\nabla_{\e_0}\e_0,\e_m\rangle \\
& = & -\phi^{-2}
h^{lm}\langle\overline\nabla_{\e_m}\frac{\partial}{\partial t},
\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\rangle\\
& = & -\frac{\phi^{-2}}{2}{h^{lm}}
\e_m\left(\phi^2\right)\\
& = & -\phi^{-1}h^{lm}\phi_m,\end{aligned}$$ as desired.
Let us now write $$E_M=\left\{(x,f(x));x\in E\right\}\subset\overline M,$$ as the graph associated to a smooth function $f:E\to\mathbb R$ as in Definition \[asympdef\]. In terms of the frame in Proposition \[struct\], $TE_M$ is spanned by $$\label{frame}
Z_i=f_i\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\e_i=\phi f_i\e_0+\e_i,\quad i=1,\cdots,n,$$ where $f_i=\eh_i(f)$, and we choose $$\label{normal}
N=\frac{1}{W}\left(\e_0-\phi \nabla f\right),$$ where $$\label{asymw}
W=\sqrt{1+\phi^2|\nabla f|^2_h}=1+O(|x|^{-\tau}),$$ as the unit normal to $E_M$. Notice that this is consistent with our global choice of unit normal to $M$, which is dictated by the condition $N=\eh_0$ at infinity. Also, the induced metric on $E_M$ is $$\label{mett1}
g_{ij}=\langle Z_i,Z_j\rangle=h_{ij}+\phi^2f_if_j,$$ where $h_{ij}=\langle\eh_i,\eh_j\rangle$ is the metric on $E$, and the inverse metric is $$\label{mett2}
g^{ij}=h^{ij}-\frac{\phi^2}{W^2}f^if^j,$$ where here and everywhere else in the paper indexes are raised and lowered using $h$.
\[data\] The coefficients of the shape operator $B$ of the graph $E_M$ with respect to the frame (\[frame\]) are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{shape}
WB_{j}^i & = & h^{ik}\left(\phi f_{kj}+\phi_kf_j+\phi_jf_k+\phi^2f_kf_j\phi^mf_m\right)
-\nonumber\\
& & \quad - \frac{\phi^2}{W^2}f^if^k\left(\phi f_{kj}+\phi_kf_j+\phi_jf_k+\phi^2f_kf_j\phi^mf_m\right)
\label{data2}.\end{aligned}$$
We shall use (\[structw\]) and start by computing the coefficients $$\alpha_{jk}=\langle \overline\nabla_{Z_j}Z_k,N\rangle$$ of the second fundamental form $\alpha$ of $E_M$. Since $\overline\nabla_{\e_j}\e_0=0$, a direct computation gives $$\overline\nabla_{Z_j}Z_k=\phi f_j\e_0(\phi f_k)\e_0+\phi^2f_jf_k\overline\nabla_{\e_0}\e_0+
\phi f_j\overline\nabla_{\e_0}\e_k+
\e_j(\phi f_k)\e_0+\overline\nabla_{\e_j}\e_k.$$ But notice that $\e_0(\phi f_k)=\phi^{-1}\partial_t(\phi f_k)=0$. Moreover, $$\overline\nabla_{\e_j}\e_k=\nabla_{\e_j}\e_k+\beta^{(t)}(\e_j,\e_k),$$ where $\nabla$ and $\beta^{(t)}$ are the connection and second fundamental form of a slice $E_t\subset \overline M$. Since $\beta^{(t)}=0$ and we may assume that $\nabla_{\e_j}\e_k=0$ at the point where we are doing the computation, it follows that $\overline\nabla_{\e_j}\e_k=0$. Thus, $$\overline\nabla_{Z_j}Z_k=\phi^2f_jf_k\overline\nabla_{\e_0}\e_0+
\phi f_j\overline\nabla_{\e_0}\e_k+
\e_j(\phi f_k)\e_0,$$ and from (\[structw\]) and (\[normal\]) we easily get $$\label{braykhuri}
\alpha_{jk}=\frac{1}{W}\left(\phi f_{jk}+\phi_jf_k+\phi_kf_j+\phi^2f_jf_k\phi^mf_m\right).$$ In view of (\[mett2\]), the expression (\[shape\]) for the shape operator $B_{k}^i=g^{ij}\alpha_{jk}$ follows readily.
\[braykhurirem\][A computation leading to the Lorentzian analogue of (\[braykhuri\]) is presented in [@BK]. ]{}
The following proposition is a key ingredient in our proof of Theorem \[mainwar\] as it shows that the specific combination of extrinsic data yielding the Newton tensor of a graph simplifies considerably after evaluation on the tangential component of the vertical Killing field.
\[key\] Let $E_M\subset\overline M$ be an asymptotically flat graph as above, $G$ its Newton tensor and $X^T$ the tangential component of $X=\partial/\partial t$ along $E_M$. Then, with respect to the frame (\[frame\]), the coefficients of $GX^T$ are given by $$\label{kx1}
(GX^T)^i=(GX^T)^i_{(1)}+(GX^T)^i_{(2)},$$ where $$\label{kx2}
(GX^T)^i_{(1)}= \frac{\phi^2}{W^3}\left(\phi f_{kj}+\phi_kf_j+\phi_jf_k\right)\left(h^{jk}f^i-h^{ik}f^j\right)=O(|x|^{-\tau-1}),$$ and $$\label{kx4}
(GX^T)^i_{(2)}=\frac{\phi^4}{W^3}\phi^mf_mf_kf_j\left(h^{jk}f^i-
h^{ik}f^j\right)=O(|x|^{-2\tau-1}).$$
From (\[zero\]) we have $$\label{form}
(GX^T)^i=B_{j}^j(X^T)^i-B^i_j(X^T)^j,$$ where $$\label{comp2}
X^T=(X^T)^iZ_i=(X^T)^i\eh_i+\phi f_i(X^T)^i\eh_0$$ by (\[frame\]). Let us rewrite (\[shape\]) as $$B_{j}^i=\sum_{s'=1}^8{B_{j}^i}_{(s')},$$ where $W{B_{j}^i}_{(1)}=\phi h^{ik}f_{kj}$, $W{B_{j}^i}_{(2)}=h^{ik}\phi_kf_j$, etc. Now, since $\langle X,N\rangle=\phi/W$, $$X^T=X-\frac{\phi}{W}N=\frac{\phi^3 |\nabla f|^2_h}{W^2}\e_0+\frac{\phi^2}{W^2}f^i\eh_i,$$ and comparing with (\[comp2\]), $$(X^T)^i=\frac{\phi^2}{W^2}f^i.$$ It is now straightforward to check that $${B_{j}^j}_{(s)}(X^T)^i={B_{j}^i}_{(s)}(X^T)^j,\quad s'\ge 5,$$ that is, half the terms in (\[form\]) cancel out and (\[kx1\]) follows easily. The decay rates follow from the corresponding ones in Definition \[asympdef\] and the fact that both $\phi$ and $h$ are uniformly bounded at infinity.
The proof of Theorem \[mainwar\] {#proof}
================================
In this section we present the proof of Theorem \[mainwar\]. As remarked in the Introduction, the starting point is the flux-type formula $$\label{basic}
{\rm div}_gG\overline X^T=2S_2\Theta_{\overline X} + {\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,\overline X^T),$$ where $(M,g)\looparrowright (\overline M,\overline g)$ is a two-sided asymptotically flat hypersurface as in Definition \[asympdef\], $G$ is its Newton tensor and $\overline X^T$ is the tangential component of the Killing field $\overline X$ that agrees with $X=\partial/\partial t$ on $\overline M-\overline K$. In this generality, (\[basic\]) has been first obtained in [@ABC] in the Lorentzian setting. The Riemannian version can be found in [@AdLM]; see their Lemma 3.1 and equation (8.4) with $r=1$, but be aware of their choice for the sign of the curvature tensor.
Before proceeding with the proof, let us consider the special form of (\[basic\]) leading to Theorem \[lam2\] in the Introduction.
\[postp\] Under the conditions of Theorem \[lam2\], (\[basic\]) reduces to $$\label{basic2}
{\rm div}_gG\overline X^T=\Theta_{\overline X}\left(R_g- R_h +{\rm Ric}_h(N^t,N^t)\right).$$
The product structure gives ${R}_{\overline g}=R_h$ and ${\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(\eh_0,Y)=0$ for any $Y$, so if $N=N^t+N^n$, with $N^n$ proportional to $\eh_0$, we have $$\label{then}
{\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,N) = {\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N^t,N^t) = {\rm Ric}_h(N^t,N^t),$$ where, in the last step, we have used that the slices are totally geodesic. On the other hand, since $\overline X^T=\overline X-\Theta_{\overline X}N$, $$\begin{aligned}
{\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,\overline X^T) & = & \phi{\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,\eh_0)-
\Theta_{\overline X}{\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,N)\\
& = & -\Theta_{\overline X}{\rm Ric}_h(N^t,N^t),\end{aligned}$$ and (\[basic2\]) follows from (\[ger\]), (\[basic\]) and (\[then\]).
Returning to the proof of Theorem \[mainwar\], we first consider the case $\Gamma=\emptyset$, i.e. no inner boundary is present. We take a large coordinate sphere $\Sigma_r\subset E$ and set $\sigma_r=f(\Sigma_r)$, where $f$ describes $E_M$ as a graph over $E$. We denote by $M_r$ the compact region of $M$ inside $\sigma_r$ and by $\vartheta$ (respect. $\nu$) the outward unit normal to $\sigma_r$ (respect. $\Sigma_r$). Thus, integrating (\[basic\]) over $M$ and using the divergence theorem, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{div}
\int_M\left(2S_2\Theta_{\overline X}+{\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,\overline X^T)\right)dM & = & \lim_{r\to \infty}\int_{\sigma_r}\langle G\overline X^T,\vartheta\rangle \,d\sigma_r\nonumber\\
& = & \lim_{r\to \infty}\int_{\Sigma_r}g_{im}(G\overline X^T)^i\nu^m\,d\Sigma_r,\end{aligned}$$ where we used that at infinity we may replace $\vartheta^md\sigma_r$ by $\nu^md\Sigma_r$. Thus, comparing with (\[massformeuc\]) we are left with the task of relating the right-hand side above, which manifestly depends on the extrinsic geometry of the end, to the intrinsically defined relative mass $m_g-m_h$.
By (\[mett1\]) and Proposition \[key\], $$\label{disc}
g_{im}(G\overline X^T)^i\nu^m = h_{im}\nu^m\sum_{s=1}^2(G\overline X^T)^i_{(s)} +\phi^2f_if_m\nu^m\sum_{s=1}^2(G\overline X^T)^i_{(s)},$$ but notice that (\[kx2\]) implies $$\phi^2f_if_m\nu^m(G\overline X^T)^i_{(1)}=O(|x|^{-2\tau-1}),$$ and since the area of coordinate spheres in $E$ grows as $|x|^{n-1}$, this term vanishes at infinity after integration because it becomes $O(|x|^{-2\tau+n-2})$ there. Similarly, by (\[kx4\]), $$\phi^2f_if_m(G\overline X^T)^i_{(2)}\nu^m=O(|x|^{-3\tau-1}),$$ and we obtain $$\label{disc2}
g_{im}(G\overline X^T)^i\nu^m \approx h_{im}\nu^m\sum_{s=1}^2(G\overline X^T)^i_{(s)},$$ where $\approx$ means precisely that we are discarding terms that vanish at infinity after integration.
In order to get rid of further terms in (\[disc2\]) we first note that (\[decay1\]) implies $$h_{im}(G\overline X^T)^i_{(s)}\nu^m\approx (G\overline X^T)^i_{(s)}\nu_i,\quad 1\leq s\leq 2.$$ But by (\[kx4\]), $$(G\overline X^T)^i_{(2)}\nu_i\approx 0,$$ and using that $h^{ij}=\delta^{ij}+O(|x|^{-\tau})$, which follows from (\[decay1\]), we obtain $$(G\overline X^T)^i_{(1)}\nu_i\approx I(\phi)^i\nu_i,$$ where $$I(\phi)^i =
\frac{\phi^2}{W^3}\left(\phi\left(f_{j}^jf^i-f_{j}^if^j\right)+
\phi^jf_jf^i-\phi^if_jf^j\right).$$ Thus, we find that (\[div\]) can be rewritten as $$\label{div2}
\int_M\left(2S_2\Theta_{\overline X}+{\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,\overline X^T)\right)dM=\lim_{r\to +\infty}
\int_{\Sigma_r}I(\phi)^i\nu_id\Sigma_r.$$
To relate the integrand in the right-hand side of (\[div2\]) to the $1$-form defining the mass we now observe that (\[slight\]), (\[asymw\]) and (\[mett1\]) lead to $$\label{quasi}
m_g=m_h+ \lim_{r\to +\infty}c_n\int_{\Sigma_r}J(\phi)_i\nu^id\Sigma_r,$$ where $$J(\phi)_i=\frac{1}{W^3}\left(\phi\left(e^j_{i,j}-e^j_{j,i}\right)-\phi^je_{ij}+
\phi_ie^j_j\right)$$ and $e_{ij}=g_{ij}-h_{ij}=\phi^2f_if_j$. Now a straightforward computation gives $J(\phi)_i\nu^i=I(\phi)^i\nu_i$, so that (\[quasi\]) becomes $$\lim_{r\to \infty}c_n\int_{\Sigma_r}I(\phi)^i\nu_i\,d\Sigma_r =m_g-m_h,$$ which together with (\[div2\]) completes the proof of Theorem \[mainwar\] in case $\Gamma=\emptyset$.
In the presence of $\Gamma$, the extra boundary integral $$-\int_{\Gamma}\langle G\overline X^T,\eta\rangle d\Gamma,$$ where $\eta$ is the outward unit co-normal to $\Gamma$, pops out in the left-hand side of (\[div2\]). To properly handle this we use our orthogonality assumption to expand, in terms of a local orthonormal basis $\{\tilde\eh_l \}_{l=1}^{n-1}$ of $T\Gamma$, $$\overline X^T = \langle \overline X,\eta\rangle\eta+\sum_l\langle \overline X,\tilde \eh_l\rangle\tilde \eh_l,$$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
\langle G\overline X^T,\eta\rangle & = & \langle \overline X,\eta\rangle\langle G\eta,\eta\rangle+\sum_l\langle \overline X,\tilde \eh_l\rangle\langle G\tilde \eh_l,\eta\rangle\\
& = & \langle \overline X,\eta\rangle(S_1-\langle B\eta,\eta\rangle)+\sum_l\langle \overline X,\tilde \eh_l\rangle\langle G\tilde \eh_l,\eta\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ But $$\langle G\tilde\eh_l,\eta \rangle=-\langle B\tilde\eh_l,\eta\rangle=\langle \overline\nabla_{\tilde \eh_l}N,\eta\rangle= -\langle N,\overline\nabla_{\tilde \eh_l}\eta\rangle,$$ and this vanishes due to the assumptions that $\eta=\pm\xi$ along $\Gamma$ and that $P$ is totally geodesic. In particular, $\eta$ is a principal direction of $B$ with $\langle B\eta,\eta\rangle$ being the corresponding principal curvature and hence $S_1-\langle B\eta,\eta\rangle=s_1(N)$, which completes the proof of Theorem \[mainwar\].
\[novel\] [A rather informal, but highly suggestive, way of concisely expressing the mass is $$m_g=c_n\int_{\Sigma_\infty} \langle\Upsilon_{ADM},\nu_{\infty}\rangle d\Sigma_{\infty},$$ where $\Upsilon_{ADM}={{\rm div}_{g_0}g-d{\rm tr}_{g_0}g}$, $\Sigma_\infty=\lim_{r\to +\infty} \Sigma_r$ is the sphere at infinity and $\nu_\infty$ is its unit normal. In words, $m_g$ is simply the (properly normalized) total flux of the (co-)vector $\Upsilon_{ADM}$ over $\Sigma_{\infty}$. In this regard, the computation leading to the proof of Theorem \[mainwar\] essentially amounts to checking that $$\int_{\Sigma_\infty} \langle\Upsilon_{ADM},\nu_{\infty}\rangle d\Sigma_{\infty}=\int_{\Sigma_\infty} \langle GX^T,\nu_{\infty}\rangle d\Sigma_{\infty},$$ i.e. $\Upsilon_{ADM}$ and $GX^T$ have the [*same*]{} total flux over $\Sigma_\infty$. In fact, we have proved that $\Upsilon_{ADM}=GX^T+Y$, where $Y$, which corresponds to terms vanishing at infinity after integration, has a null total flux.]{}
\[gather\][In order to justify the claim in Remark \[ortho\] let us assume that $M$ meets $P$ in a not necessarily orthogonal manner. Thus, retaining the notation above, one has for each $l=1,\cdots,n-1$, $$\overline \nabla_{\tilde\eh_{l}}\tilde\eh_{l}=\sum_m\langle \overline\nabla_{\tilde\eh_{l}}\tilde\eh_{l},\tilde\eh_m\rangle\tilde\eh_m+
\langle\overline\nabla_{\tilde\eh_{l}}\tilde\eh_{l},N\rangle N+
\langle\overline\nabla_{\tilde\eh_{l}}\tilde\eh_{l},\eta\rangle \eta$$ and $$\overline \nabla_{\tilde\eh_{l}}\tilde\eh_{l}=\sum_m\langle \overline\nabla_{\tilde\eh_{l}}\tilde\eh_{l},\tilde\eh_m\rangle\tilde\eh_m+
\langle\overline\nabla_{\tilde\eh_{l}}\tilde\eh_{l},\mu\rangle \mu+
\langle\overline\nabla_{\tilde\eh_{l}}\tilde\eh_{l},\xi\rangle \xi,$$ where $\xi$ is the unit normal to $P$. Taking the inner product of both equations with $\eta$, summing over $l$ and using that $P$ is totally geodesic we obtain $$\label{orthono}
s_1(\eta)=s_1(\mu)\langle \mu, \eta\rangle,$$ where $s_1(\eta)$ is the mean curvature of $\Gamma\hookrightarrow M$. The claim follows. ]{}
A generalization of Lam’s quasi-local mass {#quasilocal}
==========================================
As evidenced by the various Positive Mass and Penrose inequalities available in the literature, the ADM mass of an asymptotically flat manifold provides a rather satisfactory description of the energy content of an isolated gravitational system in General Relativity. It is highly desirable, however, to develop a notion of mass at the quasi-local level, i.e. for finitely extended regions in space. Such a notion should be expressed solely in terms of the boundary data and is required to meet a list of natural properties such as positivity, strict monotonicity, etc. In this regard we should mention that several proposals have been considered so far but a completely satisfactory solution to the problem remains elusive; see [@Ba3] and [@Sz] for surveys on this subject. The purpose of this section is to present a new notion of quasi-local mass for certain bounded domains in asymptotically flat hypersurfaces. As checked below, this quasi-local mass is nonnegative, monotone and ADM convergent under suitable conditions but, as already pointed out in the Introduction, our method fails to detect whether it is positive or strictly monotone in general, since this is essentially a rigidity issue.
In [@L2] it is defined a notion of [*quasi-local mass*]{} for bounded domains in an asymptotically flat graph $M\hookrightarrow\mathbb R^{n+1}$ whose boundary $\Gamma$ is not necessarily a horizon, which means that $\Gamma$ is contained in a horizontal hyperplane $\Pi$ but $M$ is not orthogonal to $\Pi$ along $\Gamma$. We will now show how this concept can be extended, in the presence of the Killing field $\overline X$, to certain bounded domains $\Dc\subset M$, where $M\looparrowright\overline M$ is an asymptotically flat hypersurface . We will make two basic assumptions here. First, we assume that $\Gamma=\partial \Dc$ is the intersection of $M$ with a totally geodesic, embedded hypersurface $P\hookrightarrow\overline M$, as in our general setup. Second, we require that the Killing field $\overline X$ is normal to $P$ along $\Gamma$. We will then say that $(P,\Gamma,\Dc)$ is an [*admissible configuration*]{}. Notice that we do [*not*]{} assume that $M$ is orthogonal to $P$ along $\Gamma$, so that $\Gamma\hookrightarrow M$ is not necessarily minimal; see Remarks \[ortho\] and \[gather\]. In any case, under these conditions we have $$\overline X=\langle \overline X,\xi\rangle\xi=\langle \overline X,\eta\rangle\eta+
\langle\overline X,N\rangle N,$$ where, as usual, $\eta$ is the outward unit co-normal to $M-\Dc$, so that $$\label{notnece}
\langle G\eta,\overline X\rangle=\langle\overline X,\xi\rangle\langle\xi,\eta\rangle\langle G\eta,\eta\rangle.$$ But formula 6.4 in [@AdLM] with $r=1$ says that $\langle G\eta,\eta\rangle=-s_1({\mu})\langle\xi,\eta\rangle$ and using that $\langle \xi,\eta\rangle^2+\langle \eta,\mu\rangle^2=1$ and (\[orthono\]) with $s_1(\mu)\neq 0$, we finally obtain $$\label{notnece2}
\langle G\eta,\overline X\rangle=\langle \overline X,\xi\rangle\left(
\frac{1}{s_1(\mu)}\left(s_1(\eta)^2-s_1(\mu)^2\right)\right).$$ This motivates the following extension of the notion of quasi-local mass introduced in [@L2].
\[qlmass\] Under the conditions above, the [*quasi-local mass*]{} of $\Dc$ is $$\label{qlmassf}
m_{QL}(\Dc)=c_n\int_{\Gamma}\langle \overline X,\xi\rangle\left(
\frac{1}{s_1(\mu)}\left(s_1(\mu)^2-s_1(\eta)^2\right)\right)d\Gamma.$$
Notice that, by (\[notnece2\]), $$m_{QL}(\Dc)=-\int_{\Gamma}\langle G\overline X^T,\eta\rangle d\Gamma,$$ so that, by (\[basic\]) and the divergence theorem, $$\label{mql1}
m_{QL}(\Dc)=c_n\int_\Dc\left(2S_2\Theta_{\overline X}+{\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,\overline X^t)\right)dM.$$ Also, the computation leading to the proof of Theorem \[mainwar\] yields $$\label{mql2}
m_g=m_h+m_{QL}(\Dc)+c_n\int_{M-\Dc}\left(2S_2\Theta_{\overline X}+{\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,\overline X^t)\right)dM.$$ More precisely, (\[mql2\]) follows from (\[mql1\]) and (\[massformeuc\]) in case no horizon is present.
Here is the first consequence of our computation.
\[conv\] (Convergence to the ADM mass) If $(P_k,\Gamma_k,\Dc_k)$ is a sequence of admissible configurations with $\Dc_k$ exhausting $M$ as $k\to+\infty$ then $$\lim_{k\to+\infty}m_{QL}(\Dc_k)=m_g-m_h.$$
This follows immediately from (\[mql2\]) since $$\lim_{k\to +\infty} \int_{M-\Dc_k}\left(2S_2\Theta_{\overline X}+{\rm Ric}_{\overline g}(N,\overline X^t)\right)dM=0.$$
Further properties of $m_{QL}$ can be derived from (\[mql1\]) under the conditions of Theorems \[lam2\] and \[ricci\], as the following result shows.
\[positi\] Assume that either: i) $(\overline M,\overline g)$ is a Riemannian product, $M$ is a quasi-graph and $R_g\geq R_h-{\rm Ric}_h(N^t,N^t)$ outside of the zero set of $\Theta_{\overline X}$ or ii) $(\overline M,\overline g)$ is Ricci-flat, $\Theta_{\overline X}\geq 0$ along $M$ and $R_g\geq 0$ outside of the zero set of $\Theta_{\overline X}$. Then the following properties hold:
1. (nonnegativity) If $(P,\Gamma,\Dc)$ is admissible then $m_{QL}(D)\geq 0$;
2. (monotonicity) If $(P_k,\Gamma_k,\Dc_k)$, $k=1,2$, are admissible configurations with $\Dc_1\subset \Dc_2$ then $m_{QL}(\Dc_1)\leq m_{QL}(\Dc_2)$.
This follows from (\[mql1\]) since in both cases the integrand in the right-hand side is non-negative.
We remark that, in the case of Euclidean graphs, Theorems \[conv\] and \[positi\] have been proved in [@L2].
Further generalizations {#further}
=======================
In this section we briefly discuss a few generalizations of the results presented above.
The case of conformal Killing fields
------------------------------------
The bulk of the argument leading to Theorem \[mainwar\] actually involves a computation at infinity which only uses suitable decay assumptions on the asymptotic geometry of the various manifolds involved. This suggests that a generalization of Theorem \[mainwar\] should hold in cases where, while maintaining the warped product structure at infinity, more flexibility is allowed on the geometry at finite scales. We briefly discuss here, in a rather sloppy style, one such possibility. Thus assume that $(\overline M_o,\overline g_o)$ is a Riemannian manifold for which there exists a closed subset $\overline K_o\subset \overline M_o$ with $\overline M_o-\overline K_o$ diffeomorphic to $\{(y,t)\in \mathbb R^n\times I;|y|>1\}$. Assume that $\overline M_o$ carries a conformal Killing field $\overline X_o$ and that, as one approaches infinity along $\overline M_o-\overline K_o$, the geometry of the triple $(\overline M_o,\overline g_o,\overline X_o)$ converges in a suitable sense to the geometry of our model $(\overline E,\overline h,X)$ for a function $\phi$ satisfying (\[um\]). For example, a simple way of meeting these conditions is to require that at a neighborhood of spatial infinity $\overline X_0$ is Killing and the geometries are isometric indeed. Now, if we fix a copy of $E$ inside $(\overline M_o,\overline g_o)$, so that it has a well-defined mass $m_{h}$, let $(M_o,g_o)$ be an asymptotically flat hypersurface in $(\overline M_o,\overline g_o)$ which at infinity is a graph over (the fixed copy of) $E$ for some smooth function $f$ decaying as in (\[asym\]). Thus, using the appropriate version of the flux formula (see [@AdLM]) and arguing as above we will eventually find in the case $\Gamma=\emptyset$ the following formula for the mass $m_{g_o}$ of $(M_o,g_o)$: $$\label{flex}
m_{g_o} = m_{h} + c_n\int_{M_o}\left(\lambda S_1+\left(2S_2\Theta_{\overline X_o}+{\rm Ric}_{{\overline g}_o}(N_o,\overline X_o^T)\right)\right) dM_o,$$ where $\lambda$ is the conformality factor of $\overline X_o$, $N_o$ is a suitably chosen unit normal to $M_o$ and the extrinsic invariants $S_1$ and $S_2$ now refer to $M_o$. Thus, if $\overline M_o$ is Ricci-flat and $M_o$ is minimal, we obtain the following analogue of (\[massformeuc2\]): $$m_{g_o} = m_{h} +c_n\int_M\Theta_{\overline X_o}R_{g_o} dM_o.$$ In particular, if $\Theta_{\overline X_o}\geq 0$ everywhere, we get $m_{g_o}\geq m_{h}$ provided $R_{g_o}\geq 0$ outside the zero set of $\Theta_{X_o}$. Needless to say, under suitable assumptions, versions of (\[flex\]) in the presence of an inner boundary can be easily derived as well.
The Lorentzian case
-------------------
Our main result, Theorem \[mainwar\], also admits a version in the Lorentzian case, which is obtained from our general Riemannian setup by Wick rotation. More precisely, $(\overline M,\overline g)$ now is a Lorentzian manifold which at spatial infinity agrees with the warped product model $(\overline E,\overline h)$, where $\overline E=E\times I$ and $\overline h=h-\phi^2 dt^2$. Additionally, we assume the existence of a time-like (conformal) Killing field $\overline X$ agreeing with $\partial/\partial t$ in a neighborhood of infinity. The definition of asymptotically flat hypersurfaces $M\looparrowright \overline M$ is then the same as before, except that now $M$ is required to be space-like. Taking into account the results in [@ABC], it is not hard to check that all the results above have counterparts in this Lorentzian setting.
[999999]{}
L. J. Alías, A. Brasil, Jr. and A. G. Colares, Integral formulae for spacelike hypersurfaces in conformally stationary spacetimes and applications. [*Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc.*]{} (2) 46 (2003), 465-488.
L. J. Alías, J. H. S. de Lira and J. M. Malacarne, Constant higher-order mean curvature hypersurfaces in Riemannian spaces, [*J. Inst. Math. Jussieu*]{} (2006), no. 4, 527-562.
R. Arnowitt, S. Deser and C. W. Misner, Energy and the criteria for radiation in general relativity. [*Phys. Rev.*]{} (2) 118 (1960) 1100-1104.
L. J. Alías and J. M. Malacarne, Spacelike hypersurfaces with constant higher order mean curvature in Minkowski space-time, [*J. Geom. Phys.*]{} 41 (2002), 359-375.
L. J. Alías, A. Romero and M. Sánchez, Spacelike hypersurfaces of constant mean curvature in certain spacetimes, [*Nonlin. Analysis*]{} 30 (1997), 655-661.
R. Bartnik, The mass of an asymptotically flat manifold, [*Comm. Pure Appl. Math.*]{} 39 (1986), 5, 661-693.
R. Bartnik, Quasi-spherical metrics and prescribed scalar curvature, [*J. Differential Geom.*]{} 37 (1993), 31-71.
R. Bartnik, Mass and 3-metrics of non-negative scalar curvature, [*Proceedings of the International Congress of Mathematicians, Vol. II*]{}, 231-240, Higher Ed. Press, Beijing, 2002.
H. L. Bray, Proof of the Riemannian Penrose inequality using the positive mass theorem. [*J. Differential Geom.*]{} 59 (2001), no. 2, 177-267.
H. L. Bray and K. Iga, Superharmonic functions in $\mathbb R^n$ and the Penrose inequality in general relativity, [*Comm. Anal. Geom.*]{} 10 (2002), 5, 999-1016.
H. L. Bray and M. A. Khuri, P.D.E.’s which imply the Penrose conjecture, [*Asian J. Math.*]{} 15 (2011), no. 4, 557-610.
H. L. Bray and D. L. Lee, On the Riemannian Penrose inequality in dimensions less than eight. [*Duke Math. J.*]{} 148 (2009), no. 1, 81-106.
S. Brendle, Rigidity phenomena involving scalar curvature, [*arXiv:1008.3097*]{}
S. Brendle and F. Marques, Recent progress on the Yamabe prolem, [*arXiv:1010.4960*]{}.
S. Brendle, F. Marques and A. Neves, Deformations of the hemisphere that increase scalar curvature, [*Invent. Math.*]{}, 2011, 185, 1, 175-197.
P. Chruściel, Boundary conditions at spatial infinity from a Hamiltonian point of view, [*Topological properties and global structure of space-time*]{}, 49–59, NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. B Phys., 138, Plenum, New York, 1986.
P. Chruściel and M. Herzlich, The mass of asymptotically hyperbolic Riemannian manifolds, [*Pacific J. Math.*]{} 212 (2003), no. 2, 231-264.
P. Chruściel and G. Nagy, The mass of spacelike hypersurfaces in asymptotically anti-de Sitter space-times, [*Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.*]{} 5 (2001), 4, 697-754.
J. Corvino, Scalar curvature deformation and a gluing construction for the Einstein constraint equations. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} 214 (2000), 137-189.
H. F. de Lima, Spacelike hypersurfaces with constant higher order mean curvature in de Sitter space, [*J. Geom. Phys.*]{} 57 (2007), 967-975.
L. L. de Lima, and F. Girão, Positive mass and Penrose type inequalities for asymptotically hyperbolic hypersurfaces, [*arXiv:1201.4991*]{}.
A. Freire and F. Schwartz, Mass-capacity inequalities for conformally flat manifolds with boundary, [*arXiv:1107.1407*]{}.
M. Herzlich, Minimal surfaces, the Dirac operator and the Penrose inequality, [*Séminaire de Théorie Spectrale et Géométrie*]{}, Vol. 20, 2001-2002, 9-16.
M. Herzlich, Mass formulae for asymptotically hyperbolic manifolds, [*AdS/CFT correspondence: Einstein metrics and their conformal boundaries*]{}, 103-121, IRMA Lect. Math. Theor. Phys., 8, Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich, 2005.
L.-H Huang and D. Wu, Hypersurfaces with nonnegative scalar curvature, [*arXiv:1102.5749v2*]{}.
G. Huisken and T. Ilmanen, The inverse mean curvature flow and the Riemannian Penrose inequality, [*J. Differential Geom.*]{} 59 (2001), no. 3, 353-437.
J. L. Jauregui, Penrose-type inequalities with a Euclidean background, [*arXiv:1108.4042*]{}.
M. A. Khuri, F. Marques and R. M. Schoen, A compactness theorem for the Yamabe problem, [*J. Differential Geom.*]{} 81 (2009), 1, 143-196.
M.-K. G. Lam, The Graphs Cases of the Riemannian Positive Mass and Penrose Inequalities in All Dimensions, [*arXiv:1010.4256*]{}.
M.-K. G. Lam, The Graphs Cases of the Riemannian Positive Mass and Penrose Inequalities in All Dimensions, [*Duke thesis*]{}.
J. M. Lee and T. H. Parker, The Yamabe problem, [*Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.)*]{} 17 (1987), 1, 37-91.
Y. Y. Liand L. Zhang, Compactness of solutions to the Yamabe problem. II, [*Calc. Var. Partial Differential Equations*]{} 24 (2005), 2, 185-237.
B. Michel, Geometric invariance of mass-like asymptotic invariants, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} 52 (2011), no. 5, 052504, 14 pp.
H. Rosenberg, Hypersurfaces of constant curvature in space forms, [*Bull. Sci. Math.*]{} 117 (1993), 2, 211-239.
R. Reilly, On the Hessian of a function and the curvatures of its graph, [*Michigan Math. J.*]{} 20 (1973), 373-383.
R. Schoen, Conformal deformation of a Riemannian metric to constant scalar curvature, [J. Differential Geom.]{} 20 (1984), 2, 479-495.
R. Schoen and S.-T. Yau, On the proof of the positive mass conjecture in general relativity. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} 65 (1979), no. 1, 45-76.
F. Schwartz, A volumetric Penrose inequality for conformally flat manifolds, [*Ann. Henri Poincaré*]{}, 12 (2011), 67-76.
L. Szabados, Quasi-local energy-momentum and angular momentum in General Relativity, [*Living Rev.*]{} 4 (2004), available at [http://relativity.livingreviews.org/]{}
E. Witten, A new proof of the positive energy theorem. [*Comm. Math. Phys.*]{} 80 (1981), no. 3, 381-402.
[^1]: Partially supported by CNPq/BR and FUNCAP/CE
[^2]:
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'For the Rössler system we verify Eden’s conjecture on the maximum of local Lyapunov dimension. We compute numerically finite-time local Lyapunov dimensions on the Rössler attractor and embedded unstable periodic orbits. The UPO computation is done by Pyragas time-delay feedback control technique.'
author:
- 'N. V. Kuznetsov'
- 'T. N. Mokaev'
title: 'A note on finite-time Lyapunov dimension of the Rossler attractor'
---
Rössler attractor and Pyragas stabilization of embedded unstable periodic orbits
================================================================================
Consider the following Rössler system [@Rossler-1976] $$\label{eq:rossler}
\begin{aligned}
&\dot{x} = - y - z, \\
& \dot{y} = x + a y, \\
& \dot{z} = b - c z + x z,
\end{aligned}$$ with arbitrary real parameters $a,b,c \in \mathbb{R}$. If $c^2 \geq 4 a b$, then system has the following equilibria: $$\label{eq:rossler:equilibria}
O^\pm = (a p^\pm, -p^\pm, p^\pm), \ \ \text{where} \ \ p^\pm = \tfrac{c \pm \sqrt{c^2-4ab}}{2a}.$$
For some values of parameters system exhibits chaotic behavior. To get a visualization of chaotic attractor one needs to choose an initial point in the basin of attraction of the attractor and observe how the trajectory, starting from this initial point, after a transient process visualizes the attractor: an attractor is called a *self-excited attractor* if its basin of attraction intersects with any open neighborhood of an equilibrium, otherwise, it is called a *hidden attractor* [@LeonovKV-2011-PLA; @LeonovK-2013-IJBC; @LeonovKM-2015-EPJST; @Kuznetsov-2016]. It was discovered numerically by Rössler that in the phase space of system with parameters $a = 0.2$, $b = 0.2$, $c = 5.7$ there exist a *chaotic attractor* of spiral shape, which is self-excited with respect to both equilibria $O^\pm$.
One of the building blocks of chaotic attractor are embedded unstable periodic orbits (UPOs). An effective method for the computation of UPOs is the *time-delay feedback control* (TDFC) approach, suggested by K. Pyragas [@Pyragas-1992] (see also discussions in [@KuznetsovLS-2015-IFAC; @ChenY-1999; @CruzVillar-2007; @LehnertHFGFS-2011]). Let $u^{\rm upo}(t)$ be an UPO with period $\tau > 0$, $u^{\rm upo}(t - \tau) = u^{\rm upo}(t)$, satisfying a differential equation $$\label{eq:control_syst}
\dot{u} = f(u).$$ To compute the UPO, we add the TDFC: $$\label{eq:closed_loop_syst}
\dot{u} = f(u) + k BC^*\big(u(t - T) - u(t)\big),$$ where $B,C$ are vectors and $k$ is a real gain. If $T=\tau$, then $k BC^*\big(u(t - T) - u(t)\big)=0$ along the UPO, and periodic solution of system coincides with periodic solution of system .
For the Rössler system we solved numerically system and stabilized a period-1 UPO $u^{\rm upo_1}(t,u_0)$ with period $\tau = 5.8811$ (see Fig. \[fig:rossler:upo\]).
Then for the initial point $u^{\rm upo}_0$, chosen on the UPO $u^{\rm upo} = \big\{u^{\rm upo}(t)$, $t \in [0,\tau]$}, we numerically compute the trajectory $\tilde{u}(t, u^{\rm upo}_0)$ of system without the stabilization (i.e. with $k=0$) on sufficiently large time interval $[0,T=500]$ (see Fig. \[fig:rossler:upo:upo1attr\]). One can see that on the initial small time interval $[0,T_1 \approx 60]$, even without the control, the obtained trajectory $\tilde{u}(t, u^{\rm upo}_0)$ traces approximately the ”true” periodic orbit $u^{\rm upo}(t, u^{\rm upo}_0)$. But for $t > T_1$ without control the trajectory $\tilde{u}(t, u^{\rm upo}_0)$ diverge from $u^{\rm upo}$ and wind on the attractor $\mathcal{A}$.
Finite-time Lyapunov dimension and Eden conjecture
==================================================
For an attractor, an interesting question [@Eden-1989-PhD p.98] (known as Eden conjecture) is whether the supremum of the local Lyapunov dimensions is achieved on a stationary point or an unstable periodic orbit embedded in the strange attractor. In general, a *conjecture on the Lyapunov dimension of self-excited attractor* [@Kuznetsov-2016-PLA; @KuznetsovLMPS-2018] is that for a typical system the Lyapunov dimension of a self-excited attractor does not exceed the Lyapunov dimension of one of unstable equilibria, the unstable manifold of which intersects with the basin of attraction and visualize the attractor.
Below we follow the concept of the *finite-time Lyapunov dimension* [@Kuznetsov-2016-PLA; @KuznetsovLMPS-2018], which is convenient for carrying out numerical experiments with finite time. The *finite-time local Lyapunov dimension* [@Kuznetsov-2016-PLA; @KuznetsovLMPS-2018] can be defined via an analog of the *Kaplan-Yorke formula* with respect to the set of finite-time Lyapunov exponents: $$\begin{gathered}
\label{lftKY}
\dim_{\rm L}(t, u)\!=\!d_{\rm L}^{\rm KY}(\{\operatorname{LE}_i(t,u)\}_{i=1}^3)= \\
j(t,u) + \tfrac{\operatorname{LE}_1\!(t,u) + \cdot\cdot + \operatorname{LE}_{j(t,u)}\!(t,u)
}{|\operatorname{LE}_{j(t,u)\!+\!1}(t,u)|},\end{gathered}$$ where $j(t,u) = \max\{m: \sum_{i=1}^{m}\operatorname{LE}_i(t,u) \geq 0\}$. Then the *finite-time Lyapunov dimension* (of dynamical system generated by on compact invariant set $\mathcal{A}$) is defined as $$\label{DOmaptmax}
\dim_{\rm L}(t, \mathcal{A}) = \sup\limits_{u \in \mathcal{A}} \dim_{\rm L}(t,u).$$
The *Douady–Oesterlé theorem* [@DouadyO-1980] implies that for any fixed $t > 0$ the finite-time Lyapunov dimension, defined by , is an upper estimate of the Hausdorff dimension: $\dim_{\rm H} \mathcal{A} \leq \dim_{\rm L}(t, \mathcal{A})$. The best estimation is called the *Lyapunov dimension* [@Kuznetsov-2016-PLA] $$\dim_{\rm L} \mathcal{A}
= \inf_{t >0}\sup\limits_{u \in K} \dim_{\rm L}(t,u)
= \liminf_{t \to +\infty}\sup\limits_{u \in K} \dim_{\rm L}(t,u).$$
For the Rössler attractor the Lyapunov dimension was estimated as $2.014$ [@FroehlingCFPS-1981], $2.01$ [@SanoS-1985], $2.0132$ [@Sprott-2003; @Fuchs-2013], and $2.09635$ [@AwrejcewiczKEDBK-2018]); see also [@KuznetsovMV-2014-CNSNS; @SprottL-2017].
Below we use the adaptive algorithm [@KuznetsovLMPS-2018] for the computation of the finite-time Lyapunov dimension and exponents. We compute: maximum of the finite-time local Lyapunov dimensions at the points of grid filling the attractor $\mathcal{A}$, i.e. $\max_{u \in C_{\rm grid}} \dim_{\rm L}(t,u)$; finite-time Lyapunov dimensions $\dim_{\rm L}(500,\cdot)$ for the stabilized UPO with periods $\tau = 5.8811$.
The comparison of the obtained values of $\operatorname{LE}_1(t,u^{\rm upo}_0)$ and $\dim_{\rm L}(t, u^{\rm upo}_0)$ computed along the stabilized UPO and the trajectory without stabilization gives us the following results. On the initial part of the time interval, one can indicate the coincidence of these values with a sufficiently high accuracy. For the period-1 UPO and for the unstabilized trajectory the largest Lyapunov exponents $\operatorname{LE}_1(t,u^{\rm upo}_0)$ coincide up to the 5th decimal place inclusive on the interval $[0,30.4]$. After $t > 71.5$ the difference in values becomes significant and the corresponding graphics diverge in such a way that the part of the graph corresponding to the unstabilized trajectory is lower than the part of the graph corresponding to the UPO (see Fig. \[fig:rossler:upo1:LE1\]).
The equilibria $O_\pm$ has simple eigenvalues and, thus, we have $\dim_{\rm L} O_+ = d_{\rm L}^{\rm KY}(\{{\rm Re} \lambda_i(O_+)\}_{i=1}^3) = 3,
\dim_{\rm L} O_- = d_{\rm L}^{\rm KY}(\{{\rm Re} \lambda_i(O_-)\}_{i=1}^3) = 2.0341
$.
The period-1 UPO $u^{\rm upo}$ with period $\tau = 5.8811$ has the following multipliers: $\rho_1 = -2.40398$, $\rho_2 = 1$, $\rho_3 = -1.2946 \cdot 10^{-14}$. Thus, for the local Lyapunov dimension of the UPO $u^{\rm upo}(t)$ we obtain $\dim_{\rm L} u^{\rm upo} = d_{\rm L}^{\rm KY}(\{ \frac{1}{\tau} \log \rho_j \}_{j=1}^3) = 2.0274 \lessapprox 2.0283 = \dim_{\rm L}(500,u^{\rm upo})$.
Conclusion
==========
In this note we have confirmed the Eden conjecture for the Rössler system and obtained the following relations between the Lyapunov dimensions: $$\begin{gathered}
3 \!=\! \dim_{\rm L} O_+ \!>\! 2.0341 \!=\! \dim_{\rm L} O_- \!>\!
2.0274 = \dim_{\rm L} u^{\rm upo}\\
> 2.0160 = \max_{u \in C_{\rm grid}} \dim_{\rm L}(500,u)
\geq \dim_{\rm L} \mathcal{A} \geq \dim_{\rm H} \mathcal{A}.\end{gathered}$$
Concerning the time of integration, remark that while the time series obtained from a *physical experiment* are assumed to be reliable on the whole considered time interval, the time series produced by the integration of *mathematical dynamical model* can be reliable on a limited time interval only due to computational errors (caused by finite precision arithmetic and numerical integration of ODE). Thus, in general, the closeness of the real trajectory $u(t,u_0)$ and the corresponding pseudo-trajectory $\tilde u(t,u_0)$ calculated numerically can be guaranteed on a limited short time interval only. However, for two different long-time pseudo-trajectories $\tilde u(t,u^1_0)$ and $\tilde u(t,u^2_0)$ visualizing the same attractor, the corresponding finite-time LEs can be, within the considered error, similar due to averaging over time and similar sets of points $\{\tilde u(t,u^1_0)\}_{t \geq0}$ and $\{\tilde u(t,u^2_0)\}_{t \geq0}$. At the same time, the corresponding real trajectories $u(t,u^{1,2}_0)$ may have different LEs, e.g. $u_0$ may correspond to an unstable periodic trajectory $u(t,u_0)$ which is embedded in the attractor and does not allow one to visualize it.
[10]{} url \#1[`#1`]{}urlprefixhref \#1\#2[\#2]{} \#1[\#1]{}
O. E. Rossler, An equation for continuous chaos, Physics Letters A 57 (5) (1976) 397–398.
G. Leonov, N. Kuznetsov, V. Vagaitsev, Localization of hidden [C]{}hua’s attractors, Physics Letters A 375 (23) (2011) 2230–2233. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2011.04.037).
G. Leonov, N. Kuznetsov, Hidden attractors in dynamical systems. [F]{}rom hidden oscillations in [H]{}ilbert-[K]{}olmogorov, [A]{}izerman, and [K]{}alman problems to hidden chaotic attractors in [C]{}hua circuits, International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos 23 (1), [a]{}rt. no. 1330002. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0218127413300024).
G. Leonov, N. Kuznetsov, T. Mokaev, Homoclinic orbits, and self-excited and hidden attractors in a [L]{}orenz-like system describing convective fluid motion, The European Physical Journal Special Topics 224 (8) (2015) 1421–1458. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1140/epjst/e2015-02470-3).
N. Kuznetsov, Hidden attractors in fundamental problems and engineering models. [A]{} short survey, Lecture Notes in Electrical Engineering 371 (2016) 13–25, (Plenary lecture at International Conference on Advanced Engineering Theory and Applications 2015). [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27247-4_2).
K. Pyragas, Continuous control of chaos by selfcontrolling feedback, Phys. Lett. A. 170 (1992) 421–428.
N. Kuznetsov, G. Leonov, M. Shumafov, A short survey on [P]{}yragas time-delay feedback stabilization and odd number limitation, IFAC-PapersOnLine 48 (11) (2015) 706 – 709. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.09.271).
G. Chen, X. Yu, On time-delayed feedback control of chaotic systems, IEEE Transactions on Circuits and Systems I: Fundamental Theory and Applications 46 (6) (1999) 767–772.
C. A. Cruz-Villar, Optimal stabilization of unstable periodic orbits embedded in chaotic systems, Revista mexicana de f[í]{}sica 53 (5) (2007) 415–420.
J. Lehnert, P. H[ö]{}vel, V. Flunkert, P. Guzenko, A. Fradkov, E. Sch[ö]{}ll, Adaptive tuning of feedback gain in time-delayed feedback control, Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science 21 (4) (2011) 043111.
A. Eden, An abstract theory of [L]{}-exponents with applications to dimension analysis ([PhD]{} thesis), Indiana University, 1989.
N. Kuznetsov, The [L]{}yapunov dimension and its estimation via the [L]{}eonov method, Physics Letters A 380 (25–26) (2016) 2142–2149. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physleta.2016.04.036).
N. Kuznetsov, G. Leonov, T. Mokaev, A. Prasad, M. Shrimali, Finite-time [L]{}yapunov dimension and hidden attractor of the [R]{}abinovich system, Nonlinear Dynamics 92 (2) (2018) 267–285. [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11071-018-4054-z).
A. Douady, J. Oesterle, Dimension de [H]{}ausdorff des attracteurs, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris, Ser. A. (in French) 290 (24) (1980) 1135–1138.
H. Froehling, J. Crutchfield, D. Farmer, N. Packard, R. Shaw, On determining the dimension of chaotic flows, Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena 3 (3) (1981) 605–617.
M. Sano, Y. Sawada, Measurement of the [L]{}yapunov spectrum from a chaotic time series, Physical Review Letters 55 (10) (1985) 1082.
J. Sprott, Chaos and time-series analysis, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2003.
A. Fuchs, Nonlinear dynamics in complex systems, Springer, 2013.
J. Awrejcewicz, A. Krysko, N. Erofeev, V. Dobriyan, M. Barulina, V. Krysko, Quantifying chaos by various computational methods. [P]{}art 1: [S]{}imple systems, Entropy 20 (3) (2018) 175.
N. Kuznetsov, T. Mokaev, P. Vasilyev, Numerical justification of [L]{}eonov conjecture on [L]{}yapunov dimension of [R]{}ossler attractor, Commun Nonlinear Sci Numer Simulat 19 (2014) 1027–1034.
J. C. Sprott, C. Li, Asymmetric bistability in the [R]{}[ö]{}ssler system, Acta Physica Polonica B 48 (1) (2017) 97.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We consider the problem of forming a distributed queue in the adversarial dynamic network model of Kuhn, Lynch, and Oshman (STOC 2010) in which the network topology changes from round to round but the network stays connected. This is a synchronous model in which network nodes are assumed to be fixed, the communication links for each round are chosen by an adversary, and nodes do not know who their neighbors are for the current round before they broadcast their messages. Queue requests may arrive over rounds at arbitrary nodes and the goal is to eventually enqueue them in a distributed queue. We present two algorithms that give a total distributed ordering of queue requests in this model. We measure the performance of our algorithms through [*round complexity*]{}, which is the total number of rounds needed to solve the distributed queuing problem. We show that in 1-interval connected graphs, where the communication links change arbitrarily between every round, it is possible to solve the distributed queueing problem in $O(nk)$ rounds using $O(\log n)$ size messages, where $n$ is the number of nodes in the network and $k\leq n$ is the number of queue requests. Further, we show that for more stable graphs, e.g. $T$-interval connected graphs where the communication links change in every $T$ rounds, the distributed queuing problem can be solved in $O\left(n+ \frac{nk}{\min\{\alpha,T\}}\right)$ rounds using the same $O(\log n)$ size messages, where $\alpha > 0$ is the concurrency level parameter that captures the minimum number of active [[queue]{}]{} requests in the system in any round. These results hold in any arbitrary (sequential, one-shot concurrent, or dynamic) arrival of $k$ [[queue]{}]{} requests in the system. Moreover, our algorithms ensure correctness in the sense that each queue request is eventually enqueued in the distributed queue after it is issued and each queue request is enqueued exactly once. We also provide an impossibility result for this distributed queuing problem in this model. To the best of our knowledge, these are the first solutions to the distributed queuing problem in adversarial dynamic networks.'
author:
- Gokarna Sharma
- Costas Busch
bibliography:
- 'queue.bib'
title: Distributed Queuing in Dynamic Networks
---
Introduction {#section:introduction}
============
Many distributed systems rely on some concept of mobile objects. A mobile object lives on only one node of the network at a time and it moves from one node to another in response to explicit requests by other nodes. A tracking mechanism, commonly known as a distributed directory, allows nodes to keep track of mobile objects by providing the ability to locate the objects and also the ability to ensure consistency of the objects in concurrent situations [@Demmer1998]. These directories are interesting in the sense that they provide the controlled way of sending the mobile object to the requesting nodes without flooding the object information to the whole network.
This mobile object tracking problem has been extensively studied in the literature for various coordination problems that arise in a distributed setting. For example, authors in [@Naimi1996; @Raymond1989] studied this problem in the context of distributed mutual exclusion. The node which has the token (or the shared object) can enter the critical section in their problem setting. Later, Demmer and Herlihy [@Demmer1998] studied this problem in the context of distributed directories. Awerbuch and Peleg [@Awerbuch1990] studied this problem in the context of tracking a mobile user in sensor networks. Recently, these papers [@Herlihy2007; @Sharma2012; @Sharma2012b; @Attiya2010; @Zhang2009] studied this problem for distributed transactional memories. In these applications, the concept of path reversal - [*when a node receives a message, it flips its edge to point to the node from which the request was received*]{} - is used. Path reversal approaches are evolved from the trail of forwarding pointers approach of [@Li1989] studied for memory coherence in virtual shared memory systems.
The very common feature of the aforementioned solutions [@Demmer1998; @Naimi1996; @Raymond1989; @Awerbuch1990; @Herlihy2007; @Sharma2012; @Sharma2012b; @Attiya2010; @Zhang2009] is that they essentially form some short of a [*distributed queue*]{} by which processes (i.e. nodes or vertices) that issued operations for a shared object can be organized in a total order and each processor receives the identity of its predecessor operation in that total order [@Demmer1998; @Herlihy2006; @Herlihy2001]. A distributed queue approach is appealing because it ensures that no single node becomes a synchronization bottleneck [@Demmer1998; @Naimi1996; @Raymond1989]. However, these previous solutions assumed the static network such that a pre-selected spanning tree [@Demmer1998; @Naimi1996; @Raymond1989; @Zhang2009] or a hierarchical directory [@Awerbuch1990; @Herlihy2007; @Sharma2012; @Sharma2012b; @Attiya2010] can be embedded on top of the graph. It is yet to know whether it is possible to come up with efficient solutions to the queuing problem in dynamic graphs. This is because when the network topology changes frequently, there might be a significant overhead on adapting the commonly used structures (tree or hierarchy) accordingly to cope up with the changes.
Therefore, we initiate the study of the distributed queuing problem in situations where the underlying network graph changes frequently such that a static structure can not be efficiently maintained. To model frequent changes, we consider the adversarial dynamic network model first studied by Kuhn, Lunch, and Oshman [@Kuhn2010]. This is a synchronous model in which time is divided into rounds, and in each round, the communication network is a graph chosen by an adversary over a vertex set. The vertex set is assumed to be fixed throughout the execution. The communication graph is also assumed to be connected but it can change completely from one round to the next, i.e. the network topology changes from round to round. Nodes communicate by broadcasting messages to their immediate neighbors. The adversary is very strong in the sense that nodes do not know who their neighbors are for the current round before they broadcast their messages. This model is appealing in the sense that it captures widely-used mobile and wireless networks where communication can be unpredictable (see [@ODell2005; @Kuhn2011b] for details). Our main objective in this present work is to understand the complexity of the distributed queuing problem in this adversarial dynamic network model.
#### Contributions:
Assume that there are $n$ nodes in the network and $k\leq n$ nodes issue a queue request each which must be ordered in such a way that each requesting node receives the identity of its predecessor node in a total distributed order. We derive an impossibility result showing that this distributed queuing problem can not be solved without [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request replication in adversarial dynamic networks. We then give two simple algorithms for this problem, one for frequently changing graphs and the other for more stable graphs, assuming that the adversary satisfies [*$T$-interval connectivity*]{}: there must exist a connected spanning subgraph that stably persists throughout $T$ consecutive rounds. To be more clear, $T$-interval connected graphs are those graphs in which for any consecutive interval of $T$ rounds, the maximal common subgraph of the graphs in these rounds is connected. The communication is limited to $O(\log n)$ bits per message.
We measure the performance of our algorithms through [*round complexity*]{}, which is the total number of rounds needed to solve the queuing problem. Our goal is to minimize the total number of rounds needed in solving the queuing problem. We show that in 1-interval connected graphs, where the communication links change arbitrarily between rounds, our algorithm needs $O(nk)$ rounds to solve the queueing problem. Further, we show that in more stable graphs, e.g. $T$-interval connected graphs where the communication links change in every known $T>1$ rounds, our algorithm needs $O\left(n+ \frac{nk}{\min\{\alpha,T\}}\right)$ rounds to solve the queuing problem, where $\alpha>0$ is a concurrency level parameter that captures the minimum number of [*active*]{} (initiated but not yet enqueued) [[queue]{}]{} requests in the system in any round. These bounds hold in all three cases of sequential, (one-shot) concurrent, and dynamic execution of $k$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests. A sequential execution consists of non-overlapping sequence of [[[queue]{}]{}]{} operations, whereas a set of [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests are initiated simultaneously in a concurrent execution. For dynamic executions, we consider a window of time such that an arbitrary set of bounded $k$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests are assumed to be initiated at arbitrary moments of time within that window. Therefore, sequential and concurrent executions are the special cases of dynamic executions. Let us denote by [*cycle*]{} the window of $O(n)$ consecutive rounds and by $\beta_i$ the number of active queue requests in the beginning of cycle $i$. The value of $\beta_i$ may be different from cycle to cycle depending on the execution, however $1 \leq \beta_i \leq k$ holds for every cycle $i$ in any execution. Therefore, $\alpha$ that appears in the bound $O\left(n+ \frac{nk}{\min\{\alpha,T\}}\right)$ is essentially the smallest value of $\beta_i$ in any cycle $i$, i.e., $\alpha := \min\{\beta_1,\beta_2,\ldots\}$. This bound is interesting in the sense that it shows that the performance speed up can only be obtained in $T$-interval connected graphs for the distributed queuing problem when $\alpha \approx T$ throughout the execution. Our results also extend to dynamic executions with continuous arrival of [[queue]{}]{} requests from nodes over time (i.e., $k\rightarrow \infty$) where we show that, if $\beta_i$ are the active [[queue]{}]{} requests in the beginning of any cycle $i$, then our algorithms guarantee that they will be enqueued within next $O(n\beta_i)$ rounds in 1-interval connected graphs, and within next $O\left(n+ \frac{n\beta_i}{\min\{\beta_i,T\}}\right)$ rounds in $T$-interval connected graphs. Moreover, our algorithms ensure correctness in any execution (see Section \[section:limitation\] for details) in the sense that each queue request is eventually enqueued in the distributed queue after it is issued and each queue request is enqueued exactly once. To our best knowledge, these are the first solutions to the distributed queuing problem in adversarial dynamic networks.
Our bounds suggest that the queuing problem needs as much as the number of rounds needed to solve the [*counting*]{} problem[^1] and the [*$k$-token dissemination*]{} problem[^2] in dynamic networks, in the worst-case. It is shown that $O(n^2)$ rounds are sufficient [@Kuhn2010] and $\Omega(n^2/\log n)$ rounds are necessary [@Dutta2013] to solve the counting and all-to-all token dissemination problems. The complexity arises in adversarial dynamic networks due to the fact that the communication graph changes in every round. Therefore, even in the case of distributed queuing, a queue request may need to visit all the rest $n-2$ nodes before finding the predecessor node, which takes $n-1$ rounds as the communication in each round is controlled by the worst-case adversary. Someone may say that the distributed queuing problem can be solved by first solving the $k$-token dissemination problem and then making the predecessor a node with ID that is immediately smaller than that of a queue request issuing node for every node that issued the queue request. However, this approach only solves the queuing problem in the case of an one-shot concurrent execution (and does not solve the problem in sequential and dynamic executions).
#### Related Work:
The distributed queuing problem has been studied extensively in the literature assuming a static network [@Demmer1998; @Naimi1996; @Raymond1989; @Awerbuch1990; @Herlihy2007; @Sharma2012; @Sharma2012b; @Attiya2010; @Zhang2009]. To solve this problem, either the pre-selected spanning tree as used in [@Demmer1998; @Naimi1996; @Raymond1989; @Attiya2010; @Zhang2009] or the hierarchical structure as used in [@Awerbuch1990; @Herlihy2007; @Sharma2012; @Sharma2012b] is constructed on top of the static network. These ideas were based on some well-known spanning tree and clustering techniques (e.g., minimum spanning tree [@Cormen2009], sparse covers [@Awerbuch1990], maximal independent sets [@Luby1985]) which organize the nodes in the network in some useful way to facilitate efficient coordination. These papers [@Herlihy2001; @Herlihy2007; @Attiya2010; @Sharma2012; @Sharma2012b] studied the distributed queuing problem in the concurrent execution setting, and these papers [@Sharma2013; @Herlihy2006] considered dynamic executions. Moreover, the self-stabilizing version of the distributed queuing problem was studied by Tirthapura and Herlihy [@Tirthapura2006]. This self-stabilizing version is also not inherently dynamic as the eventual stabilization of the network is assumed, i.e., the network stabilizes and stops changing after a finite time. These approaches, e.g. [@Demmer1998; @Naimi1996; @Raymond1989; @Awerbuch1990; @Herlihy2007; @Sharma2012], used latency as the cost metric, i.e., the cost is measured through the total latency, which is the sum of the latencies of individual queuing requests. However, in dynamic networks, the problem is to figure out how many rounds of message broadcasts are required to solve the distributed queuing problem.
The adversarial dynamic network model was proposed in the seminal paper of Kuhn, Lynch, and Oshman [@Kuhn2010]. The authors studied the complexity of counting and token dissemination problems. Subsequently, there have been a significant interest in solving many distributed coordination problems in this model as it makes very few assumptions about the behavior of the network, such that the properties of the highly dynamic large scale mobile and sensor networks can be captured. Kuhn et al. [@Kuhn2011] studied the problem of coordinated consensus in this model. Recently, these papers [@Haeupler2012; @Dutta2013] improved and extended some of the results presented in [@Kuhn2010]. Moreover, Haeupler and Karger, in [@Haeupler2011], studied how to use network coding to expedite the information dissemination in this model. We direct readers to [@Kuhn2011b] for the state-of-the-art up to the end of 2010.
#### Outline of Paper:
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In Section \[section:preliminaries\], we formally present the adversarial dynamic network model and define the distributed queuing problem. We give a very simple impossibility result in Section \[section:impossibility\]. We then present and analyze a queuing algorithm for frequently changing graphs in Section \[section:frequent\]. We do the same for more stable graphs in Section \[section:stable\]. We then discuss an inherent limitation in Section \[section:limitation\] and conclude with a short discussion in Section \[section:discussion\].
Preliminaries {#section:preliminaries}
=============
Dynamic Network Model
---------------------
We formally present the dynamic network model, originally introduced by Kuhn, Lynch, and Oshman [@Kuhn2010]. This model works on a synchronous round based execution. A dynamic network is represented as a connected graph $G=(V,E)$, where $|V|=n$. We assume that $n$ is known to the nodes of $G$. If $n$ is not known, an existing counting algorithm, e.g. [@Kuhn2010], can be used to find $n$ spending $O(n^2)$ rounds. This is not a much overhead as counting is needed only once, whereas queuing is an ongoing service. Each vertex of $G$ models a node, and each edge a two-way reliable communication link. Moreover, each node has a unique identifier (UID) drawn from a namespace ${{\cal U}}$. These identifers have $O(\log n)$ bits, so that they fit in a message. Each node can send messages directly to its neighbors and indirectly to non-neighbors along a path. Each edge has same weight and sending a message from one node to its neighbor node needs a single round. It is assumed that every message is eventually delivered (i.e. no message loss occurs).
This model assumes that nodes share a common global clock that starts at 0 and advances in unit steps. The communication is done in synchronous rounds as follows [@Kuhn2010]: The round $r$ starts as soon as round $r-1$ finishes. The time between time $r-1$ and time $r$ is assumed to be the round $r$ and the following execution happens in each round $r$. First, each node generates a single message to broadcast based on its local state at time $r-1$. The adversary then provides connected communication graph (i.e., a set of edges) for round $r$. Each node then delivers its message to it’s neighbors following the edges given by the adversary. The assumption of connected communication graph is each round is the only constraint on the adversary. After messages are delivered to the neighbors, each node processes the messages it received, and transits to a new state (its state at time $r$). Then, the next round begins. The communication is assume to be limited to $O(\log n)$ bits per message.
The adversary is actually a [*strong adaptive adversary*]{} in the sense that it can decide the network $G(r)$ of round $r$ based on the complete history of the network up to round $r-1$ as well as on the messages the nodes will send in round $r$. Formally, the adversary’s behavior in a given execution is captured by dynamic graph $G=(V,E)$, where $V$ is a static set of nodes and $E: {\mathbb{N}}\rightarrow \{\{u,v\}|u,v\in V\}$ is a function that maps a round number $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$ to a set of undirected edges $E(r)$. ${{\rm dist}}(u,v)$ is used to denote the minimum hop distance between nodes $u,v\in G$ in the dynamic subgraph $G(r)$ at round $r$. $G$ satisfies the following property.
\[definition:t-interval\] A dynamic graph $G=(V,E)$ is said to be [*$T$-interval connected*]{} for any $T\geq 1$ if for all $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$, the static graph $G_{r,T}:=\left(V,\bigcap_{i=r}^{r+T-1} E(r)\right)$ is connected. The graph is said to be [*$\infty$-interval connected*]{} if there is a connected static subgraph $G'= (V,E')$ such that for all $r\in {\mathbb{N}}$, $E'\subseteq E(r)$.
A dynamic graph $G=(V,E)$ in this model induces a [*casual order*]{}, denoted $(u,r) \rightsquigarrow_G (v,r')$, which means that node $u$’s state in round $r$ influences node $v$’s state in round $r'$. The casual order is a transitive and reflexive closure of the order $(u,r) \rightarrow_{G} (v,r+1)$, which holds if and only if either $u=v$ or $\{u,v\} \in E(r+1)$. Therefore at round $r$, node $u$ has direct information about the states of node $v$ at round $r'$ such that $(v,r') \rightsquigarrow_{G} (u,r)$. The following lemma shows that the number of nodes that have influenced a node $u$ grows by at least one in every round, which is a very important property for this model.
\[lemma:unecut-more\] For any node $u\in V$ and round $r\geq 0$, $|\{v\in V : (u,0) \rightsquigarrow (v,r)\}|\geq \min\{r+1,n\}$ and $|\{u\in V : (v,0) \rightsquigarrow (u,r)\}|\geq \min\{r+1,n\}$.
Distributed Queuing Problem
---------------------------
We denote a distributed queue ${\mathbf{Q}}=(h,g,\ldots,t)$ by an UID set of $|{\mathbf{Q}}|$ nodes, where the first node $h\in {\mathbf{Q}}$ is the head of the queue and the last node $t\in {\mathbf{Q}}$ is the tail of the queue. Initially, there is only one node in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ which acts as both the head and the tail of the queue; the tail changes when other requests change the tail of the queue by becoming the successor. For example, $g$ is the [*successor*]{} node of $h$ and $h$ is the [*predecessor*]{} node of $g$ in ${\mathbf{Q}}$. ${\mathbf{Q}}$ is not explicitly known to all the nodes in the system and is maintained implicitly by the nodes. A predecessor node stores only the UID of its successor node in the queue. Therefore, by visiting the successor nodes of all the nodes in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ starting from its head provides the total distributed queue order.
An instance of the distributed queuing problem consists of a set ${{\cal E}}=\{q_1,q_2,\ldots,q_k\}$ of $k$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests which want to join ${\mathbf{Q}}$. An algorithm solves the queuing problem if for all instances ${{\cal E}}$, when the algorithm is executed in any dynamic graph $G=(V,E)$, all [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests are eventually organized one after another providing a total distributed order. Each queue request $q_i$ has a source node $s_i$, which is the node that issued this request, and a destination node $t_i$, which is its predecessor node in the queue. In the distributed queuing problem, the source node of the predecessor request $q_i$ in the total order is the destination node for the successor request $q_{i+1}$, i.e., the destination node for each request is not known beforehand and the distributed queuing algorithm should find out the destination node online while in execution. The purpose of any queuing algorithm is to provide the total order.
We denote a [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request $q\in {{\cal E}}$ by the tuple $q = (r, u)$, where $r \geq 0$ is the time when the [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request is initiated and $u$ is the node that initiates it (i.e., the requesting node). Therefore, we denote by ${{\cal E}}= \{q_1 = (r_1, v_1), q_2 = (r_2, v_2), \ldots, q_k = (r_k, v_k)\}$ the arbitrary set of $k$ dynamic [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests, where the requests $r_i \in {{\cal E}}$ are indexed according to their initiation times, i.e. $i < j \Longrightarrow r_i \leq r_j$. We also consider sequential and concurrent (one-shot) execution of these [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests. In a sequential case, the requests in ${{\cal E}}$ have initiation times such that they provide a non-overlapping sequence of $k$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} operations, i.e., a next request will be issued only after the current request finishes. In one-shot concurrent case, the requests in ${{\cal E}}$ have same initiation times such that all $k$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests come to the system at the same time.
An Impossibility Result {#section:impossibility}
=======================
We prove a very simple impossibility result for the distributed queuing problem showing the power of the adversary in the dynamic graph model. We mean by queue request replication that when a node receives a queue request from some other node, it stores a copy in it before forwarding that queue request to its neighbors. This theorem shows that [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request replication in network nodes is necessary to solve the distributed queueing problem in the adversarial dynamic network model.
\[theorem:impossibility\] The distributed queuing problem is impossible to solve in 1-interval connected graphs against a strong adversary without [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request replication.
We prove this theorem similar to the impossibility proof for token dissemination given in [@Kuhn2010]. Consider a distributed queuing problem. Assume that, initially, there exist a head node in ${\mathbf{Q}}$, say at node $v$ (the $head$ node). This node is also the tail of ${\mathbf{Q}}$. The node $v$ has a local variable $succ_{v}$ which is initialized to $\bot$ (i.e., $succ_{head}=\bot$) to imply that there is no successor of the $head$ node in ${\mathbf{Q}}$. Assume also that each node $w \in G$ has a local Boolean variable $queue_w$ to represent that it has a [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request, denoted by $queue(w)$. $queue_w$ is initially zero, and if $queue_w=1$ for some node $w$ then $w$ is said to “join the queue”. Lets consider the case where some node $w \in G, w\neq v$, wants to join ${\mathbf{Q}}$, i.e., $queue_w=1$. To join ${\mathbf{Q}}$, node $w$ needs to sends its queue request message $queue(w)$ to one of its neighbors. In every round exactly one node in the network has the $queue(w)$ message, and it can either keep the $queue(w)$ message or pass the $queue(w)$ message to one of its neighbors. The goal is for a predecessor node (in this proof the node $v$) to eventually have the $queue(w)$ message in some round. This problem is impossible to solve in 1-interval connected graphs. This is because as the adversary we considered has the knowledge of which node $x$ has the $queue(w)$ message, it can provide that node $x$ with only one edge $\{w,x\}$ such that $x$ is not the predecessor node for $queue(w)$. Node $x$ then has no choice except to communicate with node $w$. After $x$ receives the $queue(w)$ message, the adversary can turn around and remove all of $x$’s edges except $\{x,w\}$, so that $x$ has no choice except to pass the $queue(w)$ message back to $w$, which is the node that issued $queue(w)$. In this way the adversary can prevent the $queue(w)$ message from ever visiting any node except $w,x$ for the [[queue]{}]{} request issued by $w$.
Queuing in Frequently Changing Graphs {#section:frequent}
=====================================
We present and formally analyze a simple algorithm (see Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\]) which solves the distributed queuing problem in 1-interval connected graphs. Recall that the network topology changes in every round in 1-interval connected graphs. This algorithm is a simple extension to the token dissemination algorithm of [@Kuhn2010]; recall that the algorithm of [@Kuhn2010] solves the queuing problem only in (one-shot) concurrent situations. This algorithm is suitable for all sequential, concurrent (one-shot), and dynamic execution of [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests (see Section \[section:introduction\]). Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] is round based and runs for $k$ cycles. The value of $k$ does not need to be known to the algorithm; we discuss later how to get around to this problem. There are two phases in every cycle: the [*search phase*]{} and the [*cancelation phase*]{}. The search phase runs for $n$ rounds and after that the cancelation phase runs for the same $n$ rounds. Therefore, each cycle is of $2n$ rounds in this algorithm. Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] can solve the queuing problem without the cancelation phase, however in that case messages are queued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ in the order starting from the smallest UID message to the largest UID message. The intuition behind the algorithm is as follows. In each round $r$ of the search phase, all nodes in the network propagate the smallest [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request they have heard about that has not yet joined the queue ${\mathbf{Q}}$. The smallest [[queue]{}]{} message request is selected with respect to the lexicographical ordering on first the initiation round and then on the UID of the requesting node of the [[queue]{}]{} requests. Initially, each node that initiated the [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request broadcasts the [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request to its neighbors. Moreover, in each round of the phase nodes remember the smallest [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request they have sent or received so far in the execution, and broadcast that value in the next round of the phase. At the end of the search phase, each node in the network checks its local successor variable to determine whether a [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request that was received during the search phase can actually join ${\mathbf{Q}}$.
Similar to the [[queue]{}]{} message broadcasting in the search phase, a special kind of message called [[[cancel]{}]{}]{} message that is initiated at the predecessor node of the enqueued request at the end of the search phase, is broadcasted to the all the nodes in the network in the cancelation phase to remove the [*pending*]{} (i.e., waiting to join ${\mathbf{Q}}$) [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request from the network nodes for the [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request that has joined ${\mathbf{Q}}$ at the end of the search phase. Note that Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] guarantees that at the end of every search phase one [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request joins the queue; we give formal proof in Section \[subsection:analysis1interval\]. This [[[cancel]{}]{}]{} message broadcasting is used in Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] to ensure that every [[queue]{}]{} request will be enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ and no [[queue]{}]{} request will be enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ more than once. At the end of the cancelation phase, every node removes the matching [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request, if any, from the list of [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests that are waiting at that node during execution to join ${\mathbf{Q}}$.
[$R_u(r) \leftarrow \emptyset$;\
$C_u(r) \leftarrow \emptyset$;\
$\ell=0,\ldots, k-1$ [**do**]{}\
[\
[ $r=0,\ldots, n-1$ [**do**]{}\
[$q_{\min} \leftarrow$ a [[queue]{}]{} message in $R_u(r)$ that is smallest w.r.t. lexicographical ordering on the initiation round and the identifier of the issuing node, respectively;\
[**broadcast**]{} $q_{\min}$ to neighbors;\
[**receive**]{} [[queue]{}]{} messages from $s\geq 1$ neighbors;\
$R_u(r) \leftarrow R_u(r) \bigcup \{q_1, \cdots, q_s\}$;\
]{} [**If**]{} $succ_u == \bot$ [**then**]{}\
[$t \leftarrow$ UID of the first received [[queue]{}]{} message in $R_u(r)$;\
$succ_u \leftarrow t$;\
[**generate**]{} [*cancel*]{} message $m=\langle {\sl cancel}, t\rangle$;\
$C_u(r) \leftarrow C_u(r) \bigcup \{m\}$;\
]{} ]{} [**Cancelation phase:**]{}\
[ $r=0,\ldots, n-1$ [**do**]{}\
[$m \leftarrow$ the smallest UID [*cancel*]{} message in $C_u(r)$;\
[**broadcast**]{} $m$ to neighbors;\
[**receive**]{} [[cancel]{}]{} messages from $s\geq 1$ neighbors;\
$C_u(r) \leftarrow C_u(r) \bigcup \{m_1,\cdots, m_s\}$;\
]{} [**If**]{} UID of the smallest [*cancel*]{} message in $C_u(r)$ is equal to $UID_u$ [**then**]{} $succ_u \leftarrow \bot$;\
$R_u(r)\leftarrow$ $R_u(r)\backslash C_u(r)$ w.r.t. UIDs;\
$C_u(r) \leftarrow \emptyset$;\
]{}]{}]{}
We present some necessary notations used in Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\]. We assume that, initially, there is a node in $G$ that is the head of the queue ${\mathbf{Q}}$, denoted by $head$. Moreover, there are two kind of requests in the system: [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests and [[[cancel]{}]{}]{} requests. We denote a [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request $q$ from a node $u\in G$ by a message $m$ which is a triple $\langle {\sl queue}, r_u, UID_u\rangle$, where $r_u$ is the round in which the request $q$ was initiated and $UID_u \in {\mathbb{N}}$ is the unique identifier of the node $u$ that issued $q$. Moreover, we denote a [*cancel*]{} request by a message $m$ which is a double $\langle {\sl cancel}, UID_u\rangle$, where $UID_u \in {\mathbb{N}}$ is the identifier of the node $u$ the [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request from which joined ${\mathbf{Q}}$ in some node $v$ such that $v$ issued the [*cancel*]{} request to remove the pending [[queue]{}]{} request $\langle {\sl queue}, r_u, UID_u\rangle$ from all nodes in $G$ except $u$ and $v$. Note that a corresponding [[[cancel]{}]{}]{} request for a [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request is always initiated by the predecessor node of that [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request.
Every node $x$ in $G$ has a local variable $succ_x$ to denote the successor of the node $x$ in ${\mathbf{Q}}$. This variable plays very important role in forming the distributed total order of the [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests. $succ_x$ variable implicitly stores the total distributed order, i.e., visiting the nodes specified by the $succ_x$ variable in the order starting from the $head$ node up to the tail node provides the distributed queuing order. The local variable $succ_x$ for any node $x$ takes one of the three values at any time, that is, $succ_x \in \{UID_y, \bot, \infty\}$, where $UID_y$ is the UID of a node $y\in G$ such that $UID_x \neq UID_y$. Initially, every node $u$ in the system has $succ_u =\infty$, except the head node of the queue which has $succ_{head} =\bot$. The value $succ_u =\infty$ for $u$ becomes $succ_u =\bot$ when $u$ becomes the successor in ${\mathbf{Q}}$. When a [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request from a node $z\in G$ finds a node $w$ with $succ_w=\bot$ (w is the tail node of ${\mathbf{Q}}$), it changes the value of $succ_w$ from $\bot$ to the $UID_z$, the UID of $z$ to become the new tail of ${\mathbf{Q}}$.
We denote by $R_u(r)$ the set of [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests node $u$ has received by the beginning of round $r$. Node $u$ may or may not have the input, which we denote by $I(u)$. Node $u$ has the input if $u$ issued the [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request, otherwise it has no input. Our algorithm satisfies that: (a) for all $u\in V$ and round $r\geq 0$, the message sent by $u$ at round $r$ is a member of $R_u(r) \cup I(u) \cup \{\bot\}$, where $\bot$ denotes the empty message, and (b) node $u$ can not halt in round $r$ unless all the [[queue]{}]{} requests in ${{\cal E}}$ are served, i.e. enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$. Note that our algorithm do not combine or alter [[queue]{}]{} messages, it only stores and forwards them. Similarly, we denote by $C_u(r)$ the set of [[[cancel]{}]{}]{} requests node $u$ has received by the beginning of round $r$. Similar to the definition of $R_u(r)$, node $u$ may or may not have a [[[cancel]{}]{}]{} message as input which can be defined accordingly.
We are now ready to describe how algorithm works. Recall that in every cycle, the search and the cancelation phase run one after another for $n$ rounds each. In each round of the search phase (Lines 5–9 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\], the smallest [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request among [[queue]{}]{} requests in $R_u(r)$ is chosen to broadcast by each node $u\in V$. The smallest [[queue]{}]{} message (or request) is selected with respect to the lexicographical ordering on first the initiation round and then on the UID of the requesting node of the [[queue]{}]{} requests in $R_u(r)$. After that each node updates $R_u(r)$ by receiving the [[[queue]{}]{}]{} messages send by its neighbors in that round. At the end of the search phase, each node $u\in V$ checks whether the local variable $succ_u$ is $\bot$. If $succ_u==\bot $ for some node $u$, $u$ selects the UID, say $t$, of the [[[queue]{}]{}]{} message that was received by $u$ first among the available [[[queue]{}]{}]{} messages in $R_u(r)$ and assign that UID to its local variable $succ_u$. In other words, the node whose [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request reached to $v$ first becomes the successor of node $v$ (Line 11, 12 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\]). After that a [[[cancel]{}]{}]{} message $m$ is generated at $u$ to remove the [[[queue]{}]{}]{} message from $t$ (that just joined ${\mathbf{Q}}$) that might have been replicated from the other nodes of the graph $G$ (Lines 13, 14 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\]). This ensures that the same [[queue]{}]{} request from $t$ will not be enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ later.
In each round of the cancelation phase (Lines 16–20 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\]), each node $u$ chooses the smallest UID [[[cancel]{}]{}]{} message $m$ from $C_u(r)$ and broadcast $m$ to its neighbors similar to [[queue]{}]{} requests in the search phase. After that it receives the [[[cancel]{}]{}]{} messages sent to it by its neighbors and updates $C_u(r)$ accordingly. Note that as only one [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request can be enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ in the search phase, there is always only one [[[cancel]{}]{}]{} message in each cancelation phase. Therefore, $C_u(r)$ is a singleton set. At the end of the cancelation phase, if the UID of node $u\in V$ matches the UID of the smallest [[cancel]{}]{} message in $C_u(r)$, the node $u$ changes the value of its local variable $succ_u$ from $\infty$ to $\bot$ (Lines 21 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\]). At this point, one [[queue]{}]{} request from some node in $G$ is served by Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\]. $R_u(r)$ for each node $u\in V$ is then updated by removing the [[queue]{}]{} message from $R_u(r)$ the UID of which matches with the UID of the [[cancel]{}]{} message in $C_u(r)$, and $C_u(r)$ is made empty before transiting to the next cycle (Lines 22, 23 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\]).
We now describe how to get around to the problem of knowing $k$. We remove this assumption by allowing the node $x\in V$ which has $succ_x==\bot$ to broadcast an algorithm termination message to its neighbors if it does not receive any [[[queue]{}]{}]{} message for up to $2n$ rounds. Node $x$ can maintain a local variable that is dedicated to perform this operation. The termination message from $x$ reaches all the nodes in the network in at most $n$ rounds; after that every node can terminate the execution.
Analysis {#subsection:analysis1interval}
--------
#### Progress and Correctness:
We first establish progress guarantees of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\]. Let ${\mathbf{B}}_i$ be the set of active [[queue]{}]{} requests in the beginning of any cycle $i\geq 1$ and let $\beta_i$ be the number of active [[queue]{}]{} requests in ${\mathbf{B}}_i$ (i.e., $\beta_i=|{\mathbf{B}}_i|$); each cycle is of exactly $2n$ rounds in our algorithm. Note that the size of ${\mathbf{B}}_i$ may be different from one cycle to the other cycle. Therefore, $\beta_i$ captures essentially the concurrency level of the [[queue]{}]{} request execution in the algorithm in any arbitrary moment of time. We prove progress guarantees of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] in dynamic executions for the continuous arrival of [[queue]{}]{} requests initiated by graph nodes over time (i.e., $k$ is not bounded in this setting so that $k\rightarrow \infty$). In particular, we prove the following lemma.
\[lemma:onequeueeveryOn\] If there are $\beta_i$ active [[queue]{}]{} requests in the beginning of any cycle $i$ in a dynamic execution, Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] guarantees that they will be enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ in next at most $O(n\beta_i)$ rounds.
Recall that a [[queue]{}]{} request can join ${\mathbf{Q}}$ in Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] at the end of the search phase. Moreover, when searching for the node with $succ=\bot$, the [[queue]{}]{} request is stored in every node it visits until this [[queue]{}]{} message at those nodes is later canceled by a corresponding [[[cancel]{}]{}]{} message. We have that there is a node $head$ with $succ_{head}=\bot$ in the beginning of the execution (which is also the tail) and the tail node $tail$ in the beginning of cycle $i$ where one of the future [[queue]{}]{} requests need to reach to join ${\mathbf{Q}}$. Therefore, we show the following for the active [[queue]{}]{} requests set ${\mathbf{B}}_i$ in the beginning of every cycle $i$: the smallest [[queue]{}]{} request (with respect to the lexicographical ordering on first the initiation round and then on the UID of the [[queue]{}]{} request issuing node) in ${\mathbf{B}}_i$, say $q_{\min}$, among $\beta_i$ requests in ${\mathbf{B}}_i$ reaches the node $u$ with $succ_u=\bot$ within $n$ rounds from the beginning of the cycle $i$. This is the case because, according to Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\], when two or more [[queue]{}]{} requests reach at some intermediate node $y$ such that $succ_y=\infty$, the smallest [[queue]{}]{} request among them is broadcasted to the neighboring nodes of $y$ (Lines 6, 7 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\]). The node $y$ continues broadcasting the smallest [[[queue]{}]{}]{} message among the [[queue]{}]{} requests it currently holds until $y$ receives the corresponding [[cancel]{}]{} message for that [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request or the other [[queue]{}]{} request that is smaller than the previous one is reached to $y$ in the previous round. Therefore, in a given round, consider a cut between the nodes that already received the smallest [[queue]{}]{} request and those that have not. From the properties of 1-interval connected graphs, there is always an edge in that cut such that when the smallest [[queue]{}]{} request is broadcasted on that edge some new node receives it (Lemma \[lemma:unecut-more\]). Since the node that initiated the [[queue]{}]{} request already knows the [[queue]{}]{} message and there are $n$ nodes in the graph $G$, after $n-1$ rounds all nodes have the smallest [[queue]{}]{} request message.
In $n$ rounds after the beginning of cycle $i$, a [[queue]{}]{} request issued by node $z$ can be enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ by assigning $succ_{tail} \leftarrow z$, which indicates that $z$ became the successor of $tail$ in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ in cycle $i$. The predecessor node of $z$, i.e. $tail$, now issues a ${{\rm cancel}}$ message with the UID of $z$ and broadcasts it to its neighbors in the cancelation phase for $n$ rounds. Similar to the searching phase, the [[cancel]{}]{} message reaches to the node that issued the [[queue]{}]{} request within $n$ rounds. This can be again shown by considering the cut between the nodes that already received the [[cancel]{}]{} message and those that have not (Lemma \[lemma:unecut-more\]). When node $z$ finds the [[cancel]{}]{} message with UID equals the node UID, it changes its $succ_z$ variable from $\infty$ to $\bot$ at the end of the search phase, so that other [[queue]{}]{} requests can join ${\mathbf{Q}}$ later. Therefore, the smallest [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request is finished execution by the Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] in exactly $2n$ rounds after the beginning of cycle $i$. Now in cycle $i+1$ some other [[queue]{}]{} request from ${\mathbf{B}}_i$ becomes the smallest [[queue]{}]{} request. As [[queue]{}]{} requests that are initiated during cycle $i$ have initiation times greater than all the requests in ${\mathbf{B}}_i$, they can not overtake [[queue]{}]{} requests in ${\mathbf{B}}_i$ to join ${\mathbf{Q}}$. That is, any request that is generated in cycle $i+1$ are ordered in the queue after the requests in ${\mathbf{B}}_i$. Therefore, at end of cycle $i+1$, the second smallest request from ${\mathbf{B}}_i$ joins ${\mathbf{Q}}$. Applying this argument repetitively for $\beta_i$ requests in ${\mathbf{B}}_i$, all the [[queue]{}]{} requests in ${\mathbf{B}}_i$ join queue in next $\beta_i$ cycles starting from cycle $i$. Therefore, we need total $2n * \beta_i ={{\cal O}}(n\beta_i)$ rounds after the beginning of the cycle $i$ to enqueue all requests in ${\mathbf{B}}_i$.
It is clear from Lemma \[lemma:onequeueeveryOn\] that from the round some [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request joined ${\mathbf{Q}}$ until the round the node that issued that [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request received the corresponding [[[cancel]{}]{}]{} message and changes the value of its successor variable $succ$ from $\infty$ to $\bot$, ${\mathbf{Q}}$ becomes [*tailless*]{}. Tailless is the situation in which no node in $G$ has $succ=\bot$. However, this phenomenon happens in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ for just $n$ rounds which follows immediately from Lemma \[lemma:onequeueeveryOn\].
\[corollary:tailless\] The queue formed is tailless for $O(n)$ rounds.
We now prove the correctness properties of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] in the sense that it eventually forms a distributed queue so that every [[queue]{}]{} request is enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ and each [[queue]{}]{} request is enqueued only once.
\[lemma:enqueuedonce1I\] Each [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request is enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ only once.
We have from Lemma \[lemma:onequeueeveryOn\] that each queue request is enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ within finite number of rounds after it is issued. To prove that each [[queue]{}]{} request is enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ only once, recall that initially every node $u\in V$ has $succ_u =\infty$ except the head node of ${\mathbf{Q}}$ which has $succ_{head} = \bot$. According to Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\], no [[queue]{}]{} request can make itself the successor of any node in $G$ for which $succ_i = \infty$ or $succ_i = j$, where $j$ is the UID of some node in graph $G$ such that $j\neq i$. In Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\], we have that each node $u$ changes the value of its local variable $succ_u$ from $\infty$ to $\bot$ only after the [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request from it joined ${\mathbf{Q}}$ at node $x$ at the end of the search phase such that $succ_x = u$ (i.e., $u$ becomes the tail of ${\mathbf{Q}}$) and the [[cancel]{}]{} message generated at $x$ (the predecessor node of $u$ in ${\mathbf{Q}}$) to remove replicated [[[queue]{}]{}]{} message for the queue request of $u$ (from other nodes in $G$ except $x$ and $u$) reaches $u$ at the end of the cancelation phase, the current tail of ${\mathbf{Q}}$. Therefore, only one [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request can see $succ_l=\bot$ at some node $l$ such that some pending [[queue]{}]{} request from node $o$ that is currently at node $l$ can make $succ_l=o$ at the end of every cycle. After $o$ becomes the successor of $l$, there is no node $p$ in the system with $succ_p=\bot$ until a [[cancel]{}]{} message from $l$ reaches $o$ and $o$ changes its $succ_o$ variable value from $\infty$ to $\bot$ at the end of the cycle. Arguing similar to Lemma \[lemma:onequeueeveryOn\], any change in the $succ$ variable for any node in done after $n$ rounds of message exchanges. The first change is done in the node with $succ=\bot$ at the end of a search phase to make it point to some requesting node $u$ and the second change is done in $u$ at the end of a cancelation phase to make $succ_u=\bot$ from $succ_u=\infty$. The [[queue]{}]{} request that is enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ in search phase is removed from the system in cancelation phase so that there is no chance of that request being enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ again in the future. Therefore, every request in enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ and each queue request in enqueued exactly once.
#### Complexity in Sequential Executions:
We prove here the round complexity of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] in forming ${\mathbf{Q}}$ for the set ${{\cal E}}$ of $k$ [[queue]{}]{} requests from $k$ different nodes of $G$. We first prove the round complexity of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] in sequential execution of [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests. A sequential execution consists of a non-overlapping sequence of [[[queue]{}]{}]{} operations. As [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests do not overlap with each other in sequential executions, the system attains quiescent configuration (no message is in transit and no sequence of events in which a message is sent) after a [[queue]{}]{} request is served and until a next [[queue]{}]{} request is issued, i.e. the next [[queue]{}]{} request will be issued only after the current [[queue]{}]{} request finishes. We provide the tight bound for Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] in sequential executions.
\[theorem:sequential-phase\] Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] is optimal for the distributed queuing problem in sequential executions.
According to Lemma \[lemma:onequeueeveryOn\], $\beta_i$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests in the beginning of cycle $i$ join ${\mathbf{Q}}$ (i.e., find their predecessor nodes) within next $O(n\beta_i)$ rounds starting from the beginning of the cycle $i$. Since $\beta_i=1$ in every cycle $i$ in sequential executions and there are $k$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests in the system, Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] needs $O(nk)$ rounds, in the worst-case.
We now show that this round complexity is the best possible any distributed queuing algorithm can do in sequential executions in 1-interval connected graphs. We prove that, in sequential executions, any algorithm for the distributed queuing problem in 1-interval connected graphs requires at least $\Omega(nk)$ rounds to complete against a strong adversary. We borrow some ideas from [@Dutta2013] for this proof. Consider a set ${{\cal E}}= \{q_1,q_2,\ldots,q_k\}$ of $k$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests. As [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request do not overlap with each other in sequential executions, we focus our attention on the least number of rounds needed to serve one [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request. The lower bound then follows by amplifying the number of rounds needed for one request to all $k$ requests in ${{\cal E}}$. We proceed as follows. Let the node $u$ issued the [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request $q_0$ and node $v$ is the current tail node of the queue with $succ_v=\bot$. To finish execution of $q_0$, $q_0$ should be reached to $v$ and change the existing value of $succ_v$ such that $succ_v=u$. The adversary can connect nodes $u, v_1, \ldots, v_{n-2}, v$ in $G$ in a line in the first round thereby guaranteeing only node $v_1$ gets $q_0$. In the next round, the adversary connects $u, v_2, \ldots, v_{n-2}, v_1$ in a line. In this round, node $v_2$ and $v_{n-2}$ will both get [[[queue]{}]{}]{} message $q_0$. The adversary can continue this way for $\frac{n-2}{2}+1$ rounds, at which point the [[queue]{}]{} message $q_0$ from node $u$ will eventually reach the tail node $v$ with $succ_v=\bot$. After changing $succ_v$ to $u$ such that $u$ becomes the new tail, the corresponding [[[cancel]{}]{}]{} messages needs also $\frac{n-2}{2}+1$ rounds to reach to node $u$ from $v$. That is, we need $2(\frac{n-2}{2}+1)= n$ rounds to serve the queuing request $q_0$. Repeating this argument for all the $k$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests in ${{\cal E}}$, we have the lower bound of $\Omega(nk)$ rounds, as needed.
#### Complexity in Concurrent Executions:
We now consider the round complexity of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] in concurrent one-shot execution of [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests. We assume the $R\subseteq V, |R|=k,$ nodes in the graph $G$ issue one [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request each at round 0 and no further [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests occur. We prove the following theorem.
\[theorem:concurrent-phase\] Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] solves the distributed queuing problem in $O(nk)$ rounds in concurrent executions.
According to Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\], in the worst-case execution scenario, we can order the [[queue]{}]{} requests in such way that the smallest [[queue]{}]{} request (with respect to the lexicographical ordering of active [[queue]{}]{} requests) ordered first and the largest [[queue]{}]{} request ordered last. As initiation time is same for all $k$ [[queue]{}]{} requests in concurrent executions, the ordering only depends on the UID of requesting nodes. Therefore, the successor of the $head$ of ${\mathbf{Q}}$ is the smallest UID node among the nodes that issued [[queue]{}]{} requests, the successor of the head’s successor node is the second smallest UID node among the nodes that issued [[queue]{}]{} requests, and so on. The [[queue]{}]{} request from the highest UID node ordered last in ${\mathbf{Q}}$. Since we consider 1-interval connected graphs and all $k$ request come at the same time in the beginning of execution, we have that $\beta_1=k$ in the beginning of the first cycle. As no more request arrives in the system later in the execution, $\beta_i$ decreases in every cycle $i > 1$. Therefore, using Lemma \[lemma:onequeueeveryOn\] and replacing $\beta_i$ by $k$, the theorem follows.
#### Complexity in Dynamic Executions:
We now consider the round complexity of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] in dynamic execution of [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests. We assume the $R\subseteq V, |R|=k,$ nodes in the graph $G$ issue one [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request each at arbitrary moments of time. We prove the following theorem.
\[theorem:dynamic-phase\] Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] solves the distributed queuing problem in $O(nk)$ rounds in dynamic executions.
We proved in Lemma \[lemma:onequeueeveryOn\] that when a [[queue]{}]{} request $q$ is issued in the arbitrary round $r$, and there are $\beta_i$ active [[queue]{}]{} requests in the system which have the initiation times less than $r$, then the request $q$ will be enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ within next $O(n\beta_i)$ rounds starting from the round $r$. Therefore, the round complexity of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\] is dynamic executions is no more than the round complexity bounds proved in Theorems \[theorem:sequential-phase\] and \[theorem:concurrent-phase\].
Queuing in More Stable Graphs {#section:stable}
=============================
We now study whether the distributed queuing problem can be sped up in more stable graphs. We consider $T$-interval connected graphs of Definition \[definition:t-interval\] and give an algorithm (see Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]) to solve the distributed queuing problem for some $T> 1$. This algorithm is also an extension to the token dissemination algorithm given in [@Kuhn2010] for $T$-interval connected graphs. The main idea behind Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] is to serve $\gamma := \min\{\alpha, T\}$ [[queue]{}]{} requests in $O(n)$ rounds when the graph is $2T$-interval connected. Note that $\alpha := \min\{\beta_1,\beta_2,\ldots\}$, where $\beta_\ell$ is the number of active [[queue]{}]{} requests in the beginning of cycle $\ell$. If $\alpha=1$ in every cycle $\ell$, this constitutes a sequential execution, whereas there is a one-shot concurrent execution in the case when $\alpha\geq T$ in every cycle $\ell$. However due to the properties of $T$-interval connected graphs, Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] can broadcast only $\gamma=T$ [[queue]{}]{} requests to all the nodes in $G$ in $O(n)$ rounds in these $2T$-interval connected graphs. In dynamic executions, $\gamma$ is between $2$ to $T$ in every cycle $\ell$. In summary, $\alpha$ has the impact in the performance of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] in the sense that it determines how many cycles are needed to form a distributed queue for the active [[queue]{}]{} requests. Therefore, $\alpha$ essentially represents the [*concurrency level*]{} of [[queue]{}]{} requests. $\gamma$ does not necessarily be known to Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] in the beginning, it can be adapted based on $\beta_\ell$ and $T$ while in execution.
$S_u \leftarrow \emptyset$;\
$A_u \leftarrow \emptyset$;\
$\ell = 0, \ldots, \lceil k/\gamma \rceil -1$ [**do**]{}\
$\eta = 0, \ldots, \lceil n/T\rceil -1$ [**do**]{}\
$r = 0, \ldots, 2T -1$ [**do**]{}\
$S_u \neq A_u$ [**then**]{}\
$q_{\min} \leftarrow$ a [[queue]{}]{} message in $A_u\backslash S_u$ that is smallest w.r.t. lexicographical ordering on the initiation round and the identifier of the issuing node, respectively;\
[**broadcast**]{} $q_{\min}$ to neighbors;\
$S_u \leftarrow S_u \bigcup \{q_{\min}\}$;\
[**receive**]{} [[queue]{}]{} messages from $s\geq 1$ neighbors;\
$A_u \leftarrow A_u \bigcup \{q_1, \cdots, q_s\}$;\
$S_u \leftarrow \emptyset$;\
[**If**]{} $succ_u == \bot$ [**then**]{}\
[$t \leftarrow$ UID of the smallest [[queue]{}]{} message in $A_u$ w.r.t. the lexicographical ordering;\
$succ_u \leftarrow t$;\
]{} [**If**]{} a [[queue]{}]{} request $q \in A_u$ is $jth\_Smallest(A_u)$ for $1 < j < \gamma$ w.r.t. the lexicographical ordering and the UID of $q$ is equal to the $UID$ of node $u$ [**then**]{}\
[$t\leftarrow$ UID of a $(j+1)th\_Smallest(A_u)$ [[queue]{}]{} message w.r.t. the lexicographical ordering;\
$succ_u \leftarrow t$;\
]{} [**If**]{} a [[queue]{}]{} request $q\in A_u$ is $\gamma th\_Smallest(A_u)$, $\gamma>1$, and the UID of $q$ is equal to the UID of $u$ [**then**]{}\
[$succ_u \leftarrow \bot$;\
]{} $A_u\leftarrow A_u$ after removing $\gamma$ smallest [[queue]{}]{} messages from $A_u$;\
Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] consists of $\lceil k/\gamma\rceil$ cycles. In contrast to Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\], we do not need cancelation phase in this algorithm as $\gamma$ smallest [[queue]{}]{} requests can be queued after $O(n)$ rounds and then corresponding [[queue]{}]{} requests that are replicated to other nodes can be implicitly canceled. Moreover, each cycle consists of $\lceil n/T\rceil$ periods of $2T$ rounds each, i.e., there are total $2n$ rounds in each cycle (Lines 4, 5 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]). During each period, each node $u$ maintains the set $A_u$ of [[queue]{}]{} messages it has already learned and a set $S_u$ of [[queue]{}]{} messages it has already broadcasted in the current period. $S_u$ is initially empty and it is made empty after each period $\eta$. The main idea behind Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] is to be able to enqueue $\gamma$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests from $A_u$ in $O(n)$ rounds. We exploit the $T$-interval connectivity and the concurrent level parameter $\gamma$ to perform this task as follows. In each round of the period (Lines 5–11 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]), each node $u\in V$ selects the smallest [[queue]{}]{} message $q_{\min}$ that is in $A_u\backslash S_u$ with respect to the lexicographical ordering based on the initiation round and the UID of the [[queue]{}]{} request issuing node (Line 7 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]). The node $u$ then broadcasts $q_{\min}$ to its neighbors and adds $q_{\min}$ to the set $S_u$ (Lines 8, 9 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]). As a stable connected subgraph $G_\eta$ persists for each period, we can always send in a round of the period the token that was not already broadcasted. As $G_\eta$ changes in the next period, wet set $S_u$ (the set of [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests already broadcasted by node $u$) to $\emptyset$ (Line 12 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]) and start broadcasting similarly in the next round. This is to make sure that the neighboring nodes of $u$ in the new connected graph $G_\eta'$ receive the tokens that were received by the neighboring nodes in the previous period. After repeating this process for $\lceil n/T\rceil$ periods, we check the local variable $succ_u$ of each node $u \in G$ to see whether $succ_u$ is $\bot$. If $succ_u==\bot$ for some node $u$, then this must be the tail node of ${\mathbf{Q}}$ that was formed in previous cycle, so we select the smallest [[queue]{}]{} message $q_{\min}$ from $A_u$ and assign the UID $t$ associated with $q_{\min}$ to $succ_u$, i.e. $succ_u \leftarrow t$ (Lines 13–15 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]). To complete the queuing of $\gamma$ [[queue]{}]{} requests in a cycle, we perform the following before next cycle begins. If some node $u$ issued a [[queue]{}]{} request $q$ such that $q$ is the $j$th smallest request in $A_u$ for $1<j<\gamma$ and the UID of $q$ is equal to the UID of a node $u\in V$, then we set $succ_u \leftarrow t$, where $t$ is the UID of the $(j+1)$th smallest request in $A_u$ (Lines 16–18 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]). This is also determined based on the lexicographical ordering on initiation time and UIDs associated with the requests in $A_u$. After that, $succ_u$ is set to $\bot$ for the $\gamma$th smallest [[queue]{}]{} request issuing node (Lines 19, 20 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]). At the end of each cycle, we remove all the $\gamma$ requests that joined ${\mathbf{Q}}$ so that only remaining requests compete to join ${\mathbf{Q}}$ in the next cycle (Line 21 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]).
Analysis {#subsection:analysis-2T}
--------
Similar to Algorithm \[algorithm:queue1interval\], we first establish progress and correctness properties of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]. We consider the execution of continuous arrival of [[queue]{}]{} requests (i.e., $k\rightarrow \infty$) similar to Lemma \[lemma:enqueuedonce1I\].
\[lemma:alpha-enqueue\] If there are $\beta_\ell$ active [[queue]{}]{} requests in the beginning of any cycle $\ell$ in a dynamic execution, Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] guarantees that they will be enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ in next at most $O\left(n+\frac{n\beta_\ell}{\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}}\right)$ rounds.
Recall that a [[queue]{}]{} request that is initiated in the beginning of a cycle can join ${\mathbf{Q}}$ after it reaches a node $x$ such that $succ_x=\bot$ at the end of a cycle, assuming that there is no other [[queue]{}]{} request in the system. We know from $2T$-interval connectivity of the graph that there is a stable connected subgraph $G_\eta$ in each period $\eta$ that does not change throughout the period of $2T$ rounds. Therefore, through the pipelined broadcasting of the [[queue]{}]{} requests in each round, if there are $\beta_\ell$ active [[queue]{}]{} requests in the beginning of a cycle $\ell$, we prove here that $\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}$ [[queue]{}]{} requests will reach to all the nodes in $G$ at the end of the cycle $\ell$. Therefore, if $\beta_\ell \leq T$, all the requests reach to all the nodes in $G$ at the end of that cycle, but in the case when $\beta_\ell >T$ then we need $\beta_\ell/\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}$ cycles to finish all the $\beta_\ell$ requests.
We proceed as follows similar to [@Kuhn2010] for each cycle $\ell$ of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]. Let $K_\eta(q)$ denote the set of nodes that know a [[queue]{}]{} request $q$ at the beginning of period $\eta$ and let ${{\rm dist}}_\eta(u,q)$ denote the minimum distance in $G_\eta$ between a node $u$ and any node that is in $K_\eta(q)$. Let $A_u^\eta(r)$ and $S_u^\eta(r)$ denote the values of the local sets $A_u$ and $S_u$ of node $u$ at the beginning of round $r$ of period $\eta$. Note that the node $u$ knows a [[queue]{}]{} message $q$ whenever $q\in A_u$. According to the definition of $2T$-interval connectivity, if a round $r$ is such that ${{\rm dist}}_\eta(u,q)\leq r\leq 2T$, then either $q$ belongs to $S_u^\eta(r+1)$ or $S_u(r+1)$ includes at least $r-{{\rm dist}}_\eta(u,q)$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests that are smaller than $q$ with respect to the lexicographical ordering of [[queue]{}]{} requests. Therefore, if $r\geq {{\rm dist}}_\eta(u,q)$, then $r$ rounds must be enough for the node $u$ to receive the [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request $q$. Moreover, if $r\geq {{\rm dist}}_\eta(u,q)$ but $u$ has not received $q$, then there must be smaller [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests than $q$ from other nodes that have blocked the broadcast of request $q$ in nodes that are between $u$ and the node that initiated $q$.
Now we show that at the end of each cycle $\ell$, at least $\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}$ smallest [[queue]{}]{} requests among the $\beta_\ell$ active [[queue]{}]{} requests that are available in the system in the beginning of cycle $\ell$ are reached to all the nodes and then they can be enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$. Again, we proceed similar to [@Kuhn2010]. Let $N_\eta^d(q):=\{u\in V|{{\rm dist}}_\eta(u,q)\leq d\}$ denote the set of nodes at distance at most $d$ from some node that knows $q$ at the beginning of period $\eta$ and let $q$ be one of the $\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}$ smallest [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request with respect to the lexicographical ordering of [[queue]{}]{} requests. We have that, for each node $u\in N_\eta^T(q)$, either $q \in S_u^\eta(2T+1)$ or $S_u^\eta(2T+1)$ contains at least $\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests which are smaller than $q$. As $q$ is one of the smallest [[[queue]{}]{}]{} request, this is not the case that $S_u^\eta(2T+1)$ contains at least $\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests which are smaller than $q$. Therefore, all nodes in $N_\eta^T(q)$ know [[queue]{}]{} request $q$ at the end of the period $\eta$. As $G_\eta$ is connected, at each period $T$ new nodes learn $q$. Since there are no more than $n$ nodes in the network $G$ and we have $\lceil n/T\rceil$ periods, at the end of the last period, all nodes know $q$. Therefore, at least $\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}$ smallest [[queue]{}]{} request will be at all nodes in $G$ at the end of each cycle $\ell$. These $\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}$ smallest [[queue]{}]{} requests are then implicity enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ before the next cycle $\ell+1$ begins (Lines 13–20 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]). We have that each cycle $\ell$ consists of $\lceil n/T \rceil$ periods of $2T$ rounds each. That is, we have $2n$ rounds in a cycle. Moreover, as we use initiation time in finding the $\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}$ smallest [[queue]{}]{} requests, no quest request that is initiated during cycle $\ell$ or later overtakes the requests ${\mathbf{B}}_i$ that are initiated up to the beginning of cycle $\ell$. Therefore, all the $\beta_\ell$ requests will be enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ in next at most $O\left(n+ \frac{n \beta_i}{\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}}\right)$ rounds.
\[lemma:atmostonce-2T\] Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] enqueues each [[queue]{}]{} request in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ only once.
We prove this lemma similar to Lemma \[lemma:enqueuedonce1I\]. Recall the every node $u$ in the system initially has $succ_u=\infty$ except the head node of ${\mathbf{Q}}$ which has $succ_{head}= \bot$. In Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\], the enqueue of $\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}$ [[queue]{}]{} requests to ${\mathbf{Q}}$ happens at the end of each cycle (Lines 13–20 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]). In this process, the node $u$ which has $succ_u=\bot$ changes its value from $\bot$ to $t$, where $t$ is the UID of the smallest [[queue]{}]{} message in $A_u$ with respect to the lexicographical ordering of the [[queue]{}]{} requests in $A_u$. After that the second smallest to $\min\{\beta_\ell,T\} - 1$ smallest [[queue]{}]{} request are enqueued implicitly as given in Lines 16–18 of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\]. The local successor variable $succ_u$ of the node $u$ that issued the $\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}$th smallest [[queue]{}]{} message is set to $\bot$. As all $\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}$ smallest [[queue]{}]{} requests are removed from $A_u$ at the end of each cycle $\ell$, after this enqueue they can not be enqueued in the future. Therefore, in this process, each [[queue]{}]{} request is enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ only once. Moreover, Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] does not terminate until all requests in ${{\cal E}}$ finished execution. Hence, the lemma follows.
We now analyze the performance of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] in sequential, concurrent, and dynamic executions.
#### Complexity in Sequential Executions:
We show that, for the sequential execution of $k$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests, the distributed queuing problem needs $\Theta(nk)$ rounds to solve in the worst-case even in $T$-interval connected graphs.
\[theorem:sequential-2T\] In sequential executions, Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] is optimal for the distributed queuing problem in $T$-interval connected graphs against a strong adversary.
Recall that [[queue]{}]{} requests do not overlap with each other in sequential executions. The upper bound of $O(nk)$ is immediate from Theorem \[theorem:sequential-phase\] as each [[queue]{}]{} request is enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ at the end of each cycle in the worst-case, irrespective of the $T$-interval connectivity. We now focus our attention to prove the lower bound of $\Omega(nk)$ in $T$-interval connected graphs. The idea of the proof is also similar the lower bound proof of Theorem \[theorem:sequential-phase\]. As there is only one [[queue]{}]{} request $q$ in the system at any time in sequential executions, the adversary can connect the nodes in a line for $T$ rounds in such a way that only one new node can learn $q$ in each round. The adversary can repeat this again for next $T$ rounds by connecting the nodes of the graph in a line, so that only other $T$ nodes can learn $q$. Therefore, $q$ needs $n$ rounds (i.e. a cycle) to reach to the tail of ${\mathbf{Q}}$ and join it to become a new tail of ${\mathbf{Q}}$. Repeating this argument for all the $k$ [[queue]{}]{} requests in ${{\cal E}}$, the lower bound follows, as needed.
#### Complexity in Concurrent Executions:
We prove the following theorem for the performance of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] on the concurrent (one-shot) execution of $k$ [[[queue]{}]{}]{} requests.
\[theorem:concurrent-2T\] In concurrent executions, Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] requires $O(n+\frac{nk}{T})$ rounds to solve the distributed queuing problem in $T$-interval connect graphs.
Since all the [[queue]{}]{} requests in ${{\cal E}}$ arrive in the system in the beginning of the first cycle, we have from Lemma \[lemma:alpha-enqueue\] that $T$ [[queue]{}]{} requests will be enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ at the end of the first cycle. As this needs to repeat up to $\lceil k/T\rceil$ times to make sure that all the $k$ requests joined ${\mathbf{Q}}$, we need $O(n+\frac{nk}{T})$ rounds to to serve all $k$ [[queue]{}]{} requests in ${{\cal E}}$.
#### Complexity in Dynamic Executions:
We prove the following theorem for the performance of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] in dynamic execution of $k$ queue requests.
\[theorem:dynamic-2T\] In dynamic executions, Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] requires $O\left(n+\frac{nk}{\min\{\alpha, T\}}\right)$ rounds to solve the distributed queuing problem in $T$-interval connected graphs.
In a cycle $\ell$, Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] can enqueue $\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}$ [[queue]{}]{} requests that are initiated in the cycles up to the beginning of cycle $\ell$. It can be seen from Theorem \[theorem:concurrent-2T\] that if $\beta_\ell > T$ then the round complexity of Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] depends on the value of $T$. If $\beta_\ell < T$, Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] can not exploit the benefits of $T$-interval connectivity and only $\beta_\ell$ [[queue]{}]{} requests can be enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ at the end of each cycle. Therefore, as only $\min\{\beta_\ell,T\}$ requests can be enqueued in each cycle $\ell$ based on the concurrency level parameter $\beta_\ell$ in each cycle $\ell$, arguing similar to Theorem \[theorem:concurrent-2T\], we need to run Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] for at most $\lceil \frac{ k}{\min\{\alpha,T\}}\rceil$ cycles to make sure that all $k$ [[queue]{}]{} requests joined ${\mathbf{Q}}$, where $\alpha := \min\{\beta_1,\beta_2,\ldots\}$ for the value of $\beta_\ell$ in each cycle $\ell$. Thus, Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] needs $O\left(n+\frac{nk}{\min\{\alpha, T\}}\right)$ rounds to serve all $k$ [[queue]{}]{} requests in a dynamic execution of $k$ requests.
Theorem \[theorem:dynamic-2T\] subsumes the results in Theorems \[theorem:sequential-2T\] and \[theorem:concurrent-2T\] in the sense that the round complexity bound of Theorem \[theorem:dynamic-2T\] becomes $O(nk)$ as $\min\{\alpha,T\}=1$ in every round of any sequential execution and becomes $O(n+\frac{nk}{T})$ as $\min\{\alpha,T\}=T$ in every round of any concurrent execution.
We assumed in Algorithm \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\] that $T$ is known. If $T$ is not known then we can guess $T$ by trying all the values of $T = 1 ,2, 4, \cdots, k$. This incurs extra $\log k$ factor in the round complexity bound. Therefore, we can solve the distributed queuing problem in $O\left(\min\left\{nk, n\log k + \frac{nk\cdot \log k}{\min\{\alpha,T\}}\right\}\right)$ rounds in any execution.
An Inherent Limitation {#section:limitation}
======================
We discuss here why algorithms designed for the distributed queuing problem in the adversarial dynamic graph model, including Algorithms \[algorithm:queue1interval\] and \[algorithm:queue2Tinterval\], need to perform $n$ consecutive rounds of message broadcasts before they enqueue some [[queue]{}]{} requests in the distributed queue ${\mathbf{Q}}$. In other words, we argue why we used explicit cycles of $n$ consecutive rounds for message broadcasts in our algorithms before we decide to enqueue any [[queue]{}]{} request in ${\mathbf{Q}}$. Our argument is under the assumption that the queue ${\mathbf{Q}}$ formed by any queuing algorithm needs to ensure the following two properties which together provide the [*correctness*]{} of the distributed queue formed.
1. Each [[queue]{}]{} request is eventually enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ after it is issued. This guarantees that no [[queue]{}]{} request is canceled (or removed) from the system without being enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$, after it is issued.
2. Each [[queue]{}]{} request is enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ exactly once. This property guarantees that no [[queue]{}]{} request is enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ more than one time.
These two properties imply that every request will be enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ but only once. Our objective now is to present some instances of the distributed queuing problem where it is difficult to satisfy these two properties simultaneously if we allow any algorithm for this problem to enqueue some queue requests in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ within $o(n)$ rounds of message broadcasts after the last enqueue by that algorithm. In particular, we present two instances of the distributed queuing problem. We consider the dynamic execution in 1-interval connected graphs in this discussion; recall that [[queue]{}]{} requests are initiated in arbitrary moments of time in a dynamic execution.
We start with the first instance where we try to satisfy the second property from which the first property is violated. Let the queuing algorithm that we consider in this discussion allows the tail node $p$ in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ enqueue a [[queue]{}]{} request $q$ from any node $v$ as soon as it receives $q$. Consider an execution instance in which some node $u$ that issued a [[queue]{}]{} request $q$ in some round $i-t, t \leq o(n),$ reached the current tail node $p$ (with the local successor variable $succ_p=\bot$) at round $i$ such that $p$ can now made $u$ its successor (the new tail of ${\mathbf{Q}}$), that is $succ_p=u$. In $t$ consecutive rounds of message broadcasting $q$ might also have been replicated to some other nodes in the network because [[queue]{}]{} message replication is necessary (Theorem \[theorem:impossibility\]) to solve the queuing problem. As $q$ is already enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$, to satisfy the second property so that it will not be enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ more than once, $q$ has to be removed from those nodes so that it will not be enqueued again in ${\mathbf{Q}}$. As nodes have no global information, the nodes where $q$ still exists need to rely on removing either the largest or the smallest [[queue]{}]{} message using some ordering mechanism (e.g., UIDs of [[queue]{}]{} request issuing nodes, initiation times, or the combination of both) from the set of requests that are at those nodes at round $i$. Lets assume that, at round $i$, in two nodes $u'$ and $u''$ of the graph $G(i)$, $q' (\neq q)$ is the smallest [[queue]{}]{} request as $q$ has not yet been reached to $u'$ and $u''$, and $q$ is the smallest [[queue]{}]{} request in all the remaining nodes of the graph. Now when a queuing algorithm uses the technique to remove the smallest [[queue]{}]{} request from all the network nodes, $q'$ will be removed from $u'$ and $u''$ which was not yet enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ and $q$ will be removed from rest of the nodes in the graph, so that there is no possibility that $q$ will be enqueued twice in ${\mathbf{Q}}$, satisfying the second property. But, this violates the first property because some other request was removed from the system before it has been enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$. However, if the algorithm would have allowed $t=n$ rounds of message broadcasts before it enqueue $q$, $q$ would have been the smallest request in all the nodes in the graph and both properties would have been satisfied. As the graph is controlled by a strong adversary, sending the acknowledgement messages to remove the particular requests from the nodes also need $\frac{n-2}{2}+1$ rounds in the worst-case as adversary can give very bad graph in every round (Theorem \[theorem:sequential-phase\]), forcing the acknowledgement to reach one of the required nodes after $\frac{n-2}{2}+1$ rounds. We discuss now the second execution instance where we try to satisfy the first property from which the second property is violated. Consider the above mentioned execution instance and assume that $p$ does not try to remove $q$ immediately. Instead $p$ tries to send acknowledgement (cancel) messages to nodes where $q$ has been replicated. Suppose an acknowledgement message is reached to $u$ at round $i+s$, where $s\leq o(n)$, and some other queue request $q''$ from node $w$ that was at $u$ became the new tail of ${\mathbf{Q}}$. Now $u$ issues an acknowledgement message for $q''$. As $s$ is very small, the acknowledge message for $q$ (from $p$) may not have been reached already to all the nodes where $q$ still exists. Let $w$ be the node where $q$ is the only request that it is has. Let, at round $i+s+1$, acknowledgement message from $u$ reached $w$ ($w$ and $u$ happened to be the neighbors in the graph $G(i+s+1)$ given by the adversary); which in turn forces $w$ to make $u$ its successor. This violates the second property as $q$ is enqueued twice in ${\mathbf{Q}}$. We summarize our discussion in the following observation which shows that there are some execution instances of the distributed queuing problem where messages broadcast for at least $\frac{n-2}{2}+1$ consecutive rounds is needed for any algorithm before enqueuing any [[queue]{}]{} request in ${\mathbf{Q}}$, in the worst-case.
There are execution instances of the distributed queuing problem for which $\Theta(n)$ consecutive rounds of message broadcasts by the graph nodes is necessary and sufficient for any algorithm before it enqueues any [[queue]{}]{} request(s) in a distributed queue ${\mathbf{Q}}$ so that ${\mathbf{Q}}$ that is formed from the execution of the [[queue]{}]{} requests in the system is [*correct*]{} – each [[queue]{}]{} request is eventually enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ and no [[queue]{}]{} request is enqueued in ${\mathbf{Q}}$ more than once.
Discussion {#section:discussion}
==========
We addressed the distributed queuing problem in adversarial dynamic networks by giving two simple algorithms, one for 1-interval connected graphs and the other for $T$-interval connected graphs. These algorithms work in sequential, concurrent, and dynamic execution instances of the problem. Our solutions for 1-interval connected graphs can be easily extended to solve this problem in $O(\frac{nk}{c})$ rounds in [*$c$-vertex connected graphs*]{} for some $c>1$ $-$ we say that a dynamic network $G=(V,E)$ is always $c$-vertex connected if and only if $G(r)$ is $c$-vertex connected for every round $r$, i.e. each node is connected to every $c$ other nodes [@Haeupler2012]. Our results and the discussion in Section \[section:limitation\] suggest that, in the worst-case, algorithms for the distributed queuing problem need the same number of rounds required for the $k$-token dissemination problem. Therefore, it is interesting to establish a lower bound similar to the $k$-token dissemination problem given in [@Kuhn2010; @Dutta2013; @Haeupler2012] for the distributed queuing problem in this model; finding faster queuing algorithms is another open problem. Moreover, Busch and Tirthapura [@Busch2010] showed that the related problem of [*distributed counting*]{}[^3] is harder than the distributed queuing problem in concurrent situations in static networks. Therefore, it will be very interesting to prove the similar results of [@Busch2010] for the distributed queuing and counting problems in this adversarial dynamic network model.
[^1]: In the counting problem, assuming that nodes do not know $n$ in the initial state, every node in the dynamic graph comprising $n$ nodes should know $n$ after some rounds of message exchange [@Kuhn2010].
[^2]: In the $k$-token dissemination problem, there are $k$ unique tokens, usually in $k$ different nodes of the network, and the goal is to transmit these tokens to all the nodes in the network [@Kuhn2010].
[^3]: In the distributed counting problem, processors in a distributed system increment a globally unique shared counter. Each processor in return receives the value of a counter after its increment operation took effect [@Wattenhofer1998; @Aspnes1994].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We describe a graded extension of the usual Hecke algebra: it acts in a graded fashion on the cohomology of an arithmetic group $\Gamma$. Under favorable conditions, the cohomology is freely generated in a single degree over this graded Hecke algebra.
From this construction we extract an action of certain $p$-adic Galois cohomology groups on $H^*(\Gamma, {\mathbf{Q}}_p)$, and formulate the central conjecture: the motivic ${\mathbf{Q}}$-lattice inside these Galois cohomology groups preserves $H^*(\Gamma,{\mathbf{Q}})$.
author:
- Akshay Venkatesh
bibliography:
- 'derivedHecke.bib'
title: Derived Hecke algebra and cohomology of arithmetic groups
---
Introduction
============
Let ${\mathbf{G}}$ be a semisimple ${\mathbf{Q}}$-group, and let $Y(K)$ be the associated arithmetic manifold (see ). Particularly when $Y(K)$ is not an algebraic variety, it often happens that the same Hecke eigensystem can occur in several different cohomological degrees (see §\[sec:MV\]). Our goal is to construct extra endomorphisms of cohomology that partly explain this, and give evidence that these extra endomorphisms are related to certain motivic cohomology groups.
Derived Hecke algebra {#introdha}
---------------------
Let $v$ be a prime, $G_v = {\mathbf{G}}({\mathbf{Q}}_v)$ and $K_v$ a maximal compact subgroup. The usual Hecke algebra at $v$, with coefficients in a (say finite) ring $S$, can be described as $ {\mathrm{Hom}}_{S G_v} \left( S[G_v/K_v], S[G_v/K_v] \right).$ If in place of ${\mathrm{Hom}}$ we use ${\mathrm{Ext}}$ (see §\[sec:dha\] for more details) we get a graded extension, which we may call the “local derived Hecke algebra”: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{extdef} \mathscr{H}_{v,S} := \bigoplus_i {\mathrm{Ext}}^i_{S G_v} \left( S[G_v/K_v], S[G_v/K_v] \right) \end{aligned}$$
Such a construction has been considered by P. Schneider [@Schneider] in the context of local representation theory in the case when $S$ has characteristic $v$. In the present paper, however, we are solely interested in the opposite case, when $v$ is invertible on $S$.
For elementary reasons, the higher exts are “almost” killed by $q_v-1$, where $q_v$ is the size of the residue field; thus this algebra is of most interest when $q_v=1$ in $S$. In that case we have (§\[Satake\], Theorem \[DHA:Satake\]) a [*Satake isomorphism*]{}: if $q_v=1$ in $S$, then $ \mathscr{H}_{v,S}$ is isomorphic to the Weyl-invariants on the corresponding algebra for a torus (and is thus graded-commutative).
Now ${\mathscr{H}}_{v,S}$ acts on the cohomology $H^*(Y(K), S)$ [*in a graded fashion*]{} – the ${\mathrm{Ext}}^i$ component shifts degree by $+i$. (See §\[sec:explication\] for an explicit version, §\[Arithmeticmanifolds\] for the abstract version.) In particular, $\bigotimes_{v} {\mathscr{H}}_{v,{\mathbf{Z}}/p^n}$ acts on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ and then (by passing to the limit as $n \rightarrow \infty$, §\[limit\]) we get a graded-commutative ring of endomorphisms $${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}\subset {\mathrm{End}}\ H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{p}),$$ the “global derived Hecke algebra.” The degree zero component of ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$ is the usual Hecke algebra $\mathbb{T}$ – i.e. the subalgebra of ${\mathrm{End}}\ H^*$ generated by all Hecke operators. Here, and elsewhere in the introduction, we will use in the Hecke algebra only “good” places $v$ relative to $K$.
As we have mentioned, if we decompose $H^j(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{p})$ into eigencharacters for $\mathbb{T}$, one finds the same eigencharacters occuring in several different degrees $j$. See [@takagi] for an elementary introduction to this phenomenon. We want to see that $\mathbb{T}$ is rich enough to account for this.
One way of formalizing “rich enough” is to complete the cohomology at a given character $\chi: \mathbb{T} \rightarrow \mathbf{F}_{p}$ of the usual Hecke algebra, and ask that $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{p})_{\chi}$ be generated over ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$ in minimal degree. In other words, we should like to check surjectivity of the map $$\label{bigenough}{\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}\otimes H^{{\mathsf{q}}}(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{p})_{\chi} \rightarrow H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{p})_{\chi}$$ where $\mathsf{q}$ is the minimal degree where $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{p})_{\chi}$ is nonvanishing.
In Theorem \[maintheoremtriv\] and Theorem \[mindegreeproof\] we prove this in two different cases (in both cases, we require the prime $p$ to be large enough):
Theorem \[maintheoremtriv\], proved in §\[Quillen\], studies the case when $\mathbf{G}$ is (the ${\mathbf{Q}}$-group corresponding to) an inner form of $\mathrm{SL}_n$ over an imaginary quadratic field, and $\chi$ is the character $T \mapsto \deg(T)$ that sends any Hecke operator $T$ to its degree. The main point is that, in this case, $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{p})_{\chi}$ can be described in terms of algebraic $K$-theory.
Theorem \[mindegreeproof\], proved in §\[Patching\] and §\[Patching2\], treats the case of $\chi$ associated to a tempered cohomological automorphic form, [*assuming the existence of Galois representations attached to cohomology classes on $Y(K)$, satisfying the expected properties (see §\[GaloisAss\]).* ]{} [^1] In this analysis we also impose some assumptions on $\chi$ for our convenience – e.g. “minimal level,” and excluding congruences with other forms – we have not attempted to be general. Here, the main tool of the proof is a very striking interaction between the derived Hecke algebra and the Taylor–Wiles method. We discuss this interaction further in §\[sec:explication\].
The proofs of §\[Quillen\] and §\[Patching\]–\[Patching2\] are quite different, but they have an an interesting feature in common. In both cases, we use the derived Hecke algebra at primes $q$ such that restriction to $G_{{\mathbf{Q}}_q}$ kills certain classes in global Galois cohomology. These classes live inside a certain dual Selmer group (specifically, the right hand side of below).
That this particular dual Selmer group arises is quite striking, because it seems to be a $p$-adic avatar of a certain motivic cohomology group; and this same motivic cohomology group is suggested, in [@PV], to act on the rational cohomology of $Y(K)$. This brings us to the core motivation of this paper: the derived Hecke algebra allows one to construct a $p$-adic realization of the operations on rational cohomology proposed in [@PV]. Therefore, we digress to describe the conjectures of [@PV]. We return to describe the remainder of the current paper in §\[reindexing\].
Motivic cohomology {#sec:MV}
------------------
This section is solely motivational, and so we will freely assume various standard conjectures without giving complete references. We shall also allow ourselves to be slightly imprecise in the interest of keeping the exposition brief. We refer to the paper [@PV] for full details.
Let $\chi: \mathbb{T} \rightarrow {\mathbf{Q}}$ be a character of the usual Hecke algebra, now with ${\mathbf{Q}}$ values. We will suppose that $\chi$ is tempered and cuspidal. By this, we mean that there is a collection $\pi_1, \dots, \pi_r$ of cuspidal automorphic representations, each tempered at $\infty$, such that the generalized $\chi$-eigenspace $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{C}})_{\chi}$ is exactly equal to the subspace of cohomology associated to the $\pi_i$s.
Consider now this generalized eigenspace with rational coefficients $$H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}})_{\chi} \subset H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}}).$$ One can understand its dimension data completely. To do so we introduce some numerical invariants: let $\delta, {\mathsf{q}}$ be defined such that $$\delta = \mathrm{rank} \ \mathbf{G}({\mathbf{R}}) - \mathrm{rank} \ K_{\infty}.$$ $$\label{qdef0} 2 {\mathsf{q}}+\delta = {\mathrm{dim}}Y(K).$$ Then we have (see [@BW Theorem III.5.1]; also [@Borel2 Cor. 5.5]) $$\label{dimeq} {\mathrm{dim}}H^{{\mathsf{q}}+i} (Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}})_{\chi} = {\delta \choose i} {\mathrm{dim}}H^{{\mathsf{q}}}(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}})_{\chi}.$$
In [@PV] a conjectural explanation for this numerology is proposed. Namely, we construct a $\delta$-dimensional ${\mathbf{Q}}$-vector space and suggest that its exterior algebra acts on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}})_{\chi}$. To define the vector space requires a discussion first of the motive associated to $\chi$, and then of its motivic cohomology.
### The Galois representation and the motive associated to $\chi$
It is conjectured (and in some cases proven [@Scholze]) that to such $\chi$ there is, for every prime $p$, a Galois representation $\rho_{\chi}: {\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}/{\mathbf{Q}}) \rightarrow {} {^{L}\hat{G}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{p})$, where ${^{L}\hat{G}}$ is the Langlands dual group.[^2]
We shall suppose that $p$ is a good prime, not dividing the level of the original arithmetic manifold $Y(K)$ (for the precise meaning of “level,” see after ). In particular, this means that $\rho_{\chi}$ should be crystalline upon restriction to $G_{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}$.
Now we shall compose $\rho$ with the co-adjoint representation ${^{L}\hat{G}}\rightarrow {\mathrm{Aut}}(\widehat{\mathfrak{g}}^*)$ of ${^{L}\hat{G}}$ on the dual of its own Lie algebra (here $\widehat{\mathfrak{g}}$ is the Lie algebra of the dual group to ${\mathbf{G}}$, considered as a ${\mathbf{Q}}$-group, and $\widehat{\mathfrak{g}}^*$ is its ${\mathbf{Q}}$-linear dual). The result is $${\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_{\chi}: {\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}/{\mathbf{Q}}) \longrightarrow {\mathrm{Aut}}(\widehat{\mathfrak{g}}^* \otimes {\mathbf{Q}}_{p})$$
It is also conjectured that ${\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_{\chi}$ should be motivic. In other words, there should exist a weight zero motive $M_{{\mathrm{coad}}}$ over ${\mathbf{Q}}$, the “coadjoint motive for $\chi$,” whose Galois realization is isomorphic to ${\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_{\chi}$: $$\label{Galoisrealization} H^*_{\mathrm{et}}(M_{{\mathrm{coad}}} \times_{{\mathbf{Q}}} \overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}, {\mathbf{Q}}_{p}) \simeq {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_{\chi} \mbox{ (in cohomological degree $0$)}.$$ For simplicity we shall assume that $M_{{\mathrm{coad}}}$ can be taken to be a Chow motive, and will suppose that the coefficient field of $M_{{\mathrm{coad}}}$ is equal to ${\mathbf{Q}}$. [^3]
### Motivic cohomology groups associated to $\chi$ {#motivic chi}
For such an $M_{{\mathrm{coad}}}$, and indeed for any Chow motive $M$, we can define (after Voevodsky) a bigraded family of motivic cohomology groups $H^{a}_{{\mathrm{mot}}}(M ,{\mathbf{Q}}(q))$; the indexing is chosen so that this admits a comparison map to the corresponding absolute [é]{}tale cohomology group $H^a_{\mathrm{et}}(M, {\mathbf{Q}}_p(q))$.
We will be solely interested in the motivic cohomology group with $a=q=1$; in this case, with the coadjoint motive, the comparison with [é]{}tale cohomology gives $$\label{saxophone} H^1_{{\mathrm{mot}}}(M_{{\mathrm{coad}}}, {\mathbf{Q}}(1)) \otimes_{{\mathbf{Q}}} {\mathbf{Q}}_q \rightarrow H^1(G_{{\mathbf{Q}}}, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_{\chi}(1)).$$
Now Scholl [@scholl Theorem 1.1.6] has shown that one can define (again for any Chow motive $M$ over ${\mathbf{Q}}$) a natural subspace $H^a_{{\mathrm{mot}}}(M_{{\mathbf{Z}}}, {\mathbf{Q}}(q)) \subset H^a_{{\mathrm{mot}}}(M, {\mathbf{Q}}(q))$ of its motivic cohomology, informally speaking “those classes that extend to a good model over $\mathbf{Z}$.” Conjecturally, the analogue of the above map should now take values inside the $f$-cohomology of Bloch and Kato [@BK]; in the case of interest the analog of is now $$H^1_{{\mathrm{mot}}}((M_{{\mathrm{coad}}})_{{\mathbf{Z}}}, {\mathbf{Q}}(1)) \otimes_{{\mathbf{Q}}} {\mathbf{Q}}_q \rightarrow H^1_f(G_{{\mathbf{Q}}}, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_{\chi}(1)).$$ Moreover, this map is conjecturally ([@BK 5.3(ii)]) an isomorphism.
It may be helpful to note that Beilinson’s conjecture relates this particular motivic cohomology to the value of the $L$-function for ${\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_{\chi}$ at the edge of the critical strip. In particular, Beilinson’s conjectures imply that $${\mathrm{dim}}_{{\mathbf{Q}}} H^1_{{\mathrm{mot}}}((M_{{\mathrm{coad}}})_{{\mathbf{Z}}}, {\mathbf{Q}}(1)) = \mbox{ order of vanishing of $L(s, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_{\chi})$ at $s=0$.}$$ A routine computation with $\Gamma$-factors shows that the right-hand side should indeed be equal to $\delta$.
To keep typography simple, we will denote the group $H^1_{{\mathrm{mot}}}((M_{{\mathrm{coad}}})_{{\mathbf{Z}}},{\mathbf{Q}}(1))$ simply by $L$: $$\label{LDef} L := H^1((M_{{\mathrm{coad}}})_{{\mathbf{Z}}}, {\mathbf{Q}}(1)).$$ so that our discussion above says that, granting standard conjectures, $L$ is a ${\mathbf{Q}}$-vector space of dimension $\delta$, and it comes with a map $$\label{Letalef} L \otimes {\mathbf{Q}}_p \rightarrow \underbrace{ H^1_f(G_{{\mathbf{Q}}}, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_{\chi})}_{:= L_{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}}$$
### The complex regulator on $L$ and the conjectures of [@PV]
There is a complex analogue to : a complex regulator map on $L$, with target in a certain Deligne cohomology group. Since the details are not important for us, we just call the target of this map $L_{{\mathbf{C}}}$ and let $L_{{\mathbf{C}}}^*$ be its ${\mathbf{C}}$-linear dual.
In [@PV] we construct an action of $L_{{\mathbf{C}}}^*$ on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{C}})_{\chi}$ by degree $1$ endomorphisms, inducing $$\label{PVc} H^{{\mathsf{q}}}(Y(K), {\mathbf{C}})_{\chi} \otimes \bigwedge \nolimits^* L_{{\mathbf{C}}}^* \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow}
H^{{\mathsf{q}}+i}(Y(K), {\mathbf{C}})_{\chi}$$ The main conjecture of [@PV] is that this action preserves rational structures, i.e. the ${\mathbf{Q}}$-linear dual $L^*$ of $L$ carries $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}})_{\chi}$ to itself. In particular, this means that $$\label{PC333} \mbox{There is a natural graded action of $\wedge^* L^*$ on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}})_{\chi}$.}$$
Therefore, if one accepts the conjecture of , and also believes that is an isomorphism, it should be possible to define a “natural” action of $$\label{Denzel} \bigwedge \nolimits^* L^* \otimes {\mathbf{Q}}_p = \bigwedge \nolimits^* H^1_f(G_{{\mathbf{Q}}}, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_{\chi}(1))^*
\acts H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}}_p)_{\chi}.$$ Now there is no explicit mention of motivic cohomology, and this is where the current paper comes into the story: in §\[reciprocity\], we shall explain how the derived Hecke algebra can be used to produce such an action.
This concludes our review of [@PV]; we now explain a little bit more.
The derived Hecke algebra and Galois cohomology {#reindexing}
-----------------------------------------------
The main result of §\[reciprocity\] is Theorem \[maintheorem\], which constructs an action of $ \bigwedge \nolimits^* H^1_f(G_{{\mathbf{Q}}}, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_{\chi}(1))^*$ on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}}_p)$. This is characterized in terms of the action of explicit derived Hecke operators. More precisely, we construct in §\[obstructions\] an isomorphism $$\label{dHeckeGalois} {\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}\otimes {\mathbf{Q}}_p \simeq \mathbb{T} \otimes_{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}
\bigwedge \nolimits^* H^1_f(G_{{\mathbf{Q}}}, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_{\chi}(1))^*$$ (actually, we do this in a case when $\mathbb{T}={\mathbf{Z}}_p$, but in general the argument should yield the above result). Informally, gives an “indexing” of derived Hecke operators by Galois cohomology. We will describe it concretely in a moment, see §\[Galoisindexing\]. It can be viewed as a “reciprocity law,” because it relates the action of the (derived) Hecke algebra to the Galois representation in a direct way.
To go further, let us assume that the map is indeed an isomorphism. Denote by $L^*$ the ${\mathbf{Q}}$-linear dual of $L$, by $L_{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}^*$ the ${\mathbf{Q}}_p$-linear dual of $L_{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}$; we get also an isomorphism $L^* \otimes {\mathbf{Q}}_p \simeq L^*_{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}$.
Thus the derived Hecke algebra gives rise to an action of $\wedge^* L^*_{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}$ on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}}_p)$. The fundamental conjecture, formulated precisely as Conjecture \[mainconjecture\], is then the following:
> [*Let $\wedge^* L^*_{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}$ act on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}}_p)$ as described above. Then $\wedge^* L ^*\subset \wedge^* L^*_{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}$ preserves rational cohomology $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}}) \subset H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}}_p)$.* ]{}
The main point of this paper was to get to the point where we can make this conjecture! What it says is that there is a hidden action of $L^*$ on the ${\mathbf{Q}}$-cohomology of $Y(K)$, which can be computed, after tensoring with ${\mathbf{Q}}_p$, using the derived Hecke algebra.
Here is the current status of evidence for this conjecture:
- The most direct evidence (as of the time of writing) will be given in the paper [@HV], which is joint work with Michael Harris. There we develop an analog of the derived Hecke algebra in the setting of coherent cohomology, and formulate an analog of the conjecture in this setting. The advantage of this is we are actually able to carry out a numerical test (in the case of classical weight one modular forms) and it indeed works.
- As we have already mentioned, the conjecture should be seen as a a $p$-adic analog of the conjecture of [@PV] (which tells the archimedean story). In the archimedean case, we are able to give substantive evidence for the conjecture by other methods (periods of automorphic forms, and analytic torsion).
- Suitably phrased, the computations of §\[Quillen\] can be seen as supporting a modified version of the conjecture. It is also easy to verify that the conjecture holds for tori, as we shall discuss in §\[pisspoor\] of this paper.
Note that, because of our fairly strong assumptions, is even true [*integrally*]{} in the setting of §\[reciprocity\], i.e. the global derived Hecke algebra is an exterior algebra over ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$. I don’t expect this to be true in general; however, the rational statement should remain valid. One might imagine that the derived deformation ring of [@GV] will have better integral properties than the derived Hecke algebra.
Explication, Koszul duality, Taylor-Wiles {#sec:explication}
-----------------------------------------
We now explain the action of the derived Hecke algebra, and its relationship to Galois cohomology, as explicitly as possible, in the case when $Y(K)$ is an arithmetic hyperbolic $3$-manifold. Besides explicating the foregoing abstract discussion, this will also have the advantage that it allows us to explain the relationship between the derived Hecke algebra and the Taylor–Wiles method.
Suppose ${\mathbf{G}}$ arises from ${\mathrm{PGL}}_2$ over an imaginary quadratic field $F$, i.e. ${\mathbf{G}}= \mathrm{Res}_{F/{\mathbf{Q}}} {\mathrm{PGL}}_2$. Let ${\mathcal{O}}$ be the ring of integers of $F$. Therefore the associated manifold $Y(K)$ (see ) is a finite union of hyperbolic $3$-orbifolds. Let us suppose, for simplicity, that the class number of $F$ is odd; then, at full level, the associated arithmetic manifold is simply the quotient of hyperbolic $3$-space $\mathbb{H}^3$ by ${\mathrm{PGL}}_2({\mathcal{O}})$.
In what follows, we fix a prime $p$ and will work always with cohomology with ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ coefficients.
Let $\mathfrak{q}$ be a prime ideal of ${\mathcal{O}}$, relatively prime to $p$, and let ${\mathbf{F}}_{\mathfrak{q}} = {\mathcal{O}}/\mathfrak{q} $ the residue field. Let $$\alpha: \mathbf{F}_{\mathfrak{q}} ^* \longrightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$$ be a homomorphism. By means of the natural homomorphism $$\Gamma_0(\mathfrak{q}) \rightarrow {\mathbf{F}}_{\mathfrak{q}}^*$$ sending $\left( \begin{array}{cc} a & b\\ c & d \end{array} \right) \mapsto a/d$, we may regard $\alpha$ as a cohomology class $\langle \alpha \rangle \in H^1(\Gamma_0(\mathfrak{q}), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$. Here, $\Gamma_0(\mathfrak{q})$ is as usual defined by the condition that $c \in \mathfrak{q}$.
Then a typical “derived Hecke operator” of degree $+1$ is the following (see §\[sec:concrete\] for more): $$\label{concrete} T_{\mathfrak{q},\alpha}: H^1 {\mathrm{PGL}}_2({\mathcal{O}}) \stackrel{\pi_1^*}{\leftarrow} H^1 \Gamma_0(\mathfrak{q}) \stackrel{\cup \langle \alpha \rangle }{\longrightarrow} H^2 \Gamma_0(\mathfrak{q}) \stackrel{\pi_{2*}}{ \rightarrow} H^2 {\mathrm{PGL}}_2({\mathcal{O}}).$$ Here $\pi_1, \pi_2$ are the two natural maps $\Gamma_0(\mathfrak{q}) \rightarrow {\mathrm{SL}}_2({\mathcal{O}})$.
In words, we pull back to level $\Gamma_0(\mathfrak{q})$, cup with $\langle \alpha \rangle$, and push back (the “other way”) to level $1$. If we omitted the cup product, we would have the usual Hecke operator $T_{\mathfrak{q}}$. The class $\alpha$ itself is rather uninteresting – it is a “congruence class” in the terminology of [@CaVe], i.e. it becomes trivial on a congruence subgroup – but nonetheless this operation seems to be new even in this case.
The role of torsion coefficients is vital: If we took the coefficient ring above to be ${\mathbf{Z}}$, there are no homomorphisms $\mathbf{F}_{\mathfrak{q}}^* \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}$; more generally, $\mathbf{F}_{\mathfrak{q}}^*$ has only torsion cohomology in positive degree. In fact, even to obtain “interesting” operations with ${\mathbf{Z}}/p$ coefficients, we need at least that $p$ divide $\mathrm{N}(\mathfrak{q})-1$ (i.e. that $N(\mathfrak{q}) =1$ in the coefficient ring ${\mathbf{Z}}/p$, as we mentioned in §\[introdha\]).
What that means is that elements of ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$ in characteristic zero necessarily arise in a very indirect way: as a limit of operations from $\mathscr{H}_{\mathfrak{q}}$ for [*larger and larger primes $\mathfrak{q}$.*]{} This situation is perhaps reminiscent of the Taylor-Wiles method, and indeed one miracle of the story is that, although the definition of ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$ is completely natural, it interacts in a rich way with the Taylor-Wiles method (not merely with its output, e.g. $R=T$ theorems, but with the internal structure of the method itself).
To see why this is so let us examine : the Taylor-Wiles method studies the action of $\mathbf{F}_{\mathfrak{q}}^*$ on the cohomology of $\Gamma_1(\mathfrak{q})$ (these are the “diamond operators”). On the other hand when we study $T_{\mathfrak{q},\alpha}$, we are studying the action of $H^*(\mathbf{F}_p^*)$ on $H^*(\Gamma_0(\mathfrak{q}))$. In both settings it is vital that $N \mathfrak{q}-1$ be divisible by high powers of $p$.
But these two actions just mentioned are very closely related. More generally, if a group $G$ acts on a space $X$, the action of $G$ on homology of $X$ and the action of its group cohomology $H^*(G)$ on the equivariant cohomology $H_G^*(X)$ are closely related: when $G$ is a compact torus, for example, this relationship is just Koszul duality [@GKM]. This is just the situation we are in, with $G = \mathbf{F}_{\mathfrak{q}}^*$, and $X$ the classifying space of $\Gamma_1(\mathfrak{q})$.
Relationship to Galois cohomology: the “reciprocity law” {#Galoisindexing}
--------------------------------------------------------
Continuing our discussion from §\[sec:explication\], let us describe explicitly how the operator $T_{\mathfrak{q},\alpha}$ is related to Galois cohomology. Said differently, we are explicating the indexing of derived Hecke operators by Galois cohomology that is implicit in . The result could be considered to be a reciprocity law, in the same sense as the usual relationship between Hecke operators and Frobenius eigenvalues.
This discussion is (probably inevitably) a bit more technical. We must again localize our story to a given Hecke eigenclass and also make some further assumptions on the prime $\mathfrak{q}$. For a more precise discussion and proofs, see §\[Galoisindexingproofs\] of the main text.
Fix now a character $\chi: \mathbb{T} \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_{p}$ of the usual Hecke algebra at level $Y(K)$. Let $$\rho: {\mathrm{Gal}}(\bar{F}/F) \rightarrow {\mathrm{GL}}_2({\mathbf{Z}}_{p})$$ be the Galois representation conjecturally associated to $\chi$, and let $\rho_m$ be its reduction modulo $p^m$. We shall assume that $\rho$ is crystalline at all primes above $p$, and also that $p >2$. Let ${S}$ be the set of finite primes at which $\rho$ is ramified (necessarily including all primes above $p$).
Let ${\mathrm{Ad}}\rho$ be the composite of $\rho$ with the adjoint representation of ${\mathrm{PGL}}_2$; we will think of the underlying space of ${\mathrm{Ad}}\rho$ as the space of $2 \times 2$ matrices with trace zero and entries in ${\mathbf{Z}}_{p}$. Also, let ${\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho$ be the ${\mathbf{Z}}_{p}$-linear dual to ${\mathrm{Ad}}\rho$ (this is identified with ${\mathrm{Ad}}\rho$ as a Galois module, so long as $p \neq 2$, but we prefer to try to keep them conceptually separate). Finally, ${\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1)$ will be the Tate-twist of ${\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho$.
Let $\mathfrak{q} \notin {S}$ be a prime of $F$ and let $F_{\mathfrak{q}}$ be the completion of $F$ at $\mathfrak{q}$. Embed $$\label{Weird-Embed} {\mathbf{Z}}_{p} \mbox{ with trivial ${\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{F_{\mathfrak{q}}}/F_{\mathfrak{q}})$ action} \hookrightarrow {\mathrm{Ad}}\ \rho|_{{\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{F_{\mathfrak{q}}}/F_{\mathfrak{q}})}$$ $$1 \mapsto 2 \rho(\mathrm{Frob}_{\mathfrak{q}})- \mathrm{trace} \rho(\mathrm{Frob}_{\mathfrak{q}}).$$ Explicitly, $\rho(\mathrm{Frob}_{\mathfrak{q}})$ is a $2 \times 2$ matrix over ${\mathbf{Z}}_{p}$, and the right-hand side above is a $2\times 2$ matrix over ${\mathbf{Z}}_{p}$ with trace zero. This eccentric looking formula is a special case of a construction that makes sense for all groups, see §\[Galoisindexingproofs\].
The map gives rise to a similar embedding ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^m \rightarrow {\mathrm{Ad}}\ \rho_m|_{G_{F_{\mathfrak{q}}}}$, and thus a pairing of $G_{F_{\mathfrak{q}}}$-modules: $${\mathbf{Z}}/p^m \times {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \ \rho(1) \rightarrow \mu_{p^m}.$$ Thus by local reciprocity we get a pairing $$H^1(F_{\mathfrak{q}},{\mathbf{Z}}/p^m) \times H^1(F_{\mathfrak{q}}, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \ \rho(1)) \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^m {\mathbf{Z}},$$ and then (by restricting the second argument to $F_{\mathfrak{q}}$) $$H^1(F_{\mathfrak{q}},{\mathbf{Z}}/p^m) \times H^1_f(\mathcal{O}[\frac{1}{S}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \ \rho(1)) \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^m {\mathbf{Z}},$$ Here $H^1(\mathcal{O}[\frac{1}{S}], -) $ denotes the subspace of classes in $H^1(F, -)$ that are unramified outside $S$, and the $f$ subscript means that we restrict further to classes that are crystalline at $p$.
Now take, as in §\[sec:explication\], an element $\alpha: {\mathbf{F}}_{\mathfrak{q}}^* \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^m$ indexing the derived Hecke operator $T_{\mathfrak{q},\alpha}$, and make an arbitrary extension to a homomorphism $\tilde{\alpha}: F_{\mathfrak{q}}^*/(1+\mathfrak{q}) \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^m$. This defines a class $\tilde{\alpha} \in H^1(F_{\mathfrak{q}},{\mathbf{Z}}/p^m)$, well defined up to unramified classes. The pairing of $\tilde{\alpha}$ with $H^1_f(\mathcal{O}[\frac{1}{S}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \ \rho(1))$, as above, is easily seen to be independent of choice; thus from a prime ideal $\mathfrak{q}$ and a homomorphism $ {\mathbf{F}}_{\mathfrak{q}}^* \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^m$ we have obtained a homomorphism: $$\label{padef} [\mathfrak{q}, \alpha ] : H^1_f(\mathcal{O}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho \ (1)) \longrightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^m.$$ In the main text of this paper (Lemma \[reciprocity law\]) we prove a variant of the following statement[^4] under some further local hypotheses on the representation $\rho$:
> [*Claim:*]{} There exists $N_0(m)$ such that for each pair of prime ideals $\mathfrak{q},\mathfrak{q}'$ satisfying
>
> - $\mathrm{Norm}(\mathfrak{q}) \equiv \mathrm{Norm}(\mathfrak{q}' ) \equiv 1$ modulo $p^{N_0(m)}$
>
> - the eigenvalues of $\rho(\mathrm{Frob}_{\mathfrak{q}})$, mod $p$, are distinct elements of ${\mathbf{Z}}/p{\mathbf{Z}}$, and the same for $\mathfrak{q}'$;
>
> - $ [ \mathfrak{q},\alpha ] = [\mathfrak{q}', \alpha ']$ in the notation of
>
> the actions of $T_{\mathfrak{q},\alpha}$ and $T_{\mathfrak{q}', \alpha'}$ on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^m)$ coincide.
This is a “reciprocity law,” of the same nature as the reciprocity law relating Frobenius and Hecke eigenvalues. It is the basis for .
It is not as precise as one would like, because of the annoying extra conditions on $\mathfrak{q},\mathfrak{q}'$ but it is good enough to get . It is certainly natural to believe that $$[\mathfrak{q},\alpha] = [\mathfrak{q}',\alpha'] \stackrel{?}{\implies} T_{\mathfrak{q},\alpha} = T_{\mathfrak{q}', \alpha'}$$ (where the equality on the right is a an equality of endomorphisms of ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^m$-cohomology), without imposing condition (a) or (b) above. It would be good to prove not only this but a version that gives information at bad places. Such a formulation is presumably related to a derived deformation ring, as we describe in the next §.
Further discussion and problems {#fdp}
-------------------------------
It is not really surprising in retrospect that such cohomology operations should exist. It took me a long time to find them because of their subtle feature of being patched together from torsion levels. There is a relatively simple archimedean analog made via differential forms, see [@PV].
Here are some metaphors and problems:
- In the “Shimura” context a corresponding structure is provided by “Lefschetz operators” (although these act nontrivially only for nontempered representations). But the derived Hecke algebra operators do not recover this structure. Indeed, for weight reasons, one expects that the higher degrees of the derived Hecke algebra act trivially in the Shimura case. The example of ${\mathrm{GL}}_2$ over a field with both real and complex places shows a mixture of features, which would be interesting to study further.
- The theory of completed cohomology of Calegari–Emerton [@CE] already predicts that, if we pass up a congruence tower, cohomology becomes (under certain conditions) concentrated in a single degree. Said another way, all the degrees of cohomology have “the same source,” and thus one expects to be able to pass from one to another.
For this reason, it will be interesting to study the action of the [*mod $p$ derived Hecke algebra of a [*$p$-adic group*]{}*]{}; but we stay away from this in the current paper. (Our results and a global-to-local argument suggest that this derived Hecke algebra might have a nice structure theory. As mentioned this is studied in [@Schneider; @SchneiderOllivier]; there is also recent work of Ronchetti.)
- There is also a story of “derived deformation rings,” developed in [@GV]; there is a pro-simplicial ring $\tilde{R}$ that represents deformations of Galois representations with coefficients in simplicial rings. The precise definition of $\tilde{R}$, and – assuming similar conjectures to those assumed here – a construction of its action on integral homology, are given in the paper [@GV].
However, the relationship between ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$ and $\tilde{R}$ is not one of equality: the former acts on cohomology, raising cohomological degree, and the latter naturally acts on homology, raising homological degree. See the final section of [@GV] for a formulation of the relationship between the two actions.
Our expection is that $\tilde{R}$ will have better integral properties than ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$, in general.
- Numerical invariants: We can use ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$ to shift a class from degree $q$ to the complementary degree ${\mathrm{dim}}\ Y(K) - q$ and then cup the resulting classes. This gives an analog of the “Petersson norm” which makes sense for a torsion class (or a $p$-adic class). What is the meaning of the resulting numerical invariants?
Acknowledgements
----------------
Gunnar Carlsson pointed out to me that my original definition (which was the one presented below in §\[desc2\]) should be equivalent to the much more familiar definition with ${\mathrm{Ext}}$-groups given in the introduction. The definition with $\mathrm{Ext}$-groups, or rather a differential graded version thereof, was already defined by Schneider around 2008 and published in [@Schneider]; I was unaware of Schneider’s work at the time. In any case there is little overlap between our paper and [@Schneider]. (See also [@SchneiderOllivier]).
Frank Calegari explained many ideas related to his paper [@CG] with Geraghty, and, more generally, taught me (over several years!) about Galois representations and their deformations. He also pointed out several typos and mistakes in the manuscript. The joint paper [@CaVe] influenced the ideas here, e.g. §\[cong-class\].
I thank David Treumann who explained Koszul duality to me many years ago, and more recently explained to me Smith theory and torus localization, which were helpful in the proof of the Satake isomorphism.
I had a very helpful discussion with Soren Galatius and Craig Westerland.
I am grateful to Toby Gee for writing extremely clear lecture notes on modularity lifting, without which I am not sure I would have achieved even my current modest understanding of the Taylor–Wiles method.
Finally, I am grateful to both Shekhar Khare and Michael Harris for taking an interest and for many helpful discussions.
Notation {#sec:notn}
--------
We try to adhere to using $\ell$ or $p$ for the characteristic of coefficient rings, and using $q$ or $v$ for the residue field size of nonarchimedean fields. Thus we may talk about the “$\ell$-adic Hecke algebra of a $v$-adic group.”
$\mathbf{G}$ will denote a split reductive algebraic group over a number field $F$. In the local part of our paper – §\[sec:dha\], §\[Satake\], §\[IHA\] – we shall work over the completion of such an $F$ at an arbitrary finite place. In our global applications we will be more specific (just for ease of notation, e.g. not worrying about multiple primes above the residue characteristic): §\[Quillen\] we take $F$ quadratic imaginary, and in §\[Patching\] onward we take $F={\mathbf{Q}}$.
It will be convenient at many points to have fixed a maximal split torus $\mathbf{A}$ inside $\mathbf{G}$, and also a Borel subgroup $\mathbf{B}$ containing $\mathbf{A}$. This endows the cocharacter lattice $X_*(\mathbf{A}) = {\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathbb{G}_m, \mathbf{A})$ with a positive cone $X_*(\mathbf{A})^+ \subset X_*(\mathbf{A})$, the dual to the cone spanned by the roots of $\mathbf{A}$ on $\mathbf{B}$. We will denote by $r = {\mathrm{dim}}X_*(\mathbf{A})$ the rank of $\mathbf{G}$.
For $v$ a place of $F$ we let $F_v$ be the completion of $F$ at $v$, $\mathcal{O}_v \subset F_v$ the integer ring, $\mathbf{F}_v$ the residue field and write $q_v$ for the cardinality of $\mathbf{F}_v$. We also put $$G_v = {\mathbf{G}}(F_v).$$ Attached to $\mathbf{G}$ and a choice of open compact subgroup $K \subset \mathbf{G}({\mathbf{A}}_{F, f})$ (the finite adele-points of $\mathbf{G}$) there is attached an “arithmetic manifold” $Y(K)$, which is a finite union of locally symmetric spaces: $$\label{YKdef} Y(K) = {\mathbf{G}}(F) \backslash ( S_{\infty} \times {\mathbf{G}}({\mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{f}}}))/K,$$ where $S_{\infty}$ is the “disconnected symmetric space” for ${\mathbf{G}}(F \otimes {\mathbf{R}})$ – the quotient of ${\mathbf{G}}(F \otimes {\mathbf{R}})$ by a maximal compact connected subgroup. Although it is a minor point, we will take $Y(K)$ as an orbifold, not a manifold, and always compute its cohomology in this sense.
As before, we introduce the integer invariants ${\mathsf{q}}, \delta$: $$\label{qdef} \delta = \mathrm{rank}(\mathbf{G}(F \otimes {\mathbf{R}})) - \mathrm{rank}(\mbox{maximal compact of $\mathbf{G}(F \otimes {\mathbf{R}})$}),$$ and define $q$ so that $2 {\mathsf{q}}+\delta = {\mathrm{dim}}Y(K)$. These have the same significance as described in .
We will will work only with open compact subgroups with a product structure, i.e. $$\label{prodformula} K = \prod K_v$$ where $K_v \subset {\mathbf{G}}(F_v)$ is an open compact subgroup, and $K_v$ is a hyperspecial maximal compact of $G_v$ for all but finitely many primes $v$. A prime $v$ will be “good” for $K$ when $K_v$ is hyperspecial. The “level of $K$” will be, by definition, the (finite) set of all primes $v$ which are not good.
$G$ has a dual group $G^{\vee}$, which we will regard as a [*split Chevalley group over ${\mathbf{Z}}$;*]{} in particular, its Lie algebra is defined over ${\mathbf{Z}}$, and its points are defined over any ring $R$. We regard it as equipped with a maximal torus $T^{\vee}$ inside a Borel subgroup $B^{\vee}$.
In the discussion of the Taylor–Wiles method, which takes place in §\[Patching\] and §\[reciprocity\], it is convenient to additionally assume:
> $\mathbf{G}$ is simply connected and $G^{\vee}$ is adjoint.
This is a minor issue, to avoid the usual difficulties of “square roots.” One could (better) replace $G^{\vee}$ by some version of the $c$-group of [@BG].
When we discuss Galois cohomology, we will follow the usual convention that, for a module $M$ under the absolute Galois group $\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{L}/L)$ of a field $M$, we denote by $H^*(L,M)$ the continuous cohomology of the profinite group $\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{L}/L)$ with coefficients in $M$. For $L$ a number field, with ring of integers $\mathcal{O} \subset L$, we denote by $H^1(\mathcal{O}[\frac{1}{S}], M) \subset H^1(L, M)$ the subset of classes that are unramified outside $S$ and $H^1_f(\mathcal{O}[\frac{1}{S}], M) \subset H^1(\mathcal{O}[\frac{1}{S}], M)$ the classes that are, moreover, crystalline at $p$.
Derived Hecke algebra {#sec:dha}
=====================
We introduce the derived Hecke algebra (Definition \[Extdefn\]) and then give two equivalent descriptions in §\[desc2\] and §\[doublecoset\]. The model given in §\[desc2\] is by far the most useful. We shall then describe the action of the derived Hecke algebra on the cohomology of an arithmetic group in §\[Arithmeticmanifolds\], and then make it a bit more concrete in §\[sec:concrete\]. Finally, §\[DHA:oddsandends1\] discusses some minor points to do with change of coefficient ring, and §\[limit\] discusses some other minor points about passage between ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n$ coefficients and ${\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}$ coefficients.
Appendix \[remedial\] expands on various points of homological algebra that are used in the current section.
As in §\[sec:notn\], we fix a prime $v$ of $F$, with residue field $\mathbf{F}_v$ of characteristic $p_v$ and size $q_v$, and set $ G_v = {\mathbf{G}}(F_v)$. We denote by $U_v$ an open compact subgroup of $G_v$. Eventually, we will use only the case of $U_v$ being either a maximal compact subgroup or an Iwahori subgroup, but there is no need to impose this. When we are working strictly in a local setting, we will abbreviate these simply to $G$ and $U$: $$G = G_v, \ \ U = U_v.$$
It will also be convenient to fix $$\label{Vvdef} V_v = \mbox{a pro-$p_v$, normal, finite index subgroup of $U_v$,}$$ which we again abbreviate to $V$ when it will cause no confusion.
Let $S$ be a finite coefficient ring in which $q_v$ is invertible. In what follows, by “$G$-module” we mean a module $M$ under the group algebra $SG$ with the property that every $m \in M$ has open stabilizer in $G$. The category of $G$-modules is an abelian category and it has enough projective objects (see §\[enough\_proj\]).
The usual Hecke algebra for the pair $(G, U)$ can be defined as the endomorphism ring ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(S[X], S[X])$, where $X = G/U$ and $S[X]$ denotes the free $S$-module on a set $X$. Motivated by this, we define:
\[Extdefn\] The derived Hecke algebra for $(G, U)$ with coefficients in $S$ is the graded algebra $$\label{firstdef} \mathscr{H}(G,U)_{S}:= {\mathrm{Ext}}^*(S [G/U], S [G/U]),$$ where the ${\mathrm{Ext}}$-group is taken inside the category of $G$-modules.
Let us record some variants on the notation:
- We will write simply $\mathscr{H}(G, U)$ when the coefficients are understood to be $S$;
- We write $\mathscr{H}^{j}(G, U)$ or $\mathscr{H}^{(j)}(G, U)$ for the component in degree $j$, i.e. the ${\mathrm{Ext}}^j$ summand on the right.
- In global situations where we have fixed a level structure $K_v \leqslant G_v$ for all $v$, or for almost all $v$, we will often write simply $\mathscr{H}_{v,S}$ for the corresponding derived Hecke algebra $\mathscr{H}(G_v, K_v)$. Again we will write simply $\mathscr{H}_v$ if the coefficients are understood to be $S$.
If we choose a projective resolution $\mathbf{P}$ of $S[G/U]$ as $G$-module, then $\mathscr{H}(G, U)$ is identified with the cohomology of the differential graded algebra ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(\mathbf{P}, \mathbf{P})$. It will be convenient for later use to make an explicit choice of $\mathbf{P}$: Let $\mathbf{Q}$ be a free resolution of the trivial module $S$ in the category of $S [U/V]$-modules. We may take $\mathbf{P}$ to be the compact induction (from $U$ to $G$) of $\mathbf{Q}$. Observe that all the groups $\mathbf{P}_i$ of the resulting resolution are free $S$-modules.
Description in terms of invariant functions {#desc2}
-------------------------------------------
We may also describe $\mathscr{H}(G, U)$ as the algebra of “$G$-equivariant cohomology classes on $G/U \times G/U$ with finite support modulo $G$.” We now spell out carefully what this means; an explicit isomorphism between this description and Definition \[Extdefn\] is constructed in Appendix §\[remedial\].
First some notation: for $x,y \in G/U$, we denote by $G_{xy}$ the pointwise stabilizer of $(x,y)$ inside $G$; it is a profinite group. We denote by $H^*(G_{xy}, S)$ the continuous cohomology of $G_{xy}$ with coefficients in $S$ (discretely topologized).
In this model, an element of $\mathscr{H}(G, U)$ is an assignment $h$ that takes as input $(x,y) \in G/U$ and produces as output $h(x,y) \in H^*(G_{xy}, S)$, subject to the following conditions:
- $h$ is $G$-invariant, that is to say, $[g]^* h(gx, gy) = h(x,y)$, where $[g]^*: H^*(G_{gx,gy}) \rightarrow H^*(G_{xy})$ is pullback by ${\mathrm{Ad}}(g)$.
- $h$ has finite support modulo $G$, i.e. there is a finite subset $T \subset G/U \times G/U$ such that $h(x,y) = 0$ if $(x,y) $ does not lie in the $G$-orbit of $T$.
The addition and $S$-module structure on $\mathscr{H}(G, U)$ is defined pointwise. The product is given by the rule $$\label{explication} h_1 * h_2(x,z) = \sum_{y \in G/U} \underbrace{h_1(x,y) }_{H^*(G_{xy})} \cup \underbrace{h_2(y,z)}_{H^*(G_{yz})}$$ where we give the right-hand side the following meaning: The cup product on the right makes sense in $H^*(G_{xyz},S)$, i.e. first restrict $h_1$ and $h_2$ to $H^*(G_{xyz},S)$, and take the cup product there. Now split $G/U$ as a disjoint union $\coprod O_i$ of orbits under $G_{xz}$; let $O$ be one such orbit. We regard $$\label{glug} \sum_{y \in O} h_1(x,y) \cup h_2(y,z) := \mathrm{Cores}^{G_{x y_0 z}}_{G_{xz}} \ \left( h_1(x, y_0) \cup h_2(y_0, z) \right)$$ where $y_0 \in O$ is any representative, and the “trace” or corestriction is taken from $G_{x y_0 z} $ to $G_{xz}$; note that the right-hand side of is independent of choice of $y_0 \in O$. Adding up over orbits $O$ gives the meaning of the right-hand side of .
Suppose that $\Delta$ is a compact subgroup of $G$ that stabilizes every point of $G/U$. In this case, we can restrict $h$ to get a function $h_{\Delta}: G/U \times G/U \rightarrow H^*(\Delta)$. We also have $(h h')_{\Delta}= h_{\Delta} h'_{\Delta}$, where the right-hand multiplication is the more familiar $$\label{easier for me} h_{\Delta} h'_{\Delta}(x,z) = \sum_{y \in G/U} h_{\Delta}(x,y) \cup h_{\Delta}(y,z).$$
Double coset description {#doublecoset}
------------------------
Finally, we can describe $\mathscr{H}(G, U)$ in terms of double cosets $U \backslash G/U$. For $x \in G/U$ let $$U_x = U \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(g_x) U$$ where $g_x \in G$ represents $x$ (that is to say, $x=g_x U)$. Then $U_x$ is the stabilizer of $x$ in $U$.
Fix a set of representatives $[U \backslash G/U] \subset G/U$ for the left $U$-orbits on $G/U$. Then we have an isomorphism of $S$-modules $$\label{TTspin} \bigoplus_{x \in [U \backslash G/U]} H^*(U_x, S) \stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} \mathscr{H}_{v,S}$$ given thus: Fix a class $z \in [U \backslash G/U]$, and a representative $g_z\in G$ for $z$ – thus $z = g_z U$. Let $\alpha \in H^*(U_z, S)$. Then the class of $\alpha \in H^*(U_z, S)$, considered as an element of the left-hand side of , is carried to the function $h_{z,\alpha} $ on $G/U \times G/U$ characterized by the following properties:
- $h_{z,\alpha}(x,y) = 0$ unless $(x, y) $ belongs to the $G$-orbit of $(z, eU)$.
- $h_{z,\alpha}$ sends $ (z, eU) $ to $\alpha \in H^*(U_z)$ – note that $U_z$ is exactly the common stabilizer of $z$ and $eU$.
This gives another description of $\mathscr{H}(G, U)$. It is harder to directly describe the multiplication rule in this presentation, and we use instead the isomorphism to the previous description. Later on we’ll describe explicitly the action of $h_{z,\alpha}$ on the cohomology of an arithmetic manifold.
Now let us examine the “size” of $\mathscr{H}(G, U)$; this discussion is really only motivational, and so we will be a little informal. Suppose, for example, that $G$ is split and $U$ is hyperspecial. In this case, the quotient $U \backslash G/U$ is parameterized by a dominant chamber $X_*(\mathbf{A})^+$ inside the co-character group $X_*(\mathbf{A})$ of a maximal split torus $\mathbf{A}$. Moreover, if $x \in G/U$ is a representative for a double coset parameterized by $\lambda \in X_*(\mathbf{A})$, then the group $U_x$ is, modulo a pro-$p$-subgroup, the $\mathbf{F}_v$-points $M_{\lambda}(\mathbf{F}_v)$ of the centralizer $M_{\lambda}$ of $\lambda$. Thus we obtain an isomorphism of $S$-modules: $$\mathscr{H}(G, U) := \bigoplus_{\lambda \in X_*(\mathbf{A})^+} H^*(M_{\lambda}(\mathbf{F}_v), S)$$ For “generic” $\lambda$ – i.e., away from the walls of $X_*(\mathbf{A})^+$ – the group $M_{\lambda}$ is a split torus; the order of its $\mathbf{F}_v$-points is a power of $(q_v-1)$. Thus if $(q_v-1)$ is invertible on $S$, all the terms of $\mathscr{H}(G, U)$ corresponding to dominant $\lambda$ vanish.
In this paper we will be primarily concerned with the case when $q_v-1=0$ inside $S$. Although it is certainly interesting to study $\mathscr{H}(G, U)$ in general, the preceding discussion shows that this case (i.e. $q_v=1$ in $S$) is where $\mathscr{H}(G, U)$ is “largest.”
Derived invariants {#sec:derivedinvariants}
------------------
If $M$ is any complex of $G$-modules, we may form the derived invariants $$\mbox{derived $U$-invariants on $M$} := \underline{\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(S [G/U], M) \in \mathbf{D}(\mathrm{Mod}_S)$$ where $\underline{\mathrm{Hom}}$ is now derived $\mathrm{Hom}$ in the derived category of $G$-modules, taking values in the derived category of $S$-modules.
Then the derived Hecke algebra automatically acts on the cohomology of the derived invariants: $$\label{HGUderived} \mathscr{H}(G, U) \acts H^*(\mbox{derived $U$-invariants on $M$}).$$ Indeed, the derived invariants are represented by the complex ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(\mathbf{P}, M)$, where $\mathbf{P}$ is as before any projective resolution of $S[G/U]$. The action of ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(\mathbf{P}, \mathbf{P})$ on this complex furnishes the desired (right) action of $\mathscr{H}(G, U)$.
Let us describe the derived invariants in more familiar terms. Let $V$ be as in , and consider the explicit projective resolution $\mathbf{P}$ discussed in §\[Extdefn\]; we see that the derived $U$-invariants are computed by the complex ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{SU}(\mathbf{Q}, M)$. This coincides with $U/V$-homomorphisms from $\mathbf{Q}$ to the termwise invariants $M^{V}$; since $\mathbf{Q}$ is a projective resolution of $S$ in the category of $U/V$-modules, we see that $$\label{twosteps} \mbox{derived $U$-invariants on $M$} \simeq \underline{\mathrm{Hom}}_{S U/V}(S, M^{V}) \in \mathbf{D}(\mathrm{Mod}_S).$$ where the right hand side is derived homomorphisms, in the derived category of $U/V$-modules. In other words, there is an identification $$H^*(\mbox{derived $U$-invariants on $M$}) \simeq \mathbb{H}^*(U/V, M^{V}),$$ the group hypercohomology of the finite group $U/V$ acting on the complex of termwise invariants $M^{V}$.
Arithmetic manifolds {#Arithmeticmanifolds}
--------------------
In the remainder of this section, we describe how the derived Hecke algebras act on the cohomology of arithmetic manifolds.
We follow the notation of §\[sec:notn\]. In particular, we fix $K \subset {\mathbf{G}}({\mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{f}}})$ an open compact subgroup, which we are supposing to have a product structure $K = \prod_{w} K_w$; let us split this as $$K = K^{(v)} \times K_v$$ where $K^{(v)} = \prod_{w \neq v} K_w$ is the structure “away from $v$.” Associated to this is an arithmetic manifold $Y(K)$, as in .
We will construct an action of the derived Hecke algebra $\mathscr{H}_v = \mathscr{H}_v(G_v, K_v)$ on the cohomology of $Y(K)$. To do so, we will exhibit $Y(K)$ as the derived $K_v$-invariants on a suitable $G_v$-module, and then apply .
For $U_v$ any open compact subgroup of $G_v$, let us abridge: $$\label{CUdef} C^*(U_v) = \mbox{chain complex of $Y(K^{(v)} \times U_v)$ with $S$ coefficients.}$$
Now let $$M= \varinjlim_{U} C^* (U_v).$$ where the limit is taken over open compact subgroups $U_v \leqslant G_v$. Visibly, $M$ is a complex of smooth $G_v$-modules. Choosing $V_v \subset K_v$ as in , we have $$M^{V_v} \simeq C^* (V_v),$$ since we may interchange invariants and the direct limit; and then for a finite cover $X \rightarrow Y$ with Galois group $D$ we have an isomorphism $C^*(Y) \stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} C^*(X)^{D}$. However, the derived invariants of $K_v/V_v$ on $C^*(V_v)$ “coincide with” the cohomology of $Y(K)$: the natural map $$C^*(Y(K)) = C^*(V_v)^{K_v/V_v} \rightarrow \underline{\mathrm{Hom}}_{S[K_v/V_v]}(S, C^*(V_v))$$ is a quasi-isomorphism, in the derived category of $S$-modules. This follows from the fact that the terms $C^*(V_v)$ have no higher cohomology as $K_v/V_v$-modules, because each $C^j(V_v)$ is the module of $S$-valued functions on a free $K_v/V_v$-set and is in particular induced from a representation of the trivial group.
We have exhibited a quasi-isomorphism $$C^*(Y(K)) \simeq \mbox{derived $K_v$-invariants on $M$}$$ between $C^*(Y(K))$ and a complex that represents the derived invariants of $K_v$ acting on $M$. Thus gives a natural right action of $\mathscr{H}(G_v, K_v)$ on the cohomology of $Y(K)$. (Although this is strictly a right action, we will often write it on the left, which conforms more to the usual notation for Hecke operators; the reader should therefore remember that the multiplication needs to be appropriately switched at times, but this will cause almost no issue because the derived Hecke algebra will prove to be graded-commutative at all the places we use.)
Of course, this description is totally incomprehensible; thus we now work on translating it to something more usable.
Digression: pullback from a congruence quotient {#cong-class}
-----------------------------------------------
We first need a brief digression to construct certain cohomology classes on $Y(K)$. These are called “congruence classes” in [@CaVe], because they capitulate in congruence covers of $Y(K)$.
There is a natural map $$\label{group to manifold} H^*(K_v, S) \longrightarrow H^*(Y(K), S),$$ where, on the left, $H^*(K_v, S)$ is the continuous cohomology of the profinite group $K$ with coefficients in (discretely topologized) $S$. Indeed, any cohomology class for $H^*(K_v, S)$ is inflated from a quotient $K_v/K_{v,1}$. Let $K_1$ be the preimage of $K_{v,1}$ in $K$. The covering $Y(K_1) \rightarrow Y(K)$ has deck group $K_v/K_{v,1}$, and thus gives rise to a map $$Y(K) \longrightarrow \mbox{classifying space of $K_v/K_{v,1}$.}$$ We may then pull back cohomology classes along this map to get .
These “congruence” cohomology classes have a very simple behavior under Hecke operators:
\[lem:HTriv\] Let $h$ be in the image of the map . For any prime $w$ of $F$ that does not divide the level of $K$ or the size of $S$, and any usual Hecke operator $T$ supported at $w$, we have $$T h= \deg(T) h.$$
We will give a direct proof, but let us note that one can also deduce the result from the commutativity of the Hecke algebra at $w$ (which is proved, under mild restrictions on $w$, in §\[Satake\]).
It is easy to verify this if $w \neq v$, so we examine only the case $w=v$.
We may suppose that $K_v = \mathcal{G}(\mathcal{O}_v)$, for a split reductive $\mathcal{G}$ over $\mathcal{O}_v$. Suppose that $T$ arises from the double coset $K_v a_v K_v$, where, without loss, $a$ lies in a maximal split torus $\mathbf{A}(F_v)$ that is in good position relative to $K_v$ – i.e. it extends to a maximal split torus of $\mathcal{G}$.
We will show that $h$ has the same pullback under the two natural maps $$\pi_1, \pi_2: Y(K \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(a_v) K) \rightarrow Y(K),$$ namely, the natural map, and the map induced by multiplication by $a_v$; this implies the Lemma.
There is an isomorphism $X_*(\mathbf{A}) \simeq A_v/ (A_v \cap K_v)$; let $\mathcal{M}$ be the centralizer in $\mathcal{G}$ of the character in $X_*(\mathbf{A})$ that corresponds to the class of $a$. Let $K_2$ be the preimage, under $K \rightarrow \mathcal{G}(\mathcal{O}_v/\varpi_v^D )$, of $\mathcal{M}(\mathcal{O}_v/\varpi_v^D)$; here $D$ is a large enough integer, and $\varpi_v$ a uniformizer.
Then, on the one hand, the inclusion $K_2 \hookrightarrow K \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(a_v) K$ has index equal to a power of $q_v$. In particular, it induces an injection on $H^*(-, S)$, so it is enough to verify that $\pi_1^* h = \pi_2^* h$ after pullback under $Y(K_2) \rightarrow Y(K \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(a_v) K)$.
However, the pullback $H^*(\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{F}_v), S) \rightarrow H^*(K_v, S)$ is an isomorphism. The class $h$ is therefore actually pulled back from $\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{F}_v)$. Our assertion then follows from the fact that the natural maps $K_2 \longrightarrow \mathbf{G}(\mathbf{F}_v)$ – namely, the reduction map, and the conjugate of the reduction map by $a_v$ – actually coincide. This proves that $\pi_1^* h = \pi_2^* h$, and concludes the proof of the Lemma.
This motivates the following definition:
\[HTriv\] We say a class $ h \in H^*(Y(K), S)$ is [*Hecke-trivial*]{} if, for all places $v$ that do not divide the level of $K$ and with residue characteristic invertible on $S$, and all Hecke operators $T$ supported at $v$, $$(T - \mathrm{deg}(T))^{n} h = 0.$$ for a sufficiently large integer $n=n(T)$. We denote by $H^*(Y(K), S)_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$ the submodule of Hecke–trivial classes.
Concrete expression for the action of $\mathscr{H}_v$ on $H^*(Y(K), S)$. {#sec:concrete}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let us now give a more down-to-earth description of the action of $\mathscr{H}_{v,S}$ on $H^*(Y(K), S)$, with notation as above. In particular, we will show that the action of elements $h_{z,\alpha}$ can be described in a fashion that is very close to the usual definition of Hecke operators.
From $z = g_z K_v \in G_v/K_v$, and $\alpha \in H^*(K_v \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(g_z) K_v)$, we obtain a class $h_{z, \alpha} \in \mathscr{H}(G_v, K_v)$, by the recipe of §\[doublecoset\]. Then:
Write $$K_z = K \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(g_z) K, \ \ \ K_z' = K \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(g_z^{-1}) K.$$ Also, let $\langle \alpha \rangle$ be the image of $\alpha$ under $H^*(K_v \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(g_z) K_v) = H^*(K_z) \stackrel{\eqref{group to manifold}}{\rightarrow} H^*(Y(K_z), S)$.
Then the action of $h_{z,\alpha}$ on $H^*(Y(K),S)$ coincides with the following composite $$\label{action-explicit} H^*(Y(K)) \rightarrow H^*( Y(K_z)) \stackrel{\cup \langle \alpha \rangle}{\rightarrow} H^*(Y(K_z)) \stackrel{f_*}{\rightarrow} H^*(Y(K_z'))
\rightarrow H^*(Y(K)),$$ where all cohomology is taken with $S$ coefficients, and the arrows are (respectively) pullback, cup with $\langle \alpha \rangle$, push forward by the homeomorphism $f$ induced by $g \mapsto g g_z$, and pushdown.
Note that this is almost exactly the same as a usual Hecke operator; we have just inserted the operation of $\cup \langle \alpha \rangle$ on the way. The fact that $\langle \alpha \rangle$ is Hecke-trivial, in the sense of Definition \[HTriv\], is the key point that makes this operation commute with usual Hecke operators.
Routine but extremely tedious; see §\[remedial\].
[**Remark.** ]{} Note also the following trivial case: taking $g_z = 1$, we see that the operation of “cup with $\alpha \in H^*(K, S)$” always belongs to the derived Hecke algebra.
Change of coefficients {#DHA:oddsandends1}
----------------------
Let us examine what happens under a change of rings $S \rightarrow S'$. The description of §\[doublecoset\] and the explicit action of §\[sec:concrete\] means that there is a map of Hecke algebra $\mathscr{H}_{v,S} \rightarrow \mathscr{H}_{v, S'}$ compatible with the actions on $H^*(Y(K), S) \rightarrow H^*(Y(K), S')$. However, this does not make quite clear that the change of rings map is an algebra homomorphism. For completeness let us explain this now, since we will want to freely pass between ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n$ coefficients for various $n$s.
The tensor product $ \otimes_{S} S'$ is a right exact functor from $SG$-modules to $S'G $ modules and so it can be derived to a map of derived categories. Note that this carries projectives to projectives since ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{S'G_v}(P \otimes_{S} S', -) = {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG_v} (P, -)$.
This derived tensor product (let us write it as $\underline{\otimes}$) “carries $S[G_v/K_v]$ to $S'[G_v/K_v]$:” if we choose a projective replacement $\mathbf{P} \rightarrow S[G_v/K_v]$ the natural map $$\mathbf{P} \otimes_{S} S' \longrightarrow S'[G_v/K_v]$$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Indeed it is possible to choose $\mathbf{P}$ so that each term of $\mathbf{P}$ is free as an $S$-module (see the explicit resolution after ). Then $\mathbf{P} \otimes_{S} S'$ has no cohomology in higher degree (since this complex computes the $\mathrm{Tor}_S(S[G_v/K_v], S')$ and the former is free) and thus it is a resolution of $S'[G_v/K_v]$.
This yields at once a map $$\mathscr{H}_{v,S} \rightarrow \mathscr{H}_{v, S'}.$$ from the Hecke algebra with $S$ coefficients, to the same with $S'$ coefficients. Explicitly, the left-hand side is represented by the cohomology of the differential graded algebra ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(\mathbf{P}, \mathbf{P})$, and this dga maps to ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{S'G_v}(\mathbf{P}\otimes_S S', \mathbf{P} \otimes_{S} S')$, whose cohomology computes $\mathscr{H}_{v,S'}$. This is the desired algebra map “change of coefficients.”
Consider now the obvious map $$\iota: \varinjlim_{U_v} C^*(U_v) \rightarrow \varinjlim_{U_v} C^*(U_v; S'),$$ where the notation is as in , and the right-hand side is defined the same way but with $S'$ coefficients. This induces $$\iota': {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(\mathbf{P}, \varinjlim_{U_v} C^*(U_v) ) \rightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}_{S'G} \left( \mathbf{P} \otimes_S S', \left( \varinjlim_{U_v} C^*(U_v; S') \right) \right)$$ wherein we compose with $\iota$ and extend by $S$-linearity. There are compatible actions of $\mathscr{H}_{v,S}$ and $\mathscr{H}_{v,S'}$ on the left and right sides. On the other hand, the map $\iota'$ induces on cohomology the natural map $H^*(Y(K), S) \rightarrow H^*(Y(K), S')$.
To summarize: the actions of $\mathscr{H}_{v,S}$ on $H^*(Y(K), S)$ and $\mathscr{H}_{v, S'}$ on $H^*(Y(K), S')$ are compatible, with respect to the natural maps $\mathscr{H}_{v,S} \rightarrow \mathscr{H}_{v,S'}$ and $H^*(Y(K), S) \rightarrow H^*(Y(K), S')$.
Passage from mod $\ell^n$ to $\ell$-adic; the global derived Hecke algebra {#limit}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now write out in grotesque detail certain minor details of the passage from mod $\ell^n$ to $\ell$-adic coefficients, which will be used without comment in our later proofs. This section should probably be skipped by the reader and consulted only as needed.
The action of the derived Hecke algebra gives an algebra of endomorphisms $\widetilde{\mathbb{T}}_n \subset \mathrm{End}( H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n))$, namely the algebra of endomorphisms generated by all the derived Hecke algebras $\mathscr{H}_{v, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n}$ for all good primes $v$. Now we have $$H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}) = \varprojlim H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n)$$ and we [*define*]{} the global derived algebra $$\label{gHeckedef} {\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}\subset \mathrm{End}(H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}))$$ to be those endomorphisms of the form $\varprojlim t_n$, for some compatible system $t_n \in {\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_n$, i.e. $t_n$ “reduces to $t_{m}$” for $n > m$ in the sense that the following diagram should commute:
$$\xymatrix{
H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n) \ar[r]^{t_n} \ar[d] & H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n) \ar[d] \\
H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^{m}) \ar[r]^{t_{m}} & H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^{m}) .
}$$
Let ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_{n}^*$ be the systems of elements $(t_n , t_{n-1}, \dots, t_1)$, where $t_r \in \widetilde{\mathbb{T}}_r$ for $ r \leq n$ are all compatible in the sense that the above diagram should commute for each $t_{r}, t_{r'}$. In particular, ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_{n}^*$ acts on ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r$-valued cohomology for each $ r \leq n$. The inverse limit $\varprojlim {\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_n^*$ acts on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell})$, and its image in ${\mathrm{End}}H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell})$ is precisely the global derived Hecke algebra ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$.
Fix $m$. For $n \geq m$ consider the map $${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_n^* \rightarrow \tilde{\mathbb{T}}_m^*.$$ For increasing $n$ and fixed $m$, the image of this map gives a decreasing sequence of subsets of the finite set $\tilde{\mathbb{T}}_m^*$. This sequence must stabilize. Call this stabilization ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_{\infty,m}$; it is a subring of $\widetilde{\mathbb{T}}_m^*$ and thus acts by endomorphisms of $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^m)$; also, there exists $N_m$ such that ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_{\infty,m}$ coincides with the image of $ {\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_{N_m}^*$ in $\tilde{\mathbb{T}}_m^*$.
The natural map $$\label{ontoness} \varprojlim {\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_n^* \rightarrow {\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_{\infty,m}$$ is onto, since we’re dealing with an inverse system of finite sets.
Let ${\mathscr{H}}_{v, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n}$ be the local derived Hecke algebra at $v$ with ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n$-coefficients. We show later (§\[surj\]) that, if $\ell^n$ divides $q_v -1$, then the natural map ${\mathscr{H}}_{v, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n} \rightarrow {\mathscr{H}}_{v, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^m}$ is surjective. It follows that if $q_v-1$ is divisible by $\ell^{N_m}$, then the image of $ {\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_{N_m}^*$ acting on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^m)$ contains the image of ${\mathscr{H}}_{v, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^{m}}$. Therefore, the image of ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_{\infty,m}$ acting on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^m)$ contains the image of ${\mathscr{H}}_{v, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^{m}}$.
In practice, we will establish “bigness” results of the following type:
> For all $ m \leq n $, there exists sets of primes $Q_n = \{q_1, \dots, q_r\}$ such that $\ell^n$ divides $q_i-1$ and the image of $\otimes_i {\mathscr{H}}_{q_i, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^m}$ acting on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^m)$ is “large:” $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^m)$ is generated over $\otimes_i {\mathscr{H}}_{q_i, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^m}$ by elements of some fixed degree $D$.
When we prove such results, it will not be for the full cohomology of $Y(K)$ but rather for its localization at some ideal of the Hecke algebra, but we suppress that for the current discussion.
Let us prove that, under this assumption, $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell})$ is generated over ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$ by elements of degree $D$. The assumption implies (by the previous discussion, with $n=N_m$) that $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^m)$ is generated over ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_{\infty,m}$ by elements of degree $D$; by , it is also generated over $\varprojlim {\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_n^*$ by elements of degree $D$. That is to say, $$(\varprojlim {\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_n^*) \otimes H^{D}(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^m)$$ surjects onto $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^m)$ for every $m$. By a compactness argument
the same assertion holds with ${\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}$-coefficients.
More generally, the same type of argument allows us to show that various types of “largeness” can be passed from ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^m$ coefficients to ${\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}$.
Torus localization and Satake isomorphism {#Satake}
=========================================
Our main goal here is to prove a version of the Satake isomorphism that applies to the derived Hecke algebra. Namely, take $m =\ell^r$ a prime power. Suppose $q \equiv 1$ modulo $\ell^r$. We show (see for the precise statement) $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{derived Hecke algebra for split $q$-adic group with ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r$-coefficients} \\ \cong \left(\mbox{derived Hecke algebra for maximal torus with ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r$ coefficients}\right)^{W} \end{aligned}$$ where the $W$ superscript means Weyl-fixed, and we also require that $\ell$ does not divide the order of $W$.
For example, if $q \equiv 1$ modulo $\ell$, the derived Hecke algebra of ${\mathrm{PGL}}_2({\mathbf{Q}}_q)$ with coefficients in ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell$ is isomorphic to $${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell[x_0, x_0^{-1}, y_1, z_2]^{{\mathbf{Z}}/2}$$ where $x_0, y_1, z_2$ have (respectively) degree $0,1,2$, and the action of ${\mathbf{Z}}/2$ switches $x_0^{\pm 1}$ and negates $y_1, z_2$.
A consequence of our results is that (under our assumptions on $q, m$) the derived Hecke algebra is graded commutative. We do not know if this is valid without any assumption on $q$ and the coefficient ring $S$. Recall, however, that $q \equiv 1$ in $S$ is precisely the case where the Hecke algebra is largest, by the discussion of §\[doublecoset\], and understanding this case will be enough for our global analysis.
It is a curious fact that, in characteristic dividing $q_v-1$, the Iwahori-Hecke algebra of a split $F_v$-group is isomorphic to the group algebra of its affine Weyl group. A related interesting phenomenon is that, under the same assumptions, the Satake isomorphism $$\mbox{ Hecke algebra} \longrightarrow \mbox{Hecke algebra of torus}$$ is given simply by [*restriction*]{} (!)
These points can be explained by “torus localization,” as we now explain. Using that method we will derive our Satake isomorphism below. Of course this is a little bit cheap, but it turns out to be exactly what we need anyway.
I am very grateful to David Treumann for conversations about this material. In particular, I learned about localization in the context of local geometric Langlands from his paper [*Smith theory and geometric Hecke algebras*]{} [@Treumann].
{#BasicNotn}
In this section and the next, $\mathbf{G}$ will be a [*split group over the nonarchimedean local field $F_v$*]{}. The coefficient ring for all our Hecke algebras will be taken to be $S= {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r$, for a prime $\ell$ and $r \geq 1$. We shall suppose that $\ell^r$ divides $(q_v - 1)$, where $q_v$ is the cardinality of the residue field $\mathbf{F}_v$. We also assume that $\ell$ is relatively prime to the order of the Weyl group of ${\mathbf{G}}$.
We fix other notations as follows: Let $\mathcal{G}$ be a split group over $\mathcal{O}_v$ whose generic fiber is identified with $\mathbf{G}$. Let $K_v = \mathcal{G}(\mathcal{O}_v)$, a maximal compact subgroup of $G_v = \mathbf{G}(F_v)$. Let $\mathbf{A}, \mathbf{B}$ be a torus and Borel subgroup in $\mathbf{G}$ which extend to a torus $\mathcal{A}$ and Borel $\mathcal{B}$ inside $\mathcal{G}$. We write $A_v, B_v$ for the $F_v$-points of $\mathbf{A},\mathbf{B}$. We shall use the notation $\mathbf{A}(F_v)^{\circ}$ for the maximal compact subgroup of $\mathbf{A}(F_v)$, and similar notation whenever the maximal compact subgroup is unique.
Let $W$ be the Weyl group for $\mathbf{A}$, and let $\tilde{W}$ be the affine Weyl group – that is to say, the semidirect product $X_* \rtimes W$, where we write $X_*= X_*(\mathbf{A})$ for the co-character group of $\mathbf{A}$. We identify $X_*$ with $A_v/A_v\cap K_v \subset G_v/K_v$ by means of the map $$\label{IWidentification} \chi \in X_* = {\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathbb{G}_m, \mathbf{A}) \longrightarrow \chi(\varpi_v),$$ with $\varpi_v$ a uniformizer.
We write for short $ T =\mathcal{A}(\mathbf{F}_v).$ The reduction map $A_v \cap K_v \rightarrow T$ splits uniquely, and so we obtain a “Teichm[ü]{}ller” lift $$\label{teich} T \hookrightarrow A_v \cap K_v.$$ This induces a cohomology isomorphism, with ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r$ coefficients.
We have a Cartan decomposition $$G_v = K_v \cdot A_v \cdot K_v$$ The $A_v$ component of this decomposition is unique up to the action of the Weyl group $W$.
\[DHA:Satake\] Let notations be as above; in particular the coefficient ring is always $S={\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r$, where $\ell^r$ divides $q_v-1$, and $\ell$ does not divide the order of the Weyl group.
Then restriction (in the model of §\[desc2\]) defines an isomorphism $$\label{dSatake} \mbox{ derived Hecke algebra for $(G_v, K_v)$}
\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} \mbox{ derived Hecke algebra for $(A_v, A_v \cap K_v)$ }^W.$$
Let us explicate what we mean by “restriction.” As per §\[desc2\], an element $h$ of the left-hand side is an association: $$(x,y) \in (G_v/K_v)^2 \rightsquigarrow h(x,y) \in H^*(G_{xy}, S),$$ and its image $h'$ on the right-hand side is obtained by restricting to $A_v/(A_v \cap K_v) \hookrightarrow G_v/K_v$ and pulling back cohomology classes under the inclusion $A_{xy} \hookrightarrow G_{xy}$. The element $h'$ is clearly $A_v$-invariant, and it is also $W$-invariant: $$[w]^* h'(wx, wy) = h(x,y)$$ because of the $G$-invariance of $h$.
Because $A_{xy} = A_v \cap K_v$ for each $x,y$, and the the (Teichm[ü]{}ller) inclusion $T \hookrightarrow A_v \cap K_v$ induces a cohomology isomorphism, we can regard $h'$ as an element as a function $X_* \times X_* \longrightarrow H^*(T)$. We will often regard $h'$ as such without explicit comment. The multiplication in this model is usual convolution in the $X_*$ variable, together with multiplication in $H^*(T)$. We may therefore identify the right-hand side of with $$\label{alterpres} \left( S[X_*] \otimes H^*(T; S) \right)^W.$$
{#surj}
A useful corollary to this result is the following (although even easier, as it does not use the algebra structure): The induced map $$\mbox{derived Hecke algebra over ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n$} \rightarrow \mbox{ derived Hecke algebra over ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^m$ }$$ is a [*surjection*]{} for $n > m$, under our assumption that $\ell^n$ divides $q_v-1$. (We used this in the discussion of §\[limit\]).
In fact, we’re reduced to checking the same fact when $C$ is a cyclic group of order divisible by $\ell^n$, i.e. $$H^*(C, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n) \rightarrow H^*(C, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^m)$$ is surjective. This follows from a straightforward computation.
Some useful Lemmas
------------------
\[nontriv\] Any nontrivial root $\alpha$ of $\mathbf{A}$ on $\mathbf{G}$ is nontrivial on the $\ell$-Sylow of $A_v \cap K_v$. In particular, $\alpha$ induces a nontrivial character $\mathcal{A}(\mathbf{F}_v) \rightarrow \mathbf{F}_v^{\times}$.
This is just a matter of checking the residue characteristic is forced to be big enough: if the claim is not true, the root $\alpha$ would be divisible by $\ell^r$ in $X^*(\mathbf{A})$; but roots are divisible at most by $2$ because $\langle \alpha, \alpha^{\vee} \rangle =2$, and $\ell > 2$ because it’s prime to the order of the Weyl group.
\[finitefields\] Use notation as above; in particular $\mathbf{F}_v$ is a finite field of cardinality $q_v \equiv 1$ modulo $\ell^r$, and the order of the Weyl group is not divisible by $\ell$.
Then the restriction map from the cohomology $H^*(\mathcal{G}(\mathbf{F}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r)$ to Weyl-fixed cohomology of the torus $H^*(\mathcal{A}(\mathbf{F}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r)^W$ is an isomorphism.
Write for short (and just for this proof) $G, A,B$ for the $\mathbf{F}_v$-points of $\mathcal{G}, \mathcal{A}, \mathcal{B}$.
Consider the composite of restrictions $$\label{sequence} H^*(G, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r) \rightarrow H^*(B, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r) \stackrel{\sim}{ \rightarrow} H^*(A, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r).$$ The second map is an isomorphism and its inverse is specified by corestriction. Therefore we can transport the $W$-action on $H^*(A)$ to a $W$-action on $H^*(B, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r)$; explicitly the action of $w$ is $$\label{w} \mathrm{Cores}^B_A \circ [w]_A \circ \mathrm{Res}^{B}_A .$$ where $[w]_A$ is pullback of cohomology classes under ${\mathrm{Ad}}(w^{-1}): A \rightarrow A$.
We will now show that $\mathrm{Res}^G_B \circ \mathrm{Cores}^{G}_B = \sum_{w \in W} w$, where the $w$-action on $H^*(B)$ is that just defined. Since $\mathrm{Cores}^{G}_B \mathrm{Res}^G_B = |W|$, which is invertible in ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r$, we see that $\mathrm{Res}^G_B$ is injective and $\mathrm{Cores}^G_B$ is surjective; so $\mathrm{Res}^G_B$ is an isomorphism onto the $W$-invariants on $H^*(B, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r)$, which implies the Lemma.
By the usual formula [@Brown Proposition 9.5], using the Weyl group $W$ as a system of representatives for double cosets, the composite equals $$\sum_{w \in W} \mathrm{Cores}_{w B w^{-1} \cap B}^B \cdot {\mathrm{Ad}}(w^{-1})^* \cdot \mathrm{Res}^{B}_{B \cap w^{-1} B w}$$ But $w^{-1} B w \cap B$ contains $A$, and $[w B w^{-1} \cap B: A] =1$ modulo $\ell^r$. So we can rewrite the $w$-term as $$\mathrm{Cores}_{w B w^{-1} \cap B}^B \cdot {\mathrm{Ad}}(w^{-1})^* \cdot \mathrm{Cores}_{A}^{B \cap w^{-1} B w } \mathrm{Res}^{B}_{A} = {\mathrm{Cores}}_{A}^{B} \cdot [w]_A \cdot {\mathrm{Res}}^B_T$$ which is exactly the $W$-action on $H^*(B)$, by .
\[ff2\] Let $G_1, G_2$ be finite groups. Suppose that $G_1 \hookrightarrow G_1 \times G_2$ is the natural inclusion, and $M$ is a module for $G_1 \times G_2$ killed by the order $\# G_2$ of $G_2$. Then the corestriction map $H^*(G_1, M) \rightarrow H^*(G_1 \times G_2, M)$ is zero.
Indeed, the composite $H^*(G_1 \times G_2) \stackrel{Res}{\rightarrow} H^*(G_1) \stackrel{Cores}{\rightarrow} H^*(G_1 \times G_2)$ is multiplication by the order of $G_2$, and is therefore zero with $M$ coefficients; but the first $\mathrm{Res}$ is surjective because $G_1 \rightarrow G_1 \times G_2$ is split.
{#doublecentralizer}
Let $\Gamma \subset G_v$ be a finite $\ell$-subgroup. Let $\mathbf{S}$ be the double centralizer of $\Gamma$, considered as an algebraic $F_v$-subgroup of $\mathbf{G}$.
We will show that
- $\mathbf{S}$ has component group of prime-to-$\ell$ order,
- the maximal compact subgroup $\mathbf{S}(F_v)^{\circ}$ of its $F_v$-points fixes every point of $G_v/K_v$ that is fixed by $\Gamma$.
Let $x \in G_v/K_v$ be fixed by $\Gamma$. Conjugating $\Gamma$ by $G_v$ we may suppose that $x=K_v$, the identity coset in $G_v/K_v$.
Now, the quotient of the orders of $\mathcal{G}$ and $\mathcal{A}$ over the finite field $\mathbf{F}_v$ is congruent to $|W|$ modulo $\ell$, because of our assumption $\ell$ divides $q-1$. Therefore there is an $\ell$-Sylow of $K_v$ contained in $A_v \cap K_v$. Thus, further conjugating $\Gamma$ by $K_v$ we can further assume that that $\Gamma \subset \mathbf{A}(F_v) \cap K_v$. The centralizer $\mathbf{Z}(\Gamma)$ of $\Gamma$ is then a subgroup containing $\mathbf{A}$. The double centralizer $\mathbf{S}$ is thus contained in $\mathbf{A}$ and, of course, it contains $\Gamma$.
Because $\mathbf{S} \subset \mathbf{A}$, the maximal compact subgroup of $S$ is contained in the maximal compact $\mathbf{A}(F_v) \cap K_v$ of $\mathbf{A}$; the latter fixes $x$. This proves (b).
To verify the assertion about the component group of $\mathbf{S}$, we first verify that $\mathbf{Z}(\Gamma)$ is connected. Note that $\mathbf{S}$ is contained in $\mathbf{Z}(\Gamma)$ by the analysis above, so it is in fact the center of $\mathbf{Z}(\Gamma)$. Then we are reduced to the following assertion: for any reductive group $\mathbf{Z}$, the component group of the center of $\mathbf{Z}$ is only divisible by primes dividing the order of the Weyl group. Replacing $\mathbf{Z}$ by its quotient by the connected center, we can check the same assertion for $\mathbf{Z}$ semisimple; so it is enough to check for $\mathbf{Z}$ simply connected semisimple. There it is obvious case by case.
To see that $\mathbf{Z}=\mathbf{Z}(\Gamma) $ is connected, we can reason as follows: $\mathbf{A}$ is a maximal split torus within $\mathbf{Z}$, so any element of $\mathbf{Z}/\mathbf{Z}^0$ has a representative in $\mathbf{Z}$ that belongs to the normalizer of $\mathbf{A}$. Here $\mathbf{Z}^0$ denotes the connected component. So it is enough to show that any $\overline{F_v}$-point $n$ in the normalizer of $\mathbf{A}$ that belongs to ${\mathbf{Z}}$ actually belongs to ${\mathbf{Z}}^0$. Let $w \in {\mathrm{Aut}}(\mathbf{A})$ be the element of the Weyl group of $\mathbf{A}$ corresponding to such an $n$. Fix $\gamma \in \Gamma$. Since $n$ centralizes $\Gamma$, we see that $w$ fixes $\gamma$. Write $N$ for the $\ell$-part of $q-1$. So $\gamma \in \mathbf{A}[N] \simeq X_* \otimes \mu_{N}$; fixing a primitive $N$th root, we can identify $\mathbf{A}[N]$ with $X_*/N$. Since the order of $w$ is relatively prime to $\ell$, we see – by taking invariants in $X_* \rightarrow X_* \rightarrow X_*/N$ – that $\gamma$ actually lies in the image of some $w$-fixed character $\mathbb{G}_m \rightarrow {\mathbf{A}}$.
Applying this reasoning for each $\gamma \in \Gamma$, we see that $w$ actually centralizes a subtorus of ${\mathbf{A}}$ containing $\Gamma$. But the centralizer of that torus is a connected group, thus contained in $\mathbf{Z}^0$. We conclude that $\mathbf{Z}$ is connected, as we claimed.
\[splitness\] Let $x, y \in X_* \stackrel{\eqref{IWidentification}}{\hookrightarrow} G_v/K_v$. Suppose $z \in G_v/K_v$ does not belong to the image of $X_*$. Let $\Gamma$ be an $\ell$-Sylow of $A_v \cap K_v$; thus $\Gamma$ is an $\ell$-Sylow subgroup of $G_{xy}$. Let $\Gamma_z$ be the stabilizer of $z$ in $\Gamma$.
Then the corestriction map $H^*(\Gamma_z) \rightarrow H^*(\Gamma)$ is zero with ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r$ coefficients.
Note that the centralizer and so also the double centralizer of $\Gamma$ is simply $\mathbf{A}$. (Any root of $\mathbf{A}$ is nontrivial on the $\ell$-Sylow of $A_v \cap K_v$, by Lemma \[nontriv\], so the connected centralizer is $\mathbf{A}$; the centralizer cannot be larger than $\mathbf{A}$ because any element of the Weyl group acts nontrivially on $\Gamma \simeq X_*(\mathbf{A})/\ell^r$).
Let $\mathbf{S}$ be the double centralizer of $\Gamma_z$. Since $\Gamma_z \subset \Gamma$ we also have $\mathbf{S} \subset \mathbf{A}$.
Let $\mathbf{S}^0$ be the identity component of $\mathbf{S}$; it is a split torus. Because ((a) of §\[doublecentralizer\]) the component group of $\mathbf{S}$ is prime-to-$\ell$, we see that $\Gamma_z$ lies inside $\mathbf{S}^0$, and thus inside the maximal compact subgroup of $\mathbf{S}^0(F_v)$. Let $\Gamma_z^*$ be the $\ell$-Sylow of $\mathbf{S}^0(F_v)$. Thus $\Gamma_z \subset \Gamma_z^*$.
Choose a complement $\mathbf{S}' \subset \mathbf{A}$ to $\mathbf{S}^0$, i.e. a subtorus with the property that $\mathbf{S}^0 \times \mathbf{S}' \rightarrow \mathbf{A}$ is an isomorphism. Now $\Gamma \subset \mathbf{A}(F_v)^{\circ}$ is an $\ell$-Sylow by computation of orders, so therefore $$\Gamma = \Gamma_z^* \times \Gamma'$$ where $\Gamma'$ is the $\ell$-Sylow of $\mathbf{S}'(F_v)^{\circ}$.
If $\mathbf{S}'$ were trivial, then $\mathbf{S}^0 = \mathbf{A}$; in that case, by (b) of §\[doublecentralizer\], $z$ lies in the fixed set of $\mathbf{A}(F_v)^{\circ}$, which is none other[^5] than $$X_* \subset G_v/K_v,$$ which contradicts our assumption. Therefore, $\mathbf{S}'$ is nontrivial. We see at once that the order of $\Gamma'$ is divisible by the $\ell$-part of $q-1$.
Thus, by Lemma \[ff2\], the corestriction from $\Gamma_z^*$ to $\Gamma$ is zero with ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r$ coefficients. The corestriction from $\Gamma_z$ to $\Gamma$ factors through this one, so it is zero too.
Proof of Theorem \[DHA:Satake\] {#Satake algebra proof}
-------------------------------
Recall the explicit description of the Satake map, using the identification of the toral derived Hecke algebra:
Given an assignment $(x,y) \in G_v/K_v \mapsto h(x,y) \in H^*(G_{xy}, S)$, we associate to it the function $X_* \times X_* \longrightarrow H^*(T)$, given by $$h': (x,y) \in A_v/A_v \cap K_v \mapsto \mathrm{Res}^{G_{xy}}_{T} h(x,y) \in H^*(T)$$
We must show that the rule $h \mapsto h'$ gives an isomorphism $$\mbox{ derived Hecke algebra for $(G_v, K_v)$}
\simeq \mbox{ derived Hecke algebra for $(A_v, A_v \cap K_v)$ }^W.$$
We first verify that $h \mapsto h'$ is bijective. Each element of the derived Hecke algebra for $(G_v, K_v)$ is uniquely of the form $\sum h_{a, \alpha}$ where $a \in X_*^+$ and $\alpha \in H^*(K \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(a) K)$, with notation as in §\[doublecoset\]. The intersection of $K_v a K_v$ with $X_*$ is precisely given by the $W$-orbit of $a$ by uniqueness of the Cartan decomposition. So the map $h \mapsto h'$ sends $h_{a, \alpha}$ to the function $h'_{a, \alpha}$ on $X_* \times X_*$ characterized by $W$-invariance and:
- $h_{z,\alpha}(x,e) = 0$ unless $x \in W a$;
- $h_{z,\alpha}$ sends $ (a, e) $ to the image of $\alpha \in H^*(K \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(a) K) \rightarrow H^*(T)$.
It is enough, then, to show that each element of $\mbox{ derived Hecke algebra for $(A_v, A_v \cap K_v)$ }^W$ is uniquely a sum of such elements $h'_{a,\alpha}$. This comes down to the fact that the map $$\label{isogn} H^*(K \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(a) K) \longrightarrow H^*(T)^{W_a}$$ is an isomorphism, where $W_a$ is the stabilizer of $a$ in the Weyl group. But, if we write $M$ for the Levi subgroup of $\mathcal{G}$ that centralizes $a$, then $K \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(a) K$ is, modulo a pro-$p$-group, the $k$-points $M(k)$, and $W_a$ is identified with the Weyl group of $M$. So follows from Lemma \[finitefields\].
To show that $h \mapsto h'$ preserves multiplication, we compute $(h_1 h_2)'(x,z)$; it equals the restriction, from $G_{xz}$ to $T$, of $$\sum_{O \subset G_v/K_v} \sum_{y \in O} h_1(x,y) \cup h_2(y,z).$$ the sum being grouped, as before, over orbits $O$ of $G_{xz}$ on such $y$. Recall that the inner sum is understood by computing the cup-product $h_1(x,y) \cup h_2(y,z)$ for a single $y \in O$, and then inflating from $G_{xyz}$ to $G_{xz}$. Therefore,
$$(h_1 h_2)'(x,z) = \sum_{O} \underbrace{ \mathrm{Res}^{G_{xz}}_T \mathrm{Cores}^{G_{xz}}_{G_{xyz}} h_1(x,y) \cup h_2(y,z) }_{:= H(O)}$$ and as usual we can express $H(O)$ a sum over $T$-orbits on $G_{xz}/G_{xyz}$, that is to say, as a sum of $T$ orbits $O' \subset O$: $$\label{yuk} H(O) =\sum_{O'} \mathrm{Cores}^{T}_{T_{y'}} \mathrm{Res}^{G_{xyz}}_{T_{y'}} (\dots )$$ where we have chosen a representative $y' \in O'$ for each $T$-orbit $O'$ upon $O$; and the injection $T_{y'} \rightarrow G_{xyz}$ that defines the restriction map is induced by an element of $G_{xz}$ conjugating $y'$ to $y$.
We saw in Lemma \[splitness\] that the corestriction map vanishes unless $y'$ actually belongs to $X_*$. (Indeed, writing $\Gamma$ for the unique $\ell$-Sylow of the abelian group $T$, then $\Gamma_{y'}$ is an $\ell$-Sylow of $T_{y'}$, and the corestriction map induced by $\Gamma_{y'} \rightarrow T_{y'}$ is surjective on cohomology.) In the case when $y' \in X_*$, we have $T_{y'} = T$ in which case $O' = \{y'\}$. We conclude that $$H(O) =\sum_{y' \in O \cap X_*} \mathrm{Res}^{G_{xyz}}_{T}(h_1(x,y) \cup h_2(y,z))$$ and finally adding up all $O$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
(h_1 h_2)'(x,z) &=& \sum_{y \in X_*} \mathrm{Res}^{G_{xyz}}_{T} (h_1(x,y) \cup h_2(y,z) ) \\
&=& \sum_{y \in X_*} \mathrm{Res}^{G_{xy}}_{T} h_1(x,y) \cup \mathrm{Res}^{G_{yz}}_{T} h_2(y,z) = h_1' h_2' (x,z).\end{aligned}$$ This concludes the proof of the theorem.
Iwahori-Hecke algebra {#IHA}
=====================
In this section, we collect a few important facts about Iwahori–Hecke algebras. In particular, we discuss the structure of the Iwahori–Hecke algebra at a Taylor–Wiles prime (§\[Iwahori\]), the relation between modules over the (usual, i.e. non-derived) Iwahori-Hecke algebra and modules over the (usual) spherical Hecke algebras (§\[IwahoriHecke\]) and finally briefly discuss a localization result for the derived Iwahori-Hecke algebra (§\[dhLocalization\]).
These results are presumably well-known to experts but they help us polish our presentation of the Taylor-Wiles method – indeed similar ideas appear in the paper of Khare and Thorne [@KT].
{#section-2}
We continue with the notation of the prior section (§\[BasicNotn\]). In particular, $G_v$ is the $F_v$-points of a reductive split group. As before, we have the affine Weyl group $\tilde{W}$ which is the semidirect product $X_* \rtimes W$, where $X_*$ is the cocharacter group of a maximal torus.
Let $S$ be the ring ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^r$, for a prime $\ell$; this will be the coefficient ring for all our Hecke algebras and derived Hecke algebras. We suppose that $q_v \equiv 1$ modulo $\ell^r$ and that $\ell$ doesn’t divide the order of the Weyl group. Let $I_v$ be an Iwahori subgroup of $G_v$ contained inside $K_v$. It will be helpful to keep in mind that the index $[K_v:I_v] \equiv |W|$ modulo $\ell^r$, in particular, this index is invertible in $S$. Take the Haar measure on $G_v$ which assigns $I_v$ mass $1$.
The structure of the Iwahori algebra {#Iwahori}
------------------------------------
Let $\mathrm{H}_I$ be the Hecke algebra for $I_v$: the $S$-valued and finitely supported functions on $I_v \backslash G_v/I_v$, with multiplication obtained by convolution with to a ($S$-valued) measure assigning $I_v$ mass $1$.
Set $e_K = \frac{1_{K_v}}{\mathrm{measure}(K_v)}$, an idempotent inside $\mathrm{H}_I$, and set $\mathrm{H}_{IK} =e_K \mathrm{H}_I $, $\mathrm{H}_{KI} = \mathrm{H}_I e_K$ and finally $\mathrm{H}_K = e_K \mathrm{H}_I e_K$. For a $G_v$-representation $W$, the $G_v$-action gives rise to maps $\mathrm{H}_{IK} \otimes W^I \rightarrow W^K$, and so on.
Clearly $\mathrm{H}_K$ is identified with $K_v$-bi-invariant functions – i.e. the $S$-valued spherical Hecke algebra, and, similarly $\mathrm{H}_{IK}$ is identified with functions left invariant by $K_v$, right invariant by $I_v$, etc. We may identify $$\label{left right} \mathrm{H}_K \simeq {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SK_v}(S[G_v/K_v], S[G_v/K_v])$$ by means of the right convolution action, identifying $S[G_v/K_v]$ with functions in the obvious way. Similarly we identify $\mathrm{H}_{IK}$ with ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG_v} (S[G_v/K_v], S[G_v/I_v])$, by means of the right convolution action, and so on. Also $\mathrm{H}_{IK}, \mathrm{H}_{KI}$ are bimodules for $\mathrm{H}_K$ and $\mathrm{H}_I$.
If $V$ is any $G$-representation, the algebra $ {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SK_v}(S[G_v/K_v], S[G_v/K_v])$ acts on the right on $V^K = {\mathrm{Hom}}_{G_v}(S[G_v/K_v], V)$. Similarly, elements $\mathrm{H}_{IK}$ induces endomorphisms $V^I \rightarrow V^K$. Indeed a useful mnemonic for the subscript “$IK$” is that, acting as explained above, $\mathrm{H}_{IK}$ goes from $I$-invariants to $K$-invariants, and so on.
There are some confusing left/right issues that arise here. (Fortunately they are not very important to the kind of computation we do.)
If $V$ is any $G$-representation, the algebras $\mathrm{H}_K$, considered as convolution algebras of measures, act on the [*left*]{} on $V^K$. Correspondingly the map is not an algebra identification, but rather an anti-homomorphism: it identifies one side with the opposite algebra of the other. As a final point of confusion, the induced actions of the two sides of on $V^K$ do not coincide, but rather they differ by a factor of $[K_v:I_v]$.
Because $q$ is congruent to $1$ modulo $\ell^r$, the structure of $\mathrm{H}_I$ is very simple. It is isomorphic simply to the group algebra of the affine Weyl group: $$\label{affineweyl} \mathrm{H}_I \simeq S[\tilde{W}]$$ and explicitly the isomorphism sends the characteristic function of $I_v w I_v$ to the element $w$, for $w \in \tilde{W}$; in particular $e_K$ is sent to $\frac{1}{|W|} \sum_{w \in W} w$, the sum over the usual Weyl group.
This follows from the standard presentation of the Iwahori-Hecke algebra (for a reference with complex coefficients, see [@ChrissGinzburg Theorem 4.2]); the key point is that the relation $(T_s-q)(T_s+1)$ simplifies to $T_s^2=1$ when $q=1$ in the coefficients. Actually it is also possible to verify $\mathrm{H}_I$ is isomorphic to $S[\tilde{W}]$ by using torus localization, although we omit the details.
Central element and discriminant {#Zdis}
--------------------------------
Every element of $S[X_*]^W$ is central in $S[\tilde{W}]$. Therefore, yields a natural map from $Z := S[X_*]^W$ to the center of $\mathrm{H}_I$.
Then $\mathrm{H}_I, \mathrm{H}_K$ have structures of $Z$-algebra and $\mathrm{H}_{IK}, \mathrm{H}_{KI}$ have structure of $Z$-module, all of which are compatible in the obvious way.
For example, the ring homomorphism $Z \rightarrow \mathrm{H}_K$ is given by $z \mapsto e_K z e_K = e_K z$. In fact this is a ring [*isomorphism*]{}, as follows easily from the explicit presentation. Then e.g. $\mathrm{H}_{IK}$ has two structures of $Z$-module, one via $Z \rightarrow \mathrm{H}_I$ and one via $Z \rightarrow \mathrm{H}_K$, and the “compatibility” is that these two structures coincide.
Let $f \in Z $ be the “discriminant, ” which we define to be the following element $$\label{Disc_def} f:= \prod_{\alpha} (1-\alpha^*) \in S[X_*]^W = Z$$ where the product ranges over roots $\alpha$, where $\alpha^* = (\alpha^{\vee})^{m_{\alpha}}$ is a power of the associated coroot, and $m_{\alpha}$ is the largest integer such that $\alpha/m_{\alpha} \in X^*$ (i.e. the divisibility of $\alpha$ in the character lattice).
An unramified $S$-valued character $\chi$ of the maximal torus $A_v$ is the same as a homomorphism from $X_* \rightarrow S^{\times}$; if $S$ is a field, then $\langle {\mathrm{disc}}, \chi \rangle \neq 0$ exactly when $\chi$ is not fixed by any reflection $s_{\alpha}$ of the Weyl group. Indeed, the reflected character $s_{\alpha} \chi$ sends $\lambda \in X_*$ to $\chi(\lambda - \langle \lambda, \alpha \rangle \alpha^{\vee})$; for this to always coincide with $\chi(\lambda)$, we should have $\chi ( \langle \lambda, \alpha \rangle \alpha^{\vee}) = 1$ for all $\alpha$. This forces $\chi(m_{\alpha} \alpha^{\vee}) =1$ where $m_{\alpha}$ is the largest integer such that $\alpha/m_{\alpha} \in X^*$.
Note that, for $\chi$ a point of the “character variety” of $X_*$, which we shall understand to be the spectrum of the ring ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell[X_*]$, we have $$\label{hj} \{ \chi: w \chi \neq \chi \mbox{ for all $w \in W$} \} \subset \{ \chi : s \chi \neq \chi \mbox{ for all reflections $s$} \}.$$ This inclusion is proper, in general; however, the complement of the left-hand set in the right-hand set has codimension $\geq 2$, because if $w \in W$ is not a reflection its fixed set has codimension $\geq 2$.
Iwahori Hecke algebra {#IwahoriHecke}
---------------------
\[IHequivalence\] Let notation be as above; in particular $f \in Z$ is defined in . Write $\mathrm{H}_K' = \mathrm{H}_K \otimes_{Z} Z_f$ and define similarly $\mathrm{H}_I', \mathrm{H}_{IK}', \mathrm{H}_{KI}'$. Then the bimodules $\mathrm{H}_{IK}'$ and $\mathrm{H}_{KI}'$ induce inverse equivalences of categories between $\mathrm{H}_K'$ modules and $\mathrm{H}_I'$ modules.
This is probably well-known in characteristic zero at least.
(Sketch).
Let’s show, for example, that the natural map induced by multiplication $$\label{targetmap}\underbrace{\mathrm{H}_{KI} }_{= \mathrm{H}_I e_K} \otimes_{\mathrm{H}_K} \underbrace{ \mathrm{H}_{IK}}_{= e_K \mathrm{H}_I} \rightarrow \mathrm{H}_I$$ yields an isomorphism after localizing at $f$. In what follows, we denote “localization at $f$” with a prime, i.e. $S[X_*]' = S[X_*] \otimes_Z Z_f$ and $Z' = Z_f$.
Note that $\mathrm{H}_I$ is free of rank $w$ as a right module over $S[X_*]$ (clear from ) and $S[X_*]'$ is locally free as a right module over $Z'$ of rank $w$ (this follows from the proof of the Chevalley–Shephard–Todd theorem, even without localizing, since $\ell$ is assumed relatively prime to the order of the Weyl group).
So $\mathrm{H}_I'$ is locally free of rank $w^2$ over $Z'$. Similarly, $\mathrm{H}_{IK}'$ and $\mathrm{H}_{KI}'$ are locally free of rank $w$ and $\mathrm{H}_K'$ is locally free of rank $1$ as a $Z$-module. The obstruction to being an isomorphism then given (locally on $Z$) by the vanishing of a suitable determinant; it is enough, therefore, to show that is onto after reducing modulo every maximal ideal of $Z'$. Indeed, it will be enough to test at a collection of maximal ideals whose complement has codimension $\geq 2$.
So, let $\mathfrak{m}'$ be a maximal ideal of $Z'$. We can extend the natural homomorphism $Z' \rightarrow Z'/\mathfrak{m}'$ to a homomorphism $\chi: S[X_*]' \rightarrow k$, with $k$ an algebraically closed field containing the finite field $Z'/\mathfrak{m}'$. Note that $k$ has characteristic $\ell$, and that $\chi$ is not fixed by any reflection.
It is sufficient to verify is an isomorphism after reducing modulo each such $\mathfrak{m}'$. By the discussion after , it is enough to verify this for those $\mathfrak{m}'$ such that $\chi$ is strongly regular, in the sense that $w \chi \neq \chi$ for all $w \in W$.
As above, $\chi$ arises from a $k^{\times}$-valued character of the torus $A_v$. We form the corresponding induced representation $V_{\chi}$. Its elements consist of locally constant $k$-valued functions on $G_{v}$ that transform according to $\chi$ on a Borel subgroup containing $A_v$. Now $V^I$ is a $k$-vector space of rank $w$, and $V^K$ is a $k$-vector space of rank $1$, and $Z$ acts on these spaces via the character $\chi$ (as follows, e.g. from below).
We now show that the natural maps $$\mathrm{H}_{ab} \otimes_Z k \rightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}(V^a, V^b)$$ are isomorphisms for $a$ and $b$ belonging to $\{I, K\}$; that implies the claim. Because the two sides have the same rank it is enough to check surjectivity. In fact, it’s enough to show surjectivity in the case of $\mathrm{H}_{II}$ and to show that all the other maps are nonzero (because then, for example, the image for $\mathrm{H}_{IK}$ would be a nonzero subspace of ${\mathrm{Hom}}(V^I, V^K)$ which is stable under ${\mathrm{Hom}}(V^I, V^I)$.) The other maps are clearly nonzero: the element $e_K$ induces a nonzero map in each of the cases $IK, KI, KK$. So we are reduced to seeing that $$\label{moo} \mathrm{H}_{I} \twoheadrightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}(V^I, V^I).$$
But there’s a standard basis for $V^I$ indexed by the Weyl group: $v_w \ (w \in W)$, whose restriction to $K$ is the characteristic function of the Bruhat cell indexed by $w$. The group algebra of $W$, inside $\mathrm{H}_I$, acts by permuting the elements $v_w$. Also the element $\lambda \in X_* $, considered again inside $\mathrm{H}_I$, acts by $$\label{explicit0} \lambda \cdot v_w = \langle w \chi, \lambda \rangle v_w.$$ In other words, as a representation of $\tilde{W}$, this is the representation induced from the generic character $\lambda$, and so clearly irreducible. The surjectivity of follows.
Localization for the derived Iwahori–Hecke algebra {#dhLocalization}
--------------------------------------------------
It will later on be helpful to make use of localization for the [*derived*]{} Iwahori–Hecke algebra.
We define the derived Iwahori Hecke algebra as per the recipe of §\[sec:dha\], i.e. $$\mathscr{H}_I := {\mathrm{Ext}}_{SG_v}^*(S[G_v/I_v], S[G_v/I_v]).$$ As before this is isomorphic to the algebra of functions $h$ that associate to $(x,y) \in G_v/I_v \times G_v/I_v$ a class $h(x,y) \in H^*(G_{xy}, S)$, with the product as described in §\[desc2\]. In a similar way, we get derived versions $\mathscr{H}_{IK},\mathscr{H}_{KI}$ of the bimodules $\mathrm{H}_{KI}, \mathrm{H}_{IK}$ defined earlier.
Now, we can consider “restriction to $\tilde{W}$, ” i.e. $$\label{Tau1} h_1 \in \mathscr{H}_{II} \longrightarrow h_1' \in \mbox{ functions $\tilde{W} \times \tilde{W} \rightarrow H^*(T,S)$}$$ where $T$ is as in §\[BasicNotn\] and we identify $w \in \tilde{W}$ with $wI \in G_v/I_v$; and $$\label{Tau2} h_2 \in \mathscr{H}_{IK} \longrightarrow h_2' \in \mbox{ functions $\tilde{W} \times X_* \rightarrow H^*(T,S)$}$$ where here we identify $x \in X_*$ with the associated coset $xK_v$; and we used the fact that $T$ stabilizes pointwise both $\tilde{W} \cdot I_v$ and $X_* \cdot K_v$ to restrict cohomology classes to $T$. Finally we have a similar map for $\mathscr{H}_{KI}$.
Note that the right-hand side of has an algebra structure, by the formula , at least restricting to functions supported on finitely many $\tilde{W}$-orbits. This algebra acts on the right-hand side of – again, by the formula .
Under our current notation and assumptions, (see §\[BasicNotn\]), the map is an algebra morphism. Similarly, the map is compatible with the map and the product $\mathscr{H}_{II} \times \mathscr{H}_{IK} \rightarrow \mathscr{H}_{IK}$; similarly for $\mathscr{H}_{KI}$.
We want to show that (where $h_1,h_2 \in \mathscr{H}_{II}$) $$\mathrm{Res}(h_1 h_2) = h_1' h_2',$$ where $\mathrm{Res}$ means to restrict all $G_v/I_v$ arguments to $\tilde{W}$ and restrict cohomology classes to $T$; we also want similar statements for the $\mathscr{H}_{II}$-action on $\mathscr{H}_{KI}$ and $\mathscr{H}_{IK}$.
By precisely the same argument as in §\[Satake algebra proof\], we are reduced to the following claim:
> [*Claim:*]{} Let $y'$ belong to either $G_v/K_v$ or $G_v/I_v$. Let $\Gamma$ be an $\ell$-Sylow of $A_v \cap K_v$. Let $\Gamma_{y'}$ be the stabilizer of $y'$ in $\Gamma$. Then the corestriction $H^*(\Gamma_{y'}, S) \rightarrow H^*(\Gamma, S)$ vanishes, unless $y' \in X_* \subset G_v/K_v$ or $y' \in \tilde{W} \subset G_v/I_v$.
We repeat the reasoning of Lemma \[splitness\]: let $\mathbf{S}$ be the algebraic double centralizer of $\Gamma_{y'}$. As before, $\Gamma_{y'} \subset \Gamma$ gives $\mathbf{S} \subset \mathbf{A}$. Let $\mathbf{S}^0$ be the identity component of $\mathbf{S}$. Because (§\[doublecentralizer\]) the component group of $\mathbf{S}$ is prime-to-$\ell$, we see that $\Gamma_{y'}$ lies inside $\mathbf{S}^0$. Let $\Gamma_{y'}^* \subset \mathbf{S}^0(F_v)^{\circ}$ be an $\ell$-Sylow of the maximal compact subgroup. Thus $\Gamma_{y'} \subset \Gamma_{y'}^*$.
Choose a complement $\mathbf{S}' \subset \mathbf{A}$ to $\mathbf{S}^0$, i.e. a subtorus with the property that $\mathbf{S}^0 \times \mathbf{S}' \rightarrow \mathbf{A}$ is an isomorphism. Then $\Gamma_{y'}^* \subset \mathbf{S}^0(F_v)^{\circ}$ is an $\ell$-Sylow, and $\Gamma \subset \mathbf{A}(F_v)^{\circ}$ is an $\ell$-Sylow. Therefore $$\Gamma = \Gamma_{y'}^* \times \Gamma'$$ where $\Gamma'$ is the $\ell$-Sylow of $\mathbf{S}'(F_v)^{\circ}$.
If $\mathbf{S}'$ were trivial, then $\mathbf{S}^0 = \mathbf{A}$; in that case by (b) of §\[doublecentralizer\] , $y'$ lies in the fixed set of $\mathbf{A}(F_v)^{\circ}$. This fixed set on $G_v/K_v$ is $X_*$, as before, and the fixed set on $G_v/I_v$ is precisely $\tilde{W} I_v \subset G_v/I_v$.[^6]
Otherwise, $\mathbf{S}'$ is not trivial, the corestriction $\Gamma_{y'}^* \rightarrow \Gamma$ vanishes as before, and so the corestriction $\Gamma_{y'} \rightarrow \Gamma$ vanishes too.
The trivial representation {#Quillen}
==========================
In this section we give our first piece of global evidence that the derived Hecke algebra can account for the “degree spreading” of Hecke eigenclasses.
{#section-3}
Let $D$ be a division algebra of dimension $d^2$ over an imaginary quadratic field $F$. Let ${\mathbf{G}}$ be the algebraic group of elements of norm $1$ inside $D$. Let $Y(K)$ be the arithmetic manifold associated to ${\mathbf{G}}$ and a level structure $K$. We shall suppose $K$ to be contained in the stabilizer of some maximal order $\mathcal{O}_D$. Observe that ${\mathrm{dim}}\ Y(K) = d^2-1$.
In this section we study the derived Hecke action on “Hecke-trivial part” (see Definition \[HTriv\]) of the cohomology of $Y(K)$.
Recall that the global derived Hecke algebra ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$ consists of all endomorphisms of $H^*({\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell})$ that are limits (§\[limit\]) , under $H^*({\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}) \simeq \varprojlim H^*({\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n)$, of endomorphisms that lie in the algebra generated by all $ \mathscr{H}_{v,{\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n}$.
\[maintheoremtriv\] For all but finitely many primes $\ell$, the trivial part of the cohomology $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell})_{\mathrm{triv}}$ is cyclic over ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$, generated by the trivial class.
Indeed, the image of ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}\otimes {\mathbf{Q}}_{\ell}$ in ${\mathrm{End}}(H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}}_{\ell})_{{\mathrm{triv}}})$ coincides with ${\mathbf{Q}}_{\ell}$-algebra generated by $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}})_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$ acting on itself by means of the cup product.
Note the significance of the second part of the statement: inside the ${\mathbf{Q}}_{\ell}$-derived Hecke algebra there is a natural “preferred” rational structure. Our general conjecture (Conjecture \[mainconjecture\]) says that this should be true in great generality and the preferred rational structure is related to motivic cohomology. Certainly the situation that we discuss here is quite easy compared to the general case, but nonetheless it has several points of interest.
We also note that the theorem is almost certainly [*false*]{} (in the form stated above) if $F$ is not totally imaginary, for reasons related to (a) of §\[fdp\].
We will deduce the Theorem from the following:
\[pairs\] Notation as above, so that $\mathbf{G}$ is the algebraic group arising from a division algebra over the imaginary quadratic field $F$. For all sufficiently large $\ell$, the following statement holds:
> For each integer $n$ there are infinitely many places $v$ of the field $F$, with $q_v \equiv 1 $ modulo $\ell^n$, such that the pullback map of $$H^*(\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{F}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell) \rightarrow H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$$ is surjective.
Note that the map above really does take values in the Hecke-trivial cohomology, by Lemma \[lem:HTriv\].
(Summary) The proof of Lemma occupies §\[sec:Recollections\] – §\[sec:Chebo\]. After some initial setup, we give in §\[abcd\] certain conditions (a), (b), (c), (d) which imply the Lemma; and then after §\[abcd\] we check these conditions can actually be satisfied.
First of all, let us explain why the Lemma implies the theorem:
Lemma implies the theorem {#lemmaimpliestheorem}
-------------------------
By avoiding a finite set of $\ell$, we may clearly suppose that $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}})$ has no $\ell$-torsion. Similarly, we may suppose that $$H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}})_{{\mathrm{triv}}} \otimes_{{\mathbf{Z}}} {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell \rightarrow H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$$ is an isomorphism: see §\[lconstrain\] for an explanation.
By §\[finitefields\], the map $H^*(\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{F}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n) \rightarrow H^*(\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{F}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)$ is surjective if $q_v \equiv 1$ modulo $\ell^n$. It follows from this that the surjectivity assertion of the Lemma continues to hold with coefficients modulo $\ell^n$.
Now we can consider an element of $H^*(\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{F}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n)$ as an element of the derived Hecke algebra for $\mathbf{G}$ at $v$ (see the Remark of §\[sec:concrete\]). So the assertion implies that the cup product action of each $h \in H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell^n)_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$ is contained in the action of the derived Hecke algebra; by passage to the limit, the cup product action of $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell})_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$ on itself is contained in the action of the derived Hecke algebra.
Let $B_{\ell}$ be the image of cup product $H_{{\mathrm{triv}}}^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}) \rightarrow {\mathrm{End}}(H_{{\mathrm{triv}}}^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}))$ and let ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$ be the image of ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$ inside ${\mathrm{End}}(H_{{\mathrm{triv}}}^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}))$.
We have just shown that $B_{\ell} \subset {\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$. It then follows easily that equality holds, since $H^*_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$ is free over $B_{\ell}$ of rank $1$. Indeed, for any $h \in {\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$, there is $b \in B_{\ell}$ such that $h.1 = b.1$ (here $1$ is the trivial class in $H^0$). Then $(h-b). 1 = 0$. The same is true then for both the even and odd components of $(h-b)$; graded commutativity implies that both of these components kill $H^*_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$. Thus $h-b= 0$.
Recollections {#sec:Recollections}
-------------
Let $N$ be an integer. (We will shortly fix it to be “large enough.”)
Let $\mathrm{U}_N$ be the standard unitary group, the stabilizer of $\sum_{i=1}^N |z_i|^2$. There are natural maps $$\label{mapN} \mbox{bi-invariant differential forms on $\mathrm{U}_N$} \stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} H^*(\mathrm{U}_N, {\mathbf{C}}) \longrightarrow H^*({\mathrm{GL}}_N({\mathcal{O}}_F), {\mathbf{C}})$$ obtained by the natural identification of ${\mathrm{GL}}_N({\mathbf{C}})$-invariant differential forms on ${\mathrm{GL}}_N({\mathbf{C}})/\mathrm{U}_N$ with bi-invariant differential forms on $\mathrm{U}_N$ (and then Hodge theory). The notation is a little confusing: $H^*(\mathrm{U}_N)$ above refers to the singular cohomology of $\mathrm{U}_N$ as a topological space, whereas $H^*({\mathrm{GL}}_N({\mathcal{O}}_F))$ refers to the group cohomology of ${\mathrm{GL}}_N({\mathcal{O}}_F)$.
Moreover, the algebra of invariant differential forms on $\mathrm{U}_N$ is a free exterior algebra with primitive generators $\Omega_1, \Omega_3, \dots, \Omega_{2n+1}$ in degree $1, 3, 5, \dots, 2n+1$; “primitive” is taken with respect to the coproduct on cohomology, induced by $\mathrm{U}_N\times \mathrm{U}_N \rightarrow \mathrm{U}_N$. An explicit representative for $\Omega_j$ can be taken as $$\label{oinkoink} X_1, \dots, X_j \in \mathrm{Lie}(\mathrm{U}_N) \mapsto \mbox{anti-symmetrization of $\mathrm{trace}(X_1 \dots X_j) $}$$ The same symbols $\Omega_i$ will also be used to denote the corresponding invariant differential forms on ${\mathrm{GL}}_N({\mathbf{C}})/\mathrm{U}_N$. For later use, note that these can be restricted to cohomology classes for $\mathrm{SU}_N$ and also to invariant differential forms on ${\mathrm{SL}}_N({\mathbf{C}})/\mathrm{SU}_N$; these restrictions kill $\Omega_1$.
There are natural inclusions $\mathrm{U}_N \hookrightarrow \mathrm{U}_{N+1}$ and ${\mathrm{GL}}_N({\mathcal{O}}_F) \hookrightarrow {\mathrm{GL}}_{N+1}({\mathcal{O}}_F)$. For fixed $j$ and large enough $N$, these induce isomorphisms in $H^j(-, {\mathbf{C}})$. Moreover, these isomorphisms are compatible with increasing $N$. By passage to the inverse limit we get $$H^*(\mathrm{U}_{\infty}, {\mathbf{C}}) {\longrightarrow} H^*({\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}({\mathcal{O}}_F), {\mathbf{C}})$$ Here (e.g) ${\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}$ means in fact $\varinjlim {\mathrm{GL}}_N$.
Both sides here carry compatible coproducts; for the right hand-side we can take the coproduct induced by “intertwining” map (see e.g. [@Srinivas Chapter 2]) ${\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty} \times {\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty} \rightarrow {\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}.$ The corresponding Pontryagin product on homology will be denoted by $*$.
In what follows, we fix $N$ to be divisible by $d^2$ and chosen so large that
- the inclusion ${\mathrm{GL}}_N \hookrightarrow {\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}$ induces an isomorphism of integral group homology in degrees $\leq d^2$, both with entries in $\mathcal{O}$ and with entries in any residue field (the ranges of homological stability are uniform: [@vdK]).
We will denote the stabilization map $$H_i({\mathrm{GL}}_N({\mathcal{O}}_F)) \rightarrow H_i({\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}({\mathcal{O}}_F))$$ by $a \mapsto a^{(\infty)}$ and its inverse by $b \mapsto b^{(N)}$. We will use this notation for any choice of coefficients, not merely ${\mathbf{Z}}$.
- The map induces an surjection in degrees $< d^2$ (possible by [@Borel]; we have “surjection” instead of isomorphism just because of the issue of working with ${\mathrm{GL}}$ rather than ${\mathrm{SL}}$: the differential form corresponding to $\Omega_1$ dies under ).
In a similar way to , we have an isomorphisms $$\label{raru} H^*(\mathrm{SU}_d, {\mathbf{C}}) \rightarrow \mbox{${\mathrm{SL}}_d({\mathbf{C}})$ invariant diff. forms on $\mathrm{SL}_d({\mathbf{C}})/\mathrm{SU}_d$} \stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{C}})_{{\mathrm{triv}}}.$$ For the surjectivity of the final map: if a differential form $\omega$ on $Y(K)$ satisfies $T \omega = \mathrm{deg}(T) \omega$ for even one Hecke operator $T$, then by an easy “maximum modulus” argument it must be invariant,[^7] i.e. represented by a ${\mathbf{G}}(F \otimes{\mathbf{R}})$ invariant form on the corresponding symmetric space. In particular, the cohomology $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{C}})_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$ is a free exterior algebra, generated in degrees $3,5, \dots, 2d+1$.
Finally let us recall (Borel) that the $K$-theory of ${\mathcal{O}}_F$ is, modulo torsion, one-dimensional in each odd degree, and that (Quillen) for any finite field $\mathbf{F}$ of size $q$, the even $K$-groups vanish and the odd $K_{2s+1}(\mathbf{F}) \simeq {\mathbf{Z}}/(q^s-1)$.
The constraints on $\ell$ {#lconstrain}
-------------------------
We impose the following constraints on $\ell$:
- The cohomology of $Y(K)$ with coefficients in $\ell$ is torsion-free.
- $\ell$ doesn’t divide $ \gcd_{v} ( (q_v-1) \dots (q_v^{2d-1}-1))$, where the $\gcd$ is taken over all $q_v \geq q_0$ for large enough $q_0$. (This $\gcd$ stabilizes for $q_0$ large enough.)
- $\ell$ is relatively prime to the numerator and denominator of the rational number $M \in \mathbf{Q}^*$ defined in .
- the cohomology $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$ is a free-exterior algebra on generators in degree $3,\dots, 2d-1$.
- $\ell > d^2$
- The cohomology of ${\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}(\mathcal{O}_F)$ is free of $\ell$-torsion in degrees less than $d^2$.
All these assertions are automatically true for $\ell$ big enough. This is obvious for (i), (ii), (iii), (v) and follows from the standard stability results for (vi). We examine (iv): We saw after that $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}})_{{\mathrm{triv}}} $ is a free exterior algebra; fix generators $e_3, e_5, \dots$ that belong to $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}})$. The products of the $e_i$ are linearly independent over ${\mathbf{Q}}$, so their reductions are also linearly independent over ${\mathbf{Z}}/\ell$ for large enough $\ell$. It remains to show that they span $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$. But that is obvious by counting dimensions: if we fix a Hecke operator $T$, then for sufficiently large $\ell$ the generalized zero eigenspace of $T-\deg(T)$ on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)$ has the same dimension as the generalized zero eigenspace of $T-\deg(T)$ on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{C}})$. This concludes the proof that all of (i) – (vi) above are automatically valid for large enough $\ell$. It would be interesting to see what happens for “bad” $\ell$.
{#section-4}
Let $N$ be a large integer, as chosen in §\[sec:Recollections\]. Fix an embedding $$\label{iotadef} \iota: {\mathbf{G}}\hookrightarrow {\mathrm{SL}}_N$$ for some large $N$, by taking a sum of many copies of the representation that arises from the division algebra acting on itself. Then (in suitable coordinates) we may suppose that the open compact subgroup $K$ is carried into the standard maximal compact $\prod_{v} {\mathrm{SL}}_N(\mathcal{O}_{v})$ of ${\mathrm{SL}}_N({\mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{f}}})$, and the arithmetic group ${\mathbf{G}}(F) \cap K$ is consequently carried into ${\mathrm{SL}}_N({\mathcal{O}}_F)$.
The map $\iota$ gives rise to a map of symmetric spaces, i.e. a map $${\mathbf{G}}({\mathbf{C}})/\mathrm{SU}_d \rightarrow
{\mathrm{SL}}_N({\mathbf{C}})/\mathrm{SU}_N,$$ where we have chosen a maximal compact for ${\mathbf{G}}({\mathbf{C}})$, which is isomorphic to $\mathrm{SU}_d$, and then we have chosen a hermitian form on ${\mathbf{C}}^N$ whose stabilizer $\mathrm{SU}_N$ contains $\iota(\mathrm{SU}_d)$. Thus we get an embedding of locally symmetric spaces, also denoted by $\iota$: $$\label{def of iota} \iota: Y(K) \rightarrow \underbrace{ {\mathrm{SL}}_N({\mathcal{O}}_F) \backslash {\mathrm{SL}}_N({\mathbf{C}})/\mathrm{SU}_N}_{\simeq B({\mathrm{SL}}_N({\mathcal{O}}_F))}.$$ We can further compose $\iota$ with the inclusion of ${\mathrm{SL}}_N({\mathcal{O}}_F)$ to ${\mathrm{GL}}_N({\mathcal{O}}_F)$ to give a map $$Y(K) \rightarrow B({\mathrm{GL}}_N({\mathcal{O}}_F))$$
{#abcd}
In this section, we will formulate four claims (a)–(d) that will imply Lemma \[pairs\]. We will verify the claims in the remainder of the section.
Let $i \leq 2d-1$ be odd and let $a_i \in K_i(\mathcal{O}_F) $ be chosen so that it generates $K_i(\mathcal{O}_F)$ modulo torsion. Let $[a_i]$ be the image of $a_i$ inside $ H_i({\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}(\mathcal{O}_F), {\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell})$; as per our notation above, $[a_i]^{(N)}$ is its preimage under the isomorphism $H_i({\mathrm{GL}}_N(\mathcal{O}_F),{\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}) \rightarrow H_i({\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}({\mathcal{O}}_F),{\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell})$.
We’ll show that (for any $n$) there are infinitely many $q_v \equiv 1$ modulo $\ell^n$, and classes $\xi_i \in H^i( {\mathrm{GL}}_N(\mathbf{F}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)$ with the property that:
- The image of $a_i$ in $K_i(\mathbf{F}_v)/\ell$ is nonzero – so if we write $b_i$ for the generator of $K_i(\mathbf{F}_v)/\ell$ then $a_i$ maps to a unit multiple of $b_i$.
- The pairing $ \langle \xi_i, [b_i]^{(N)} \rangle \neq 0$ where $[b_i]$ is defined similarly to the case of $a_i$: it is the associated homology class under $K_i(\mathbf{F}_v) \rightarrow H_i ({\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}(\mathbf{F}_v),{\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)$, and so $[b_i]^{(N)} \in H_i({\mathrm{GL}}_N(\mathbf{F}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)$.
- $ \langle \xi_3 \cup \dots \cup \xi_{2d-1} , \left( [b_3] * \cdots * [b_{2d-1}] \right)^{(N)} \rangle \neq 0$, where \* is the Pontryagin product on the homology of ${\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}(\mathbf{F}_v)$.
- Let $[Y(K)] \in H_{d^2-1}(Y(K), {\mathbf{Q}})$ be the fundamental class of $Y(K)$. Then there exists $M \in {\mathbf{Q}}^*$ such that the image $\iota_* [Y(K)] \in H_*({\mathrm{GL}}_N(\mathcal{O}_F) ,{\mathbf{Q}}) $ satisfies: $$\label{Mdef} \iota_* [Y(K)] = M \cdot \left( [a_3] *[a_5] * \dots * [a_{2d-1}] \right)^{(N)}.$$ where on the right we have the Pontryagin product for ${\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}(\mathcal{O}_F)$, and $\iota$ is as in .
Let us first see why (a) – (d) implies Lemma \[pairs\]. Recall that we chose $\ell$ to not divide the numerator or denominator of $M$, and also that the cohomology of ${\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}(\mathcal{O}_F)$ and so also ${\mathrm{GL}}_N(\mathcal{O}_F)$ is $\ell$-torsion free in degrees $< d^2$; therefore, condition (d) implies an equality in ${\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}$-homology: $$\label{i unit} \iota_*[Y(K)] = \left( \mbox{unit} \right) \cdot \left( [a_3] \dots * [a_{2d-1}] \right)^{(N)}.$$
Let $\pi$ be the projection from ${\mathrm{GL}}_N(\mathcal{O}_F)$ to ${\mathrm{GL}}_N(\mathbf{F}_v)$. Write $\Xi_i = \pi^* \xi_i \in H^*({\mathrm{GL}}_N({\mathcal{O}}_F), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)$ and $\eta_i = \iota^* \Xi_i \in H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)$. We have then $$\langle \Xi_i, [a_i]^{(N)} \rangle = \langle \pi^* \xi_i, [a_i]^{(N)} \rangle = \langle \xi_i, \pi_* [a_i]^{(N)} \rangle = \mbox{unit multiple of } \langle \xi_i, [b_i]^{(N)} \rangle \neq 0$$ since $\pi_* [a_i] = [b_i]$. Also, in a similar way, $$\begin{gathered}
\langle \Xi_3 \cup \dots \cup \Xi_{2d-1}, \left( [a_3]* \dots * [a_{2d-1}] \right)^{(N)} \rangle \\
= \mbox{unit multiple of } \langle \xi_3 \cup \cdots \cup \xi_{2d-1}, \left( [b_3] * \dots * [b_{2d-1}] \right)^{(N)} \rangle \neq 0\end{gathered}$$ because the Pontryagin products and the stabilization maps are compatible with $\pi_*$. From this and we get $$\langle \eta_3 \cup \dots \cup \eta_{2d-1} , [Y(K)] \rangle = \langle \Xi_3 \cup \dots \cup \Xi_{2d-1}, \iota_* [Y(K)] \rangle \neq 0.$$
But the Hecke-trivial cohomology of $Y(K)$ modulo $\ell$ is a free exterior algebra on generators in degrees $ 3, \dots, (2d-1)$. Fix such generators – call them $\nu_3, \nu_5, \dots$. Each $\eta_i$ is also an element of this Hecke-trivial cohomology by Lemma \[lem:HTriv\]. It follows that $$\eta_i = \mbox{ unit} \cdot \nu_i + \left( \mbox{ product of $\nu_j$s with $j < i$}\right)$$ because otherwise the cup product $\eta_3 \cup \dots \cup \eta_{2d-1}$ would be trivial. We conclude that, in fact, the map $$\label{sarge000} H^*(\mathbf{G}(\mathbf{F}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell) \rightarrow H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)_{{\mathrm{triv}}}$$ is [*onto*]{} as required. Therefore, to prove Lemma \[pairs\] it is sufficient to prove (a)–(d) above.
Verification of (d) from §\[abcd\]
----------------------------------
Since we are supposing to be a surjection in degrees up to $d^2$, it’s enough to verify that there is a nonzero $M \in \mathbf{C}$ such that $$\label{Fr} \langle \iota_* [Y(K)], \omega \rangle = M \langle \left( [a_3]* \dots * [a_{2d-1}] \right)^{(N)}, \omega \rangle$$ whenever $\omega$ is an invariant differential form on ${\mathrm{GL}}_N({\mathbf{C}})$. We compute in the case (see for the definition): $$\omega = \Omega_J = \Omega_{j_1} \wedge \dots \wedge \Omega_{j_t}$$ where $J = \{j_1, \dots, j_t\}$, and show that both sides are nonzero if and only if $J=\{3, 5, \dots, 2d-1\}$. That is enough to prove .
The right hand side of equals $$\label{KPd} \langle [a_3]* \dots * [a_{2d-1}] , \omega^{(\infty)} \rangle = \langle [a_3] \otimes \dots \otimes [a_{2d-1}], \mathrm{coproduct}(\omega^{(\infty)}) \rangle,$$ where we allow ourselves to write $\omega^{(\infty)} \in H^*({\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}(\mathcal{O}_F), {\mathbf{C}})$ for the stabilization of the cohomology class corresponding to $\omega$. Now ${\mathrm{coprod}}(\omega^{(\infty)} ) $ is the product of various terms of the shape $$\left( \Omega_{j_1} \otimes 1 \otimes 1 \otimes \dots 1 + 1 \otimes \Omega_{j_1} \otimes 1 \otimes \dots \otimes 1 + \dots \right)^{(\infty)}$$ and from this we see (just for degree reasons) that the term on the right of vanishes if there is even one $j_i$ larger than $2d-1$ or one $j_i$ equal to $1$. So $J \subset \{3, \dots, 2d-1\}$. Again, for degree reasons, equality must hold. That shows the right-hand side is zero unless $J=\{3, 5, \dots, 2d-1\}$. When $J=\{3, 5, \dots, 2d-1\}$, the right-hand side becomes $$\langle a_3, \Omega_3 \rangle \cdot \langle a_5, \Omega_5 \rangle \dots \langle a_{2d-1}, \Omega_{2d-1} \rangle$$ and each factor $\langle a_j, \Omega_j \rangle$ is nonzero: this is the nontriviality of the Borel regulator.
Now let us examine the left-hand side of , which equals $\langle [Y(K)], \iota^* \Omega_{j_1} \wedge \dots \wedge \iota^* \Omega_{j_d} \rangle$. It’s easy to see that $\iota^* \Omega_1$ vanishes. We also claim that $\iota^* \Omega_j$ must vanish for $j > 2d-1$. Indeed we claim that $\iota^* \Omega_j$, which defines an invariant form on $Y(K)$ and thus corresponds by to an invariant differential form in the cohomology of $\mathrm{SU}_d$, is [*primitive*]{} as such. For that consider this diagram: $$\xymatrix{
\mbox{invariant forms on ${\mathrm{SL}}_N({\mathbf{C}})/\mathrm{SU}_N$} \ar[r] \ar[d] & \mbox{invariant forms on $\mathbf{G}({\mathbf{C}})/SU_d$} \ \ar[d] \\
\mbox{$\mathrm{SU}_N$-invariant forms on $i \mathfrak{su}_N$} \ar[r]\ar[d] & \mbox{$SU_d$-invariant forms on $i \mathfrak{su}_d$} \ar[d] . \\
H^*(\mathrm{SU}_N) \ar[r] & H^*(SU_d).
}$$ where the various maps of groups arise from the map $\iota$ of , and the top vertical maps arise by restriction to the tangent space of the identity coset. In other words, the element of $H^*(\mathrm{SU}_d)$ corresponding to $\iota^* \Omega_j$ is just the pull-back of the element of $H^*(\mathrm{U}_N)$ corresponding to $\Omega_j$ under the group homomorphism $$\varphi: SU_d \rightarrow U_N$$ induced by $\iota$. In particular, $\varphi^* \Omega_j$ is also primitive.
This shows that the left-hand side of vanishes unless $J=\{3, 5, \dots, 2d-1\}$. We must still check that it is actually nonvanishing in this case. For this, we must show that $\iota^*( \Omega_3 \wedge \dots \Omega_{2d-1}) $ is nonvanishing, equivalently that $$\varphi^* \Omega_3 \wedge \dots \wedge \varphi^* \Omega_{2d-1}$$ is a nonvanishing element of the cohomology of $\mathrm{SU}_d$. Since each $\varphi^* \Omega_j$ is primitive it is enough to see that they are all nonzero. The $N$-dimensional representation of $\mathrm{SU}_d$ defined by $\varphi$ is isomorphic to the sum of many copies of the standard representation of $\mathrm{SU}_d$. Now one can just compute explicitly with .
Verification of (b) and (c) from §\[abcd\]
------------------------------------------
In words, what we have to do is produce elements $\theta_i \in H^i({\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}(\mathbf{F}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)$ for each odd $3 \leq i \leq 2d-1$; these $\theta_i$ should detect (pair nontrivially with) a generator of $K_i(\mathbf{F}_v)$, and the cup product $\theta_3 \cup \dots \cup \theta_{2d-1}$ should detect the Pontryagin product of the homology classes associated to those generators. Then we may take $\xi_i = \theta_i^{(N)} \in H^i({\mathrm{GL}}_N(\mathbf{F}_v))$.
Quillen shows a natural choice for $\theta_i$: an equivariant Chern class derived from the standard representation of ${\mathrm{GL}}_N$. In other words, write $G = {\mathrm{GL}}_N(\mathbf{F}_v)$ and write $\Gamma$ for the Galois group of $\mathbf{F}_v$. The standard representation of ${\mathrm{GL}}_N$ can be considered a $G$-equivariant vector bundle on $\mathrm{Spec}(\mathbf{F}_v)$, and thus we get a Chern class $$c_{2i} \in H^{2i}_{G, {\mathrm{et}}}({\mathrm{Spec}}\mathbf{F}_v , {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell(i)) \rightarrow H^1_{{\mathrm{et}}}({\mathrm{Spec}}\mathbf{F}_v, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell(i)) \otimes H^{2i-1}(G, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)$$ where on the left we have equivariant etale cohomology, and on the right we have usual etale cohomology; the arrow is explicated in [@Soule II.1.2, Lemma 1]. We may identify the [é]{}tale cohomlogy of $\mathbf{F}_v$ with the (continuous) group cohomology of $\Gamma$, and here $\Gamma$ is acting trivially on $\mu_{\ell}$, and so $H^1({\mathrm{Spec}}\ \mathbf{F}_v, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell(i)) = H^1(\Gamma, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell(i))$ is identified with simply $\mu_{\ell}^{\otimes i}$. Fix a generator $\alpha$ for $\mu_{\ell}$. Thus the image of $c_{2i}$ is of the form $\alpha^i \otimes \theta_{2i-1}$, for some $\theta_{2i-1} \in H^{2i-1}(G, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)$. Similarly we can map $c_{2i}$ into $H^0(\Gamma, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell(i)) \otimes H^{2i}(G, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)$; in that way we get a class $\theta_{2i}' \in H^{2i}(G, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)$ so that the image of $c_{2i}$ is $\alpha^i \otimes \theta_{2i}'$. The class $c_{2i}$ gives a morphism ( the “Soul[é]{} Chern class”) $$\label{Soule} s: H_{2i-1}(G, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell) \rightarrow H^1(\Gamma, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell(i))$$ which sends $\lambda \in H_{2i-1}$ to $\langle \theta_{2i-1}, \lambda \rangle \alpha^{\otimes i}$.
These constructions are “stable” under increasing $N$ – see [@Soule p. 257] – and so we can consider $\theta_{2i-1}, \theta_{2i}'$ as classes in $H^*({\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}(\mathbf{F}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)$, and the Soul[é]{} map as a map $H_{2i-1}({\mathrm{GL}}_{\infty}(\mathbf{F}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell) \rightarrow H^1(\Gamma, {\mathbf{Z}}/\ell(i))$.
Now Soul[é]{} Chern class is known to be surjective when precomposed with $K_{2i-1} \rightarrow H_{2i-1}$ ([@Soule Prop. 5, p 284]) (so long as $i < \ell$ – true by assumption on $\ell$). This immediately verifies property (b), that is to say if we fix a generator $b_{2i-1}$ for $K_{2i-1}(\mathbf{F}_v)$ with associated homology class $[b_{2i-1}]$ we have $$0 \neq s([b_{2i-1}]) = \langle \theta_{2i-1}, [b_{2i-1}] \rangle \alpha^{\otimes i}$$ so $\langle \theta_{2i-1}, [b_{2i-1}] \rangle \neq 0$ as desired.
To compute e.g. $\langle \theta_3 \cup \theta_5 \cup \theta_7, [b_3] * [b_5] * [b_7] \rangle $ we rewrite it as $$\label{todo}
= \langle {\mathrm{coprod}}(\theta_3) {\mathrm{coprod}}(\theta_5) {\mathrm{coprod}}(\theta_7), b_3 \otimes b_5 \otimes b_7 \rangle$$
Let us note that each $[b_i]$ is primitive in homology – i.e. $\langle [b_i], \alpha \cup \beta \rangle = 0$ if $\alpha, \beta$ are cohomology classes both in positive degree. This is because $[b_i]$ comes from the image of the Hurewicz map $\pi_i \rightarrow H_i$, so we can just pull back to the sphere $S^i$ and compute.
Quillen has shown [@QuillenFp Proposition 2] (see also [@QuillenFp Remark 2, p.569]) that the coproduct of (e.g.) $\theta_7$ equals $${\mathrm{coprod}}( \theta_7)= \underbrace{\theta_0'}_{1} \otimes \theta_7 + \theta_2' \otimes \theta_5 + \theta_4' \otimes \theta_3 +\theta_6' \otimes \theta_1 + \mbox{symmetric terms}.$$ Thus, when we take the product ${\mathrm{coprod}}(\theta_3) {\mathrm{coprod}}(\theta_5) {\mathrm{coprod}}(\theta_7)$, we get a sum of several terms; because of the [*primitivity*]{} of $[b_i]$ just noted, the only terms that contribute to will be those coming from [$$(1 \otimes 1 \otimes \theta_3 + 1 \otimes \theta_3 \otimes 1+ \theta_3 \otimes 1 \otimes 1) (1 \otimes 1 \otimes \theta_5 + 1 \otimes \theta_5 \otimes 1+ \theta_5 \otimes 1 \otimes 1)
(1 \otimes 1 \otimes \theta_7 + 1 \otimes \theta_7 \otimes 1+ \theta_7 \otimes 1 \otimes 1)$$]{} and the only term of these with degree $3,5,7$ in the first, second and third factors is $\theta_3 \otimes \theta_5 \otimes \theta_7$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\langle \theta_3 \cup \theta_5 \cup \theta_7, [b_3] * [b_5] * [b_7] \rangle &=& \langle \theta_3 \otimes \theta_5 \otimes \theta_7, [b_3] \otimes [b_5] \otimes [b_7] \rangle \\ &=& \prod \langle \theta_{3},[b_3] \rangle \langle \theta_5, [b_5] \rangle \langle \theta_7, [b_7] \rangle \neq 0 \end{aligned}$$ which gives (c) in the case $d=4$; the general case is the same.
Verification of (a) from §\[abcd\] {#sec:Chebo}
----------------------------------
Write $\mathcal{O}' = \mathcal{O}[1/\ell]$. The Soul[é]{} maps from fit in a commutative diagram $$\xymatrix{
K_{2i-1}(\mathcal{O}') \ar[r] \ar[d] & K_{2i-1}(\mathbf{F}_v) \ar[d] \\
H^1(\Gamma, {\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}(i)) \ar[r] & H^1(\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{\mathbf{F}_v}/\mathbf{F}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}(i)) .
}$$ where $\Gamma$ is now the Galois group of the maximal unramified extension of $\mathcal{O}'$ ; note that $\mathcal{O} \rightarrow \mathcal{O}'$ induces an isomorphism on $K_{2i-1}$ for $i > 1$. The right-hand vertical arrow is an isomorphism for $i <\ell$ (Soul[é]{}, [*loc. cit.*]{}) , and the left-hand vertical arrow is a surjection (see [@Kahn]).
The map $H^1(\Gamma, {\mathbf{Z}}_{\ell}(i))/\ell \rightarrow H^1(\Gamma, \mathbf{F}_{\ell}(i))$ is an injection. Choose an element $a_{2i-1} \in K_{2i-1}(\mathcal{O}')$ whose image in $ H^1(\Gamma, \mathbf{F}_{\ell}(i))$ is nonzero (note that $H^1(\Gamma, \mathbf{F}_{\ell}(i))$ is nonzero, by computing Euler characteristic). A nontrivial class in $H^1(\Gamma, \mathbf{F}_{\ell}(i))$ is represented by a nontrivial extension $$\label{exli} \mathbf{F}_{\ell}(i) \rightarrow M \rightarrow \mathbf{F}_{\ell},$$ in other words, by a homomorphism $\Gamma \rightarrow {\mathrm{GL}}_2({\mathbf{Z}}/\ell)$ of the form $$\left( \begin{array}{cc} \omega^i & \rho \\ 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)$$ Note that the image of this homomorphism must have size divisible by $\ell$; for otherwise the extension splits. By Chebotarev density, we may find infinitely many Frobenius elements $\mathrm{Frob}_v$ which map to $$\left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 1 \\ 0 & 1 \end{array}\right)$$ which implies that the restriction of the extension class to $H^1(\mathbf{F}_v, \mathbf{F}_{\ell}(i))$ is nontrivial.
In other words, the image of $a_{2i-1}$ in $H^1(\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{\mathbf{F}_v}/\mathbf{F}_v), \mathbf{F}_{\ell}(i)) $, and so also in $K_{2i-1}/\ell$, is nontrivial for finitely many $v$. This proves our assertion.
Setup for patching {#Patching}
==================
We continue in a global setting, but now turn to the study of tempered cohomology. This study will occupy most of the remainder of the paper (§\[Patching\] – §\[reciprocity\]).
In the current section (§\[Patching\]) we will set up the various assumptions needed, and in the next section (§\[Patching2\]) we will use the relationship between the Taylor–Wiles method and the derived Hecke algebra (outlined in §\[sec:explication\]) to prove our target theorem, Theorem \[mindegreeproof\]: it says the global derived Hecke algebra actually is big enough to be able to account for the degree spread of cohomology.
In §\[reciprocity\] we will explain how to index elements of the global derived Hecke algebra by a Selmer group, and use this to formulate our main Conjecture \[mainconjecture\].
A few apologies are in order:
- We switch notation slightly, working with mod $p^n$ coefficients rather than mod $\ell^n$, to better make contact with the standard presentations of Galois representations and the Taylor-Wiles method.
- We have made no attempt to optimize the method for small primes, and in particular make rather strong assumptions; in particular, we assume both that we are in the “minimal case” of formally smooth local deformation rings, and that the Hecke ring at base level is isomorphic to ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$ (no congruences).
Assumptions {#Sec:assumptions}
-----------
1. Our general notations are as in §\[sec:notn\], but we now specialize to the case that the number field $F$ is ${\mathbf{Q}}$, and that $\mathbf{G}$ is a [*simply connected*]{} semisimple ${\mathbf{Q}}$-group. Recall we have fixed a Borel subgroup $\mathbf{B}$ and a maximal torus $\mathbf{A}$ contained inside $\mathbf{B}$.
2. We fix a level structure $K_0 \subset \mathbf{G}({\mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{f}}})$, the “base level.” We write $$Y(1)=Y(K_0)$$ for the arithmetic manifold () of level $K_0$. We sometimes refer to this as the “level $1$” arithmetic manifold even though it is not literally so.
3. Let $\Pi$ be a tempered cohomological automorphic cuspidal representation for $\mathbf{G}$, factorizing as $\Pi = \Pi_{\infty} \otimes \Pi_f$ over archimedean and finite places. We suppose that $\Pi^{K_0} \neq 0$, so that $\Pi$ actually contributes to the cohomology of $Y(1)$.
4. We write $\mathbb{T}_{K_0}$ for the Hecke algebra at level $K_0$. It will be convenient to follow the definition of [@KT] and define this in a derived sense: Consider the chain complex of $Y(K_0)$, with ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$ coefficients, as an object in the derived category of ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$-modules; each (prime to the level) Hecke operator gives an endomorphism of this object. Define $\mathbb{T}_{K_0}$ to be the ring generated by such endomorphisms. This has the advantage that $\mathbb{T}_{K_0}$ acts on cohomology with any coefficients.
We may similarly form the Hecke algebra $\mathbb{T}_K$ at a deeper level $K \subset K_0$; unless specified, it will be generated only by Hecke operators at good primes for $K$.
5. We shall suppose that the coefficient field of $\Pi$ is ${\mathbf{Q}}$, for simplicity – by this, we mean that the eigenvalues of Hecke correspondences at all good places for $K_0$ lie in ${\mathbf{Q}}$, or equivalently the underlying representation $\Pi_v$ has a ${\mathbf{Q}}$-rational structure for all such $v$. Under this assumption, $\Pi$ gives rise to a ring homomorphism $$\label{oort} \mathbb{T}_{K_0} \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}.$$
6. Let $T$ be the set of ramified places for $\Pi$, together with any places at which $K_0$ is not hyperspecial.
7. Write $$k ={\mathbf{Z}}/p{\mathbf{Z}}$$ and fix an algebraic closure $\overline{k}$ for $k$ where $p > 5$ is a prime such that:
- $H^*(Y(K_0), {\mathbf{Z}})$ is $p$-torsion free.
- $p$ does not divide the order of the Weyl group of ${\mathbf{G}}$.
- “No congruences between $\Pi$ and other forms at level $K_0$:”
Consider the composite homomorphism $$\label{chi_def} \chi: \mathbb{T}_{K_0} \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p \rightarrow k,$$ where the first map is the action on $\Pi$, and the second map the obvious one. Let $\mathfrak{m} = \ker(\chi) $ be its kernel. We shall require that the induced map of completions is an [*isomorphism*]{}: $$\label{nocong0} \mathbb{T}_{K_0, \mathfrak{m}} \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} {\mathbf{Z}}_p$$ and moreover we shall assume the vanishing of completed homology: $$\label{nocong2} H_j(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}} = 0, j \notin [{\mathsf{q}}, {\mathsf{q}}+\delta].$$ Observe that in favorable situations implies , and both should be true for all large enough $p$ – see the Remark below for a further discussion. Informally, and enforce that there are no congruences, modulo $p$, between $\Pi$ and other cohomological forms at level $K_0$.
Note that the definitions of $\chi, \mathfrak{m}$ make sense at any level. Thus we use the notation $\chi, \mathfrak{m}$ sometimes for the corresponding notions for other level structures $Y(K)$, where $K \subset K_0$.
8. We put $${S}= T \cup \{p\},$$ the collection of all primes that we have to worry about.
We expect that 7(c) should be automatically valid for $p$ sufficiently large; in practice, for the purposes of this paper, it is not an onerous assumption (the minimal level conditions, enforced in (e) of §\[GaloisAss\], is more restrictive).
We give a proof that 7(c) is valid for all large enough $p$, for $\mathbf{G}$ an inner form of $\mathrm{SL}_n$ such that $Y(K)$ is compact. It is likely this can be generalized to other settings, with more work. In what follows, denote by $\mathbb{T}_{K_0}$ the Hecke algebra defined as above, but with ${\mathbf{Z}}$ coefficients; this is easily seen to be finitely generated over ${\mathbf{Z}}$. Firstly, the algebra $\mathbb{T}_{K_0} \otimes {\mathbf{C}}$ is semisimple, because it acts faithfully on $H^*(Y(K_0), {\mathbf{C}})$ and this action is semisimple (there is an invariant metric on harmonic forms). Thus, for all large enough primes $p$, $\mathbb{T}_{K_0}$ is [é]{}tale over $\mathbf{Z}$ and thus must be valid. If the homology in is nonvanishing, then there exists an eigenclass for $\mathbb{T}_{K_0}$ on $H_j$ whose character factors through $\mathbb{T}_{K_0, \mathfrak{m}}$; by , this character must coincide with the action of $\mathbb{T}_{K_0}$ on $\Pi$. In other words, the Hecke eigensystem associated to $\Pi$ occurs in degree $j$. This eigensystem corresponds to an automorphic representation $\Pi'$ such that $\Pi'_v = \Pi_v$ for almost all $v$. By the strong multiplicity one theorem for $\mathbf{GL}_n$, this implies that $\Pi'_{\infty}$ is tempered cuspidal, and then it has nonvanishing $(\mathfrak{g}, K)$ cohomology only in degrees $[{\mathsf{q}}, {\mathsf{q}}+\delta]$.
That’s the basic setup; now for Galois representations.
Assumptions about Galois representations; the deformation ring ${\mathrm{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}}$ {#GaloisAss}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We will make exactly the assumptions of [@GV Conjecture 6.1]. We briefly summarize them and refer the reader to [@GV] for full details:
Let $K \subset K_0$ be a deeper level structure, $\mathbb{T}_K$ be as above, and let $\mathbb{T}_K \rightarrow k$ be as in : the map associated to the fixed automorphic representation $\Pi$, reduced modulo $p$. Let $\mathfrak{m}$ be the kernel of $\mathbb{T}_K \rightarrow k$, and $\mathbb{T}_{K,\mathfrak{m}}$ the completion of $\mathbb{T}_K$ at $\mathfrak{m}$. We require there to exist a Galois representation[^8] $$\tilde{\rho}: \mathrm{Gal}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}/{\mathbf{Q}}) \longrightarrow G^{\vee}(\mathbb{T}_{K, \mathfrak{m}})$$ with the following properties:
- (Unramified compatibility): Fix a representation $\tau$ of $G^{\vee}$. For all primes $q$ not dividing the level of $K$, the representation $\rho$ is unramified at $q$, and the action of $\mathrm{trace}(\tau \circ \tilde{\rho})(\mathrm{Frob}_q) \in \mathbb{T}_{K, \mathfrak{m}}$ coincides with the image of the (Satake)-associated Hecke operator $T_{q, \tau}$.
- Let ${\overline{\rho}}$ be the reduction modulo $p$ of $\tilde{\rho}$, so that $${\overline{\rho}}: {\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}/{\mathbf{Q}}) \rightarrow G^{\vee}(k).$$ Then ${\overline{\rho}}$ has big image: when restricted to the Galois group of ${\mathbf{Q}}(\zeta_{p^{\infty}})$, the image of ${\overline{\rho}}$ contains the image of the $k$-points of the simply connected cover of $G^{\vee}$.
- (Vague version: see [@GV Conjecture 6.1] for precise formulation): There is a reasonable notion of “crystalline at $p$” representation into $G^{\vee}$, and the representation $\tilde{\rho}$ is “crystalline at $p$.”
- (Vague version: see [@GV Conjecture 6.1] and references therein for precise version): The representation $\tilde{\rho}$ satisfies the expected local constraints (“local–global compatibility”) when restricted to ${\mathbf{Q}}_{q}$; here $q$ is a Taylor–Wiles prime (§\[TWprimes stuff\]) that divides the level of $K$. We [*also*]{} assume a natural version of local global compatibility at Iwahori level $Y_0(q)$, formulated before Lemma \[needaref\].
- “‘All local deformation rings are all formally smooth:’’ we suppose that $$H^0({\mathbf{Q}}_q, {\mathrm{Ad}}{\overline{\rho}}) = H^2({\mathbf{Q}}_q, {\mathrm{Ad}}{\overline{\rho}})=0 \ \ \ \mbox{ for all } q \in {S}= T \cup \{p\}.$$ This means that the local deformation ring of ${\overline{\rho}}$ at primes $q \in T$ is isomorphic to ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$, [*and*]{} the local deformation ring of ${\overline{\rho}}$ at $q=p$ is formally smooth. This keeps our notation as light as possible. (We also use the formal smoothness to squeeze the most out of the Taylor–Wiles method, but probably one can get something without it.)
In particular, the natural map $\mathbb{T}_{K_0,\mathfrak{m}} \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p$ of gives rise to a Galois representation valued in $G^{\vee}({\mathbf{Z}}_p)$, which we shall just call $\rho$: $$\label{Zplift} \rho: {\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}/{\mathbf{Q}}) \longrightarrow G^{\vee}({\mathbf{Z}}_p),$$ which of course lifts the residual representation: $${\overline{\rho}}: {\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}/{\mathbf{Q}}) \longrightarrow G^{\vee}(k).$$ Let ${\mathrm{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}}$ be the universal crystalline deformation ring of ${\overline{\rho}}$, allowing ramification only at the set ${S}$. Good references for deformation rings are [@CHT] or [@AWS].
Let us now set up notations for Taylor–Wiles primes.
Taylor–Wiles primes and auxiliary level structures {#TWprimes stuff}
--------------------------------------------------
A [*Taylor-Wiles prime*]{} of level $n$ is a prime $q$ (we will also occasionally use the letter $\ell$), not dividing the level of $K_0$, such that:
- $p^n$ divides $q-1$, and
- ${\overline{\rho}}({\mathrm{Frob}}_q)$ is conjugate to a strongly regular element of $T^{\vee}(k)$.
Here an element $t \in T^{\vee}(k)$ is [*strongly regular*]{} if its centralizer inside $G^{\vee}$ is equal to $T^{\vee}$.
We are really interested in systems of such primes, and it is useful to keep track of the strongly regular element as part of the data. Fix once and for all a sufficiently large integer $s$. We will work with collections of such primes of cardinality $s$, which we call Taylor–Wiles data:
- A [*Taylor-Wiles datum*]{} of level $n$ is a set of primes $Q_n = (q_1, \dots, q_s)$ together with strongly regular elements $({\mathrm{Frob}}_{q_1}^T, \dots, {\mathrm{Frob}}_{q_s}^T) \in T^{\vee}(k)$ such that
- $p^{n}$ divides $q_i-1$, and
- ${\overline{\rho}}({\mathrm{Frob}}_{q_i})$ is conjugate to ${\mathrm{Frob}}_{q_i}^T$.
We will usually use $q$ to denote a typical element of a Taylor–Wiles set of primes, but occasionally we will also use the letter $\ell$. Note that the set of possible choices for each ${\mathrm{Frob}}_{q_i}^T$ has size $|W|$, the order of the Weyl group.
- Let $r$ be the rank of the maximal torus ${\mathbf{A}}$. Set $$\label{Tsdef} R=rs, \ \ \ T^{\vee}_s = (T^{\vee})^s, \ \ \ \ W_s = W^s$$ thus $T^{\vee}_s$ is a torus and $R$ is the rank of $T^{\vee}_s$, and $W_s$ acts on $T^{\vee}_s$.
- Level structures: If $q \notin {S}$ is prime, we denote by $$\label{Y0ldef} Y_0(q) \rightarrow Y(1)$$ the covering obtained by adding Iwahori level structure at $q$, i.e. we replace $K_0$ by the preimage of a Borel subgroup under $K_0 \rightarrow {\mathbf{G}}({\mathbf{F}}_{q})$. Similarly, we get $Y_1(q)$ by taking the preimage of a unipotent radical of a Borel subgroup under the same mapping. The covering $Y_1(q) \rightarrow Y_0(q)$ is “Galois,” with Galois group $ \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{F}_{q}) \simeq (\mathbf{F}_{q}^{\times})^r$.
Suppose that $p^{n}$ divides $q-1$. In that case, define $Y_1(q,n) $ to be the unique subcovering of $Y_1(q) \rightarrow Y_0(q)$ such that the covering $Y_1(q, n) \rightarrow Y_0(q)$ has covering group $({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)^{r}$. In summary: $$\label{Y1def} \overbrace{ Y_1(q) \rightarrow \underbrace{ Y_1(q, n) \rightarrow Y_0(q)}_{\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{F}_{q})/p^n \simeq ({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)^{r}}}^{ \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{F}_{q}) \simeq (\mathbf{F}_{q}^{\times})^{r}}$$
- For a Taylor–Wiles datum $Q_n$ of level $n$, we let $Y_1^*(Q_n)$ be the fiber-product, over $Y(1)$, of all the coverings $Y_1(q_i,n) \rightarrow Y(1)$. Similarly we define $Y_0(Q_n)$. Therefore, $Y_1^*(Q_n) \rightarrow Y_0(Q_n)$ is Galois; we write $$\label{idontcare} T_n = \left( \mbox{ Galois group of $Y_1^*(Q_n) \rightarrow Y(1)$ } \right) = \prod_{q \in Q_n} \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{F}_q)/p^n,$$ thus we have (non-canonically) $$\label{identifT} T_n \simeq ({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)^R.$$
As a shorthand we write $$H_*(Q_n, S) := H_*(Y_1^*(Q_n), S)$$ where $S$ is a ring of coefficients.
Rings of diamond operators {#sec:diamond}
--------------------------
We now set up the rings that are generated by “diamond operators,” i.e. the deck transformation groups of our various coverings $Y_1^*(Q_n) \rightarrow Y_0(Q_n)$. Continuing with the notation of the prior section, put $$\label{sndef} S_n = {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[T_n], \ \ S_n' = {\mathbf{Z}}_p [T_n],$$ so these act on the ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ and ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$-valued chain complex of $Y_1^*(Q_n)$. Fixing, as in , an isomorphism of $T_n$ with $({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)^R$, we can identify this ring as follows. $$\label{explicit} S_n \simeq {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[x_1, \dots, x_R]/( (1+x_i)^{p^N}-1).$$ where $x_i = [e_i]- [1]$, $e_i$ being a generator of the $i$th factor ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ under the isomorphism . Recall $R=rs$ as in .
Finally we form a “limit ring” $$\label{Sinfdef} {\mathsf{S}}:= {\mathbf{Z}}_p[[x_1, \dots, x_R]]$$
The presentation gives rise to obvious maps $ {\mathsf{S}}\twoheadrightarrow S_n$ and (compatible) augmentations of ${\mathsf{S}}$ and $S_n$ to ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$ and ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ respectively, carrying all the $x_i$ variables to zero; we denote by ${\mathsf{I}}$ and $I_n$ the corresponding kernels, so that ${\mathsf{S}}/{\mathsf{I}}\simeq {\mathbf{Z}}_p$ and $S_n/I_n \simeq {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$. We need the following easy Lemma:
Let notations be as above. The natural map $$\label{toinfinity} {\mathrm{Ext}}^*_{S_n }({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \rightarrow {\mathrm{Ext}}^*_{{\mathsf{S}}/p^n}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$$ (change of rings) is [*surjective*]{}. Also, the natural map $$\label{corfunct} {\mathrm{Ext}}^*_{{\mathsf{S}}/p^n}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \rightarrow {\mathrm{Ext}}^*_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathbf{Z}}_p, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$$ (change of ring, and functoriality of ${\mathrm{Ext}}$ in the first argument) is an isomorphism.
Recall that the change of ring map ${\mathrm{Ext}}_B \rightarrow {\mathrm{Ext}}_A$ induced by a ring map $A \rightarrow B$ can be realized by thinking of ${\mathrm{Ext}}_B$ in terms of extensions of $B$-modules, and then just regarding it as an extension of $A$-modules.
For , it is sufficient to check surjectivity on ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1$ because the right hand side is generated by ${\mathrm{Ext}}^0, {\mathrm{Ext}}^1$: it can be computed to be an exterior algebra using a Koszul resolution, see Lemma \[KoszulExtComputation\]. Now “morally speaking” this is because it is the pullback on group $H^1(-, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ induced by ${\mathbf{Z}}_p^R \rightarrow ({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)^R$, but this is not a real proof (at least without discussing the relation between cohomology of profinite groups, and ${\mathrm{Ext}}$s over the corresponding “completed” group algebra).
So we just compute both sides by using the compatible (under ${\mathsf{S}}/p^n \rightarrow S_n$) sequences $I_n \rightarrow S_n \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ and ${\mathsf{I}}/p^n \rightarrow {\mathsf{S}}/p^n \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$; taking homomorphisms into ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$, we get $$\label{coocoo} {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{S_n}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \simeq {\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}(I_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \left( \simeq {\mathrm{Hom}}(I_n/I_n^2, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \right)$$ and similar. (Note that the image of ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}(S_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ in ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}(I_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ is zero.)
So we need to check that the map $$\label{godot} {\mathsf{I}}/p^n \rightarrow I_n$$ induces an isomorphism when we take ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}(-, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$.
The homomorphisms ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}(I_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ are precisely given by homomorphisms $\varphi: T_n \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$, namely, we send $x_i = [e_i] -1 \in I_n$ to $\varphi(e_i)$, using the notation after . Since ${\mathsf{I}}/(p^n, {\mathsf{I}}^2)$ is a free ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ module on $x_1, \dots, x_{R}$, it follows at once that induces an isomorphism as desired.
Now we discuss , which is not hard but we spell it out, mainly to be clear because I find change of rings confusing. Let $\pi: P \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p$ be the Koszul resolution of ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$ as an ${\mathsf{S}}$-module, and $\overline{P} = P/p^n$ its reduction mod $p^n$, so that $\overline{\pi}: \overline{P} \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ is the Koszul resolution of ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ as an ${\mathsf{S}}/p^n$-module. There is an identification ${\mathrm{Ext}}^*_{{\mathsf{S}}/p^n}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ with the cohomology of ${\mathrm{Hom}}(\overline{P}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$; it sends a closed element $C \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(\overline{P}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[m])$ to the class $\alpha \in {\mathrm{Ext}}^m_{{\mathsf{S}}/p^n}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ represented by the diagram ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n \stackrel{\overline{\pi}}{\longleftarrow} \overline{P} \stackrel{C}{\rightarrow} {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[m]$ in the derived category of ${\mathsf{S}}/p^n$-modules (one can invert quasi-isomorphisms in the derived category).
Consider now the diagram $$\label{feeling_groovy0}
\xymatrix{
{\mathbf{Z}}/p^n & \overline{P} \ar[l]^{\sim}_{ \overline{\pi}} \ar[r]^C & {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[m] \\
{\mathbf{Z}}_p \ar[u]^{A} & \ar[l]^{\sim}_{\pi} P \ar[l] \ar[u]^B \\
}$$ where $\sim$ means quasi-isomorphism; $A,B$ are the natural projections.
Now, the image $\alpha' \in {\mathrm{Ext}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathbf{Z}}_p, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ of $\alpha$, under the map , is represented by the map $C \circ \overline{\pi}^{-1} \circ A$ inside the derived category of ${\mathsf{S}}$-modules, equivalently, by the composition $C \circ B \circ \pi^{-1}$. In other words, the image $\alpha'$ of $\alpha$ is represented by the class $C' \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(P, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[m])$ obtained by pulling back $ C \in {\mathrm{Hom}}(\overline{P}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[m])$ via $P \rightarrow \overline{P}$. That pullback induces an isomorphism of complexes $${\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}/p^n}(\overline{P}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \simeq {\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}(P, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n),$$ and thus, passing to cohomology, the desired isomorphism of ${\mathrm{Ext}}$-groups.
Adding level $q$ structure: The relationship between homology at level $Y(1)$ and level $Y_0(q)$ {#Morita}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fix a prime $q$ that doesn’t divide the level of $K_0$, satisfying $q \equiv 1$ modulo $p^n$. This section and the next two §\[Morita\], §\[HYln\], §\[Lgcompat\] all gather some “standard” properties of passing level $1$ and level $q$, working with ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$-cohomology. We remind the reader that “level $1$” does not literally mean level $1$, but just the base level $K_0$ at which we work.
In the current section, we discuss the relationship between the homology of $Y(1)$ and $Y_0(q)$; recall that $Y_0(q)$ was obtained by adding Iwahori level at $q$ (see ).
We can use the discussion of §\[IwahoriHecke\]: For $S={\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$, let $\mathrm{H}_I, \mathrm{H}_K$ and so on be the (usual, i.e. no “derived”!) Hecke algebras for $(G_{q}, K_{q})$, with $S$-coefficients and let $\mathrm{H}_{IK}, \mathrm{H}_{KI}$ be the bimodules previously defined in §\[Iwahori\]. There are natural maps $$\label{juin} H^*(Y(1),S) \otimes_{\mathrm{H}_{K}} \mathrm{H}_{KI} \longrightarrow H^*(Y_0(q),S),$$ $$\ \ H^*(Y_0(q),S) \otimes_{\mathrm{H}_{I}} \mathrm{H}_{IK} \longrightarrow H^*(Y(1),S).$$ These maps are defined by the “usual double coset formulas.” More formally, we may identify $\mathrm{H}_K$ with ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG_q} (S[G_q/K_q], S[G_q/K_q])$, $\mathrm{H}_{KI}$ with ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG_q}(S[G_q/K_q], S[G_q/I_q]$) and so forth; one may then proceed as in the discussion of §\[Arithmeticmanifolds\] to define the maps of .
Before we go further, let us formulate a natural notion of “local-global compatibility” at level $Y_0(q)$: the center of the Iwahori-Hecke algebra $\mathrm{H}_I$ at level $q$, which is identified (§\[Zdis\]) with the Hecke algebra $\mathrm{H}_K$. We shall suppose:
> (Local-global compatibility at level $Y_0(q)$:) $\mathrm{H}_K$, identified with the center of $\mathrm{H}_I$ as just explained, acts on $H_*(Y_0(q), k)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ by means of the same (generalized) eigencharacter $\mathrm{H}_K \rightarrow k$ by which $\mathrm{H}_K$ acts on $\Pi$.
It is feasible that this assumption could be avoided entirely but since it is very likely to be proven along with the other, more essential, local-global compatibility at Taylor-Wiles primes it seems harmless to assume it.
\[needaref\] Let notation be as above. For any prime $q$, the maps are isomorphisms when we localize away from the discriminant of . In particular, if $q$ is part of a Taylor-Wiles datum of level $n$, and we assume the local-global compatibility just mentioned, then induces $$\label{Twloc} H^*(Y_0(q), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}} \stackrel{\sim}{\longleftarrow} H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}} \otimes_{\mathrm{H}_K} \mathrm{H}_I,$$
We first verify that the second assertion follows from the first: if $q$ is part of a Taylor-Wiles datum of level $n$, the discriminant inside $\mathrm{H}_K$ is automatically invertible on $H^*(Y(1), k)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ and so also on $H^*(Y(1), S)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ (then the same assertions for $Y_0(q)$ by the local-global compatibility just discussed). We then get by “localization at $\mathfrak{m}$” (taking a little care because the Hecke algebra for $Y_0(q)$ and $Y(1)$ are not quite identically defined, the former omitting the prime above $q$).
To check these assertions about invertibility of the discriminant, observe that, by definition , the image of the discriminant under the map $\chi$ of is given by $$\prod_{\alpha} (1-\alpha^*) \mbox{ evaluated at }{\overline{\rho}}(\mathrm{Frob}_{q}) \in G^{\vee}(k)$$ (here $\alpha$ ranges over all roots of $G^{\vee}$, $\alpha^*$ is as defined in , and a priori $\prod (1-\alpha^*)$ is a function on $T^{\vee}$ but it then extends to a conjugation invariant function on $G^{\vee}$). Because of the assumed [*strong regularity*]{} (§\[TWprimes stuff\]) of the Frobenius at $q$, this is nonzero: $\alpha^*$ was defined in such a way that $\alpha^*({\overline{\rho}}({\mathrm{Frob}}_{q})) =1$ exactly when ${\overline{\rho}}({\mathrm{Frob}}_{q})$ is fixed by the $\alpha$-reflection.
So it is enough to prove the first assertion. Everything will be with ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ coefficients. First note that the two natural ways of making a map $$H^*(Y(1)) \otimes_{\mathrm{H}_K} \mathrm{H}_{KI} \otimes_{\mathrm{H}_I} \mathrm{H}_{IK} \longrightarrow H^*(Y(1)).$$ (i.e., first contracting the first two coordinates, or first contracting the second two coordinates) both coincide; similarly the other way around. We make the rest of the argument in a more abstract setting.
Suppose $R_{1}, R_2$ are two rings, and we are given an $(R_1, R_2)$-bimodule $M_{12}$ and an $(R_2,R_1)$-bimodule $M_{21}$, giving associated functors $$F(-) = - \otimes_{R_1} M_{12}, \ \ G(-) = - \otimes_{R_2} M_{21}$$ from (right) $R_1$-modules to (right) $R_2$-modules and vice versa, respectively.
We assume that $F,G$ define an equivalence of categories, i.e. there are natural equivalences from $FG$ to the identity functor and from $GF$ to the identity functor. (In our setting above $R_1=\mathrm{H}_K', R_2 = \mathrm{H}_I'$ – the primes denote localization away from the discriminant – and the bimodules are $\mathrm{H}_{KI}', \mathrm{H}_{IK}'$; the assumptions are satisfied by Lemma \[IHequivalence\].)
Next let $X$ be an $R_1$-module, let $Y$ be an $R_2$-module. (In our setting these are given by the localized homology of $Y(1)$ and $Y_0(q)$, respectively.) Suppose also we’re given maps $\alpha: F(X) \rightarrow Y, \ \beta: G(Y) \rightarrow X$ in such a way that the induced maps $$\label{oq} G(F(X)) \stackrel{G(\alpha)}{ \longrightarrow }G(Y) \stackrel{\beta}{\longrightarrow} X$$ $$\label{oq2} F(G(Y)) \stackrel{F(\beta)}{\longrightarrow} F(X) \stackrel{\alpha}{\longrightarrow } Y$$ arise from the specified maps $GF \rightarrow \mathrm{id}$ and $FG \rightarrow \mathrm{id}$.
Then the maps $F(X) \rightarrow Y$ and $G(Y) \rightarrow X$ must be surjections (by inspection of and ); then in the diagram $ G(F(X)) \rightarrow G(Y) \rightarrow X$ we have a composite of surjections giving an isomorphism, so both are isomorphisms; in particular, $G(Y) \rightarrow X$ and $F(X) \rightarrow Y$ must be isomorphisms.
Applied to our original context, this concludes the proof of the first assertion of the Lemma.
Note also that inside $\mathrm{H}_I$ we have a copy of the monoid algebra $k[X_*^+]$, namely, the action of “$U_{q}$-operators” $I_q \chi I_q$ for $\chi \in X_*^+$ (see for identification of $X_*$ with a coset space; $X_*^+$ is the positive cone corresponding to the Borel subgroup $\mathbf{B}$). Each element $t \in T^{\vee}(k)$ defines a character $\chi_t: k[X_*^+] \rightarrow k$ of this monoid algebra: $t$ corresponds (by “Local Langlands”, easy in this split case) to an unramified character $\mathbf{A}({\mathbf{Q}}_{q}) \rightarrow k^{\times}$, i.e. to a homomorphism $X_* \rightarrow k^{\times}$ and then we just take the linear extension $$\label{chitdef} \chi_{t}: k[X_*^+] \rightarrow k.$$ Using the previous Lemma, it is easy to compute the action of this monoid algebra:
\[MoritaCor\] Suppose that $q$ is part of a Taylor-Wiles datum. Then the generalized eigenvalues of $k[X_*^+]$ acting on $H^*(Y_0(q), k)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ are all of the form $\chi_{{\mathrm{Frob}}^T}$, where ${\mathrm{Frob}}^T \in T^{\vee}(k)$ is conjugate to the Frobenius at $q$, and the notation is defined in .
The corollary asserts just the usual relationship between “$T_{q}$ eigenvalues at level $1$ and $U_{q}$ eigenvalues at level $q$.” We will omit the proof; it follows from the prior Lemma and a straightforward computaiton.
Let $H^*(Y_0(q), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}, \chi_{{\mathrm{Frob}}^T}}$ be the summand of $H^*(Y_0(q), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ corresponding to the $\chi_{{\mathrm{Frob}}^T}$-eigenspace of $k[X_*^+]$. For later use, we note that there are natural isomorphisms $$\label{doubleprojremark} H^*(Y_0(q), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}, \chi_{{\mathrm{Frob}}^T}} \rightleftharpoons H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$$ which are inverses to one another – the map from left to right is the pushforward $\pi_*$, and in the other direction we have the pullback $\pi^*$ together with projection to the $\chi_{{\mathrm{Frob}}^T}$ eigenspace.
To see these are inverses we compute in $\mathrm{H}_{I}$: with reference to the actions of , the forward (pushforward) map corresponds to $e_K \in \mathrm{H}_{IK}$, and the reverse map corresponds to $|W| e_K q \in \mathrm{H}_{KI}$ where $q \in S[X_*^+]$ is chosen to realize to the projection on the $\chi_{{\mathrm{Frob}}^T}$ eigenspace. When we compose them we get $|W| e_K q \in \mathrm{H}_{I}$ or $|W| e_K q e_K \in \mathrm{H}_K$; to see, for example, that the former acts as the identity endomorphism on $H^*(Y_0(q), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}, \chi_{{\mathrm{Frob}}^T}}$, observe that it can be written as $ \sum_{w \in W} e_w q$ with $e_w = I w I$, and then we just use the fact that $q$ annihilates all the $k[X_*^+]$-eigenspaces except the one indexed by ${\mathrm{Frob}}_T$, whereas the $e_w$ permutes the various eigenspaces.
Adding level $q$ structure continued: The homology at level $Y_1(q, n)$ {#HYln}
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This section together with the previous and subsequent ones – §\[Morita\], §\[HYln\], §\[Lgcompat\] – all gather some “standard” properties of passing between level $1$ and level $q$. So continue with $q$ as in the prior §, i.e., part of a Taylor–Wiles datum of level $n$.
We now consider the homology of $Y_1(q, n)$ – as defined in – and the action of its Hecke algebra at level $Y_1(q, n)$. Now this homology is basically glued from the homology of $Y_0(q)$: if we let $\mathcal{F}$ be the push-forward of the constant sheaf $k$ from $Y_1(q,n)$ to $Y_0(q)$, then $\mathcal{F}$ is a successive extension of copies of the constant sheaf $k$, in a Hecke equivariant way.
We state some consequences of this more formally:
Assume that $q$ is part of a Taylor–Wiles datum of level $n$. Assume local-global compatibility for $Y_0(q)$, in the sense described after ; let other assumptions be as in §\[Sec:assumptions\]. Let ${\mathsf{q}},\delta$ be as in . Then the homology $H_j(Y_1(q,n), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ vanishes for $j \notin [{\mathsf{q}}, {\mathsf{q}}+\delta]$.
Clearly we can replace the role of ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$ by $\mathbf{F}_p = k$, and then by the remark before the proof, it is enough to prove the same for $Y_0(q)$. By , it suffices to prove the same vanishing statement for $Y(1)$ with $\mathbf{F}_p = k$ coefficients. But this is part of our assumption (7(a) from §\[Sec:assumptions\].)
Now we want to say that this relationship between the homology of $Y_1(q, n)$ and $Y_0(q)$ is equivariant for Hecke operators at $q$. The full Hecke algebra is somewhat complicated and we just deal with its “positive, commutative subalgebra.” Set $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}_*}$ to be the quotient of $\mathbf{A}({\mathbf{Q}}_{q})$ by the subgroup $p^n \mathbf{A}({\mathbf{Z}}_{q})$. Denote by $\Delta_{q}$ the quotient of ${\mathbf{Q}}_{q}^{\times}$ by the subgroup of ${\mathbf{Z}}_{q}^{\times}$ of index $p^n$. Therefore $\Delta_{q}$ and $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}_*}$ depends on $n$ but we will suppress that from the notation for simplicity. We may identify $$\widetilde{\mathcal{X}_*} = X_*(\mathbf{A}) \otimes \Delta_{q},$$ and we think of $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}_*}$ as a thickened version of the character lattice $X_*(\mathbf{A})$. From the valuation $\Delta_{q} \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}$ we get $$\label{reduction} \widetilde{\mathcal{X}_*} \rightarrow X_*$$ and we can define the “positive cone” $\widetilde{\mathcal{X}_*} ^+ \subset \widetilde{\mathcal{X}_*}$ as the preimage of $X_*^+$.
Let $I$ be an Iwahori subgroup of ${\mathbf{G}}({\mathbf{Q}}_q)$, and $I' \vartriangleleft I$ the subgroup corresponding to the covering $Y_1(q, n)$, i.e. $I/I' \simeq ({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)^r$. Then there is a natural map from ${\mathbf{Z}}_p[\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}_*^+]$ to the Iwahori-Hecke algebra at level $I'$ sending $\chi \in \widetilde{\mathcal{X}_*}$ to the coset $I' \chi I'$. In particular, we get an action of ${\mathbf{Z}}_p[\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}_*^+]$ on the homology of $Y_1(q, n)$.
Any generalized eigenvalue of $k[\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}_*^+]$ acting on $H_*(Y_1(q, n),k)_{\mathfrak{m}} $ is also a generalized eigenvalue of $k[\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}_*^+] $ acting on $H_*(Y_0(q),k)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ via the map $k[\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}_*^+] \rightarrow k[X_*^+]$ induced by .
Thus, by the second Lemma of §\[Morita\], we get a splitting $$\label{bigsplit} H_*(Y_1(q, n),k)_{\mathfrak{m}} = \bigoplus_{\stackrel{ {\mathrm{Frob}}^T \in T^{\vee}(k)}{{\mathrm{Frob}}^T \sim {\overline{\rho}}({\mathrm{Frob}}_q)}} \left( H_* (Y_1(q,n), k) \right)_{\mathfrak{m},\chi_{{\mathrm{Frob}}^T}}$$ into the sum of generalized eigenspaces associated to the characters $\chi_{{\mathrm{Frob}}^T}: k[\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}_*^+] \rightarrow k$. (In the subscript, $\sim$ means “is conjugate to.”) Again, this is nothing but a fancy way of talking about the decomposition into “$U_{q}$-eigenspaces.” The only point to note is that the decomposition is canonically indexed by elements of $T^{\vee}(k)$ conjugate to the Frobenius.
Write for short $G = {\mathbf{G}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{q})$; let $I$ be an Iwahori subgroup of $G$, and $I' \vartriangleleft I$ the subgroup corresponding to the covering $Y_1(q, n)$, i.e. $I/I' \simeq ({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)^r$. We prove the same statement in cohomology and without the $\mathfrak{m}$; the desired statement follows by dualizing and localizing.
By the discussion of §\[Arithmeticmanifolds\] we can identify $$H^*(Y_1(q, n), k) \simeq {\mathrm{Ext}}^*_{kG} (k[G/I'], M)$$ $$H^*(Y_0(q), k) \simeq {\mathrm{Ext}}^*_{kG}(k[G/I], M)$$
where $M$ is the direct limit of co-chain complexes of a family of coverings, obtained by adding more and more level structure at $q$.
[*Claim:*]{} We may filter $k[G/I']$ by $G$-submodules $F^0 \subset F^1 \subset F^2 \subset \dots $ such that:
- each successive quotient $F^{i+1}/F^i$ is isomorphic as $G$-module to a sum of copies of $k[G/I]$,
- For every $\chi \in \widetilde{\mathcal{X}_*^+}$, the action of $I' \chi I'$ preserves the filtration, and the action on the quotients coincides with the action of $I \chi I$.
Assuming the existence of this filtration, the result follows easily: we get long exact sequences of the form $${\mathrm{Ext}}^j_{kG}(F^{j-1}, M) \rightarrow {\mathrm{Ext}}^j_{kG}(F^j, M) \rightarrow {\mathrm{Ext}}^j( k[G/I], M )^{\bigoplus e} \rightarrow$$ and these are equivariant for the action of $I' \chi I'$, which acts by via $I \chi I$ on the right-hand summand. The result follows immediately by a descending induction.
To construct the desired filtration regard $k[G/I']$ as the compact induction from $I$ to $G$ of the $I$-representation $k[I/I']$, i.e $$k[G]\otimes_{k[I]} k[I/I']$$ In particular, $\Delta=I/I'$ acts by $G$-endomorphisms on $k[G/I']$, which is the action “by right multiplication.” This action of $\delta \in \Delta$ coincides with the action of $I' \delta I'$ and in particular commutes with the action of $k[\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}_*^+]$.
Now we filter $k[G/I']$ by the kernels $k[G/I'] \langle \mathfrak{m}^j \rangle$ of successive powers $\mathfrak{m}^j$ of the maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ in $k[\Delta]$. This filtration is stable for $k[\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}_*^+]$ because the actions of $\Delta, k[\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}_*^+]$ commute. Also the $j$th term of the resulting filtration is thus $$F^j= k[G] \otimes_{k[I]} k[\Delta]\langle \mathfrak{m}^j \rangle$$ and the $j$th graded is just $k[G] \otimes_{k[I]} \frac{\langle \mathfrak{m}^j \rangle}{\langle \mathfrak{m}^{j+1} \rangle}$, i.e. a direct sum of copies of $k[G/I]$, as claimed.
It remains to check assertion (ii) in the [*Claim.*]{} For any $y \in \mathfrak{m}^{j-1}$, multiplication by $y$ gives a map $$F^{j}/F^{j-1} \rightarrow F^1 = F^1/F^0$$ and a suitable sum of such maps is an isomorphism (as we see by checking the corresponding assertion for $k[\Delta]$). Since these multiplication maps commute with the action of $k[\widetilde{\mathcal{X}}_*^+]$ we are reduced to computing the action of $I' \chi I'$ on $F^1$; now $F^1$ is identified with $k[G/I]$ is a natural way and the assertion is clear.
Adding level $q$ structure continued: Galois representations for level $Y_1(q ,n)$ {#Lgcompat}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section and the prior two §\[Morita\], §\[HYln\], §\[Lgcompat\] all gather some “standard” properties of passing between level $1$ and level $q$. We now consider more closely the action of the Iwahori-Hecke algebras at level $Y_1(q ,n)$ and formulate local-global compatibility. First let us look at the Galois side.
\[TWdeflem\] Let $q$ be a Taylor-Wiles prime of level $n$ and assume that the unramified representation ${\overline{\rho}}|G_{{\mathbf{Q}}_q}$ has image inside $T^{\vee}$. Then any deformation of ${\overline{\rho}}|_{G_{{\mathbf{Q}}_{q}}}$ can be conjugated to one taking values in $T^{\vee}$. In particular, any such deformation of ${\overline{\rho}}|_{G_{{\mathbf{Q}}_{q}}}$ actually factors through $G_{{\mathbf{Q}}_{q}}^{{\mathrm{ab}}} \simeq {\mathbf{Q}}_{q}^{\times}$.
We may present the tame quotient of $G_{{\mathbf{Q}}_{q}}$ as $\langle F, t: F t F^{-1} = t^{q} \rangle$, where $t$ is a generator of tame inertia.
Suppose that $A$ is an Artin local ring with maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$, and $\mathfrak{m}^n=0$. We are given $F, t$ in $G^{\vee}(A)$ that satisfy $ F t F^{-1} = t^{q}$, where $t$ reduces to the identity in $G^{\vee}(k)$ and $F$ reduces to (after conjugating) a strongly regular element of $T^{\vee}(k)$. Conjugating, we may suppose that $F$ belongs to the maximal torus $T^{\vee}(A)$. We will prove by induction on $n$ that this forces $t \in T^{\vee}(A)$ too. By the inductive hypothesis (obvious for $n=1$) the image of $t$ in $G^{\vee}(A/\mathfrak{m}^{n-1})$ belongs to $T^{\vee}(A/\mathfrak{m}^{n-1})$. Write thus $t =t_0 \delta_t$ where $t_0 \in T^{\vee}(A)$ and $\delta_t \in G^{\vee}(A)$ lies in the kernel of reduction modulo $\mathfrak{m}^{n-1}$.
Now in fact $t_0 $ lies in the kernel of reduction modulo $\mathfrak{m}$, and so $t_0$ and $\delta_t$ actually commute; indeed, $t_0$ commutes with anything in the kernel of reduction modulo $\mathfrak{m}^{n-1}$. Also $\delta_t^{q-1} = e$. (To check these statements, just compute in the formal group of $G^{\vee}$ at the identity.) Now, $F t F^{-1} = t^{q-1}$ so that $$F (t_0 \delta_t) F^{-1} (t_0 \delta_t)^{-1} = (t_0 \delta_t)^{q-1} \in T^{\vee}(A)$$ But the left hand side equals $t_0 \left( {\mathrm{Ad}}(F)\delta_t \cdot \delta_t^{-1}\right) t_0^{-1} $, and so $${\mathrm{Ad}}(F) \delta_t \cdot \delta_t^{-1} \in T^{\vee}(A)$$ and since $F$ is strongly regular this means that $\delta_t \in T^{\vee}(A)$ as desired.
We now want to connect the Galois deformation ring relevant to $Y_1(q,n)$ with the Iwahori–Hecke algebra.
Let $q$ be a Taylor–Wiles prime of level $n$. Suppose fixed an element ${\mathrm{Frob}^T}\in T^{\vee}(k)$ conjugate to the Frobenius at $q$. Consider a deformation $\sigma: G_{{\mathbf{Q}}} \rightarrow G^{\vee}(R)$ of ${\overline{\rho}}$, where one allows now ramification at $q$, and $R$ is an Artin local ring with residue field $k$. Then we can uniquely conjugate $\sigma$ so its restriction to to $G_{{\mathbf{Q}}_{q}}$ factors as $$G_{{\mathbf{Q}}_{q}}^{{\mathrm{ab}}} \simeq {\mathbf{Q}}_{q}^{\times} \longrightarrow T^{\vee}(R),$$ and the image of a uniformizer in ${\mathbf{Q}}_q^{\times}$ reduces to ${\mathrm{Frob}^T}$. This map factors through ${\mathbf{Q}}_q^{\times}/(1+q {\mathbf{Z}}_q)$. Restricting to $\mathbf{F}_{q}^{\times}$ we get $$\mathbf{F}_{q}^{\times} \rightarrow T^{\vee}(R)$$ and pairing with co-characters of $T^{\vee}$ we get $ \mathbf{F}_{q}^{\times} \times X^*(T^{\vee}) \rightarrow R^*$; by the duality of $T^{\vee}$ and $\mathbf{A}$, this is the same thing as $$\label{rgh} \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{F}_{q}) \rightarrow R^*.$$ We emphasize that the map depended on the choice of a toral element ${\mathrm{Frob}^T}$ conjugate to Frobenius; changing this element changes the map through the action of the Weyl group.
Let $R^{{\mathrm{univ}}}_{{S}\cup \{q\}}$ be Mazur’s universal deformation ring for ${\overline{\rho}}$, allowing ramification at $q$. By our assumptions (§\[GaloisAss\]) on the existence of Galois representations, there is a map $$R^{{\mathrm{univ}}}_{{S}\cup \{q\}} \rightarrow \mathbb{T}_{K_1(q,n), \mathfrak{m}},$$ where $K_1(q,n)$ is the level structure for $Y_1(q,n)$. By means of this map, $R^{{\mathrm{univ}}}_{{S}\cup \{q\}}$ acts on $H^*(Y_1(q,n), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$, and in particular on the summand $H^*(Y_1(q,n), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}, {\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T}$ under . Thus, by , we get an action of $\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{F}_{q})$ this cohomology group.
Now the assumption of local–global compatibility alluded to in §\[GaloisAss\] is a strengthened version of the following:
> [*Local global compatibility:* ]{} The action $\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{F}_q) \acts H^*(Y_1(q,n), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}, {\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T}$ just defined coincides with the “geometric” action, i.e. wherein $\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{F}_q)$ acts by deck transformations on $Y_1(q,n)$ (see ).
By “strengthened version”, we mean that we require a similar assertion at a derived category level, not just at the level of cohomology, and we also require the assertion for several auxiliary primes $q$ rather than a single one. For details, see [@GV §13.5].
We say a deformation of ${\overline{\rho}}|G_{{\mathbf{Q}}_{q}}$ is of “inertial level $\leq n$” \[inertial level\] if, when considered as a representation of ${\mathbf{Q}}_{q}^{\times}$ by Lemma \[TWdeflem\], and restricted to $\mathbf{F}_{q}^{\times}$, it factors through the quotient $\mathbf{F}_{q}^{\times}/p^n$. We denote by $R^{{\mathrm{univ}}, \leq n}_{{S}\cup \{q\}}$ the quotient of $R^{{\mathrm{univ}}}_{{S}\cup \{q\}}$ that classifies deformations of ${\overline{\rho}}$ such that ${\overline{\rho}}|G_{{\mathbf{Q}}_{q}}$ has inertial level $\leq n$. Explicitly, $R^{{\mathrm{univ}},\leq n}_{{S}\cup \{q\}}$ is the quotient of $$\label{Rndef} R^{{\mathrm{univ}}}_{{S}\cup \{q\}} / \langle t-1: \mbox{ $t$ is in the image of $p^n \mathbf{A}(\mathbf{F}_{q})$ under \eqref{rgh}} \rangle.$$ Then local-global compatibility implies that the action of $R^{{\mathrm{univ}}}_{{S}\cup \{q\}}$ on the homology of $Y_1(q, n)$ factors through $R^{{\mathrm{univ}}, \leq n}_{{S}\cup \{q\}}$, according to our previous discussion.
Patching and the derived Hecke algebra {#Patching2}
======================================
We continue with the notation and assumptions of the previous section §\[Patching\]; see in particular §\[Sec:assumptions\] and §\[GaloisAss\]. That section was primarily setup, and now we get down to proving that the global derived Hecke algebra is “big enough,” in the sense discussed around . The main result is Theorem \[mindegreeproof\].
We use the patching of the Taylor–Wiles method; more specifically, we use the version of that method that was discovered [@CG] by Calegari and Geraghty, which applies to situations where the same Hecke eigensystem occurs in multiple degrees. We also use heavily the presentation of the Calegari–Geraghty method given by Khare and Thorne [@KT].
Deformation rings and chain complexes at level $Q_n$. {#Qnchain}
-----------------------------------------------------
Fix now a Taylor-Wiles datum $Q_n$ of level $n$. (We will abusively use $Q_n$ both to denote the Taylor-Wiles datum and simply the set of primes associated to that datum.)
Recall the definition of $Y_1^*(Q_n)$ from (4) of §\[TWprimes stuff\]: it is the fiber-product of coverings $Y_1(q, n) \rightarrow Y(1)$ over $q \in Q_n$. We now collect together various results about the homology of $Y_1^*(Q_n)$, which are essentially the same results as those already discussed for $Y_1(q,n)$, but using all the primes in $Q_n$ instead of just $\{q\}$.
The homology $H_j(Y_1^*(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ vanishes for $j \notin [{\mathsf{q}}, {\mathsf{q}}+\delta]$.
As in §\[HYln\], Lemma.
Just as in , this homology group is split (by “$U$-operators”) into summands indexed by collections ${\mathrm{Frob}}^T_q \in T^{\vee}(k) \ \ (q \in Q_n)$, where each ${\mathrm{Frob}}^T_q$ is conjugate to the Frobenius at $q$. In particular, since the Taylor–Wiles datum is equipped (§\[TWprimes stuff\]) with such a lift ${\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T$ for each $q \in Q_n$, we can consider the summand $$\label{Weylsplitting} H_*(Y_1^*(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m},{\mathrm{Frob}}^T_{Q_n}} \subset H_*(Y_1^*(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$$ indexed by these prescribed lifts.
Recall from that $Y_1^*(Q_n) \rightarrow Y_0(Q_n)$ is Galois, with Galois group $T_n$. Let us introduce notation for the deformation rings of interest to us: let $$R_{Q_n} = \mbox{universal deformation ring at level ${S}\coprod Q_n$,}$$ $$\label{RnRn} R_n = \mbox{ quotient of $R_{Q_n}$ classifying deformations of inertial level $\leq n$ at primes in $Q_n$}$$ For example, in the case when $Q_n = \{q\}$ this was the ring $R^{{\mathrm{univ}},\leq n}_{{S}\cup \{q\}}$ discussed around .
By the discussion of and after, we get a morphism $\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{F}_{q_i})/p^n \rightarrow R_n^{\times}$, and therefore we get (see ): $$T_n \rightarrow R_n^{\times}$$ What we know (local-global compatibility, assumed in §\[Lgcompat\]) is that the natural action of $T_n$ (deck transformations) on homology of $Y_1^*(Q_n)$ is compatible with its action via $T_n \rightarrow R_n^{\times}$. To say differently, we get a map $$\label{Sndef} S_n := {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[T_n] \rightarrow R_n/p^n,$$ and the natural action of $S_n$ on the ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ homology of $Y_1^*(Q_n)$ is compatible with that via the map to $R_n/p^n$.
Now consider the complex of singular chains $$\widetilde{C}_n = {\mathrm{Chains}}(Y_1^*(Q_n); {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$$ with ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ coefficients. We think of it as a complex of $S_n$ modules, because of the action of $T_n$ by deck transformations on $Y_1^*(Q_n)$. It is quasi-isomorphic to a bounded complex of finite free $S_n$-modules and we have canonical identifications:
$$\label{id1} H_* \widetilde{C}_n \simeq H_*(Y_1^*(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$$
$$\label{id2} H^*{\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}(\widetilde{C}_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \simeq H^*(Y_0(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$$
$$\label{id0} H_*( \widetilde{C_n} \otimes_{S_n} {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \simeq H_*(Y_0(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n).$$
Note that $\widetilde{C}_n$ is a free $S_n$-module, with basis given by the characteristic functions of an arbitrarily chosen set of representatives for $T_n$-orbits on singular simplices. Therefore, the homology of ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}(\widetilde{C}_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ computes the homomorphisms from $\widetilde{C}_n$ to ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ in the derived category of $S_n$-modules. By composition of homomorphisms in this derived category, we get a map $$\label{above} \underbrace{H^* \left( {\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}(\widetilde{C}_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \right) }_{\simeq H^*(Y_0(Q_n),{\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)} \times \underbrace{ {\mathrm{Ext}}^*_{S_n}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) }_{\simeq H^*(T_n,{\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)} \rightarrow \underbrace{ H^* \left( {\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}(\widetilde{C}_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)\right) }_{\simeq H^*(Y_0(Q_n),{\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)}$$ With respect to the identifications noted underneath the respective terms, this is precisely the “natural” action of $H^*(T_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ on $H^*(Y_0(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$. This natural action arises thus: the covering $Y_1^*(Q_n) \rightarrow Y_0(Q_n)$ has covering group $T_n$, i.e. can be regarded as a map $$\label{BTmap} Y_0(Q_n) \rightarrow \mathrm{B}T_n$$ from $Y_0(Q_n)$ to the classifying space of $T_n$; this allows one to pull back cohomology classes from $T_n$ and take cup product. The coincidence of and this “natural action” is a general fact; for lack of a reference we sketch a proof in §\[sec:remedialtopology\].
It is possible to “cut down” $\widetilde{C}_n$ in a fashion that corresponds to the summand , as is explained in [@KT] (see Lemma 2.12 thereof, and surrounding discussion). This can be done compatibly for $Y_0(Q_n)$ and $Y_1^*(Q_n)$ and thus one gets a perfect complex $C_n$ of $S_n$-modules, equipped with identifications that are analogous to and : $$\label{id3} H_*(C_n; {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \simeq H_*(Y_1^*(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}, {\mathrm{Frob}}^T},$$ $$\label{id4} H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}(C_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)) \simeq H^*(Y_0(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}, {\mathrm{Frob}}^T}$$ and again the action of ${\mathrm{Ext}}^*_{S_n}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n , {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ on the latter group corresponds to the natural action by pulling back cohomology classes via .[^9]
Extracting the limit {#extraction}
--------------------
Now we “pass to the limit” as per Taylor–Wiles and Calegari–Geraghty. The idea is roughly speaking to extract, by a compactness argument, a subsequence of $n$ along which the $C_n, S_n, R_n$ are compatible, and then get limits ${\mathsf{C}}, {\mathsf{S}}, {\mathsf{R}}$ by an inverse limit. Usually in modularity lifting one is only concerned with the limit of the process; but in our case we also want to remember some facts about how this relates to the $C_n, S_n, R_n$. A discussion of this process which emphasizes exactly what we need is given in [@GV §13], see in particular Theorem 13.1 therein.
We choose a sequence of Taylor-Wiles data $Q_n$ with $n \rightarrow \infty$. After replacing the $Q_n$ by a suitable subsequence and then reindexing – that is to say, replacing $Q_i$ by $Q_{n_i}$ for some $n_i > i$, and then regarding $Q_{n_i}$ as a set of Taylor–Wiles primes of level $i$ – we can arrange that we can “pass to the limit.” After having done this, we obtain at last the following data:
- A sequence of Taylor–Wiles data $Q_n$ of level $n$.
Recall to this we have associated coverings $Y_1^*(Q_n) \rightarrow Y_0(Q_n) \rightarrow Y(1)$, as in §\[TWprimes stuff\], and the Galois group of the former map is called $T_n$; also we set $S_n = {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[T_n]$, the group algebra of $T_n$.
- With ${\mathsf{S}}= {\mathbf{Z}}_p[[x_1, \dots, x_R]]$ as in §\[sec:diamond\], a complex ${\mathsf{C}}$ of finite free ${\mathsf{S}}$-modules, equipped with an identification $$\label{Descent} {\mathsf{C}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n \simeq C_n,$$ where $C_n$ is as described in §\[Qnchain\]: a version of the chain complex of $Y_1^*(Q_n)$ with ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ coefficients, but localized at $\mathfrak{m}$ and ${\mathrm{Frob}}^T$.
- A quotient ${\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$ of $R_n$, defined as follows:
Recall from the definition of $R_n$; a quotient of the crystalline deformation ring at level ${S}\coprod Q_n$. We set $$\label{goef} {\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n = R_n/(p^n, \mathfrak{m}^{K(n)})$$ for a certain explicit function $K(n)$, chosen so that e.g. action of $R_n$ on $H_*(C_n)$ automatically factors through ${\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$. We can and will assume $K(n) \geq 2n$. (The main function of $K(n)$ is to make ${\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$ Artinian, while still retaining enough information about all of $R_n$ for our purposes.)
- A “limit deformation ring” ${\mathsf{R}}\simeq {\mathbf{Z}}_p[[x_1, \dots, x_{R-\delta}]]$ equipped with maps ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathsf{R}}$ and maps ${\mathsf{R}}\rightarrow {\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n, {\mathsf{R}}\twoheadrightarrow {\mathrm{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}}$ which are compatible, in the sense that this diagram commutes: $$\label{SinftySn}
\xymatrix{
{\mathsf{S}}\ar[r]^{\iota_n} \ar[d] & {\mathsf{R}}\ar[d] \ar[r] & {\mathrm{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}}\ar[d] \\
S_n \ar[r] & {\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n \ar[r] & {\mathrm{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}}/ (p^n, \mathfrak{m}^{K(n)}) }$$
(Recall here that ${\mathrm{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}}$ is the deformation ring of ${\overline{\rho}}$, with crystalline conditions imposed, without adding any level, cf. §\[GaloisAss\]).
Moreover, the composite ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathsf{R}}\rightarrow {\mathrm{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}}$ factors through the augmentation ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p$; and also the left-hand square induces an isomorphism $$\label{second-iso} {\mathsf{R}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n \simeq {\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$$
- An action of ${\mathsf{R}}$ on $H_*({\mathsf{C}})$, compatible with the ${\mathsf{S}}$ action, and with the maps $H_*({\mathsf{C}}) \rightarrow H_*(C_n)$, where ${\mathsf{R}}$ acts on $H_*(C_n)$ via ${\mathsf{R}}\rightarrow {\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$.
- An identification of $$\label{logstructure} H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p)) \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}},$$ compatible under with the identification $H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}(C_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)) \simeq H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ that is the composition of with the pushforward. (This is described in dual form in [@GV Theorem 12.1(d)] but one gets similarly this result, and the statement about compatibility is just a matter of looking at the definition of the map .
- (These last results use heavily the formal smoothness, assumption (e) from §\[GaloisAss\]): ${\mathsf{C}}$ has homology only in degree $q$, and its homology there $H_q({\mathsf{C}})$ is free of rank $1$ as ${\mathsf{R}}$-module. Moreover, one has an “$R=T$ result” $$\label{first-iso} {\mathsf{R}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} {\mathbf{Z}}_p \simeq {\mathrm{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}}\simeq \mbox{ image of $\mathbb{T}_{K_0} $ in ${\mathrm{End}}\ H_q(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$}.$$
The structure of ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathsf{R}}$ {#SR}
-------------------------------------------------------
The limit process has given a map of rings ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathsf{R}}$, where ${\mathsf{S}}$ and ${\mathsf{R}}$ are formal power series rings that represent, roughly speaking, “limits” of the rings $S_n, R_n$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$.
As in , the representation $\Pi$ gives a lift $\rho$ to ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$ of the residual representation ${\overline{\rho}}$; this corresponds to an augmentation ${\mathrm{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p$. Thus we also get an augmentation $$f: {\mathsf{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p,$$ and the pullback of this to ${\mathsf{S}}$ is the natural augmentation of ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p$ ((d) of §\[extraction\]). In particular, the kernel of $f$ on ${\mathsf{S}}$ is precisely the ideal ${\mathsf{I}}$.
Our assumptions imply that the map ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathsf{R}}$ is surjective. Indeed, because ${\mathsf{S}}$ is complete for the ${\mathsf{I}}$-adic topology it is enough to verify that ${\mathsf{S}}/{\mathsf{I}}\rightarrow {\mathsf{R}}/{\mathsf{I}}{\mathsf{R}}$ is surjective. But ${\mathsf{R}}/{\mathsf{I}}$ is a Hecke ring by and so isomorphic to ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$ by . Note in particular that this also means that ${\mathsf{I}}{\mathsf{R}}$ is precisely the kernel of $f$.
The following easy lemma is now useful for explicit computations.
\[straightening\] We can choose generators $x_i, y_j$ for ${\mathsf{S}}, {\mathsf{R}}$, i.e. $${\mathsf{S}}= {\mathbf{Z}}_p[[x_1, \dots, x_R]], \ \ {\mathsf{R}}= {\mathbf{Z}}_p[[y_1, \dots, y_{R-\delta}]]$$ such that the $x_i, y_j$s lie in the kernel of the compatible augmentations $${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathsf{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p,$$ and the map ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathsf{R}}$ is given by $x_i \mapsto y_i$ for $i \leq R-\delta$ and $x_i \mapsto 0 $ for $i > R-\delta$.
Write $f: {\mathsf{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p$ for the augmentation. Abstractly, ${\mathsf{R}}\simeq {\mathbf{Z}}_p[[u_1, \dots, u_{R-{\delta}}]]$ where all the $u_i$ lie in the maximal ideal. Set $y_i = u_i - f(u_i) \in \ker({\mathsf{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p)$. Then still ${\mathsf{R}}\simeq {\mathbf{Z}}_p[[y_1, \dots, y_{R-\delta}]]$. We have noted above that ${\mathsf{J}}:= {\mathsf{I}}{\mathsf{R}}$ is precisely the kernel of the augmentation ${\mathsf{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p$; thus, the $y_i$ freely span as ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$-module the quotient ${\mathsf{J}}/{\mathsf{J}}^2$.
Lift the $y_i$ to $x_1, \dots, x_r \in \ker({\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p)$. Necessarily the $x_i$ span a saturated[^10] ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$-submodule of rank $s$ inside ${\mathsf{I}}/{\mathsf{I}}^2 \simeq {\mathbf{Z}}_p^s$; they are ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$- independent because any linear relation $\sum a_i x_i \in {\mathsf{I}}^2$ (with $a_i \in {\mathbf{Z}}_p$) would give rise to a corresponding linear relation in ${\mathsf{R}}$, a contradiction. Similarly, they are saturated because given $x'$ and $(a_1 \dots, a_r)$ with $\gcd(a_1, \dots, a_r) =1$ and $p x' = \sum a_i x_i + {\mathsf{I}}^2$, we would get a corresponding relation in ${\mathsf{R}}$, again a contradiction.
Now extend the $x_i$ to a full ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$-basis $x_{r+1}, \dots, x_s$ for ${\mathsf{I}}/{\mathsf{I}}^2$. Each $x_j$ for $j > r$ is sent under ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathsf{R}}$ an element of ${\mathsf{J}}\subset {\mathsf{R}}$, which means that it can be written as a formal polynomial $P_j(y_1, \dots, y_r)$ in $y_1, \dots, y_r$, with no constant term; so replacing $x_j$ by $x_j - P_j(x_1, \dots, x_r)$ we may suppose that $x_j \mapsto 0$ in ${\mathsf{R}}$.
Now we come to the main theorem of the section.
\[mindegreeproof\] Let assumptions be as in §\[Sec:assumptions\] and §\[GaloisAss\]. The cohomology $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ is generated, as a module over the global derived Hecke algebra (see §\[limit\] for definition with ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$ coefficients), by its minimal degree component $H^{{\mathsf{q}}}(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$.
We use the setup of the Taylor–Wiles limit process (§\[extraction\]), beginning with the fact that the natural map $$\label{cyclicity2}H^{{\mathsf{q}}}({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p)) \otimes {\mathrm{Ext}}^j_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathbf{Z}}_p, {\mathbf{Z}}_p) \twoheadrightarrow H^{{\mathsf{q}}+j}({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p))$$ is a surjection for all $j$: by (g) of §\[extraction\] and Lemma \[straightening\], we can choose coordinates so that ${\mathsf{S}}\simeq {\mathbf{Z}}_p[[x_1, \dots, x_R]]$, and the complex ${\mathsf{C}}$ is quasi-isomorphic to ${\mathsf{S}}/(x_{R}, \dots, x_{R-\delta+1})$ concentrated in a single degree. So the surjectivity of follows from the “Koszul algebra” computations in §\[AppendixB\] of the Appendix.
Examine now the diagram, where all the maps are the obvious ones; [$$\label{previousstory}
\xymatrix{
H^{{\mathsf{q}}}({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p))^{} \ar[d] & \times & {\mathrm{Ext}}^{i}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathbf{Z}}_p, {\mathbf{Z}}_p) \ar[d] \ar[r] & H^{{\mathsf{q}}+i}({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p)) \ar[d]^V \\
H^{{\mathsf{q}}}({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p)) \ar[d]^{V} & \times& {\mathrm{Ext}}^{i}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathbf{Z}}_p, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \ar[r]& H^{{\mathsf{q}}+i}({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n))\ar[d]^{=}\\
H^{{\mathsf{q}}}({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n))^{} & \times & \left( {\mathrm{Ext}}^{i}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \right) \ar[r] \ar[u]^U & H^{{\mathsf{q}}+i}({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)) \\
H^{{\mathsf{q}}}({\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}({\mathsf{C}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n))^{} \ar[u]^{f, \sim} & \times & \left( {\mathrm{Ext}}^{i}_{S_n}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \right) \ar[r]^{\mathfrak{Q} \ \ \ \ \ \ \ } \ar[u]^{U'} & \ar[u]^{\sim} H^{{\mathsf{q}}+i}({\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}({\mathsf{C}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)). \\
}$$ ]{} Here, the middle square “commutes” in the sense that the image of $(x, Uy)$ is the same as the image of $(Vx, y)$, i.e. $U, V$ are adjoint for the pairing. The top and bottom squares commute. All this is obvious, except for perhaps the bottom square which involves change of rings, so let us talk through it: The map ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow S_n$ induces a forgetful map $T$ from the derived category of $S_n$-modules to the derived category of ${\mathsf{S}}$-modules. Take $$\alpha \in H^{{\mathsf{q}}}({\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}({\mathsf{C}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)), \ \ \beta \in {\mathrm{Ext}}^{i}_{S_n}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n).$$ We can regard $\alpha$ as a map ${\mathsf{C}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[q]$ and $\beta$ as a map ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[q] \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[q+i]$, both in the derived category of $S_n$-modules. Applying the functor $T$, we see that $T \beta \cdot T\alpha = T(\beta \alpha)$. On the other hand, $T \alpha$ is simply the morphism ${\mathsf{C}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[q]$ considered as a map of ${\mathsf{S}}$-modules. If we pre-compose with $\gamma: {\mathsf{C}}\rightarrow {\mathsf{C}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n$, considered as a map of ${\mathsf{S}}$-modules, we get $f(\alpha)$. Similarly, $ T(\beta \alpha) \gamma = f(\beta \alpha) \cdot \gamma$. So $T \beta . f(\alpha) = f(\beta \alpha)$: that is the commutativity of the bottom square.
It follows from the Lemma of §\[sec:diamond\] that the composite $U \circ U'$ is surjective. Also the map $V$ is surjective (because the cohomology of ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p)$ is torsion-free, by and assumption 7(a) of §\[Sec:assumptions\]). Tracing through the above diagram, this is enough to show that the image of $\mathfrak{Q}$ generates the codomain of $\mathfrak{Q}$.
Now, recall from the identification ${\mathsf{C}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n \simeq C_n$; we have therefore shown that $ H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}(C_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n))$ is generated by $ H^{{\mathsf{q}}}({\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}(C_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n))$ as a module over ${\mathrm{Ext}}^*_{S_n}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) $. As in the discussion after , this is equivalent to saying that $H^*(Y_0(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m},{\mathrm{Frob}}^T}$ is generated by its degree $q$ component as a $H^*(T_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$-module, i.e. $$\label{bencumber}H^{{\mathsf{q}}}(Y_0(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}, {\mathrm{Frob}}^T} \otimes H^*(T_n,{\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \twoheadrightarrow H^*(Y_0(Q_n),{\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}, {\mathrm{Frob}}^T}.$$
\[randompageref\] In what follows, let us write $\mathscr{H}_I, \mathscr{H}_K$ for the tensor product of (derived) Iwahori-Hecke algebras $\mathscr{H}_{I,q}$ and derived Hecke algebra $\mathscr{H}_{q}$ over $q \in Q_n$; and write $\mathrm{H}_K, \mathrm{H}_{KI}, \mathrm{H}_{IK}, \mathrm{H}_I$ for the (non-derived) algebras and bimodules of §\[Morita\], but tensoring over all $q \in Q_n$. All of these will be taken with ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ coefficients.
Note that the action of $H^*(T_ n)$ on $H^*(Y_0(Q_n))$ factors through the action of $\mathscr{H}_I$ (e.g. see the Remark in §\[sec:concrete\]). So $H^*(Q_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}, {\mathrm{Frob}}^T}$ is generated in degree ${\mathsf{q}}$ over $\mathscr{H}_I$. Taking the sum over all possible lifts ${\mathrm{Frob}}^T$, as in , we see that $H^*(Y_0^*(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ is also generated in degree $q$ over the derived $\mathscr{H}_I$.
Now, each of the following maps are surjective: $$\begin{aligned}
H^{{\mathsf{q}}}(Y(1),{\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}} \otimes \mathrm{H}_{KI} \twoheadrightarrow H^{{\mathsf{q}}}(Y_0(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}, \\ H^{{\mathsf{q}}}(Y_0(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}} \otimes \mathscr{H}_I^j \twoheadrightarrow H^{{\mathsf{q}}+j}(Y_0(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}},\\
H^{{\mathsf{q}}+j}(Y_0(Q_n) , {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}\otimes \mathrm{H}_{IK} \twoheadrightarrow H^{{\mathsf{q}}+j}(Y(1),{\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}, \end{aligned}$$ where the second statement is what we just proved, whereas the first and third statement come from §\[Morita\], Lemma. Also there is a map $\left( \mathrm{H}_{KI} \otimes \mathscr{H}_I^j \otimes \mathrm{H}_{IK} \right) \rightarrow \mathscr{H}_K^j$ compatible with the respective actions, just arising from composition of Exts. We get $$H^{{\mathsf{q}}}(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}} \otimes \mathscr{H}_K^j
\twoheadrightarrow H^{{\mathsf{q}}+j}(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}.$$
Passing to the limit (as in the discussion of §\[limit\]) concludes the proof.
The reciprocity law {#reciprocity}
===================
In §\[Patching2\] we proved, conditional under assumptions (§\[Sec:assumptions\], §\[GaloisAss\]) on the existence of Galois representations attached to modular forms and other assumptions that simplify the integral situation (§\[Sec:assumptions\]), that the global derived Hecke algebra is “big enough,” in the sense discussed around .
We now turn to the question mentioned in §\[reindexing\]: we index elements of this global derived Hecke algebra by means of a certain dual Selmer group. This is achieved in Theorem \[maintheorem\]. This Theorem is not an end in itself; rather, it just gives the correct language for us to formulate the central conjecture of the paper, Conjecture \[mainconjecture\].
The coadjoint representations
-----------------------------
We are interested in the co-adjoint representation, i.e. the dual of the representation of $G^{\vee}$ on its Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}^{\vee}$. Denoting by ${\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}}$ the ${\mathbf{Z}}$-dual to this Lie algebra, we obtain $${\mathrm{Ad}}^*: G^{\vee} \rightarrow GL({\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}})$$ which we regard as a morphism of algebraic groups over ${\mathbf{Z}}$. [^11]
In particular given a representation $\sigma: G_{{\mathbf{Q}}} \rightarrow G^{\vee}(R)$ we denote by ${\mathrm{Ad}}^* \sigma: G_{{\mathbf{Q}}} \rightarrow {\mathrm{GL}}(R \otimes_{{\mathbf{Z}}} {\widetilde{\mathfrak{g}}})$ the composition of $\sigma$ with the co-adjoint representation. When $\sigma$ is valued in ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$, we will write ${\mathrm{Ad}}^* \sigma_n$ for the reduction of ${\mathrm{Ad}}^* \sigma$ modulo $p^n$.
Galois cohomology
-----------------
We will freely use the theory of Fontaine and Laffaille which (in good circumstances) parameterizes crystalline representations of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}/{\mathbf{Q}}_p)$, even with torsion coefficients. For a summary, see §4 of [@BK].
Fix once and for all the interval $[-\frac{p-3}{2}, \frac{p-3}{2}] \subset \mathbb{N}$ of Hodge weights. We will say that a representation of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}/{\mathbf{Q}}_p)$ on a finitely generated ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$-module is “crystalline” if it is isomorphic to a subquotient of a crystalline representation with Hodge weights in $[-\frac{p-3}{2}, \frac{p-3}{2}]$. This indexing of Hodge weights is useful for adjoint representations which have weights symmetric around $0$.
Recall that for any $p$-torsion crystalline $M$ we can define $$H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p, M) \subset H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p, M)$$ which classifies those extensions $M \rightarrow ? \rightarrow 1$ which are crystalline; it is in fact a submodule and it is identified (by Fontaine-Laffaille theory) with a corresponding Ext-group in the category of filtered Dieudonn[é]{} modules. In particular, this allows one to check that $H^1_f$ is isomorphic to the cokernel of the map $$\label{kitty}
\mathrm{F}^0 D(M) \stackrel{1 - \mathrm{Frob}}{\rightarrow} D(M),$$ where $D(M)$ is the associated filtered Dieudonn[é]{} module. Also, the kernel of $1-\mathrm{Frob}$ in is isomorphic to $H^0({\mathbf{Q}}_p, M)$. In particular, for $M$ finite we have $$\label{goo-goo} \# H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p, M) = \frac{ | D(M)|}{|F^0 D(M)|} \cdot \# H^0({\mathbf{Q}}_p, M),$$ which can be effectively used to compute the size of $H^1_f$ (note: the size of $D(M)$ and $M$ coincide).
We will need to know that the subspaces $H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p, M)$ and $H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p, M^*)$ (with $M^* := {\mathrm{Hom}}(M, \mu_{p^{\infty}})$ are each other’s annihilators under the local duality pairing $H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p, M) \times H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p, M^*) \simeq {\mathbf{Q}}/{\mathbf{Z}}$. This follows from the fact they annihilate each other (their product would come from an ${\mathrm{Ext}}^2$ in the category of Fontaine–Laffaille modules, but the relevant ${\mathrm{Ext}}^2$ vanishes by [@BK Lemma 4.4]) and a size computation using .
Selmer groups
-------------
Let ${\mathbf{Q}}_{{S}}$ be the largest extension of ${\mathbf{Q}}$ unramified outside ${S}$, and let $M$ be a module for the Galois group of ${\mathbf{Q}}_{{S}}/{\mathbf{Q}}$; thus $M$ defines an [é]{}tale sheaf on ${\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}]$. We write
$$H^1({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{S}], M) \supset H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{S}], M)$$ for (respectively) the [é]{}tale cohomology of $M$ (equivalently the group cohomology of ${\mathrm{Gal}}({\mathbf{Q}}_{{S}}/{\mathbf{Q}})$ with coefficients in $M$), and the subset of this group consisting of classes that are crystalline at $p$, i.e. classes whose image in $H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p, M)$ lies in the subgroup $H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p, M)$ defined above.
Note that we impose [*no*]{} local condition on classes in $H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{S}], M)$ except for the crystalline condition at $p$.
We will write $H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}, M)$ for the usual Bloch–Kato Selmer group: this is the subgroup of classes in $H^1({\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}}/{\mathbf{Q}}), M)$ which are unramified away from $p$, [*and*]{} crystalline at $p$. In general, we have an inclusion $H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}, M) \subset H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{S}], M)$; the former is more restrictive, requiring that the cohomology class be unramified at places of ${S}- \{p\}$. However, in our applications, $M$ will be a module such that $H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_v, M)$ vanishes for $v \in {S}- \{p\}$, and so $H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}, M) = H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{S}], M)$.
{#mMain}
We will follow the notation of the previous section, described in §\[Sec:assumptions\]; in particular, we have an arithmetic manifold $Y(1) =Y(K_0)$, an automorphic representation $\Pi$, corresponding to a maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ of the Hecke algebra; and an associated Galois representation $\rho: G_{{\mathbf{Q}}} \rightarrow G^{\vee}({\mathbf{Z}}_p)$. We let ${S}$ be the set of ramified primes for $\rho$ or $K_0$, together with $p$.
Put $$\label{Vdef} \mathsf{V} := H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1))^{\vee},$$ where we wrote $-^{\vee}$ for ${\mathrm{Hom}}(-, {\mathbf{Z}}_p)$. We will prove in Lemma \[DeltaDimensional\] that both the $H^1_f$ above and $\mathsf{V}$ are (under our assumptions) free ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$-modules of rank $\delta$.
We will produce an action of $\mathsf{V}$ on $H^*(Y(K), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$. To explain it, fix $\mathbf{A}$ a maximal torus of $\mathbf{G}$ and let $q$ be a Taylor–Wiles prime of level $n$, equipped with an element of $T^{\vee}(k)$ conjugate to Frobenius at $q$. Let $$T_q = \mathbf{A}({\mathbf{F}}_q)/p^n.$$ From this data we will construct:
- a natural embedding (§\[Vnaction\]) of $$\label{iotaqndef1} \iota_{q,n}: H^1(T_q,{\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \hookrightarrow \left( \mathscr{H}^{(1)}_{q,{\mathbf{Z}}/p^n}\right)_{\mathfrak{m}}$$ into the degree $1$ component $ \mathscr{H}^{(1)}$ of the local derived Hecke algebra $\mathscr{H}_{q, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n} $, or, more precisely, its completion at the maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ and
- a map $$\label{fqndef} f_{q,n}: H^1(T_q, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \rightarrow \mathsf{V}/p^n,$$ We have already explained, in a special case, the constrution of $f_{q,n}$ in . We briefly outline the general case: Given $\alpha \in H^1(T_q, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$, we obtain, by , an element $\alpha'$ in the quotient of $H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_q, {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n)$ by unramified classes; now, we associate to $\alpha$ the functional sending $\beta \in H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1))$ to the local pairing $\langle \alpha' , \beta_q \rangle_q \in {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$, where $\beta_q$ is the restriction of $\beta$ to $H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_q, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1))$.
Finally recall that under our assumptions (7(a) of §\[Sec:assumptions\]) , $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ is torsion-free; its reduction modulo $p^n$ coincides with $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$.
\[maintheorem\] Let notation and assumptions be as established in §\[Patching\] (in particular §\[Sec:assumptions\], §\[GaloisAss\]). Let ${\mathsf{V}}$ be as in .
There exists a function $a: \mathbf{Z}_{\geq 1} \rightarrow \mathbf{Z}_{\geq 1}$ and an action of ${\mathsf{V}}$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ by endomorphisms of degree $+1$ with the following property:
(\*) For any $n \geq 1$ and any prime $q \equiv 1$ modulo $p^{a(n)}$, equipped with a strongly regular element of $T^{\vee}(k)$ conjugate to ${\overline{\rho}}(\mathrm{Frob}_q)$, the two actions of $H^1(T_q, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^{n})$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^{n})_{\mathfrak{m}}$ coincide: one via $f_{q,n}$ and one via $\iota_{q,n}$.
The property (\*) uniquely characterizes the ${\mathsf{V}}$ action (this is true for any function $a$).
Moreover, $\mathsf{V}$ freely generates an exterior algebra inside the ring of graded endomorphisms of $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$, and the global derived Hecke algebra ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$ precisely coincides with this exterior algebra.
[*Remark:*]{} The fact that we get an [*integral*]{} isomorphism of ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$ and $\wedge^* {\mathsf{V}}$ is an artifact of our simplifying hypotheses. We don’t expect ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$ to be an integral exterior algebra in general, but corresponding statements should remain valid $\otimes {\mathbf{Q}}$.
In general, we would expect the ${\tilde{\mathbb{T}}}$ to be $\mathbb{T} \otimes \wedge^* \mathsf{V}$, where $\mathbb{T}$ is the usual Hecke algebra, after tensoring with ${\mathbf{Q}}$. But here our assumptions mean that $\mathbb{T}$ is just ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$, and moreover that the conclusion is true integrally.
The uniqueness part of the statement is straightforward, because the condition pins down the action of $\mathsf{V}/p^r$ for arbitrarily large $r$: by Chebotarev, the images $f_{q,n}(H^1(T_q, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n))$ generate $\mathsf{V}/p^n$ even when restricted to primes $q \equiv 1$ modulo $p^{a(n)}$; this basically follows from the existence of Taylor–Wiles data (see in particular ).
Formulation of the conjecture
-----------------------------
We are now ready to state the conjecture, the formulation of which is the main point of this paper. (Although the trip was fun too.)
The formulation of the conjecture itself rests on the conjecture of Langlands that associates to $\Pi$ a motive, or more precisely a system of motives indexed by representations of the dual group. Unfortunately it is difficult to find a comprehensive account of this conjecture in print; the reader may consult the brief remarks in [@Langlands] or the appendix of [@PV].
Continue with notation as in Theorem \[maintheorem\]. As in the discussion of §\[sec:MV\] and §\[reindexing\], let $M_{{\mathrm{coad}}}$ be the motive with ${\mathbf{Q}}$ coefficients associated to $\Pi$ and the co-adjoint representation of $G^{\vee}$, if it exists. [*A priori*]{}, one may not always be able to descend the coefficients of $M_{{\mathrm{coad}}}$ to ${\mathbf{Q}}$, although we expect this is possible in most if not all cases. (See discussion in [@PV Appendix, A.3]). In what follows we assume that $M_{{\mathrm{coad}}}$ can indeed be descended to ${\mathbf{Q}}$ coefficients; if not one can simply reformulate the conjecture by replacing ${\mathbf{Q}}$ by a field extension.
Thus there is an identification of Galois modules $$\mbox{ {\'e}tale realization of $M_{{\mathrm{coad}}}$} \simeq {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho \otimes {\mathbf{Q}}_p$$ and there is a regulator map from the motivic cohomology $$H^1_{{\mathrm{mot}}}({\mathbf{Q}}, M_{{\mathrm{coad}},{\mathbf{Z}}}(1)) \longrightarrow H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{S}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1)) \otimes {\mathbf{Q}}_p.$$ As in §\[motivic chi\], the motivic cohomology group on the left-hand side has been restricted to classes that extend to an integral model. We assume that this regulator map is an isomorphism. Let $\mathsf{V}_{{\mathbf{Q}}_p} = \mathsf{V} \otimes {\mathbf{Q}}_p$, and let $\mathsf{V}_{{\mathbf{Q}}}$ be those classes in $\mathsf{V}_{{\mathbf{Q}}_p}$ whose pairing with motivic cohomology lies in ${\mathbf{Q}}$.
Write $H^*(Y(1), -)_{\Pi}$ for the Hecke eigenspace for the character $\mathbb{T}_{K_0} \rightarrow \mathbf{Z}$ associated with $\Pi$ (see ). Our assumptions imply that $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\Pi}
= H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$.
\[mainconjecture\] Notation as above. With reference to the action $$\wedge^* \mathsf{V}_{{\mathbf{Q}}_p} \acts H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Q}}_p)_{\Pi}$$ furnished by Theorem \[maintheorem\], the action of $\mathsf{V}_{{\mathbf{Q}}}$ preserves $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Q}})_{\Pi}$.
Some rather scant evidence is discussed in the next section (§\[pisspoor\]). As we have mentioned in the introduction, much more compelling is that we have been able to obtain numerical evidence for a coherent analog of the conjecture, in a joint work with Michael Harris.
Recall (§\[Sec:assumptions\]) we assume that $$\label{recall} H^0({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}{\overline{\rho}}) = H^2({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}{\overline{\rho}}) = 0$$ which implies the same conclusions for ${\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1)$. In particular, $H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1))$ is torsion-free and surjects onto $H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1))$. Finally, $H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1))$ is a saturated submodule of $H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1))$ and we have an equality of ranks $$\mathrm{rank}_{{\mathbf{Z}}_p} H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1)) = \mathrm{rank}_{\mathbf{F}_p} H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1)),$$ as follows from explicit computation. In particular, $H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p,{\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1))$ surjects onto $H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1))$. Also observe that, because of the assumed “big image” (§\[GaloisAss\] assumption (b)) of ${\overline{\rho}}$, we have $$\label{h00} H^0({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1)) = 0,$$ and so $H^1({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1))$ is torsion-free.
\[DeltaDimensional\] Both $ H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1))$ and $\mathsf{V}$ are free ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$-modules of rank $\delta$.
First of all, because the Taylor–Wiles method in this case implies an $R=T$ theorem (see ) and we are assuming that the Hecke algebra is isomorphic to ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$ (see ) we get from a tangent space computation that $H^1_f ( {\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}{\overline{\rho}}) = 0.$ We now apply Tate global duality to this statement. It implies both the surjectivity of $$\label{sarge} H^1({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1)) \twoheadrightarrow \frac{ H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1)) }{ H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1)) },$$ and the injectivity of $$\label{Vanishing} H^2({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}],{\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1)) \hookrightarrow \underbrace{ \prod_{v \in {S}} H^2({\mathbf{Q}}_v, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1)) }_{=0 \mathrm{ \ by \ \S \ref{Sec:assumptions}}}$$ so in fact $ H^2({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}],{\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1))=0$.
The surjectivity holds also for ${\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1)$, not just the mod $p$ reduction. This follows because $H^1({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1))$ surjects onto $H^1({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1))$, by ; and the induced map $$\frac{ H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho (1)) }{ H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho (1)) }/p \rightarrow \frac{ H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1)) }{ H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1)) }$$ is an isomorphism.
The Euler characteristic formula, taken together with , and , allows one to compute $$\label{EC} {\mathrm{dim}}H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}\ (1)) = \delta.$$ Now examine the short exact sequences
$$\label{feeling_groovy1}
\xymatrix{
H^1({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho (1)) \ar[r]^{p}\ar[d]^j & H^1({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho (1))\ar[d] \ar[r] &H^1({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1)) \ar[d] \\
\frac{H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p,{\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho (1))}{H^1_f ({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1))} \ar[r]^{p} & \frac{H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p,{\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho (1))}{H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p,{\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho (1))} \ar[r] &\frac{H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p,{\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1))}{H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p,{\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1))} \\
}$$
Since we have seen that $j$ is onto, it follows that the induced maps of vertical kernels is a short exact sequence; that and imply that $$H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho(1)) \simeq {\mathbf{Z}}_p^{\delta},$$ as claimed.
Cohomological vanishing in the Taylor–Wiles method {#TWrecall}
---------------------------------------------------
In the Taylor–Wiles method we choose a set of primes $Q$ such that, with $SQ= {S}\cup Q$, we have the following properties:
- $Q$ is a Taylor–Wiles datum of some level, and
- The map $H^1({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{SQ}], {\mathrm{Ad}}{\overline{\rho}}) \rightarrow \frac{H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}{\overline{\rho}})}{H^1_f({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}{\overline{\rho}})}$ is surjective, and the map $H^2({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{SQ}], {\mathrm{Ad}}{\overline{\rho}}) \rightarrow \prod_{v \in Q} H^2({\mathbf{Q}}_p, {\mathrm{Ad}}{\overline{\rho}})$ is injective.
(Recall that our local assumptions at $S$ mean there is no local cohomology there: §\[GaloisAss\], assumption (e)).
Observe also that if $Q$ is such a set of primes, and $Q'$ is a further set satisfying (a) and (b), then certainly $Q \cup Q'$ satisfies (a) and (b) too. Indeed, the cohomological criteria of (b) are equivalent to asking that $$\label{dual-inj} H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{SQ}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}\ (1)) \rightarrow \prod_{v \in Q} H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_v, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1))$$ is injective, and this is stable under enlarging $Q$ (it is equivalent to the same injectivity on $H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{S}], -)$, since anything in the kernel would be unramified at $Q$).
Now, if we choose a system of such data $Q_n$ of level $n$, we can (by passing to a subsequence and reindexing, e.g. as in [@GV §13.10]) achieve a new sequence $Q_n$ which satisfy the “limit properties” of §\[extraction\].
\[TWconvgt\] A sequence of Taylor–Wiles data $Q_n$ of level $n$ is called [*convergent*]{} if:
- $Q_n$ have the cohomological properties stated in (b) above and,
- One can pass to the limit in the sense of §\[extraction\], i.e. there exists data ${\mathsf{R}}, {\mathsf{S}}, {\mathsf{C}}, f_n, g_n$ etc. satisfying all the properties enumerated in §\[extraction\].
In particular, any sequence of Taylor–Wiles data has a convergent subsequence, after reindexing the subsequence.
The tangent spaces to $R$ and $S$ {#tangentRS}
---------------------------------
As in §\[SR\] both ${\mathsf{R}}$ and ${\mathsf{S}}$ are augmented to ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$: $${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathsf{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p,$$ and the composite ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p$ is the standard augmentation of ${\mathsf{S}}$. The kernel of these augmentations are denoted by ${\mathsf{J}}\subset {\mathsf{R}}$ and ${\mathsf{I}}\subset {\mathsf{S}}$.
First of all, we set let $\mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{R}}}$ be the “tangent space” to ${\mathsf{R}}$ [*over ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$*]{}, that is to say $$\mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{R}}} \simeq {\mathrm{Hom}}_{*}({\mathsf{R}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^2),$$ where the subscript $*$ means that the homomorphism lifts the natural augmentation ${\mathsf{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p$. Equivalently, ${\mathsf{R}}$ is the derivations of ${\mathsf{R}}/{\mathbf{Z}}_p$ into ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$, or the ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$-linear dual of ${\mathsf{J}}/{\mathsf{J}}^2$.
We can make exactly the same definition for ${\mathsf{S}}$. The surjection ${\mathsf{S}}\twoheadrightarrow {\mathsf{R}}$ induces a surjection ${\mathsf{I}}/{\mathsf{I}}^2 \twoheadrightarrow {\mathsf{J}}/{\mathsf{J}}^2$ and thus a natural injection $\mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{R}}} \rightarrow \mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{S}}}$ with saturated image (i.e. split). We write ${\mathsf{W}}$ for the cokernel of the map on tangent spaces, so we have an exact sequence $$\label{Vdef2} \mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{R}}} \hookrightarrow \mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{S}}} \twoheadrightarrow {\mathsf{W}}.$$ Then ${\mathsf{W}}$ is a free ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$-module of rank $\delta$.
Tangent spaces to ${\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$ and $S_n$ {#tnRnSn}
-------------------------------------------------------
We suppose now that $Q_n$ are a convergent sequence (§\[TWrecall\]) of Taylor–Wiles data.
Recall that ${\mathsf{S}}, {\mathsf{R}}$ are defined as “limits,” roughly speaking, of rings $S_n \rightarrow {\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$ that occur at level $Q_n$ in the Taylor–Wiles process. We recall that ${\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$ is not the full (crystalline at $p$) deformation ring $R_{Q_n}$ at level $Q_n$, but is a “very deep” Artinian quotient of it.
These rings are also compatibly augmented over ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$, i.e. $$S_ n \longrightarrow {\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n \longrightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$$ (see the bottom row of , and compose with the reduction of the map ${\mathrm{R}_{{\overline{\rho}}}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}_p$ which arises from our fixed automorphic representation $\Pi$).
The map $R_{Q_n} \rightarrow {\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$ induces an isomorphism upon applying ${\mathrm{Hom}}_*(-, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^2)$, where ${\mathrm{Hom}}_*$ means that the map lifts the natural augmentations to ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$.
Write $A := {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^2$. A map $R_{Q_n} \rightarrow A$ gives rise to a deformation $\widetilde{\rho}_n: G_{{\mathbf{Q}}} \rightarrow G^{\vee}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ that lifts the modulo $p^n$ reduction of $\rho$. We want to show that $R_{Q_n} \rightarrow A$ must factor through ${\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$. To do so we must show (see ) that the map dies on the $K(n)$th power of the maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}_{R_{Q_n}}$, and also that $\rho_n$ automatically has inertial level $\leq n$ at primes in $Q_n$ (see page for definition).
Note that the maximal ideal $(p, \varepsilon)$ of ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^2$ satisfies $(p, \varepsilon)^{n+1} = 0$. Since $K(n) \geq n+1$ by assumption, we only need verify that $\widetilde{\rho}_n$ has inertial level $\leq n$ at all Taylor–Wiles primes. After suitably conjugating, we can suppose $\widetilde{\rho}_n|{\mathbf{Q}}_q$ to have image in $T^{\vee}$. Restricted to inertia it takes image inside the kernel of $T^{\vee}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^2) \rightarrow T^{\vee}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$; this group has exponent $p^n$, and so $\widetilde{\rho}_n$ has inertial conductor $\leq n$.
We also define $$\mathfrak{t}_{R_n} = {\mathrm{Hom}}_*(R_{Q_n}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^2).$$ It doesn’t matter whether we use $R_{Q_n}$ or ${\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$ in this definition, as we just showed. Similarly we define $$\mathfrak{t}_{S_n} = {\mathrm{Hom}}_*(S_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^2).$$ There is a natural map $\mathfrak{t}_{R_n} \rightarrow \mathfrak{t}_{S_n}$ induced by $S_n \rightarrow {\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$.
Finally define $$\label{Wndef} W_n = \mathrm{cokernel} \left( \mathfrak{t}_{R_n} \rightarrow \mathfrak{t}_{S_n}\right).$$
The maps ${\mathsf{R}}\rightarrow {\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$ and ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow S_n$ give rise to an isomorphism of short exact sequences as below:
$$\label{feeling_groovy2}
\xymatrix{
0 \ar[r] & \mathfrak{t}_{R_n} \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\alpha, \sim} & \mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \ar[d]^{\beta,\sim} \ar[r] & W_n \ar[d]^{\gamma, \sim} \ar[r] & 0 \\
0 \ar[r] & \mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{R}}}/p^n \ar[r] &\mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{S}}}/p^n \ar[r] & {\mathsf{W}}/p^n \ar[r] &0 \\
}$$
This requires some explanation.
First of all, we explain the maps. Note first of all that there is a natural map $\mathfrak{t}_S/p^n \simeq {\mathrm{Hom}}_{*}({\mathsf{S}}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^2)$, which is an isomorphism. Similarly for ${\mathsf{R}}$. This means that there are maps $$\label{gogo} \alpha: \mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \rightarrow \mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{S}}}/p^n, \beta: \mathfrak{t}_{R_n} \rightarrow \mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{R}}}/p^n$$ that are induced by the projections ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow S_n$ and ${\mathsf{R}}\rightarrow {\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$. This explains $\alpha, \beta$; and the map $\gamma$ is the induced map on cokernels.
Next we see that $\alpha, \beta, \gamma$ are isomorphisms.
For $S$ this is the assertion that homomorphism ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^2$ factors through $S_n$. Indeed, referring to the coordinate presentation and , each element $x_i$ must go to $a\varepsilon$ for some $a \in {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$, and then $(1+x_i)^{p^n}$ is carried to $(1+a \varepsilon)^{p^n} = 1$. For $R$, we use the fact that we can identify ${\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$ with ${\mathsf{R}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n$. As above, any homomorphism ${\mathsf{S}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^2$ (lifting the augmentation) factors through $S_n$, and in particular any homomorphism ${\mathsf{R}}\rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$, lifting the natural one, factors through ${\overline{\mathrm{R}}}_n$.
Now, the bottom row is exact, by definition and the freeness of ${\mathsf{W}}$. The top row is exact at the left because the vertical maps $\alpha, \beta$ are isomorphisms, and exact at the right by definition. Then it follows that $\gamma$ is an isomorphism too.
This concludes the explanation of diagram .
Tangent spaces to $S_n$ reinterpreted
-------------------------------------
Let us reinterpret the tangent space to $S_n$ in a few different (canonical) ways.
\[DDR REF1\]
By we have an isomorphism $$\label{ExtT} \mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \simeq {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{S_n}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$$
Now $S_n$ was, by definition (§\[sec:diamond\]) , the ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$- group algebra of the group $T_n$; thus, from the above equation, we get a canonical isomorphism $$\label{tsnTn}\mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \simeq H^1(T_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n).$$
Next we connect $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n}$ to Galois cohomology. Recall from Lemma \[TWdeflem\] that, for any $q \in Q_n$, a deformation of $\rho|G_{q}$ can be conjugated to lie in the torus, and in particular factors through ${\mathbf{Q}}_q^{\times}$. Now we can identify $H^1(G_q, {\mathrm{Ad}}\ \rho_n)$ with the set of lifts of $\rho_n$ to $G^{\vee}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^2)$, modulo conjugacy. This lift sends tame inertia to the kernel of reduction modulo $\varepsilon$. In particular, having fixed a lift of ${\overline{\rho}}(\mathrm{F}_q)$ to $T^{\vee}$, we get a canonical isomorphism $$\label{TqH} \frac{ H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_q, {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n)}{H^1_{{\mathrm{ur}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_q, {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n) } \simeq
\mathrm{Hom}\left( \ \mathbf{F}_q^{\times},
\mathrm{Lie}(T^{\vee}) \otimes {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n\right)$$ Identifying the the Lie algebra with $X_*(T^{\vee})$, we get $$\label{brst}
\frac{ H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_q, {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n)}{H^1_{{\mathrm{ur}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_q, {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n) } \simeq {\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathbf{F}_q^{\times}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \otimes X_*(T^{\vee}) \simeq {\mathrm{Hom}}(\underbrace{X_*(\mathbf{A}) \otimes \mathbf{F}_q^{\times}/p^n}_{\mathbf{A}(\mathbf{F}_q)/p^n}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$$ (here the subscript “ur” means unramified) and thus, from and $$\label{tSn Galois} \mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \simeq \bigoplus_{q \in Q_n} \frac{ H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_q, {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n)}{H^1_{{\mathrm{ur}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_q, {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n)}$$ where we emphasize that the isomorphism depends on the choice of an element of $T^{\vee}$ conjugate to Frobenius at $q$, for each $q \in Q_n$.
There is an isomorphism similar to for $\mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{S}}}$; in particular, $ \mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{S}}} \simeq {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathbf{Z}}_p, {\mathbf{Z}}_p)$ and more usefully $$\mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{S}}}/p^n \simeq {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathbf{Z}}_p, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$$
The composite $$\label{compositemap} {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{S_n}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) {\longrightarrow} {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \rightarrow {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathbf{Z}}_p, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n).$$ gives the natural identification – map $\beta$ from – of ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{S_n}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) = \mathfrak{t}_{S_n}$ with $ {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathbf{Z}}_p, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) = \mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{S}}}/p^n$.
$V_n$ and Galois cohomology {#Vnhstar}
---------------------------
\[DDR REF2\]
We exhibit now a canonical surjection $$\label{tsnvsurj} \mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \twoheadrightarrow {\mathsf{V}}/p^n$$ In fact, this surjection uses no more than the fact that $Q_n$ is a Taylor–Wiles datum. If we suppose that $Q_n$ are a convergent sequence (§\[TWrecall\]) of Taylor–Wiles data, we will see that this actually descends to an isomorphism $$\label{brrr} W_n \simeq {\mathsf{V}}/p^n,$$ i.e. $W_n$ (defined in ) is isomorphic to $ {\mathrm{Hom}}( H^1_f({\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho \ (1) ), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$.
As before, let $SQ_n$ be the union of the set ${S}$ with the set $Q_n$. Examine: $$\xymatrix{
{\mathrm{Hom}}_{*}(R_{Q_n}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^2) \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\sim} & {\mathrm{Hom}}_{*}(S_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^2) \ar[r]\ar[d]^{\sim} & W_n \ar[d]^{=}\\
H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{SQ_n}], {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n) \ar[r]^{\varphi} & \prod_{v \in Q_n} \frac{H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_v, {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n)}{H^1_{\mathrm{ur}}({\mathbf{Q}}_v, {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n)} \ar[r] & W_n. }$$ The first vertical map is just the computation of tangent spaces to deformation rings (working over ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ rather than a field), the second vertical map is , and $\varphi$ is restriction in Galois cohomology.
There is now a natural pairing :$$\label{pairing} H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], \ {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_n \ (1)) \times W_n \longrightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$$ which, we emphasize again, depends on the choice of Frobenius lifts at each prime in $Q_n$. To be explicit, an element of $W_n$ is represented by a collection $$(\beta_v) \in \prod_{v \in Q_n} \frac{H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_v, {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n)}{H^1_{\mathrm{ur}}({\mathbf{Q}}_v, {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n)},$$ modulo $\mathrm{image}(\varphi)$; to pair $\alpha \in H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_n(1))$ with $(\beta_v)_{v \in Q_n}$ we take the sum of local pairings $$\label{abovemoo} (\alpha, (\beta_v)_{v \in Q_n}) \mapsto \sum (\alpha_v, \beta_v)_v$$ where the local pairing is defined by restricting $\alpha$ to ${\mathbf{Q}}_v$ and using local reciprocity. This pairing is well-defined because each $\alpha_v$, i.e. the restriction of $\alpha$ to ${\mathbf{Q}}_v$, is actually unramified. Moreover, if the collection $(\beta_v)$ come from a class in $H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{SQ_n}], {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n)$, the value of is zero by global reciprocity: our local assumptions means that the local pairings for $v \in {S}$ vanishes. Thus the pairing descends to the quotient of $\prod_{v \in Q_n} H^1$ by $\mathrm{image}(\varphi)$. This concludes our discussion of .
We have also seen (§\[tnRnSn\], and similar arguments to Lemma \[DeltaDimensional\]) that both $W_n$ and $H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_n \ (1))$ are free ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$-modules of dimension $\delta$. Let us check that is a perfect pairing of ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ modules, i.e. the map $$W_n \rightarrow H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_n (1))^{\vee}$$ is an isomorphism, where $\vee$ means homomorphisms to ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$. Since both sides have the same size, it is enough to check that the map is surjective, and thus enough to show that the induced map $$\label{lunytunes} \mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \rightarrow H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}\ (1))^{\vee}$$ is surjective, where $\vee$ now means homomorphisms to ${\mathbf{Z}}/p$.
Now the Taylor-Wiles set $Q_n$ is chosen so that $ H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}\ (1)) \hookrightarrow \prod_{v \in Q_n} H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_v, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1))$. The image of this map consists of classes unramified at $Q_n$, so we also have $$H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}\ (1)) \hookrightarrow \prod_{v \in Q_n} H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_v, {\mathrm{Ad}}^* {\overline{\rho}}(1))^{\mathrm{ur}}$$ When we dualize this, and apply local duality at primes in $Q_n$, we get the surjectivity of .
The injection $H^1(T_q) \hookrightarrow \mathscr{H}_q^{(1)}$ {#Vnaction}
------------------------------------------------------------
In this section, we suppose that $Q_n$ is a Taylor–Wiles datum of level $n$, but do not assume that it is part of a convergent sequence (§\[TWrecall\]) of Taylor–Wiles data. Let $q \in Q_n$, thus equipped with ${\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T \in T^{\vee}(k)$. We will work exclusively with $S={\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ coefficients. As before, $\mathscr{H}_q$ denotes the local derived Hecke algebra at $q$, and $\mathscr{H}_q^{(1)}$ denotes its degree $1$ component. Let $T_q = \mathbf{A}({\mathbf{F}}_q)/p^n.$
We are going to describe the map , which is necessary for the formulation of the Theorem. More precisely, we are going to describe a map $$\label{thetaref} \theta: H^1(T_q) \rightarrow \left( \mathscr{H}_q^{(1)}\right)_{\mathfrak{m}},$$ where the subscript means that we complete at the ideal of the Hecke algebra (i.e., the degree zero component of $\mathscr{H}_q$) corresponding to $\mathfrak{m}$.
The easiest way to think about $\theta$ is probably through the following property: for each $\alpha \in H^1(T_q)$, the action of $\theta(\alpha)$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ is thus: $$\label{explicit-action} \mbox{Pullback to $Y_0(q)$, project
to ${\mathrm{Frob}}^T_q$-eigenspace, cup with $\alpha$, pushdown to $Y(1)$. }$$ where the projection is done with reference to the splitting of Corollary \[MoritaCor\].
The formal definition of the map $\theta$ is given in , and the validity of will follow from the Lemma below.
The Satake isomorphism of §\[Satake\] gives $$\mathscr{H}_q \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} \left( S[X_*] \otimes H^*(\mathbf{A}({\mathbf{F}}_q) ) \right)^W$$ and in particular with ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ coefficients the map $H^1(T_q) \rightarrow H^1(\mathbf{A}_q)$ is an isomorphism, so $$\mathscr{H}_q ^{(1)}\stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} \left( S[X_*] \otimes H^1(T_q ) \right)^W$$
Now ${\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T \in T^{\vee}(k)$ gives a map $X_*(\mathbf{A}) = X^*(T^{\vee}) \rightarrow k^{\times}$, i.e. it gives rise to a character $\chi_{{\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T}: S[X_*] \rightarrow k$. The pullback of this to $S[X_*]^W$ defines the maximal ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ (using the Satake isomorphism). Let us denote by $\widetilde{\mathfrak{m}}$ the extension of the ideal $\mathfrak{m}$ back to $S[X_*]$; we caution that it is no longer maximal, and rather it cuts out ${\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T$ together with all its $W$-conjugates. We have an identification of completions $$\label{wsplit} S[X_*]_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{m}}} \cong \bigoplus_{w \in W} S[X_*]_{w \chi},$$ where we have denoted by $S[X_*]_{w\chi}$ the completion of $S[X_*]$ at the maximal ideal that is the kernel of $w \chi$.
Next the natural inclusion $$\label{inc} \left( S[X_*] \otimes H^*(T_q) \right) ^{W} \hookrightarrow S[X_*] \otimes H^*(T_q)$$ induces the first map of $$\label{composite iso} \left( S[X_*] \otimes H^*(T_q) \right) ^{W}_{\mathfrak{m}} \stackrel{\eqref{inc}}{ \rightarrow} S[X_*]_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{m}}} \otimes H^*(T_q) \stackrel{\eqref{wsplit}}{\rightarrow} S[X_*]_{\chi} \otimes H^*(T_q).$$ The composite map of is an isomorphism, and thus by composing with the Satake isomorphism we get an isomorphism $$\label{ciso2} \left( \mathscr{H}_q^{(1)} \right)_{\mathfrak{m}} \stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} S[X_*]_{\chi} \otimes H^1(T_q).$$
We then define the map $\theta: H^1(T_q) \rightarrow \left( \mathscr{H}_{q}^{(1)}\right)_{\mathfrak{m}} $ by the rule $$\label{embedH1T} \theta: h \in H^1(T_q) \mapsto 1 \otimes h \in S[X_*]_{\chi} \otimes H^1(T_q) \stackrel{\eqref{ciso2}^{-1}}{\longrightarrow} \left( \mathscr{H}_{q}^{(1)}\right)_{\mathfrak{m}}$$ where the superscript $1$ refers to cohomological degree, and the final map is the inverse of . Note that this embedding depends on the choice of ${\mathrm{Frob}}^T_q$; if we replace ${\mathrm{Frob}}^T_q$ by $w {\mathrm{Frob}}^T_q$ then the embedding is modified by means of the natural action of $w$ on $T_q$.
This concludes the description of the map $H^1(T_q) \rightarrow \mathscr{H}_q^{(1)}$. We now want to justify . For this we will describe an explicit preimage of $\theta(\alpha)$ under the map $$\label{blastfromthepast} \left( \mathrm{H}_{KI} \otimes \mathscr{H}_I \otimes \mathrm{H}_{IK} \right) \rightarrow \mathscr{H}_K$$ in the case of the group ${\mathbf{G}}({\mathbf{Q}}_q)$, where notation is as before (see, e.g. the proof of Theorem \[mindegreeproof\]); note that $\mathscr{H}_K$ coincides with what was previously called $\mathscr{H}_q$. Observe that everything here is a compatibly a module under the center of $\mathrm{H}_{II}$, which is identified (§ \[Zdis\]) with $S[X_*]^W$. In particular, it makes sense to complete at $\mathfrak{m}$.
Now let $e_{\lambda} \in \mathrm{H}_{II}$ correspond to the characteristic function of $I_q \lambda I_q$, where $\lambda \in X_*$. Then $\lambda \mapsto e_{\lambda}$ defines an embedding $S[X_*] \rightarrow \mathrm{H}_{II}$, and, completing, an embedding $$\label{completed embedding} S[X_*]_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{m}}} \rightarrow (\mathrm{H}_{II})_{\mathfrak{m}}$$
As before (§\[Iwahori\]) we let $e_K \in \mathrm{H}_{II}$ correspond to the characteristic function of $K_q$, divided by its measure; if we write $e_w$ for the characteristic function of $I_q w I_q$, we have $e_K = \frac{1}{|W|} \sum_{w \in W} e_w$. Also $|W| e_K e_{\lambda} \in \mathrm{H}_{KI}$ corresponds to the characteristic function of $K_q \lambda I_q$.
\[Theta explicit\] Let $\Theta \in S[X_*]_{\widetilde{\mathfrak{m}}}$ be chosen so that it projects under to the identity in $S[X_*]_{\chi}$ and to zero in all $S[X_*]_{w \chi}$, for $w \in W$ not the identity. We use the same letter for its image $\Theta \in (\mathrm{H}_{II})_{\mathfrak{m}}$ under .
For $h \in H^1(T_q)$ let $\langle h \rangle$ be the associated element of $\mathscr{H}_{I}^{(1)}$, i.e. $\langle h \rangle$ is supported on the identity double coset of $I$, and the associated cohomology class is obtained from $h$ by means of the restriction isomorphism $H^1(I) \stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} H^1(T_q)$.
Then the $\mathfrak{m}$-completion of sends $|W| e_K \Theta \otimes \langle h \rangle \otimes e_K$ to $\theta(h)$.
In words, this amounts precisely to the description for $\theta$, taking into account that $\Theta$ realizes precisely the projection onto the ${\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T$ component for the splitting .
Consider the map (no completions, at the moment) $$\label{compo} \left( \mathrm{H}_{KI} \otimes \mathscr{H}_I^{(1)} \otimes \mathrm{H}_{IK} \right) \rightarrow \mathscr{H}_K^{(1)} \rightarrow \left( S[X_*] \otimes H^1(T_q ) \right)^W$$ We show it sends $A := e_K e_{\lambda} \otimes \langle h \rangle \otimes e_K$, for $\lambda$ dominant, to the “$W$-average” of $\lambda \otimes h$, i.e. $ |W|^{-1} \sum_{w \in W} w \cdot (\lambda \otimes h)$. The claimed result will follow easily from this: Consider an element $\Theta' = \sum c_{\lambda} \lambda \in S[X_*]$ with the property that $c_{\lambda}$ is positive only for $\lambda$ dominant, and also $\Theta \equiv \Theta'$ modulo some high power of $\widetilde{\mathfrak{m}}$. Our claim implies that $|W| e_K \Theta' \otimes \langle h \rangle \otimes e_K$ is sent to the sum of Weyl translates of $\sum c_{\lambda} (\lambda \otimes h)$. The image of $\sum c_{\lambda} (\lambda \otimes h)$ in $\bigoplus_{w \in W} S[X_*]_{w \chi} \otimes H^1(T_q)$ is very close to $1 \otimes h$ in the $w=1$ factor, and very close to zero in the other factors; after summing over $W$, its projection to the $w=1$ factor remains very close to $1 \otimes h$. Here “very close” is taken in the topology of the complete local rings $S[X_*]_{w \chi}$. In other words, $\theta(h)$ and the image of $|W| e_K \Theta' \otimes \langle h \rangle \otimes e_K$ under and are very close; in the limit, this shows the desired result.
We will now consider everything in the “function model” of §\[desc2\]. Let $a_1 \in \mathrm{H}_{KI}, a_2 \in \mathrm{H}_{IK}$ be the images of $e_K e_{\lambda}, e_K$ in the function model; then $a_1$ corresponds to the double coset $K \lambda I$, i.e. it is the function sending $(xK, yI)$ to $|W|^{-1}$ precisely when $K x^{-1} y I = K \lambda I$ and $a_2$ corresponds to the function $(xI, yK)$ which is $1$ exactly when $xK = yK$.
Moreover, the function $\langle h \rangle$ is supported on the diagonal in $G/I$ and sends $(I, I)$ to $h \in H^1(T_q) \simeq H^1(I)$.
The second map of is given by restricting arguments to the torus, and restricting cohomology classes to $T_q$. We can compute this restriction using the “localization” results of §\[dhLocalization\]; these results assert that restriction to the torus actually preserves multiplication.
When we restrict to the torus, we get for $\mu \in X_*$ dominant: $$A (K,\mu K) = \sum_{ y \in \tilde{W}} a_1(K,yI) \langle h \rangle (yI,yI) a_2(yI, \mu K)$$ The first term is nonzero only for those $y$ satisfying $K y I = K \lambda I$, i.e. $y \in \tilde{W} \cap K \lambda I$. This implies that $y = w \lambda$, with $w \in W$. So this equals $$= |W|^{-1} \sum_{w \in W} \langle h \rangle (w \lambda I, w \lambda I) a_2(w \lambda I, \mu K)$$ The final term is nonzero (and equals $1$) exactly when $\mu K \in w \lambda K$. Recall we assumed that $\mu$ is dominant. Thus this only happens if $\lambda = \mu$ and $w \in W_{\mu}$: $$\label{Derived} A(K, \mu K) = |W|^{-1} \delta_{\lambda \mu} \sum_{w \in W_{\mu}} \langle h \rangle (w \lambda I, w \lambda I)$$ On the right, $\langle h \rangle (w \lambda I, w \lambda I) \in H^1(T_q)$ equals $w \cdot h \in H^1(T_q)$.
Now $$\mu \mapsto \mbox{restriction to $T_q$ of }A(K, \mu K)$$ defines a $W$-invariant element of the derived Hecke algebra of the torus. We have just seen that for $\mu$ dominant, the quantity $A(K, \mu K)$ is nonvanishing only when $\mu=\lambda$, where its value is $\sum_{w \in W_{\mu}} wh$. Therefore the image of $A$ under is the $W$-average of $\lambda \otimes h$ as claimed.
Producing an action of ${\mathsf{V}}/p^n$ on the cohomology at level $1$ {#tSnaction}
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let $Q_n$ be a convergent sequence of Taylor–Wiles data (§\[TWrecall\]). For each integer $n$ we will produce an action of ${\mathsf{V}}/p^n$ on automorphic cohomology $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$. [*A priori*]{} these actions will not be guaranteed to be compatible with one another; later we will see at least that they “converge as $n \rightarrow \infty$” to give an action of ${\mathsf{V}}$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$.
More exactly, we begin by constructing an action of $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n}$, then prove (the Lemma below) that it factors through $W_n$, and finally we have identified $W_n \simeq {\mathsf{V}}/p^n$ in . This gives the desired action, and we will discuss the “convergence as $n \rightarrow \infty$” in the next section.
Thus, let $Q_n$ be a convergent sequence of Taylor–Wiles data.
We have $$\label{embed} \mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \stackrel{\eqref{tsnTn}}{\cong} H^1(T_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \stackrel{\eqref{thetaref}}{\hookrightarrow} \mbox{degree $1$ component of }\otimes_{q \in Q_n} \left( \mathscr{H}_q\right)_{\mathfrak{m}} ,$$ where the Hecke algebras are taken with ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ coefficients. The composite embedding will be denoted $$\label{iotaQndef} \iota_{Q_n}: \mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \rightarrow \otimes_{q \in Q_n} \left( \mathscr{H}_q\right)_{\mathfrak{m}}.$$
This gives rise to an action of $ \mathfrak{t}_{S_n}$ by degree $+1$ endomorphisms of automorphic cohomology $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$, whose explicit description is essentially that already given in , just replacing the role of one prime by many.
The embedding and so also this action depends on the choice of elements ${\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T \in T^{\vee}(k)$ for each prime $q \in Q_n$. Should we modify ${\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T$ by an element $w_q \in W$, the Weyl group, the action of $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n}$ is also modified (see comments after ) by the action of $w_q$ in the obvious way.
\[Vnfactor\] Let $Q_n$ be a convergent sequence of Taylor–Wiles data, as in Definition \[TWconvgt\]. Then, for each $n$, the action of $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n}$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ (via $\iota_{Q_n}$) is trivial on the image of $\mathfrak{t}_{R_n}$, and thus factors through the map $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \rightarrow W_n$.
Consider the diagrams of our previous story, now with identifications with $\mathfrak{t}_S$ and $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n}$ included: $$\label{BigDog}
\xymatrix{
H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p))^{} \ar[d] & \times & \protect\overbrace{ {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathbf{Z}}_p, {\mathbf{Z}}_p) }^{\mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{S}}}}\owns \tilde{v} \ar[d] \ar[r] & H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p)) \ar[d] \\
\tilde{x} \in H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p)) \ar[d]^{V} & \times& {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_S({\mathbf{Z}}_p, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \owns v \ar[r] & H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n))\ar[d]^{=} \\
x \in H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n))^{} & \times & \left( {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \right) \ar[r] \ar[u]^U & H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)) \\
H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}({\mathsf{C}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n))^{} \ar[u]^{\sim} & \times & \protect\underbrace{ \left( {\mathrm{Ext}}^1_{S_n}({\mathbf{Z}}/p^n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \right) }_{\mathfrak{t}_{S_n}} \ar[r] \ar[u] & \ar[u]^{\sim} H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}({\mathsf{C}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)). \\
}$$
In particular, let $x \in H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}({\mathsf{C}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)) $ be liftable to $\tilde{x} \in H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p))$; let $v \in \mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \simeq \mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{S}}/p^n}$ be lifted to $\tilde{v} \in \mathfrak{t}_S$. Then the image of $(x,v)$ in the bottom row is obtained from projecting the image of $(\tilde{x}, \tilde{v})$ at the top row.
Let us recall from §\[extraction\] part (g) that $\mathsf{C}$ is quasi-isomorphic to $\mathsf{R}$ as an $\mathsf{S}$-module in a single degree. Thus we can explicitly compute what goes on in the top row. This explicit computation (see Lemma \[KoszulExtComputation\] in Appendix §\[AppendixB\]) shows that any element $\tilde{v} \in \mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{S}}}$ that lies in the image of $\mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{R}}}$ acts [*trivially*]{} on $H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p))$.
For later use, note that these explicit computations also show that $$\label{watney} \mbox{ $H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p))$
is free over
$\wedge^* \mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{S}}}/\mathfrak{t}_{{\mathsf{R}}}$.}$$
From it then follows that $\mathrm{image}(\mathfrak{t}_{R_n} \rightarrow \mathfrak{t}_{S_n})$ acts trivially on $$H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}({\mathsf{C}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)) \simeq H^*(Y_0(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}, {\mathrm{Frob}}^T},$$ where the action of $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n} = H^1(T_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ is by cup product, as in .
By this means that the action of $\iota_{Q_n}(\mathfrak{t}_{S_n})$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ is trivial on $\mathrm{image}(\mathfrak{t}_{R_n} \rightarrow \mathfrak{t}_{S_n})$. Thus, this action of $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n}$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ factors through $W_n$ as claimed.
Summary {#Strictsequence}
-------
Let us summarize more carefully what we have said to date:
For any Taylor–Wiles datum $Q_n$ we have an action of $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n} = {\mathrm{Hom}}(T_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ constructed via an embedding $$\iota_{Q_n}:{\mathrm{Hom}}(T_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \hookrightarrow \mbox{derived Hecke algebra}$$ (see ). On the other hand, we have a surjective morphism (see §\[Vnhstar\]) $$f_{Q_n}: {\mathrm{Hom}}(T_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \twoheadrightarrow {\mathsf{V}}/p^n.$$ These constructions, for a given $n$, depend only on $Q_n$; they do not involve the Taylor–Wiles limit process.
\[strictdef\] We say that a Taylor–Wiles datum $Q_n$ of level $n$ is [*strict of level $n$*]{} (or just [*strict*]{}) if the map $$\mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \stackrel{ \iota_{Q_n}}{\longrightarrow} {\mathrm{End}}\ H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$$ factors through $f_{Q_n}$. Thus, a strict Taylor-Wiles datum of level $n$ gives rise to an action of ${\mathsf{V}}/p^n$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$.
What we have proved, then, amounts to the following:
\[Convergent implies strict\] If the $Q_n$ are a convergent sequence of Taylor–Wiles data (Definition \[TWconvgt\]), then each $Q_n$ is strict, in the sense of Definition \[strictdef\].
Note we do not know that the resulting actions of ${\mathsf{V}}/p^n$ are compatible for different $n$, in any sense.
Dependence of our construction on choices {#obstructions}
-----------------------------------------
We now study dependence on choices. Using the results of this §, we will conclude the proof of Theorem \[maintheorem\] in §\[finalesec\].
First we discuss a minor point, the choice of ${\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T$s: Suppose we choose two different such choices for a given set $Q_n$, differing by the action of $w \in W_s$. (Recall from §\[TWprimes stuff\] that $W_s$ is just a product of copies of the Weyl group, one copy for each prime in $Q_n$). Then the actions of $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n} $ on cohomology differ by the action of $w \in W_s$ (comment after ). Also, $w : \mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \rightarrow \mathfrak{t}_{S_n}$ is compatible with the pairings previously constructed, i.e. this diagram commutes $$\xymatrix{
\mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \ar[d]^{w} & \times & H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{S}], \ {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho \ (1)) \ar[d]^{=} \ar[r]^{ \ \ \qquad {\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T} & {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n \\
\mathfrak{t}_{S_n} & \times & H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{S}], \ {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho \ (1)) \ar[r]^{\ \ \qquad w {\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T} & {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n \\
}$$ This shows that the action of ${\mathsf{V}}/p^n$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ did not depend on the choice of ${\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T$s for $q \in Q_n$.
We now discuss the more serious issue of choice of Taylor–Wiles data.
\[EqualityOfTwo\] Given two sequences $Q_n, Q_n'$ of [*strict*]{} Taylor–Wiles data, there is a subsequence $\mathcal{J}$ of the integers with following property:
For each $k \geq 1$, there is $j_0$ such that, for each $j \in \mathcal{J}, j \geq j_0$, the two actions ${\mathsf{V}}$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^{k})_{\mathfrak{m}}$ – arising from reducing modulo $p^k$ the “$Q_{j}$-action" and the “$Q_{j}'$-action" – coincide with one another.[^12]
It will be convenient to relabel the sequences of strict Taylor–Wiles data as $Q_n^{(1)}, Q_n^{(2)}$. It will be harmless to suppose that the sets of primes underlying $Q_n^{(1)}$ and $Q_n^{(2)}$ are disjoint (otherwise, we can e.g. just compare both of them with a third set, disjoint from both of them). We will compare them both to $Q_n := Q_n^{(1)} \coprod Q_n^{(2)}$ (with the obvious choice of ${\mathrm{Frob}}_q^T$ for $q \in Q_n$). Of course $Q_n$ is bigger than either $Q_n^{(1)}$ or $Q_n^{(2)}$. However it still an sequence of Taylor–Wiles data. Let $T_n, T_n^{(1)}, T_n^{(2)}$ be the analogues of $T_n$ for $Q_n, Q_n^{(1)}, Q_n^{(2)}$ respectively; then $T_n = T_n^{(1)} \times T_n^{(2)}$, and correspondingly $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n} = \mathfrak{t}_{S_n}^{(1)} \oplus \mathfrak{t}_{S_n}^{(2)}$, where $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n} = {\mathrm{Hom}}(T_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$, etc.
We have a diagram $$\label{tvlift}
\xymatrix{
\mathfrak{t}_{S_n}^{(1)} \ar[r] \ar[rd]^{\alpha^{(1)}} & \mathfrak{t}_{S_n} \ar[d]^{\alpha} & \mathfrak{t}_{S_n}^{(2)} \ar[ld]^{\alpha^{(2)}} \ar[l].\\
& H^1_f({\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_n(1))^{\vee} &
}$$ where all the $\alpha$-maps are as in §\[Vnhstar\].
The upper maps are compatible for the actions on cohomology previously defined (§\[tSnaction\]), and everything maps compatibly to the bottom group $H^1_f({\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_n(1))^{\vee} $. Moreover the action of $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n}^{(1)}$ and $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n}^{(2)}$ on mod $p^n$ cohomology factors through the bottom row by the assumed strictness. However, we do not know that the action of $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n}$ factors through $\alpha$. What is missing is control of the deformation ring after adding level $Q_n$. To obtain this, we must run now the Taylor–Wiles limit process for $Q_n$. That involves passing to a subsequence. In other words, all we are guaranteed is that there is a subsequence $n_j$ such that $(Q_{n_j}, j)$ form a convergent sequence of Taylor–Wiles data of level $j$. It is possible that $n_j$ is very much larger than $j$. Our prior analysis of convergent data (Lemma \[Convergent implies strict\]) implies that the action of ${\mathrm{Hom}}(T_{n_j}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^j)$ on mod $p^j$ cohomology of $Y(1)$ factors through ${\mathsf{V}}/p^j$, or to say it explicitly:
> (\*) The action of $\mathfrak{t}_{S_{n_j}}$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^j)_{\mathfrak{m}}$, via its embedding $\iota_{Q_{n_j}}$ into the derived Hecke algebra, followed by reduction to ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^j$ coefficients, factors through the map $$f_{Q_{n_j}} : \mathfrak{t}_{S_{n_j}} \rightarrow H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{{S}}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_j(1))^{\vee}.$$
The proof of the Lemma easily follows. We take $\mathcal{J}$ to be the subsequence of $n_j$s. Let $k$ be as in the Lemma. Take $n= n_j$, for any $j \geq k$, and take $w^{(i)} \in \mathfrak{t}_{S_n}^{(i)}$ that have the same image in $H^1_f({\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_n(1))^{\vee}$. The images of $w^{(i)}$ in $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n}$ have the same image in $H^1_f({\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho_j(1))^{\vee}$, (we are using the fact that the map $H^1({\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n(1)) \rightarrow H^1({\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_j (1))$ is surjective, by discussion before ) and therefore they act the same way on mod $p^k$ cohomology by (\*) above.
Conclusion of the proof of Theorem \[maintheorem\]. {#finalesec}
----------------------------------------------------
\[DDR REF3\] Let us call a sequence of Taylor–Wiles data $Q_n$ of level $n$ (where we do not require $n$ to vary through all the integers, but possibly some subsequence thereof) [*${\mathsf{V}}$-convergent*]{} if:
- Each $Q_n$ is strict (Definition \[strictdef\]) thus giving an action of ${\mathsf{V}}$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}$.
- The actions converge to an action of of ${\mathsf{V}}$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$. In other words, if we fix $k$, the action of ${\mathsf{V}}$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^k)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ arising from reducing the $Q_n$-action is eventually constant.
By Lemma \[Convergent implies strict\] and passing to a further subsequence, we see that ${\mathsf{V}}$-convergent sequences exist. By Lemma \[EqualityOfTwo\], if $Q, Q'$ are two ${\mathsf{V}}$-convergent sequences, the resulting actions of ${\mathsf{V}}$ on cohomology coincide. Thus at this point we have defined an action of ${\mathsf{V}}$ on cohomology that is independent of choices, namely, the action arising from any ${\mathsf{V}}$-convergent sequence. This action has the following property:
> $(\dagger)$: For any sequence $Q_n$ of Taylor–Wiles data, there is a subsequence $Q_{n_r}$ such that (for every $r$) the following two actions of $\mathfrak{t}_{S_{n_r}}$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^r)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ coincide:
>
> - The action via $\iota: \mathfrak{t}_{S_{n_r}} \rightarrow \mbox{ derived Hecke algebra with ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^r$ coefficients}$ (see ).
>
> - The action obtained from the ${\mathsf{V}}$-action, via $f: \mathfrak{t}_{S_{n_r}} \twoheadrightarrow {\mathsf{V}}/p^r$ (see ).
>
To see this, we first pass from $Q_n$ to a convergent subsequence $(Q_{m_r}, r)$, where we regard $Q_{m_r}$ as having level $r$; by Lemma \[Convergent implies strict\] this means that $Q_{m_r}$ is a strict datum of level $r$. We then pass to a further subsequence $m_r'$ to extract a ${\mathsf{V}}$-convergent sequence; this gives the assertions above, but with ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^r$ and ${\mathsf{V}}/p^r$ replaced by ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^{k(r)}, {\mathsf{V}}/p^{k(r)}$ where $k(r) \rightarrow \infty$ with $r$. Passing to a further subsequence gives the desired result.
(of Theorem \[maintheorem\], using $(\dagger)$): We have already constructed an action of ${\mathsf{V}}$; let us prove, by contradiction, that it has property (\*) from the Theorem. Suppose that there is an integer $A$ and an infinite sequence of primes $q_n \equiv 1$ modulo $ p^n$ such that the pullback of the action via $ f_{q_n,A}: H^1(T_q, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^A) \rightarrow {\mathsf{V}}/p^A$ fails to coincide with the action of $H^1(T_q, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^A)$ via the embedding $\iota_{q_n, A}$ into the derived Hecke algebra with ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^A$ coefficients. We can choose a Taylor–Wiles system $Q_n$ containing $q_n$ and then get a contradiction to $(\dagger)$ as soon as $r > A$. This proves (\*).
Now let us show that the image of $\wedge^* {\mathsf{V}}$ in endomorphisms of cohomology coincides with the global derived Hecke algebra.
Refer to the diagram , constructed with a convergent sequence of Taylor–Wiles data $Q_n$. We will only use a subsequence of $n$s which is ${\mathsf{V}}$-convergent. Consider for $n \geq k$ the map $$\label{Banjo} {\mathsf{W}}= \mathfrak{t}_{S}/\mathfrak{t}_R \stackrel{\eqref{feeling_groovy2}}{\longrightarrow} \mathfrak{t}_{S_n}/\mathfrak{t}_{R_n}
\stackrel{\eqref{tsnvsurj}}{ \longrightarrow} {\mathsf{V}}/p^k.$$ By and the discussion after , the composite actually gives an isomorphism $$\label{Banjo2} {\mathsf{W}}/p^k \simeq {\mathsf{V}}/p^k.$$ \[DDR REF4\] For fixed $k$ and large $n$, the map is independent of $n$: Choose $\tilde{v} \in \mathfrak{t}_S$. Let $v_n, v_m$ be its image in $\mathfrak{t}_{S_n}, \mathfrak{t}_{S_m}$. As we saw in the diagram , the actions of $v_n, v_m$ on mod $p^k$ cohomology must coincide, because both can be computed by means of the lift $\tilde{v}$. For this we are implicitly using to see that the composite map [$$H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{C}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p)) \rightarrow
H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_{S_n}({\mathsf{C}}\otimes_{{\mathsf{S}}} S_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)) \stackrel{\sim}{ \rightarrow}
H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)_{\mathfrak{m}}
\rightarrow H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^k)_{\mathfrak{m}}$$]{} is [*independent of $n$*]{}, for $n \geq k$.
So the images of $v_n, v_m$ in ${\mathsf{V}}/p^k$ have the same actions on mod $p^k$ cohomology. The ${\mathsf{V}}/p^k$ action on mod $p^k$ cohomology is faithful (by and ) so this forces the image of $v_n, v_m$ in ${\mathsf{V}}/p^k$ to coincide as claimed.
Therefore, passing to the limit over $n$, we get a map ${\mathsf{W}}/p^k \rightarrow {\mathsf{V}}/p^k$, which is easily seen to be compatible as we increase $k$; thus the inverse limit over $k$ defines an isomorphism $$\label{bo} {\mathsf{W}}\stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} {\mathsf{V}}.$$
Next, referring to the action of ${\mathrm{Ext}}_{{\mathsf{S}}}({\mathsf{S}}/{\mathsf{I}}, {\mathsf{S}}/{\mathsf{I}}) \simeq \wedge^* \mathfrak{t}_S$ on $H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathsf{C}}/{\mathsf{I}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p))$ certainly factors through $\wedge^* {\mathsf{W}}$; this action of $\wedge^* {\mathsf{W}}$ on $H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathsf{C}}/{\mathsf{I}}, {\mathbf{Z}}_p))$ is compatible under the identifications and with the action of $\wedge^* {\mathsf{V}}$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$.
Therefore, by , ${\mathsf{V}}$ freely generates an exterior algebra inside $\mathrm{End}(H^*)$, and $H^*$ is freely generated over $\wedge^* {\mathsf{V}}$ by $H^{{\mathsf{q}}}(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$, its minimal degree component. On the other hand, the image of $\wedge^* {\mathsf{V}}$ in $\mathrm{End}(H^*)$ is contained in the global derived Hecke algebra – the action of an element ${\mathsf{V}}$ is, by definition, a limit of actions of elements in the derived Hecke algebra. It follows (by a similar argument to the last paragraph of §\[lemmaimpliestheorem\]) that the full global derived Hecke algebra coincides with $\wedge^* {\mathsf{V}}$.
The action of Hecke operators {#Galoisindexingproofs}
-----------------------------
To conclude, let us translate what we have proved into a more concrete assertion about the action of a derived Hecke operator.
Let $q$ be a unramified prime for $\rho$, with $q \equiv 1$ modulo $p^n$, and such that ${\overline{\rho}}({\mathrm{Frob}}_q)$ is strongly regular. Let $\nu \in X_*(\mathbf{A})^+$ be strictly dominant and let $$\alpha \in H^1(\mathbf{A}({\mathbf{F}}_q), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n).$$ To this we can associate in a natural way (see below) a derived Hecke operator $T_{q, \nu, \alpha}$ as well as an element $[q, \nu, \alpha] \in {\mathsf{V}}/p^n$; we will prove that the actions of these are compatible (see Lemma below), justifying the assertions made in §\[Galoisindexing\].
First of all, a small piece of linear algebra. Let $k$ be a field. Suppose given a fixed character $\psi \in X^*(T^{\vee})$. Let $g \in G^{\vee}(k)$ be regular semisimple, with centralizer $Z_g$; this data allows us to construct a homomorphism of $k$-vector spaces $$e_{\psi,g}: \mathrm{Lie}(T^{\vee}) \rightarrow {\mathrm{Lie}}(Z_g),$$ $$e_{\psi,g}: \sum_{\phi: T^{\vee} \stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} Z_g} \langle \psi, \phi^{-1}(g) \rangle \cdot d\phi$$ where the sum is taken over all conjugations of $T^{\vee}$ to $Z_g$ over $\bar{k}$; the morphism is nonetheless defined over $k$.
[*Example:*]{} if $G^{\vee}={\mathrm{SL}}_2$, take $T^{\vee}, B^{\vee}$ in the standard way to be the diagonal subgroup and upper triangular matrices, and take $\psi: \left( \begin{array}{cc} x & 0 \\ 0 & x^{-1} \end{array} \right) \mapsto x$. Then $e_{\psi, g}$ sends $ \left( \begin{array}{cc} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & -1 \end{array} \right) \in {\mathrm{Lie}}(T^{\vee})$ to the element $ 2g - \mathrm{trace}(g) \in M_2(k)$: it’s enough to check this for $g \in T^{\vee}$, where the result is clear.
Let $q, \nu, \alpha$ be as described at the start of this subsection. We can then construct a class $$[q, \nu, \alpha] \in {\mathsf{V}}/p^n$$ in the following way: regarding $\nu$ as a character of $T^{\vee}$, and use the linear algebra construction mentioned with $k = {\mathbf{Q}}_p$ to make the first map of $$\label{cheeseboard} \mathrm{Lie}(T^{\vee}) \stackrel{e_{\nu, {\mathrm{Frob}}_q}}{\longrightarrow } {\mathrm{Lie}}(Z_{\rho({\mathrm{Frob}}_q)}) \hookrightarrow {\mathrm{Lie}}(G^{\vee})$$ (at first we get this $\otimes {\mathbf{Q}}_p$ but then it preserves the integral structures, with reference to the natural ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$-models of the three groups above). The resulting embedding $\mathrm{Lie}(T^{\vee}) \rightarrow {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho$ is a morphism of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}_q}/{\mathbf{Q}}_q)$-modules, where $\mathrm{Lie}(T^{\vee})$ is taken to have the trivial action.
As before, we may identify $$H^1(\mathbf{A}({\mathbf{F}}_q), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) = H^1(X_*(\mathbf{A}) \otimes {\mathbf{F}}_q^{\times} , {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) = {\mathrm{Hom}}({\mathbf{F}}_q^{\times}, X_*(T^{\vee}) /p^n)$$ and so from $\alpha$ we obtain a class $$\alpha' \in \frac{ H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_q, {\mathrm{Lie}}(T^{\vee})/p^n)}{H^1_{{\mathrm{ur}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_q, {\mathrm{Lie}}(T^{\vee})/p^n)}.$$ Here ${\mathrm{Lie}}(T^{\vee})$ is taken as a trivial Galois module. We can then form $$\mbox{pushforward of } \alpha' \mbox{via \eqref{cheeseboard}} \in \frac{ H^1({\mathbf{Q}}_q, {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n)}{H^1_{{\mathrm{ur}}}({\mathbf{Q}}_q, {\mathrm{Ad}}\rho_n)}.$$ and, as usual, this can be paired with $H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{S}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho (1))$ by means of local reciprocity. In this way we obtain a functional $H^1_f({\mathbf{Z}}[\frac{1}{S}], {\mathrm{Ad}}^* \rho (1)) \rightarrow {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$, which we denote as $$[q, \nu, \alpha] \in {\mathsf{V}}/p^n.$$
\[reciprocity law\] Let $q, \nu, \alpha$ be as above. Let $[q, \nu, \alpha] \in {\mathsf{V}}/p^n$ be as defined above.
Let $T_{q, \nu,\alpha}$ be the derived Hecke operator with ${\mathbf{Z}}/p^n$ coefficients which is supported on the $G_q$-orbit of $(\nu K_q, K_q)$ and whose value at $(\nu K_q, K_q)$ which corresponds to $\alpha$ under the cohomology isomorphism $H^*(K_q \cap \nu K_q \nu^{-1}, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \cong H^*(\mathbf{A}({\mathbf{F}}_q), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$.
Then $T_{q,\nu,\alpha}$ corresponds to $[q, \nu,\alpha] \in {\mathsf{V}}/p^n$, in the following asymptotic sense:
There is $N_0(m)$ such that for $q ,\nu, \alpha$ as above with $q \equiv 1$ modulo $p^{N_0(m)}$, the actions of $T_{q, \nu, \alpha}$ and $[q, \nu,\alpha]$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^m)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ coincide.
Under the derived Satake isomorphism, $T_{q,\nu, \alpha}$ is sent to $$\sum_{w} w \nu\otimes w \alpha
\in \left(S[X_*] \otimes H^1(\mathbf{A}({\mathbf{F}}_q))\right)^W.$$
With notation as in §\[Vnaction\], let $\Theta_{\nu} \in S[X_*]_{\mathfrak{m}}^W$ be defined so that its image under $S[X_*]_{\mathfrak{m}}^W \hookrightarrow S[X_*]_{\tilde{\mathfrak{m}}} \rightarrow S[X_*]_{\chi}$ is equal to $\nu$. Here, we regard $\nu \in X_* \hookrightarrow S[X_*]$.
Then, after completing at $\mathfrak{m}$, we have an equality $$\mathrm{Satake}(T_{q,\nu,\alpha}) = \sum_{w \in W} \Theta_{w \nu} \cdot \mbox{Satake}(\theta(w \alpha)) \in (S[X_*] \otimes H^1(\mathbf{A}({\mathbf{F}}_q)))^W_{\mathfrak{m}}$$ where $\theta$ is as in . (We can check this using the isomorphism : it gives an isomorphism of the target group with $S[X_*]_{\chi} \otimes H^1(T_q)$, under which $\theta(w \alpha)$ is, by its very definition, sent to $1 \otimes w \alpha$; under the same isomorphism $\Theta_{w \nu}$ is sent to $w \nu \otimes 1$, and the result follows.)
As before we have fixed ${\mathrm{Frob}}^T_q \in T^{\vee}({\mathbf{F}}_p)$ an element conjugate to ${\overline{\rho}}({\mathrm{Frob}}_q)$; fix a lift $t_q \in T^{\vee}({\mathbf{Z}}_p)$ that is conjugate to $\rho({\mathrm{Frob}}_q)$. Then $ \Theta_{w \nu}$ (more exactly, its preimage under Satake) acts on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ by $\langle w \nu, t_q \rangle$ (this makes sense: $w \nu \in X^*(T^{\vee})$ and $t_q \in T^{\vee}({\mathbf{Z}}_p)$, so they can be paired to get an element of ${\mathbf{Z}}_p^{\times}$). Using Theorem \[maintheorem\], we see that the action of $T_{q,\nu, \alpha}$ on $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)_{\mathfrak{m}}$ corresponds (in the sense of the lemma statement) to the element $$\sum_{w \in W} \langle w \nu, t_q \rangle \cdot f_{q,n}(w \alpha) = \sum_{w \in W} \langle \nu, w^{-1} t_q \rangle \ \ f_{q,n}(w \alpha) \in {\mathsf{V}}/p^n.$$ Winding through the definitions, this element of ${\mathsf{V}}/p^n$ is exactly $[q, \nu, \alpha]$.
Some very poor evidence for the main conjecture: Tori and the trivial representation {#pisspoor}
====================================================================================
We verify that the main conjecture (Conjecture \[mainconjecture\]) holds in the case when $\mathbf{G}$ is an anisotropic torus. This is straightforward, but still slightly comforting.
One may also verify that a certain analogous statement to Conjecture \[mainconjecture\] holds in the situation studied in §\[Quillen\], but there we do not understand the situation clearly at present – hopefully it will eventually prove to be a specialization of the general conjecture to the nontempered case.
Setup {#tori}
-----
Let $\mathbf{T}$ be an anisotropic $F$-torus; let $\mathcal{O}$ be the ring of integers of $F$. Let us fix a finite set of places ${S}$ such that $\mathbf{T}$ admits a smooth model over $\mathcal{O}[\frac{1}{{S}}]$. We assume it contains all places $\wp$ above the rational prime $p$.
The associated symmetric space $$\mathcal{S} = \mathbf{T}(F \otimes {\mathbf{R}})/\mbox{maximal compact}$$ has $q,\delta$ invariants (see ): $$q= 0 , \delta = {\mathrm{dim}}(\mathcal{S}).$$ The arithmetic manifold $Y(K)$ associated to a level structure $K$ is a disjoint union of copies of $\mathcal{S}/\Delta$, where $\Delta$ is a congruence subgroup of $\mathbf{T}(\mathcal{O})$. Moreover the quotient $ \mathcal{S}/\Delta$ is a union of compact tori, and thus the rank of $\Delta$, i.e. ${\mathrm{dim}}_{{\mathbf{Q}}} (\Delta \otimes {\mathbf{Q}})$, equals $\delta$. We will suppose that $K$ is chosen so small that $\Delta$ is free of $p$-torsion.
Galois cohomology
-----------------
Let $M$ be the motive associated to the first homology group $H_1(\mathbf{T})$ of $\mathbf{T}$.
Let $X_*(\mathbf{T})$ be the character group of $\mathbf{T}$. It carries an action of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{F}/F)$. Coming from $X_* \otimes_{{\mathbf{Z}}} \mathbb{G}_m \stackrel{\sim}{\rightarrow} \mathbf{T}$, we get an isomorphism of ${\mathrm{Gal}}(\overline{F}/F)$-modules $$M_p := \mbox{$p$-adic realization of $M$} = X_*(\mathbf{T}) \otimes_{{\mathbf{Z}}} {\mathbf{Z}}_{p}(1) \simeq \varprojlim \mathbf{T}[p^n],$$ the $\ell$-adic Tate module of $\mathbf{T}$. Computing with the Kummer sequence, $$\label{cococo} H^1(\mathcal{O}[\frac{1}{{S}}] , M_p) \simeq \mathbf{T}(\mathcal{O}[\frac{1}{{S}}]) \otimes {\mathbf{Z}}_p.$$ Inside this we have have the $H^1_f$, comprising classes that are crystalline at $p$ and unramified away from $p$. This subgroup $$\Delta' \subset \mathbf{T}(\mathcal{O}[\frac{1}{{S}}]) \otimes {\mathbf{Z}}_p$$ is commensurable to the image of $\Delta \otimes {\mathbf{Z}}_p$ in the right-hand side of ; we suppose (shrinking $\Delta$ a little if necessary) that $\Delta \otimes {\mathbf{Z}}_p \subset \Delta'$.
Also, the [*motivic*]{} cohomology $H^1_{{\mathrm{mot}}}(M, {\mathbf{Q}}(1))$ is identified with with the $\mathbf{T}({\mathbf{Q}}) \otimes {\mathbf{Q}}$, as we may see by first passing to an extension that trivializes the torus $\mathbf{T}$. Presumably the following is valid, but I did not try to check it:
> [*Assumption:*]{} The subgroup of “integral classes” $H^1_{{\mathrm{mot}}}(M_{{\mathbf{Z}}}, {\mathbf{Q}}(1))$ (see discussion after ) is identified with the image of $\Delta \otimes {\mathbf{Q}}$ inside $\mathbf{T}({\mathbf{Q}}) \otimes {\mathbf{Q}}$.
Now a cohomological automorphic form $\Pi$ for $\mathbf{T}$ is trivial on the connected component of $\mathbf{T}(F \otimes {\mathbf{R}})$, i.e. they are the [*finite order*]{} id[è]{}le class characters of $\mathbf{T}$. However, the associated co-adjoint motive (see §\[sec:MV\]) doesn’t depend on which idele class character: we have simply $$\left(\mbox{ coadjoint motive for $\Pi$} \right) (1) \simeq M,$$ the motive $M$ described above. [^13]
Now let us examine Conjecture \[mainconjecture\] in this case. Put $$\mathsf{V} = H^1_f(\mathcal{O}_F[\frac{1}{S}], M_p)^{\vee},$$ where $M_p$ is the $p$-adic etale realization, and $\vee$ denotes ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$-linear dual; thus $\mathsf{V} = {\mathrm{Hom}}(\Delta',{\mathbf{Z}}_p)$. There is a natural action of $\mathsf{V}$ on $H^*(Y, {\mathbf{Z}}_p)$, obtained from the maps $$\label{frow} \mathsf{V} = H^1(\Delta', {\mathbf{Z}}_p) \rightarrow H^1(\Delta, {\mathbf{Z}}_p).$$ Moreover, motivic cohomology gives a lattice in $\mathsf{V} \otimes {\mathbf{Q}}= H^1(\Delta', {\mathbf{Q}}_p)$ (the classes which are ${\mathbf{Q}}$-valued on $\Delta \subset \Delta'$) and obviously this lattice indeed preserves $H^*(Y, {\mathbf{Q}})$, in the ${\mathbf{Q}}$-linear extension of the action of $\mathsf{V}$.
The only point to be discussed is that the action is indeed that resulting from the same formalism as §\[reciprocity\]. We describe this only briefly. Let $v$ be a good place, so that $\mathbf{T}$ has a good model over $\mathcal{O}_v$. As usual we have an injection, $${\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathbf{T}(\mathcal{O}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \hookrightarrow \mbox{ derived Hecke algebra at $v$,}$$ and thus an action of the left-hand group on the cohomology of $H^*(Y,{\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$; explicitly, this action is obtained by pulling back cohomology classes via $\Delta \rightarrow \mathbf{T}(\mathcal{O}_v)$, and cup product. By just the same procedure as that described in , we can construct a map $${\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathbf{T}(\mathcal{O}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) \rightarrow \underbrace{ \mathsf{V}/p^n}_{\simeq {\mathrm{Hom}}(\Delta',{\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)} ,$$ and one verifies this is the map induced by $\Delta' \rightarrow \mathbf{T}(\mathcal{O}_v) \otimes {\mathbf{Z}}_p$. Then the action of $\mathsf{V}/p^n$ on $H^*(Y, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ is compatible with the “derived Hecke” action of ${\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathbf{T}(\mathcal{O}_v), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n) $ for all $v$; and in fact this compatibility determines the action of $\mathsf{V}/p^n$.
Remedial algebra {#remedial}
================
In this section we fill in some “intuitively obvious” claims in the text in grotesque detail, in particular the identifications between various different models of the derived Hecke algebra. (The phrase “remedial” in the title of this section refers to my own lack of fluency with homological algebra.)
An action of a topological group will be called [*smooth*]{} if the stabilizer of every point is an open subgroup. We will fix a finite ring $S$ of cardinality prime to $p$. A “smooth representation of $G$”, in this section, will be a smooth action of $G$ on an $S$-module. We write $SG$ for the group algebra of $G$ with coefficients in $S$.
Note that the usage of $U$ and $K$ in this section do not precisely match their usage in the main text.
{#Udefsec}
Let $K$ be a profinite group, which admits a pro-$p$ open normal compact subgroup $U$. Then the category $\mathcal{C}$ of smooth representations of $K$ is an abelian category with enough projectives. In fact, if $Q$ is a projective $K/U$ module, then considering $Q$ as a smooth $K$-module $\tilde{Q}$ it remains projective: ${\mathrm{Hom}}_K(\tilde{Q}, V) = {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K/U}(Q, V^U)$ and $V \mapsto V^U$ is exact by the hypothesis on $U$. (One can lift $U$-invariants under a surjection $V_1 \twoheadrightarrow V_2$ by averaging.)
In this situation, restriction to a finite index subgroup $K' \subset K$ preserves projectivity. Indeed ${\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathrm{Res}^{K}_{K'} A, B) = {\mathrm{Hom}}(A, \mathrm{Ind}_{K'}^K B)$ and the induction functor is exact.
{#enough_proj}
Now let $G=G_v$ be the points of a reductive group over a $p$-adic field, or any open subgroup thereof. Then the category of smooth representations of $G_v$ is an abelian category and it has enough projectives.
Indeed, consider $W = S[G/U]$ for an open pro-$p$ compact $U \subset G$. Then $${\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(W, V) \simeq V^{U},$$ which is obviously exact in $V$. So $W$ is projective, and now given any other $V$ we choose generators $v_i$ for $V$, open pro-$p$ compact subgroups $U_i$ fixing $v_i$, corresponding projectives $W_i$, and then get $\bigoplus W_i \twoheadrightarrow V$.
Throughout the remainder of this section, we suppose that $G$ is as above, that $K$ is an open compact subgroup of $G$ (in particular, $K$ is profinite), and that $U \subset K$ is a pro-$p$ open compact subgroup of $K$.
{#Qdef}
Fix a resolution of the trivial $K$-representation by projective smooth $K$-modules: $$\label{Qdef-eqn} \mathbf{Q}_{\bullet}: \cdots \rightarrow Q_i \rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow Q_1 \rightarrow S.$$ To be explicit, let us take $\mathbf{Q}$ to be the standard “bar” resolution of $S$ by free $S[K/U]$-modules, considered as a complex of smooth $K$-representations.
Then ${\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathbf{Q}_{\bullet}, \mathbf{Q}_{\bullet})$ computes $H^*(K, S)$, the continuous cohomology of the profinite group $K$ with $S$ coefficients: indeed, the the cohomology of ${\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathbf{Q}_{\bullet}, \mathbf{Q}_{\bullet})$ is identified with $H^*(K/U, S)$, which is identified by pullback with the continuous cohomology $H^*(K, S)$.
The complex ${\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathbf{Q}_{\bullet}, \mathbf{Q}_{\bullet})$ has the structure of differential graded algebra arising from composition, and the resulting multiplication on $H^*(K, S)$ coincides with the cup product (this reduces to a corresponding statement for a finite group; for that see [@Yoneda]).
If $K' \subset K$ is a finite index subgroup, then ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{K'} (\mathbf{Q}_{\bullet}, \mathbf{Q}_{\bullet})$ still computes $H^*(K', S)$ (see remarks above). Moreover, the averaging operator $\sum_{K/K'}$ – that is to say, the map sending $$f \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K'}(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}) \mapsto \sum_{\kappa} \kappa f \kappa^{-1} \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K}(\dots)$$ realizes the corestriction map $H^*(K', S) \rightarrow H^*(K, S)$, where the $\kappa$ sum is taken over a set of coset representatives for $K/K'$ in $K$.
Induction and Frobenius reciprocity
------------------------------------
We use the word “induction” for the functor from $K$-modules to $G$ modules $$\label{tensor} M \rightsquigarrow S[G] \otimes_{ S[K]} M.$$
This is isomorphic to the usual “compact” induction, namely space of functions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{functionmodel} {\mathrm{ind}}_K^G(M) &:=& \{ f: G \rightarrow M: f(g k) = k^{-1} f(g),
\\ \nonumber && \mbox{ $f$ is supported on finitely many left translates of $K$} \} \end{aligned}$$ where the action of $h \in G$ is by left translation, i.e. $l_h f(x) = f(h^{-1} x)$. We will drop the word “compact” and simply refer to or as “induction”; we refer to the model for induction as the “function model.”
We can define inverse isomorphisms between and as follows: define ${\mathrm{ind}}_K^G(M) \rightarrow S[G]\otimes_{S[K]} M$ via $$f \mapsto \sum_{x \in (G/K)} g_x \otimes f(g_x),$$ where $g_x \in G$ is a representative for $x \in G/K$; in the other direction, we send $g \otimes m$ to the function supported on $gK$ whose value on $g$ equals $m$
Frobenius reciprocity
---------------------
We have Frobenius reciprocity $${\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(\mathrm{Ind}^G_K \ M, N) \simeq {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SK}(M, N)$$ and therefore induction carries projective $K$-modules to projective $G$-modules. Explicitly an $SK$-homomorphism $f: M \rightarrow N$ is sent to its obvious $G$-linear extension $SG \otimes_{SK} M \rightarrow N$.
[*If $G \supset K$ has finite index,*]{} we also have the reverse adjointness (since “compact induction” and “induction” coincide): to give a $K$-map $f: M \rightarrow M'$ is the same as giving a map $F_f: M \rightarrow {\mathrm{ind}}_{K}^G M'$. Explicitly, in the function model for the induced representation, $F_f$ is characterized by the property $F_f(m)(e) = f(m)$, and so $$F_f(m)(g) = l_{g^{-1}} F_f(m)(e) = F_f(g^{-1} m)(e) = f(g^{-1} m)$$ and thus in the tensor product model $$\label{tpmodel} F_f(m) = \sum_{x \in (G/K)} g_x \otimes f(g_x^{-1} m)$$
Restriction of induced representations
--------------------------------------
Let $Q$ be a smooth representation of $K$. The restriction of ${\mathrm{ind}}^G_K Q$ to $K $ is isomorphic to $$\label{ind-res} \bigoplus_{x \in G/K} S[K g_x K] \otimes_{SK} Q \simeq S[K] \otimes_{S K_x} Q_x \simeq \bigoplus_{x} {\mathrm{ind}}_{K_x}^K Q_x$$ where $x = g_x K$ runs through a set of representatives for $G/K$, $K_x = K \cap g_x K g_x^{-1}$; and for a $K$-module $Q$, we denote by $Q_x$ the $K_x$-module whose underlying space is $Q$, but for which the action $*$ of $K_x$ on $Q$ is defined thus: $$\label{twist} \kappa * q = \left( {\mathrm{Ad}}(g_x^{-1}) \kappa \right) q.$$
The first map of is given explicitly by $$\label{IR1} k_1 g_x k_2 \otimes q = k_1 g_x \otimes k_2 q \mapsto k_1 \otimes k_2 q$$ and the inverse map sends $$\label{inverse-map} k \otimes q \mapsto k g_x \otimes q.$$
In the function model of the induced representations, the composite map of sends $F: K g_x K \rightarrow Q$ to the function $F': k \mapsto F(k g_x)$.
In the reverse direction, given a function $F'$ in the function model of ${\mathrm{ind}}_{K_x}^K Q_x $, the inverse of sends it to $$\label{yuk-yuk} \sum_{k \in K/K_x} k g_x \otimes f(k) \in S[K g_x K ] \otimes_{SK} Q.$$
Derived Hecke algebra {#Dha-def}
---------------------
The [*derived Hecke algebra*]{} for the pair $(G,K)$ with coefficients in $S$ is defined as $$\bigoplus_i {\mathrm{Ext}}^i_{SG}(S[G/K], S[G/K])$$ where the ${\mathrm{Ext}}$-groups are taken in the category of smooth $S$-representations.
We can construct an explicit model as follows. Let $\mathbf{Q}$ be as in . Then $\mathbf{P}_{\bullet} = {\mathrm{ind}}\mathbf{Q}_{\bullet} $ is a projective resolution of $S[G/K]$. In particular, ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(\mathbf{P}, \mathbf{P})$ has the structure of a differential graded algebra and its cohomology gives the derived Hecke algebra.
{#section-5}
We will now explicitly describe the isomorphism between the derived Hecke algebra and its “double coset model.”
Let $\mathbf{P}, \mathbf{Q}$ be as in §\[Dha-def\].
We have $$\label{dha-additive} {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(\mathbf{P},\mathbf{P}) = {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SK}( \mathbf{Q}, {\mathrm{ind}}^G_K \mathbf{Q}) \stackrel{
\eqref{ind-res}}{
\longleftarrow} \underbrace{ \bigoplus_{x \in K \backslash G/K} {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K}(\mathbf{Q}, {\mathrm{ind}}_{K_x}^K \mathbf{Q}_x) }_{=
{\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_x}(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}_{x})},$$ where $x$ varies now through $K \backslash G/K$, again $g_x K$ is a representative for $x$ and $K_x = K \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(g_x) K$, and the twist operation $Q_x$ is as described in .
Note that the last map induces a cohomology isomorphism. We must see that $H^*({\mathrm{Hom}}_K(\mathbf{Q}, -))$ commutes with the infinite direct sum $\bigoplus_x {\mathrm{ind}}_{K_x}^K \mathbf{Q}_x$. However, $\mathbf{Q}_x$ is cohomologically concentrated in degree $0$, and so the same is true for ${\mathrm{ind}}_{K_x}^K \mathbf{Q}_x$; it is enough to show, then, for any $K$-modules $M_i$, the obvious map $$\ \bigoplus_{i} {\mathrm{Hom}}_K(\mathbf{Q}, M_i) \longrightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}_K(\mathbf{Q}, \bigoplus_i M_i))$$ is a quasi-isomorphism. But this follows from the fact that taking $U$ invariants commutes with infinite direct sum, as does the functor $H^*(K/U, -)$.
Note that the cohomology of $ {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_x} (\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}_x) $ is identified with $H^*(K_x, S)$, because $\mathbf{Q}$ and $\mathbf{Q}_x$ are resolutions of $S$, and moreover $\mathbf{Q}$ is a complex of projective $K_x$-modules. Thus, gives rise to an isomorphism: $$\label{serre} H^* \left( {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(\mathbf{P},\mathbf{P}) \right) \simeq \bigoplus_{x} H^*(K_x, S).$$
For later use, we explicate the map of , going from right to left: An element $f \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_x}(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}_{x})$ must satisfy $f( \kappa q) = (g_x^{-1} \kappa g_x) f(q)$ for $\kappa \in K_x$; the associated element of ${\mathrm{Hom}}_K(\mathbf{Q}, {\mathrm{ind}}^G_K \mathbf{Q})$ is given in the tensor product model of the induced representation by the formula of : $$q \in \mathbf{Q} \mapsto \sum_{k \in K/K_x} k g_x \otimes f(k^{-1} q)$$ which is well-defined.
Action of derived Hecke algebra on derived invariants
-----------------------------------------------------
Now suppose that $M$ is a [*complex*]{} of smooth $G$-representations. There is a natural action of ${\mathrm{End}}_{SG}(\mathbf{P})$ on ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(\mathbf{P}, M)$. Moreover, the latter complex computes the hypercohomology $\mathbb{H}^*(K, M)$ of $K$ with coefficients in the complex $M$.
Thus, because of , we get an action of $H^*(K_x, S) $ on $\mathbb{H}^*(K, M)$. Let us describe the action of $h_x \in H^*(K_x,S)$ on $\mathbb{H}^*(K, M)$ as explicitly as possible, in particular justifying the claims of §\[sec:concrete\]:
With notation as above, the action of $h_x$ is given by the following composite: $$\mathbb{H}^*(K, M) \stackrel{{\mathrm{Ad}}(g_x^{-1})^*}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{H}^*(K_x, M_x) \stackrel{m \mapsto g_x m}\longrightarrow \mathbb{H}^*(K_x, M) \stackrel{\cup h_x}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{H}^*(K_x, M)
\stackrel{\mathrm{Cores}}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{H}^*(K, M).$$ Here the first map is the pull-back induced by ${\mathrm{Ad}}(g_x): K_x \hookrightarrow K$, which pulls back $M$ to $M_x$.
Choose $h_x' \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K}(\mathbf{Q}, {\mathrm{ind}}_{K_x}^K \mathbf{Q}_x) $ representing $h_x$. For $f \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(\mathbf{P}, M)$ we denote by $f_x \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SK}({\mathrm{ind}}_{K_x}^{K} \mathbf{Q}_x,M) $ the restriction. We denote by $[h'_x] \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_x}(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}_x) $ and $[f_x] \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SK_x}(\mathbf{Q}_x, M) $ the elements obtained from $h'_x, f_x$ using Frobenius reciprocity (but using the two different versions of Frobenius reciprocity).
We want to compare the composition $f_x \circ h_x'$ and $[f_x] \circ [h_x']$ i.e. [$$\xymatrix{
h_x'\in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SK}(\mathbf{Q}, {\mathrm{ind}}_{K_x}^K \mathbf{Q}_x) & \times & f_x \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SK}( {\mathrm{ind}}_{K_x}^K \mathbf{Q}_x, M) \ar[r] & {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SK}(\mathbf{Q}, M) \\
[h_x'] \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SK_x}(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}_x) \ar[u]^{\sim} & \times & [f_x] \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SK_x}(\mathbf{Q}_x, M) \ar[r] \ar[u]^{\sim} & {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SK_x}(\mathbf{Q}, M)
}$$ ]{} We compute $$f_x \circ h_x'(q) \stackrel{\eqref{tpmodel}}{=} f_x\left( \sum_{k_i \in K/K_x} k_i\otimes [h_x'](k_i^{-1} q) \right) = \sum_{k_i} k_i [f_x] \ \circ [h_x'](k_i^{-1} q)$$ i.e., this is what we get by averaging $ [f_x] \circ [h_x']$ over the action of $K/K_x$. The cohomology class of the composition $[f_x] \circ [h_x']$ simply amounts (at the level of cohomology) to the cup product of the class $[f_x] \in \mathbb{H}^*(K_x, M)$ (hypercohomology) with the class $[h_x'] \in H^*(K_x, S)$. So to prove the lemma it remains to show:
[*Subclaim:*]{} The class $[f_x] \in \mathbb{H}^*(K_x, M)$ is obtained from $[f] \in \mathbb{H}^*(K, M)$ via $$\mathbb{H}^*(K, M) \stackrel{{\mathrm{Ad}}(g_x^{-1})^*}{\longrightarrow} \mathbb{H}^*(K_x, M_x) \stackrel{m \mapsto g_x m}\longrightarrow \mathbb{H}^*(K_x, M)$$
At the chain level this map is given by the composite $${\mathrm{Hom}}_K(\mathbf{Q}, M)
\rightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_x}(\mathbf{Q}_x, M_x) \rightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_x}(\mathbf{Q}_x, M)$$ where the first map is the trivial map, just considering maps of $K$ modules as $K_x$-modules via ${\mathrm{Ad}}(g_x^{-1}):K_x \rightarrow K$; and the second map $M_x \rightarrow M$ is given by $m \mapsto g_x m$. To check the subclaim, note that $[ f_x] \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_x}(\mathbf{Q}_x, M)$ sends $q \in Q_x$ to the value of $f_x$ on the element $1 \otimes q \in {\mathrm{ind}}^{K}_{K_x} Q $, which is carried by the isomorphism inverse to to $g_x \otimes q \in {\mathrm{ind}}_{K}^G Q$; thus, $$[f_x]: q \mapsto g_x f(q)$$ where here, on the right hand side, we regard $f$ as a map $\mathbf{Q} \rightarrow M$ by Frobenius reciprocity (i.e. we pull it back via the obvious embedding $\mathbf{Q} \hookrightarrow \mathbf{P},q \mapsto q \otimes 1$). This concludes the justification of the subclaim.
Multiplication in the derived Hecke algebra
-------------------------------------------
We finally analyze composition (i.e. multiplication) in the derived Hecke algebra, explicating it with respect to the isomorphism , and thus justifying the description given in §\[desc2\].
Let $\alpha, \beta, \gamma \in G/K$ with representatives $g_{\alpha}, g_{\beta}, g_{\gamma} \in G$. Suppose given $h_{\alpha} \in H^*(K_{g_{\alpha}})$ and similarly for $\beta$. We will compute the product $h_{\beta} h_{\alpha}$ considered as elements of the derived Hecke algebra – or more precisely the $H^*(K_{g_{\gamma}})$ component of their product.
As in we represent $h_{\alpha}$ by an element $h_{\alpha}' \in
{\mathrm{Hom}}_{K}(\mathbf{Q}, {\mathrm{ind}}_K^G \mathbf{Q})$, and denote by $[h_{\alpha}']$ the corresponding element of $
{\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_{g_{\alpha}}}(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}_{ g_{\alpha}})$ and similarly for $h_{\beta}$. By we have the explicit formula $$h_{\alpha}': q \in Q \mapsto
\sum_{k \in K/K_{\alpha}} k g_{\alpha} \otimes [h_{\alpha}'](k^{-1} q) \in S[K g_{\alpha} K] \otimes_{SK} Q,$$ where we make a modest abuse of notation by identifying $K/K_{\alpha}$ to a set of representatives for it in $K$. Now apply $h_{\beta}'$ to the right-hand side, regarding $h_{\beta}' \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{SG}(\mathbf{P}, \mathbf{P})$. The result is: $$\label{bigmess}
\sum_{k \in K/K_{\alpha}} \sum_{k' \in K/K_{\beta}} k g_{\alpha} k' g_{\beta} \otimes [h'_{\beta}] k'^{-1} [h'_{\alpha}] k^{-1} (q)
\in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K} (\mathbf{Q}, SG \otimes_{SK} \mathbf{Q})$$ The desired $H^*(K_{g_{\gamma}})$ component of the product $h_{\beta} \cdot h_{\alpha}$ is given by considering all $k,k'$ for which $k g_{\alpha} k' g_{\beta} \in K g_{\gamma} K$, i.e. it is represented by $$\label{bigmess2}
\sum_{k g_{\alpha} k' g_{\beta} \in K g_{\gamma} K } k g_{\alpha} k' g_{\beta} \otimes [h'_{\beta}] k'^{-1} [h'_{\alpha}] k^{-1} (q)
\in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K} (\mathbf{Q}, S[K g_{\gamma} K] \otimes_{SK} \mathbf{Q})$$ By “dual” Frobenius reciprocity (see before ) the right-hand side can be identified with ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{K}(\mathbf{Q}, {\mathrm{ind}}^K_{K_{\gamma}} \mathbf{Q}_{\gamma}) \simeq {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_{\gamma}}(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}_{\gamma})$. If we write $kg_{\alpha} k' g_{\beta} = k_1 g_{\gamma} k_2$, an explicit formula for the corresponding element of ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{K}(\mathbf{Q}, {\mathrm{ind}}^K_{K_{\gamma}} \mathbf{Q}_{\gamma})$ is given by $$q \mapsto \sum_{k g_{\alpha} k' g_{\beta} = k_1 g_{\gamma} k_2 } \underbrace{k_1 \otimes k_2 [h'_{\beta}] k'^{-1} [h'_{\alpha}] k^{-1} (q) }_{\in SK \otimes_{S K_{\gamma}} \mathbf{Q}_{\gamma}}$$ where the right-hand sum is over the same $k, k'$ as before, and we consider only those $k,k'$ such that $kg_{\alpha} k' g_{\beta} \in K g_{\gamma} K$. Then the corresponding element of ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_{\gamma}}(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}_{\gamma})$ is given (see ) by picking out those terms for which $k_1 \in K_{\gamma}$; in that case we can rewrite $k_1 g_{\gamma} k_2 = g_{\gamma} ({\mathrm{Ad}}(g_{\gamma})^{-1} k_1) k_2$ and so we may as well suppose that $k_1 = 1$. Thus, the desired result is $$\label{finale} \sum_{k, k': k g_{\alpha} k' g_{\beta} = g_{\gamma} k''} k'' \underbrace{[h'_{\beta}] k'^{-1}}_{{\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_{{\mathrm{Ad}}(k g_{\alpha}) K_{k' g_{\beta}}}}(\mathbf{Q}_{k g_{\alpha}}, \mathbf{Q}_{k g_{\alpha} k' g_{\beta}}) } \underbrace{ [h'_{\alpha}] k^{-1}}_{{\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_{kg_{\alpha}}}(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}_{k g_{\alpha}}) }\in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_{\gamma}}(\mathbf{Q},\mathbf{Q}_{\gamma})$$
Here we observed that [$$[h'_{\alpha}] \circ k^{-1} \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_{k g_{\alpha}}}(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}_{k g_{\alpha}}),
[h'_{\beta}] \circ k'^{-1} \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_{k'g_\beta}}(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}_{k'g_{\beta}})
\simeq {\mathrm{Hom}}_{{\mathrm{Ad}}(g) K_{k' g_{\beta}}} (\mathbf{Q}_{g}, \mathbf{Q}_{g k'g_{\beta}})$$]{} (the last isomorphism is the obvious one and we apply it to $g =kg_{\alpha}$). [^14] Returning to , set $$x = k g_{\alpha} k' g_{\beta} K = g_{\gamma} K, \ \ y = k g_{\alpha} K, \ \ z = eK, \ \ U = \mathrm{stabilizer}(xyz)$$ Then $x,y$ are in relative position $\beta$, and $y, z$ are in relative position $\alpha$, and $x,z$ are in relative position $\gamma$.
Note also that $$U= K_{k g_{\alpha}} \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(k g_{\alpha}) K_{k' g_{\beta}} =K \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(k g_{\alpha}) K \cap {\mathrm{Ad}}(k g_{\alpha} k' g_{\beta}) K.$$ Therefore, the composite occurring in $$F = \overbrace{[h'_{\beta}] k'^{-1}}^ {{\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_{{\mathrm{Ad}}(k g_{\alpha}) K_{k' g_{\beta}}}}(\mathbf{Q}_{k g_{\alpha}}, \mathbf{Q}_{k g_{\alpha} k' g_{\beta}}) } \circ \underbrace{ [h'_{\alpha}] k^{-1}}_{{\mathrm{Hom}}_{K_{g_{\alpha}}}(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}_{k g_{\alpha}}) }$$ actually belongs to $ {\mathrm{Hom}}_U(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}_{k g_{\alpha} k' g_{\beta}}) $; as such $F$ defines a cohomology class for $U$. This cohomology class is given by taking the classes $h_{\alpha}, h_{\beta}$, transporting them to classes in $H^*(K_{k g_{\alpha}})$ and $H^*({\mathrm{Ad}}(k g_{\alpha}) K'_{k' g_{\beta}})$, by means of ${\mathrm{Ad}}(k): K_{g_{\alpha}} \simeq K_{k g_{\alpha}}$ and ${\mathrm{Ad}}(k g_{\alpha} k'): K_{\beta} \simeq {\mathrm{Ad}}(k g_{\alpha}) K'_{k' g_{\beta}}$, restricting to $U$, and taking the cup product.
Said differently, let us think of $h_{\alpha}$ as a $G$-invariant association $H_{\alpha}$ from pairs $(u,v) \in G/K \times G/K$ to cohomology classes in $H^*(G_{uv})$ – the one whose value at $(g_{\alpha} K, e)$ is given by the original cohomology class in $H^*(K_{g_{\alpha}})$. Similarly for $h_{\beta}$. Then, $$\mbox{ cohomology class of $F$ } = H_{\beta}(x,y) \cup H_{\alpha}(y, z) \in H^*(G_{xyz})$$
Now $K_{\gamma} = G_{xz}$ acts on the set of $(k, k', k'')$ as above, i.e. satisfying $k g_{\alpha} k' g_{\beta} = g_{\gamma} k''$, via $$\kappa: (k, k', k'') \mapsto (\kappa k, k', {\mathrm{Ad}}(g_{\gamma}^{-1}) \kappa k'').$$ For fixed $(k, k', k'')$ the stabilizer of this $K_{\gamma}$-action is just $U$. The contribution of a single $K_{\gamma}$-orbit is given by $$\sum_{\kappa \in K_{\gamma}/U} {\mathrm{Ad}}(g_{\gamma}^{-1}) \kappa \circ F \circ \kappa^{-1}$$ which is to say that it averages $F$, considered as an element of ${\mathrm{Hom}}(\mathbf{Q}, \mathbf{Q}_{\gamma})$, over the cosets of $K_{\gamma}/U$. (The ${\mathrm{Ad}}g_{\gamma}^{-1}$ accounts for the twisted action on $\mathbf{Q}_{\gamma}$). This precisely realizes the corestriction from $U$ to $K_{\gamma}$.
In summary, we have recovered the description of multiplication in the derived Hecke algebra given in §\[desc2\].
Koszul algebra; other odds and ends {#AppendixB}
====================================
Let $B$ be a commutative ring with $1$. Let $$B[[x_1, \dots, x_r]] = S \stackrel{\iota}{\longrightarrow} R = B[[y_1, \dots, y_{r-\delta}]]$$ where $\iota$ sends $x_i$ to $y_i$ for $i \leq r-\delta$, and $x_i$ to zero for $i > r-\delta$.
Let $\mathfrak{p}_S$ be the kernel of the natural augmentation $S \rightarrow B$, and similarly for $R$. Write $\mathfrak{t}_S$ for the $B$-linear dual of for $\mathfrak{p}_S/\mathfrak{p}_S^2$ and similarly for $\mathfrak{t}_R$. Just as in we have a canonical identification $${\mathrm{Ext}}_S^1(B, B) \simeq \mathfrak{t}_S.$$
We will prove:
\[KoszulExtComputation\] ${\mathrm{Ext}}_S^*(B, B)$ is a free exterior algebra over its degree $1$ component; thus we have ${\mathrm{Ext}}_S^* \simeq \wedge^* \mathfrak{t}_S $ as graded $B$-algebra. Moreover, there is an identification of ${\mathrm{Ext}}_S^*(R, B)$ with $\wedge^* (\mathfrak{t}_S/\mathfrak{t}_R)$ in such a way that the natural action of ${\mathrm{Ext}}_S^*(B, B) \simeq \wedge^* \mathfrak{t}_S$ is the natural one obtained from the algebra map $\wedge^* \mathfrak{t}_S \rightarrow \wedge^* (\mathfrak{t}_S/\mathfrak{t}_R)$.
This will follow from the computations of §\[KA1\] (more precisely, with the precisely analogous computations wherein one replaces the role of symmetric algebras by power series algebras).
Koszul algebra {#KA1}
--------------
Let $W$ be a free module of rank $e$ over a base ring $B$ and consider the ring $ R= \mathrm{Sym}(W)$, i.e. “the ring of functions on $W^{\vee}$.” We have a resolution $$\underbrace{ \dots \rightarrow {\mathrm{Sym}}(W) \otimes \wedge^2 W \rightarrow {\mathrm{Sym}}(W) \otimes W \rightarrow {\mathrm{Sym}}(W)}_{\mathbf{K}} \rightarrow B,$$ where the differential sends $$r \otimes w_1 \wedge \dots \wedge w_r \in {\mathrm{Sym}}(W) \otimes \wedge^i W \mapsto \sum_{i} (-1)^{i-1} r w_i \otimes w_1\wedge \dots \widehat{w_i} \wedge \dots w_r .$$ There is a corresponding resolution where we replace ${\mathrm{Sym}}(W)$ by its completion with respect to the augmentation ${\mathrm{Sym}}(W) \rightarrow B$, i.e. when we replace a symmetric algebra by a formal power series algebra.
In particular, we get $${\mathrm{Hom}}_{R} (\mathbf{K}, B) \simeq \left( \wedge^i W \right)^{\vee} \mbox{ with zero differentials.}$$ and thus an identification of ${\mathrm{Ext}}^i_R(B, B)$ with $ \left( \wedge^i W \right)^{\vee} $.
In fact, ${\mathrm{Ext}}^i_R(B, B)$ is a free exterior algebra, where the algebra structure on the ${\mathrm{Ext}}$-groups arising from their identification with the cohomology of the differential graded algebra $${\mathrm{Hom}}_{R} (\mathbf{K}_{\bullet}, \mathbf{K}_{\bullet}).$$ To see this, one verifies that each element of $w \in W^{\vee}$, considered as acting on $\mathbf{K}$ by contractions, actually defines a degree $-1$ endomorphism of $\mathbf{K}$; the resulting inclusion $${\mathrm{Ext}}^*(W^{\vee}) \hookrightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}_R(\mathbf{K}_{\bullet}, \mathbf{K}_{\bullet})$$ gives a quasi-isomorphism of differential graded algebras.
Suppose now that $U$ is a subspace of $W$, giving rise to a quotient map $$R = {\mathrm{Sym}}(W) \rightarrow {\mathrm{Sym}}(W/U) := \bar{R}$$ We have a resolution of $R$-modules (where the differential is given by the same formula as before): $$\underbrace{ \dots \rightarrow {\mathrm{Sym}}(W) \otimes \wedge^2 U \rightarrow {\mathrm{Sym}}(W) \otimes U \rightarrow {\mathrm{Sym}}(W)}_{\mathbf{Q}} \stackrel{\sim}{\longrightarrow} \bar{R},$$ and from this we identify ${\mathrm{Ext}}_R^*(\bar{R}, B)$ with $(\wedge^* U)^{\vee}$.
The action of ${\mathrm{Ext}}^*_R(B, B) \simeq (\wedge^* W)^{\vee}$ on this is the natural one that arises from the map $W^{\vee} \rightarrow U^{\vee}$.
It is enough to check this for the action of ${\mathrm{Ext}}^1_R(B, B)$. We have identifications: $${\mathrm{Ext}}^*_R(\bar{R}, B) \simeq H^*\left( {\mathrm{Hom}}_{R}(\mathbf{Q}_{\bullet}, B) \right) = H^* \left( {\mathrm{Hom}}_R(\mathbf{Q}_{\bullet}, \mathbf{K}_{\bullet}) \right).$$ Explicitly, a class in $ \omega_j \in (\wedge^j U)^{\vee} \simeq {\mathrm{Ext}}^j_R(\bar{R}, B)$ is represented by a map of complexes $\mathbf{Q}_{\bullet} \rightarrow \mathbf{K}_{\bullet}$ as follows: $$\xymatrix{
\cdots \ar[r] & R \otimes \wedge^{j+1}U \ar[r] \ar[d]^f & R \otimes \wedge^j U \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\omega_j \in \wedge^j U^{\vee}} & R \otimes \wedge^{j-1} U \\
\cdots \ar[r] & K_1=R \otimes W \ar[r] & K_0=R \ar[r] & 0.
}$$ (since this lifts the map $\mathbf{Q} \rightarrow B[j]$ associated to $\omega_j$).
Fix a basis $e_1, \dots, e_r$ for $U$ and extend it to a basis $e_1, \dots, e_{e}$ for $W$. For $I \subset \{1, \dots, k\}$ we define $e_I \in \wedge^k W$ thus: write $I = \{i_1, \dots, i_r\}$ with $i_1 < \cdots < i_r$ and put $e_I = e_{i_1} \wedge e_{i_2} \wedge \dots \wedge e_{i_r}$. We may choose $f$ to be given, explicitly, as $$e_J \in \wedge^{j+1} U \mapsto \sum_{k \in J} (-1)^{[k]-1} \omega_j(e_{J-k}) \otimes e_k \in R \otimes W,$$ where $[k]$ means the position of $k$ in $J$ (i.e. if $J$ is ordered in increasing order, then $1$ for the smallest element, two for the second smallest, etc.)
To compute, now, the action of $\beta \in W^{\vee} ={\mathrm{Ext}}^1_R(B, B) $ on the class $\omega_j$, we just regard $\beta$ as an $R$-module map $K_1= R \otimes W \rightarrow R$, and then compose $$\beta \circ f \in {\mathrm{Hom}}_R(\wedge^{j+1} U \otimes R, R) = \left( \wedge^{j+1} U \right)^{\vee}.$$ Explicitly, $$\beta \circ f: e_J \mapsto \sum_{k \in J} (-1)^{[k]-1} \overline{ \beta}(e_k) \omega_j(e_{J-k}) = (\overline{\beta} \wedge \omega_j, e_J)$$ i.e. $ \overline{\beta} \wedge \omega_j$, where $\overline{\beta}$ is the image of $\beta$ in $U^{\vee}$. This concludes the proof.
A result in topology {#sec:remedialtopology}
--------------------
Suppose that $\pi: X \rightarrow Y$ is a covering of pointed Hausdorff topological spaces, with Galois group $\Delta$. This covering is classified by a map $Y \rightarrow B \Delta$ from $Y$ to the classifying space of $\Delta$.
There are two natural actions of $H^*(\Delta, E)$ (with $E$ a coefficient ring) on $H^*(Y, E)$:
- The first arises from pullback of cohomology classes under $Y \rightarrow B\Delta$ together with cup product.
- The second arises from the identification of the cochain complex of $Y$, with $E$ coefficients, with $$C^*(Y; E) \simeq {\mathrm{Hom}}_{E \Delta}(C_*(X, E); E)$$ where $C_*(X; E)$ is the cochain complex of $X$ (or e.g. the complex of a $\Delta$-equivariant cell structure), thought of as a complex of $E \Delta$-modules. Then one composes with self maps of $E$ in the derived category of $E \Delta$-modules.
For lack of a reference, we will prove the coincidence of these actions. For this we will use the following standard Lemma concerning the coincidence of singular and sheaf cohomology (see [@Sella] for a careful discussion; however this reference does not discuss the product structures):
For any locally contractible Hausdorff space $M$, and any $E$-module $A$, let $\underline{A}$ be the constant sheaf on $M$ with constant value $A$, considered as an object of the category of sheaves $\mathcal{S}$ of $E$-modules on $M$.
Then the complex of local chains $U \mapsto C^*(U, \underline{A})$ defines a presheaf on $M$; let $\mathcal{C}^*_A$ be its sheafification. Then $\underline{A} \rightarrow \mathcal{C}^*_A$ is a flasque resolution of $\underline{A}$. Moreover, the natural maps $$C^*(M, \underline{A}) \rightarrow \Gamma(M, \mathcal{C}^*_A) =
{\mathrm{Hom}}_{\mathcal{S}}(\underline{A}, \mathcal{C}^*_A)$$ induces, at the level of cohomology, an isomorphism $$\label{oink boink} H^*(M, \underline{A}) \simeq {\mathrm{Ext}}_{\mathcal{S}}^*(\underline{A}, \underline{A})$$ which carries the cup product on the left to the ${\mathrm{Ext}}$-product to the right.
(that (a) and (b) coincide): Observe, first of all, that every $\Delta$-module $M$ gives a locally constant sheaf $\underline{M}$ on $Y$, namely, the one represeted by the covering $(X \times M)/\Delta \rightarrow Y$. The cochains $C^*(Y, \underline{M})$ are then given by ${\mathrm{Hom}}_{E \Delta}(C_*(X, E), M)$.
Fix $\alpha_{\Delta} \in H^m(\Delta, E)$. It gives rise to a homomorphism $\alpha: E \rightarrow E[m]$ in the derived category of $E\Delta$-modules, which can be represented by a diagram $E \stackrel{\sim}{\leftarrow} P \rightarrow E[m]$ where $P$ is a complex of projective $E\Delta$-modules. Thus we get a diagram of locally constant sheaves on $Y$: $$\underline{\alpha}: \underline{E} \stackrel{\sim}{\leftarrow} \underline{P} \rightarrow \underline{E}[m].$$
This gives a map in the derived category of sheaves on $Y$, and thus an element of ${\mathrm{Ext}}^m_{\mathcal{S}}(\underline{E}, \underline{E})$; this element represents the pullback $\alpha_Y$ of $\alpha_{\Delta}$ to $Y$. or rather its image under .
By the final sentence of the Lemma, the cup product with $\alpha_Y$ is given, at the level of cohomology, by the ${\mathrm{Ext}}$-product, which is explicitly the composite: $$H^*(Y, \underline{E}) \stackrel{\sim}{ \leftarrow} H^*(Y, \underline{P}) \rightarrow H^*(Y, \underline{E}[m])$$ By the lemma, these groups are naturally identified with the cohomology of the corresponding cochain groups; so the above composite coincides with $${\mathrm{Hom}}_{E \Delta} (C_*(X, E), E) \stackrel{\sim}{\leftarrow} {\mathrm{Hom}}_{E \Delta}(C_*(X, \Delta), P) \rightarrow {\mathrm{Hom}}_{E \Delta}(C_*(X, \Delta), E)$$ where the middle term is now the $\mathrm{Hom}$-complex between two complexes.
But this composite is also given by the ${\mathrm{Ext}}$-product, in the category of $E \Delta$-modules, with the class of $\alpha$. This concludes the proof of the coincidence of (a) and (b).
[^1]: Our assumptions are similar to Calegari–Geraghty [@CG]; however we do not need the assumptions on vanishing of cohomology because we allow ourselves to discard small $p$. Also, the existence of such Galois representations has been proved modulo a nilpotent ideal by Scholze. Finally, very recent work by a group of ten authors [@ManyAuthorPaper] has shown that in fact one can make the applications of Calegari–Geraghty to modularity lifting completely unconditional. It is very likely these ideas would adapt to give a characteristic zero version of our main results without assumption.
[^2]: A priori, this takes $\overline{{\mathbf{Q}}_{p}}$ coefficients; we will, for simplicity, assume that it can actually be defined over ${\mathbf{Q}}_{p}$. Moreover, in general [@BG §3.4] one has to replace ${^{L}\hat{G}}$ by a slightly different group to define $\rho_{\chi}$, but the foregoing discussion goes through with no change.
[^3]: Since only determines the [é]{}tale realization, it is more natural to consider $M_{{\mathrm{coad}}}$ as a homological motive. Assuming standard conjectures, [@murre §7.3 Remark 3.bis] this can be promoted (non-canonically) to a Chow motive. The independence of of the constructions that follow requires a further conjecture, e.g. the existence of the Bloch–Beilinson filtration on $K$-theory.
[^4]: Namely, we only work with simply connected groups – i.e., we prove an analogous result for ${\mathrm{SL}}_2$ rather than ${\mathrm{PGL}}_2$ – and we impose various local conditions on the residual representations. In the introduction, we have stuck with ${\mathrm{PGL}}_2$ because it’s more familiar. For example, for ${\mathrm{SL}}_2$, we would need to use only the squares of the usual Hecke operators.
[^5]: Indeed, if $\mathbf{A}(F_v)^{\circ} x K_v = x K_v$, we have $x^{-1} \mathbf{A}(F_v)^{\circ} x \subset K_v$; by using the Iwasawa decomposition, it is enough to check that if this inclusion holds for some $x=n \in \mathbf{N}(F_v)$, then in fact $n \in K_v$. In that case we have $n^{-1} a n \in K_v$ for all $a \in \mathbf{A}(F_v)^{\circ}$, and in particular $n^{-1} ( {\mathrm{Ad}}(a) n) \in K_v$ for all such $a$.
Choose a generic positive element $\lambda \in X_*(\mathbf{A})$, giving an enumeration of the positive roots $\alpha_1, \dots, \alpha_s$ so that $\langle \alpha_i, \lambda \rangle$ is increasing. For each such root we have a root subspace $u_{i}: \mathbf{G}_a \rightarrow
N$, and the product map $u_s(x_s) u_{s-1}(x_{s-1}) \dots u_1(x_1)$, from $\mathbf{G}_a^s \rightarrow N$, extends to an isomorphism of group schemes over $\mathcal{O}_v$. In this ordering, the commutator $[u_{i}, u_j]$ involves only $u_{k}$ with $k > \max(i,j)$.
Let $x_1$ be the $\alpha_1$ coordinate of $n$. We have $(\alpha_1(a)-1) x_1 \in \mathcal{O}_v$ for all $a \in \mathbf{A}(F_v)^{\circ}$, which implies $x_1 \in \mathcal{O}_v$, cf. second paragraph of the proof of Lemma \[splitness\]. Adjust $n$ on the right by $u_{1}(-x_1)$ to arrange that $x_1$ is trivial. Now proceed the same way for the $\alpha_2, \alpha_3, \dots$ coordinate.
[^6]: Here is a proof of the latter claim: if $gI_v$ is fixed, then $g K_v \in X_* K_v$, and modifying $g$ by an element of $\mathbf{A}(F_v)$, we can suppose $g \in K_v$. We are reduced to computing the $\mathbf{A}(F_v)^{\circ}$-fixed points on $K_v/I_v$, which amount to the torus fixed points on a flag variety over $\mathbf{F}_v$ – using Lemma \[nontriv\] to avoid problems with small residue field, these fixed points are precisely the $wI_v$ with $w \in W$, as desired.
[^7]: This uses compactness of $Y(K)$; in the general case the answer is substantially more complicated
[^8]: Note that the assumption that there is a $\mathbb{T}$-valued Galois representation, rather than a weaker notion such as a determinant, is not reasonable unless one has a condition like “residual irreducibility.” In our case, however, we are assuming that the residual representation ${\overline{\rho}}$ has very large image anyway – see (b) below.
[^9]: As a sanity check on this, note that the action of $H^*(T_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ on $H^*(Y_0(Q_n), {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$ indeed does preserve the splitting into summands of the type ; one can see this directly by seeing that $H^*(T_n, {\mathbf{Z}}/p^n)$, considered inside the derived Iwahori-Hecke algebra, commutes with the “positive subalgebra” used to define the splitting .
[^10]: Here we say that a submodule $Q$ of a free ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$-module $Q'$ is saturated if the quotient $Q'/Q$ is torsion-free.
[^11]: Why the [*coadjoint*]{} representation rather than the adjoint? They are isomorphic for $G$ semisimple, at least away from small characteristic. However, canonically what comes up for us is the coadjoint; for example, when one works with tori, as in §\[tori\], the difference is important.
[^12]: Recall that we are supposing that $H^*(Y(1), {\mathbf{Z}}_p)$ is free over ${\mathbf{Z}}_p$.
[^13]: Indeed, the the ${\mathbf{Z}}_{p}$-linear dual of $\hat{T}$ is identified with $${\mathrm{Lie}}(\hat{T})^{\vee} \simeq \left( {\mathrm{Lie}}(\mathbf{G}_m) \otimes X_*(\hat{T}) \right)^{\vee} \simeq X^*(\hat{T}) \otimes {\mathbf{Z}}_p \simeq X_*(\mathbf{T}) \otimes {\mathbf{Z}}_{p}$$ where we have fixed an isomorphism ${\mathbf{Z}}\simeq {\mathrm{Lie}}(\mathbf{G}_m)$.
[^14]: For example, to check the first, note that for $z \in K_{k g_{\alpha}}$ and $q \in \mathbf{Q}$ we have $$[h'_{\alpha}] \circ k^{-1} (zq) = [h'_{\alpha}] \left( (k^{-1} zk) (k^{-1} q) \right) = (g_{\alpha}^{-1} k^{-1} z k g_{\alpha}) [h'_{\alpha}]\circ k^{-1}( q)$$ Indeed, $[h'_{\alpha}]$ represents the class in $H^*(K_{k g_{\alpha}})$, obtained by applying ${\mathrm{Ad}}(k)$ to the class $h_{\alpha} \in H^*(K_{g_{\alpha}})$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the dynamics of expansion of the homogeneous isotropic Universe and the evolution of its components in the model with nonminimally coupled dynamical dark energy. Dark energy, like the other components of the Universe, is described by the perfect fluid approximation with the equation of state (EoS) $p_ {de}=w\rho_{de}$, where the EoS parameter $w$ depends on time and is parameterized via the squared adiabatic sound speed $c_{ a}^2$ which is assumed to be constant. On basis of the general covariant conservation equations for the interacting dark energy and dark matter and Einstein equations in Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric we analyze the evolution of energy densities of the hidden components and the dynamics of expansion of the Universe with two types of interaction: proportional to the sum of densities of the hidden components and proportional to their product. For the first interaction the analytical expressions for the densities of dark energy and dark matter were obtained and analyzed in detail. For the second one the evolution of densities of hidden components of the Universe was analyzed on basis of the numerical solutions of their energy-momentum conservation equations. For certain values of the parameters of these models the energy densities of dark components become negative. So to ensure that the densities are always positive we put constraints on the interaction parameter for both models.'
author:
- 'R. Neomenko[^1], B. Novosyadlyj[^2], O. Sergijenko[^3]'
title: |
Dynamics of expansion of the Universe\
in model with the additional coupling\
between dark energy and dark matter
---
Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
============
The discovery of accelerated expansion of the Universe has led to the emergence of various hypotheses that explain this phenomenon. It is believed that the acceleration is caused by some unknown component of the Universe, which has a positive energy density and negative pressure. This component is called dark energy. There are various models of dark energy, the simplest of which is the model with the constant energy density and pressure, which is described by the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ in Einstein equations. More complex are the models of dynamical dark energy, in which the parameters depend on time. This type includes different models of a scalar field. To describe the dark energy as well as other components of the Universe the model of perfect fluid is often used. Some models assume the additional interaction of dark energy with other components, which is beyond known 4 physical interactions – electromagnetic, strong, weak and gravitational [@Amendola2000; @Amendola2007; @Amendola2010; @Bolotin2013; @Caldera2009; @Gumjudpai2005; @Pourtsidou2013; @Guo2007; @Zimdahl2001]. Since such impact of dark energy on baryon matter or radiation is not experimentally registered, it is obvious that it is either too weak or absent at all. There are currently no direct experimental constraints on its action on dark matter, since both these components are detected by their gravitational influence on the baryonic matter at cosmological scales. Therefore, in this paper we analyze the effect of the additional interaction of dark energy and dark matter on the dynamics of expansion of the Universe and deduce the constraits on the parameter of such interaction on basis of the null energy condition.
In the considered model of dynamical dark energy the pressure and energy density of dark energy are related via the time-dependent parameter of the equation of state (EoS) $w$ as follows: $p_{de}=w\rho_{de}$. Different works propose different dependences of the EoS parameter on time. We parametrize the evolution of $w$ by the square of the adiabatic sound speed $c_{a}^{2}\equiv\dot{p}_{de}/\dot{\rho}_{de}$, where the dot denotes the derivative on time. Such model for the minimally coupled (non-interacting) dark energy was proposed and studied in [@Novosyadlyj2010; @Novosyadlyj2011; @Novosyadlyj2012; @Novosyadlyj2013; @Sergijenko2015], observational constraints on its parameters were obtained in [@Sergijenko2011; @Novosyadlyj2014].
In this paper we consider the evolution of dark energy and dark matter, which are coupled with each other by the gravitational and non-gravitational (fifth) interactions, and their influence on the dynamics of expansion of the homogeneous isotropic Universe. The mathematical basis of this work is the conservation equations and Einstein equations in the Universe with Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric. We consider 2 types of the interaction depending on the energy densities of both dark components: proportional to the sum of dark energy and dark matter densities and proportional to the product of their densities.
Model of the nonminimally coupled dark energy
=============================================
{width="41.00000%"} {width="41.00000%"}
We consider the homogeneous isotropic Universe with the Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker spacetime metric, which in conformal form in spherical coordinates has the form: $$\begin{aligned}
& & ds^{2}=g_{ik}dx^idx^k= \nonumber \\
& & =a^{2}(\eta)[d\eta^{2}-dr^{2}-r^{2}(d\theta^{2}+\sin^{2}\theta d\varphi^{2})], \label{ds}\end{aligned}$$ where $g_{ik}$ is the metric tensor, $a(\eta)$ is the scale factor describing expansion of the Universe. The conformal time $\eta$ is related to the physical cosmological time $t$ as $cdt=a(\eta)d\eta$, where $c$ is the speed of light. The 3-space of the Universe with the metric (\[ds\]) is euclidean, that is, a space with zero curvature. We assume that in the modern epoch $a(\eta_0)=1$. We describe each component of the Universe (dark energy ($de$), dark matter ($dm$), baryonic ($b$) and relativistic matter ($r$) – relic radiation and relic neutrinos) by the perfect fluid approximation in which the energy-momentum tensor is as follows: $$\label{Tik}
T_{i(N)}^{k}=(c^2\rho_{(N)}+p_{(N)})u_{i(N)}u_{(N)}^{k}-p_{(N)}\delta_{i}^{k},$$ where $\rho_{(N)}$ is the density of $N$ component, $p_{(N)}$ is its pressure, $u_{i(N)}$ is the 4-vector of velocity. The equation of state for each of the components is as follows: $p_{(N)}=w_{(N)}\rho_{(N)}$. Then from Einstein equations and conservation laws for the interacting dark energy and dark matter we obtain such equations for the dynamics of expansion of the Universe: $$\begin{aligned}
& & H^{2}=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\sum_N\rho_{(N)}, \label{H2} \\
& & qH^2=\frac{4\pi G}{3}\sum_N(\rho_{(N)}+3p_{(N)}), \label{qH2}\end{aligned}$$ where $H\equiv({1}/{a}){da}/{dt}={\dot{a}}/{a^2}$ is the Hubble parameter, $q\equiv-[{1}/({aH^2})]{d^2a}/{dt^2}=-{\ddot{a}}/({a^3H^2})+1$ – the deceleration parameter (hereafter $\left(\,\dot{ }\,\right)\equiv{d}/{d\eta}$). The differential energy-momentum conservation law $T^k_{0; k}=0$ for dark components gives the equations describing the evolution of their densities: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \dot{\rho}_{de}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\rho_{de}(1+w)=J_{0}, \label{eq de} \\
& & \dot{\rho}_{dm}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\rho_{dm}=-J_{0}, \label{eq dm}\end{aligned}$$ where the function $J_{0}$ describes the coupling of dark components and has the dimension of energy density per unit of time. Here and below $w_{de}\equiv w$ and $w_{dm}=0$.
For the baryonic and relativistic components in the post-recombination epoch these equations with $J_0=0$ and $w_b=0$ or $w_r=1/3$ give the well-known dependences for energy densities of these components: $\rho_b(a)=\rho_b^{(0)}a^{-3}$ and $\rho_r(a)=\rho_r^{(0)}a^{-4}$, here and below $(0)$ denotes the current value ($a(\eta_0)=1$).
For models with the nonminimally coupled dark energy it is usually assumed that $w = const$. In this paper, as in the previous one [@Neomenko2016], we consider the nonminimally coupled dynamical dark energy with the generalized linear barotropic equation of state for which $c_{a}^{2}\equiv\dot{p}_{de}/\dot{\rho}_{de}=const$ [[@Holman2004; @Babichev2005; @Novosyadlyj2010]]{}. From this condition and (\[eq de\]) we obtain the equation for $w(a)$: $$\label{dw}
\frac{dw}{da}=\frac{3}{a}(1+w)(w-c_{a}^{2})-\frac{J_{0}}{\rho_{de}a^{2}H}(w-c_{a}^{2}).$$ To describe the dynamics of expansion of the Universe and the evolution of densities of its components it is necessary to solve the system of equations (\[H2\]), (\[eq de\]), (\[eq dm\]), (\[dw\]). The relation between $\rho_{de}$ and $w$ follows from the definition $c_{a}^{2}\equiv\dot{p}_{de}/\dot{\rho}_{de}=const$: $$\label{rw}
w=c_{a}^{2}+\frac{\rho_{de}^{(0)}(w_{0}-c_{a}^{2})}{\rho_{de}}.$$ In this paper we consider the interaction between dark energy and dark matter (hereafter DE-DM interaction) proportional to the Hubble parameter $H$ and depending only on the energy densities of both dark components $J_{0}=aHf(\rho_{de}, \rho_{dm})$. We consider 2 types of such interaction: proportional to the sum of dark components densities and proportional to their product: $$\begin{aligned}
&&J_{0}=-3\xi aH(\rho_{de}(a)+\rho_{dm}(a)), \label{Jsum}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&J_{0}=-3\epsilon aH\frac{\rho_{de}(a)\rho_{dm}(a)}{\tilde{\rho}}, \label{Jpro}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\rho}$ has the dimension of energy density and may be constant or time dependent and $\xi$ and $\epsilon$ are dimensionless coupling parameters assumed to be constant. We study the interaction (\[Jsum\]) due to the simplicity of obtaining analytical expressions for the energy densities of dark components, and the nonlinear interaction (\[Jpro\]) is interesting because such its type is quite common in nature and is more realistic than linear interactions of type (\[Jsum\]) or investigated in [@Neomenko2016].
DE-DM interaction proportional to the sum of dark energy and dark matter densities
==================================================================================
Using (\[rw\]) the equations (\[eq de\]), (\[eq dm\]), (\[dw\]) for interaction (\[Jsum\]) can be reduced to the system of 2 ordinary differential equations: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \frac{d\rho_{de}}{da}=-\frac{3}{a}(1+c_{a}^{2}+\xi)\rho_{de}-\frac{3}{a}\xi\rho_{dm}- \nonumber \\
& & -\frac{3}{a}\rho_{de}^{(0)}(w_{0}-c_{a}^{2}), \label{drdesum} \\
& & \frac{d\rho_{dm}}{da}=\frac{3}{a}\xi\rho_{de}-\frac{3}{a}(1-\xi)\rho_{dm}, \label{drdmsum}\end{aligned}$$ which has the exact analytical solution:
$$\begin{aligned}
& & \rho_{de}=3C_{1}\xi a^{-\frac{3}{2}(2+c_{a}^{2})+\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{c_{a}^{2}(c_{a}^{2}+4\xi)}}+
\frac{3}{2}C_{2}(c_{a}^{2}+2\xi+\sqrt{c_{a}^{2}(c_{a}^{2}+4\xi)})a^{-\frac{3}{2}(2+c_{a}^{2})-
\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{c_{a}^{2}(c_{a}^{2}+4\xi)}}- \nonumber \\
& & -\frac{(1-\xi)\rho_{de}^{(0)}(w_{0}-c_{a}^{2})}{1+c_{a}^{2}(1-\xi)}, \label{de sum} \\
& & \rho_{dm}=-\frac{3}{2}C_{1}(c_{a}^{2}+2\xi+\sqrt{c_{a}^{2}(c_{a}^{2}+4\xi)})a^{-\frac{3}{2}(2+c_{a}^{2})+\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{c_{a}^{2}(c_{a}^{2}+4\xi)}}-
3C_{2}\xi a^{-\frac{3}{2}(2+c_{a}^{2})-\frac{3}{2}\sqrt{c_{a}^{2}(c_{a}^{2}+4\xi)}}- \nonumber \\
& & -\frac{\xi\rho_{de}^{(0)}(w_{0}-c_{a}^{2})}{1+c_{a}^{2}(1-\xi)}, \label{dm sum}\\
& & C_{1}=-\frac{1}{3\sqrt{c_{a}^{2}(c_{a}^{2}+4\xi)}}\left[\rho_{dm}^{(0)}+\xi\rho_{de}^{(0)}\frac{2(1+w_{0}-\xi c_{a}^{2})+(w_{0}-c_{a}^{2})(c_{a}^{2}+\sqrt{c_{a}^{2}(c_{a}^{2}+4\xi)})}{(1+c_{a}^{2}(1-\xi))(c_{a}^{2}+2\xi+\sqrt{c_{a}^{2}(c_{a}^{2}+4\xi)})}\right], \nonumber \\
& & C_{2}=\frac{1}{3\sqrt{c_{a}^{2}(c_{a}^{2}+4\xi)}}\left[\rho_{de}^{(0)}\frac{1+w_0(1-\xi)}{1+c_{a}^{2}(1-\xi)}
+2\xi\frac{\rho_{dm}^{(0)}+\frac{\xi\rho_{de}^{(0)}(w_{0}-c_{a}^{2})}{1+c_{a}^{2}(1-\xi)}}{c_{a}^{2}+2\xi+\sqrt{c_{a}^{2}(c_{a}^{2}+4\xi)}}\right]. \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
{width="41.00000%"} {width="41.00000%"}
From (\[de sum\]), (\[dm sum\]) we see that in absence of the interaction ($\xi =0$) these expressions turn into the well-known ones for the densities of dark components in the minimally coupled case [@Novosyadlyj2010]: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\rho_{de}^{(mc)}(a)=\rho_{de}^{(0)}\frac{(1+w_{0})a^{-3(1+c_{a}^{2})}-w_{0}+c_{a}^{2}}{1+c_{a}^{2}}, \label{rode0}\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&\rho_{dm}=\rho_{dm}^{(0)}a^{-3}.\label{rodm0}\end{aligned}$$
The density of dark matter during the expantion of the Universe is always positive decreasing function. The density of dark energy is always positive function when $c_a^2>w_0$ for quintessence (for $w_0>-1$ it is the monotonically decreasing function of $a$) and $c_a^2<w_0$ for phantom (for $w_0<-1$ it is the monotonically increasing function of $a$).
The introduction of additional interaction expands substantially the choice of possibilities for evolution of both components. For $\xi\ne0$ and certain values of the parameters $w_{0},\,c_{a}^{2},\,\rho_{de}^{(0)},\,\rho_{dm}^{(0)}$ the energy density of both dark energy and dark matter may become negative during a certain period of evolution of the Universe or oscillate with the change of sign. We consider this behavior of densities to be unphysical and find the range of values of the interaction parameter for which values of the densities of dark matter and dark energy are always positive monotone functions of the scale factor $a$.
First of all, it is known that the set of observational data on the cosmic microwave background anisotropy and the large scale structure of the Universe prefers the close to (\[rodm0\]) law of the dark matter density change in the past (e.g., [@Novosyadlyj2010; @Novosyadlyj2011; @Novosyadlyj2012; @Novosyadlyj2013; @Novosyadlyj2014; @Sergijenko2011; @Sergijenko2015]). From the analysis of expressions in the exponents of $a$ in (\[dm sum\]) first condition for the coupling parameter follows: $$|\xi|\ll\frac{1}{2}. \label{uxi1}$$ The range of values of the parameter $\xi$, for which $\rho_{dm}(a)\ge0$ and $\rho_{de}(a)\ge0$ for $0\le a\le\infty$, can be found either from the analysis of expressions (\[de sum\])-(\[dm sum\]) or from the analysis of stability of equations (\[drdesum\]) and (\[drdmsum\]) by the method of critical points [@Copeland1998] in the phase space $(\rho_{de}, \rho_{dm})$. Both approaches constrain the range of values of $\xi$ to positive ones: $$\xi\ge0. \label{uxi2}$$ This condition for coupling (\[Jsum\]) was expected due to the analysis [@Neomenko2016] for this kind of interaction.
The condition for absence of oscillations is obtained from the requirement of inequality of the expressions under radicals in the exponents of $a$ in (\[de sum\])-(\[dm sum\]): $$\label{ccr}
\xi\le-\frac{c_{a}^{2}}{4}.$$
{width="41.00000%"} {width="41.00000%"}
We see that for $c_{a}^{2}<0$, $c_{a}^{2}>-{1}/{(1-\xi)}$ the dark energy density is the monotonically decreasing function $a$ with asymptotes $\rho_{de}\rightarrow\infty$ when $a\rightarrow 0$ and $\rho_{de}\rightarrow {(\xi-1)\rho_{de}^{(0)}(w_{0}-c_{a}^{2})}/{[1+c_{a}^{2}(1-\xi)]}$ when $a\rightarrow\infty$. The dark matter density in the case of $\xi\ne0$ has such asymptotes when $a\rightarrow\infty$: $\rho_{dm}\rightarrow -{\xi\rho_{de}^{(0)}(w_{0}-c_{a}^{2})}/{[1+c_{a}^{2}(1-\xi)]}$. The dark energy density has decreased by this value. That is, the coupling (\[Jsum\]) results in pumping of the energy density from dark energy to dark matter. When $a\rightarrow0$ the asymptote of $\rho_{dm}$ is close to (\[rodm0\]).
If $c_{a}^{2}<0$, $c_{a}^{2}<-{1}/{(1-\xi)}$ then the density of dark energy is a function of $a$ which varies nonmonotonically with asymptotes $\rho_{de}\rightarrow\infty$ when $a\rightarrow\infty$ and $\rho_{de}\rightarrow\infty$ when $a\rightarrow0$. The density of dark matter in model of the Universe with such dark energy varies according to the same law. In the current and past epochs the dependence of densities of the dark components on $a$ is decreasing and close to (\[rodm0\]). However, in the future decreasing of the dark energy and dark matter density will stop and they will start to grow with growth of the expansion rate of the Universe. Thus, in the case of this dark energy model with additional coupling to dark matter (\[Jsum\]) the Big Rip singularity is approached along with a catastrophic increase in the density of dark matter.
In Fig. \[fig:xm sum1\] the dependences of the EoS parameter $w$ and the densities of dark energy and dark matter $\rho_{de}$, $\rho_{dm}$ calculated on basis of (\[rw\]) and (\[de sum\])-(\[dm sum\]) for cosmological models with $\Omega_{de}=0.7$, $\Omega_{dm}=0.25$, $\Omega_b=0.05$, $\Omega_r=4.17\cdot10^{-5}/h^2$ ($h\equiv H_0/100$ km$\cdot$с$^{-1}\cdot$Mpc$^{-1}$=0.7) and different values of the coupling parameter $\xi$ for quintessence ($w_{0}=-0.85$, $c_{a}^{2}=-0.5$) and phantom ($w_{0}=-1.15$, $c_{a}^{2}=-1.25$) are shown. The case with $\xi <0$ illustrates the change of signs of the dark energy and dark matter densities. In the case of phantom dark energy it is also shown that for large values of the coupling parameter, with violation of the condition (\[uxi1\]), the solutions (\[de sum\])-(\[dm sum\]) give negative values of the dark energy and dark matter densities. Presented dependences show that the evolution of densities $\rho_{de}$, $\rho_{dm}$ in the past is sensitive to the value of coupling parameter $\xi$.
In Fig. \[fig:xm sum2\] the dependences of the Hubble parameter $H$ and the deceleration parameter $q$ are shown for the cosmological models with quintessence and phantom with the same parameters as in Fig. \[fig:xm sum1\]. We see that in the model with quintessence with the coupling parameters $\xi =-0.1, \ 0, \ 0.1, \ 0.125$ $H\rightarrow\infty$, $q\rightarrow 1$ when $a\rightarrow 0$ and $H\rightarrow\left[-{\rho_{de}^{(0)}(w_{0}-c_{a}^{2})}/{(1+c_{a}^{2}(1-\xi))}\right]^{1/2}$, $q\rightarrow -1$ when $a\rightarrow\infty$. For phantom dark energy with the coupling parameters $\xi =-0.1, \ 0.1$ $H\rightarrow\infty$, $q\rightarrow 1$ when $a\rightarrow 0$ and $H\rightarrow\infty$, $q\rightarrow 1/2+3c_a^2/2+3\xi c_a^2/[c_{a}^{2}+\sqrt{c_{a}^{2}(c_{a}^{2}+4\xi)}]$ when $a\rightarrow\infty$. For the model without interaction $\xi =0$ the asymptotes are the same, but $q\rightarrow {1}/{2}+{3c_{a}^{2}}/{2}$ when $a\rightarrow\infty$. For the model with coupling parameter $\xi=0.25$ $H\rightarrow -\infty$, $q\rightarrow +\infty$ when $a\rightarrow\infty $. So we see that there is a fundamental opportunity to detect an additional interaction between dark components using precision measurements of the Hubble and deceleration parameters.
DE-DM interaction proportional to the product of dark energy and dark matter densities
======================================================================================
{width="41.00000%"} {width="41.00000%"}
Let us now consider the dynamics of expansion of the Universe and the evolution of densities of dark energy and dark matter with the interaction proportional to the product of their energy densities (\[Jpro\]). In this case the equations (\[eq de\]), (\[eq dm\]), (\[dw\]) using (\[rw\]) are reduced to the system of 1st order ordinary differential equations: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \frac{d\rho_{de}}{da}=-\frac{3}{a}(1+c_{a}^{2})\rho_{de}-\frac{3\epsilon}{a\tilde{\rho}}\rho_{de}\rho_{dm}- \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ $$\begin{aligned}
& & -\frac{3}{a}\rho_{de}^{(0)}(w_{0}-c_{a}^{2}), \label{drdepro}\\
& & \frac{d\rho_{dm}}{da}=-\frac{3}{a}\rho_{dm}+\frac{3\epsilon}{a\tilde{\rho}}\rho_{de}\rho_{dm}. \label{drdmpro}\end{aligned}$$ The product of densities of the dark components in this interaction is divided by $\tilde{\rho}$ so that the interaction (\[Jpro\]) has the correct dimension.
We can choose $\tilde{\rho}$ as follows: $$\begin{aligned}
& & \tilde{\rho}=\rho_{cr}=3H_0^2/8\pi G, \label{cr} \\
& & \tilde{\rho}=3H^2/8\pi G, \label{tot} \\
& & \tilde{\rho}=\rho_{de}+\rho_{dm}. \label{sum}\end{aligned}$$
It should be noted that for the model (\[cr\]), even for very small $\epsilon$, due to the quadraticity with respect to density, the interaction grows faster than the growth of densities of the dark components. Therefore, for $\rho_{de}, \ \rho_{dm}$ comparable with $\tilde{\rho}/\epsilon$ the interaction is very large leading to the strong increase in the rate of pumping of the energy density from one dark component to the other, hence, the strong deviations in the evolution of densities of the dark components and the dynamics of expansion of the Universe from the model without interaction. Only for $|\epsilon|\ll 1$, when $a$ is approaching $1$, the evolution of densities of the dark components becomes close to the non-interacting case.
Since in the matter and dark energy dominated epocs the contribution of densities of the baryonic and relativistic components in the denominator $\tilde{\rho}$ of model (\[tot\]) is small and in the radiation dominated epoch the main contribution to dynamics of expansion comes from the energy density of relativistic component, the expansion dynamics in models of the nonlinear interaction (\[tot\]) and (\[sum\]) is similar during the whole evolution of the Universe.
Henceforth we consider only the interaction (\[tot\]). Due to the lack of exact analytical solutions, we integrate the system of equations (\[drdepro\])-(\[drdmpro\]) numerically using the Runge-Kutta method implemented in the code dverk.f [@dverk] which is publicly available. The results are presented in Fig. \[fig:xm pro1\] showing the dependences of $w$, $\rho_{de}$ and $\rho_{dm}$ on $a$ for the same values of cosmological parameters as in the previous section.
For the interaction with (\[tot\]) the rapid growth of product of $\rho_{de}$ and $\rho_{dm}$ with the growth of these densities is compensated by the growth of $\tilde{\rho}$. For small $\epsilon$ the behavior of densities of the dark components is slightly different from the non-interacting model. Only for a very large $\epsilon$ the nonlinearity of this interaction manifests itself. In Fig. \[fig:xm pro1\] we see that for $\epsilon=-0.4, \ 0, \ 0.4, \ 0.8$ the dark energy with parameters $w_{0}=-0.85$, $c_{a}^{2}=-0.5$ is quintessence and with parameters $w_{0}=-1.15$, $c_{a}^{2}=-1.25$ is phantom. When $\epsilon=-0.4$ the density of quintessence in the early epoch is negative.
As in the case of minimally coupled dark energy ($\epsilon=0$) [@Novosyadlyj2010; @Novosyadlyj2012], when $\epsilon=-0.1, \ 0.01, \ 0.1$ the density of dark energy during expansion of the Universe becomes negative if $w_{0}>c_{a}^{2}$ for quintessence ($w_{0}=-0.85$, $-1<c_{a}^{2}<-1/3$) and $w_{0}<c_{a}^{2}$ for phantom ($w_{0}=-1.25$, $-2<c_{a}^{2}<-1$).
For the same cosmological parameters in Fig. \[fig:xm prohq1\] it is shown how the interaction (\[Jpro\]) affects evolution of the Hubble parameter $H$ and the deceleration parameter $q$. For this model with small $|\epsilon|$ the influence of interaction on the dynamics of expansion of the Universe is small.
In general, for the quintessence with $w_{0}=-0.85$, $c_{a}^{2}=-0.5$ and $\epsilon\leq-0.212$ the density of dark energy in the past at $a\geq10^{-5}$ was negative and the transition to positive values occurs the later, the larger $|\epsilon|$ is: when $\epsilon=-0.212$, $\rho_{de}$ becomes positive at $a\simeq0.001$, and when $\epsilon=-1$, it becomes positive only at $a=0.439$. For larger values of the coupling parameter ($-0.212<\epsilon\leq1$) the densities of dark energy and dark matter are positive for all $a$ from $10^{-5}$ to $10^{5}$. For the phantom dark energy with $w_{0}=-1.15$, $c_{a}^{2}=-1.25$ $\rho_{de}$ and $\rho_{dm}$ are positive for all $\epsilon$ from -1 to 1 and $a$ from $10^{-5}$ to $10^5$. The total density of the Universe is positive for all values of the coupling parameter from -1 to 1 and the scale factor from $10^{-5}$ to $10^5$ for both quintessence and phantom.
Conclusions {#conclusions .unnumbered}
===========
In this paper we have analyzed the model of dynamical nonminimally coupled dark energy with EoS parameterized by the value of adiabatic sound speed in the homogeneous and isotropic Universe. Two types of the interaction between dark energy and dark matter depending on the densities of both dark components are considered: proportional to the sum of densities of the dark components and to their product. In both cases for certain parameters the energy densities of dark components may become negative. For the first type of interaction it has been determined that this occurs for a negative value of the coupling parameter. It is also shown that the coupling parameter should be $\ll0.5$ for consistency with the observational data. For the second type of interaction it has been found that for quintessence with the coupling parameter $\lesssim-0.2$ the density of dark energy was negative at the early stages of evolution of the Universe, while for phantom it remains positive throughout the evolution of the Universe for the values of coupling parameter from -1 to 1. In general, in this case for the small absolute values of coupling parameter the dynamics of expansion of the Universe in the past is close to the expansion dynamics in the model with minimally coupled dark energy.
Thus, for both considered types of the interaction between dark energy and dark matter (\[Jsum\]), (\[Jpro\]) there is a range of values of the dimensionless coupling parameter, for which the dynamics of expansion of the Universe does not contradict the observational data. Whether the value of this parameter is zero – no interaction – or not – there is an additional interaction – can be determined by comparing the predictions of different models with the corresponding observational data that are sensitive to such interaction. The search for tests for distinguishing between the minimally coupled models of dark energy and models with the additional interaction is an important task of modern cosmology.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
This work was supported by the project of Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine (state registration number 0116U001544).
L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 043511 (2000).
L. Amendola, G. C. Campos, R. Rosenfeld, Phys. Rev. D, 75, 083506 (2007).
L. Amendola, S. Tsujikawa, Dark Energy: Theory and Observations (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2010).
Yu. L. Bolotin, A. Kostenko, O. A. Lemets, D. A. Yerokhin, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 24, 1530007 (2015).
G. Caldera-Cabral, R. Maartens, L. A. Urena-Lopez, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 063518 (2009).
B. Gumjudpai, T. Naskar, M. Sami, S. Tsujikawa, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 06, 007 (2005).
A. Pourtsidou, C. Skordis, E. J. Copeland, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 083505 (2013).
Z. K. Guo, N. Ohta, S. Tsujikawa, Phys. Rev. D, 76, 023508 (2007).
W. Zimdahl, D. Pavon, L. P. Chimento, Phys. Lett. B, 521, p. 133-138 (2001).
B. Novosyadlyj, O. Sergijenko, S. Apunevych, V. Pelykh, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 103008 (2010).
B. Novosyadlyj, O. Sergijenko, S. Apunevych, J. Phys. Stud., 15, 1901 (2011).
B. Novosyadlyj, O. Sergijenko, R. Durrer, V. Pelykh, Phys. Rev. D, 86, 083008 (2012).
B. Novosyadlyj, V. Pelykh, Yu. Shtanov, A. Zhuk, Dark energy: observational evidence and theoretical models, eds. V. Shulga (Akademperiodyka, Kyiv, 2013).
O. Sergijenko, B. Novosyadlyj, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 083007 (2015).
O. Sergijenko, R. Durrer, B. Novosyadlyj, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 08, 004 (2011).
B. Novosyadlyj, O. Sergijenko, R. Durrer, V. Pelykh, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 05, 030, (2014).
R. Neomenko, B. Novosyadlyj, Kinem. Phys. Cel. Bod., 32, 4 (2016).
R. Holman, S. Naidu, arXiv:astro-ph/0408102.
E. Babichev, V. Dokuchaev, Yu. Eroshenko, Class. Quant. Grav., 22, 143 (2005)
E. J. Copeland, A. R. Liddle, D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D, 57, 4686 (1998).
http://www.cs.toronto.edu/NA/dverk.f.gz
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
[^3]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
One of the main problems of inflation in string theory is finding models with a flat potential while simultaneously stabilizing the volume of the compactified space. This can be achieved in theories where the potential has (an approximate) shift symmetry in the inflaton direction. We will identify a class of models where the shift symmetry uniquely follows from the underlying mathematical structure of the theory. It is related to the symmetry properties of the corresponding coset space and the period matrix of special geometry, which shows how the gauge coupling depends on the volume and the position of the branes. In particular, for type IIB string theory on $K3\times T^2/\mathbb{Z}_2$ with D3 or D7 moduli belonging to vector multiplets, the shift symmetry is a part of $SO(2,2+n)$ symmetry of the coset space $\left ({SU(1,1))\over
U(1)}\right)\times {SO(2,2+n)\over (SO(2)\times SO(2+n)}$. The absence of a prepotential, specific for the stringy version of supergravity, plays a prominent role in this construction, which may provide a viable mechanism for the accelerated expansion and inflation in the early universe.
---
[**Volume Stabilization and the Origin of the Inflaton** ]{}
0.3cm
[**Shift Symmetry in String Theory**]{}
**Jonathan P. Hsu and Renata Kallosh**
0.3cm
*[email protected], [email protected]*
0.3cm
*Department of Physics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305*
1.0cm
Introduction
============
One of the problems of string cosmology is to provide a mechanism for the accelerated expansion and inflation in the early universe, which would be consistent with stabilization of the volume of the compactified space. A possible solution of this problem for the accelerated expansion in a metastable dS space was recently proposed in [@KKLT]. However, in order to generalize this solution for the usual slow-roll inflation one would need to find a potential containing a flat direction for the inflaton field. One would also need to make sure that the motion of the field in this potential does not destabilize the volume [@KKLMMT].
It has been suggested in [@KalloshHsuProk] that flat directions for the inflaton field in the D3/ D7 brane inflation model [@DHHK], consistent with the volume stabilization, can appear as a consequence of shift symmetry with respect to the inflaton field. The existence of this symmetry follows from the assumption of the existence of the BPS state of branes with unbroken supersymmetry. More recently, it was argued in [@Firouzjahi:2003zy] that under the same assumption, namely, the existence of unbroken supersymmetry of the BPS state of branes, the shift symmetry might also appear in the $D3-\overline{D3}$ inflation model of [@KKLMMT].
The goal of this paper is to show that in a certain class of string theory models the shift symmetry, as well as the existence of the supersymmetric BPS ground state, is not an assumption but an unavoidable consequence of the underlying mathematical structure of the theory. We will give an example of a class of models where this is indeed the case and show that the shift symmetry and the flatness of the inflaton potential in these models are related to the symmetry properties of the corresponding coset space, and the period matrix, which shows how the gauge coupling depends on the volume and the position of the branes.
We will illustrate our general approach investigating the D3/ D7 system [@DHHK] of type IIB string theory. We will study it in the context of the special geometry construction [@Angelantonj:2003zx], [@KTW]. We will be interested here in the setting [@KalloshHsuProk] where the supersymmetry breaking effects, like non-self-dual fluxes on D7 brane, are not yet included. We would like to learn how the stabilization of volume affects the state of the branes, whether their position can still be a modulus. We will see that for D3/ D7 system [*one inevitably finds an effective theory with stabilization of the volume and a shift symmetry for the inflaton*]{}. This means that these branes (D3 or D7) move freely in the theory with volume stabilization. A small deviation from the shift symmetry will lead to a slow-roll inflation.
Our starting point is the construction presented by Angelantonj, D’Auria, Ferrara, Trigiante (ADFT) in [@Angelantonj:2003zx] [^1]. They have extended the four–dimensional gauged supergravity analysis of type IIB vacua on $K3\times T^2/\mathbb{Z}_2$ to the case where the D3 and D7 moduli, belonging to ${\cal N}=2$ vector multiplets, are turned on. We will be interested in two cases when either D3 or D7 moduli are present. In each case the overall special geometry corresponds to a symmetric space. We will specify the fundamental shift symmetry for the D7 moduli as a block diagonal symplectic matrix and for the D3 moduli as a lower triangular block form of a symplectic matrix. They will present a part of $SO(2,2+n)$ symmetry of the coset space $\left ({SU(1,1))\over
U(1)}\right)\times {SO(2,2+n)\over (SO(2)\times SO(2+n)}$. We will identify the gauge couplings in these theories, which will lead us to particular choices of the non-perturbative superpotentials to be used for the stabilization of the volume of the internal space. As the result, in both cases, the potential after volume stabilization respects the inflaton shift symmetry.
On special Kähler geometry
---------------------------
Let us briefly recall the main formulae of special Kähler geometry [@deWit:1984pk; @Andrianopoli:1996cm]. The geometry of the manifold is encoded in the holomorphic section $\varOmega=(X^\varLambda,\,F_\varSigma)$ which, in the [*special coordinate*]{} symplectic frame, is expressed in terms of a prepotential ${\cal
F}(s,t,u,x^k,y^r)=F(X^\varLambda)/(X^0)^2={\cal
F}(X^\varLambda/X^0)$, as follows: $$\varOmega = ( X^\varLambda,\,F_\varLambda=\partial F/\partial
X^\varLambda)\,.\label{specialcoordinate}$$ In our case ${\cal F}$ is given by Eq. (\[prepot\]). The Kähler potential $K$ is given by the symplectic invariant expression: $$K = -\log \left[{\rm i}(\overline{X}^\varLambda
F_\varLambda-\overline{F}_\varLambda X^\varLambda)\right] \,.$$ Symplectic transformations are realized both on the section $\varOmega$ as well as on vector fields $({\cal
F}_{\mu\nu}^{-\Lambda}, G^{\mu\nu}_{-\Lambda})$: $$\left(\matrix{X^\Lambda \cr F_\Lambda }\right)'= \left(\matrix{A
& -B\cr C & D}\right)\left(\matrix{X^\Lambda \cr F_\Lambda
}\right) \,. \label{duality}$$ The matrix ${\cal
S}=\left(\matrix{A & -B\cr C & D}\right)$ is an $Sp\left( 2(4+k),
\mathbb{R}\right)$ matrix, with $$A^T C-C^T A=0\ \ ,\ \ B^T D- D^T B=0\ \ , \ \ A^T D-C^T B=I$$ In terms of $K$ the metric has the form $g_{i\bar{\jmath}}=\partial_i\partial_{\bar{\jmath}}K$. The period matrix ${\cal N}$ defines the vector kinetic lagrangian as follows: $${\rm Im } \, {\cal F}^{-\Lambda}_{\mu\nu} {\overline{ \cal
N}}_{\Lambda \Sigma} {\cal F}^{-\Sigma \mu\nu }= -2 {\rm Im }\,
{\overline{ \cal N}}_{\Lambda \Sigma} \, {\cal
F}^{\Lambda}_{\mu\nu}\, {\cal F}^{\Sigma \mu\nu} + {\rm Re}\,
{\overline{ \cal N}}_{\Lambda \Sigma}\, {\cal
F}^{\Lambda}_{\mu\nu} \, \tilde{{\cal F}}^{\Sigma \mu\nu}$$ The period matrix can be introduced via the relations $$\overline {F_{\Lambda}} = {\overline{ \cal N}}_{\Lambda \Sigma}
\overline {X^{\Sigma}}\, , \qquad h_{\Lambda | i} = {\overline{
\cal N}}_{\Lambda \Sigma} f^\Sigma _i$$ $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{{\cal N}}_{\varLambda\varSigma}&=& \hat{h}_{\varLambda|I}\circ
(\hat{f}^{-1})^I{}_\varSigma\,,\,\,\mbox{where}\,\,\,\,
\hat{f}_{I}^\varLambda = \left(\matrix{{\cal D}_i X^\varLambda \cr
\overline{X}^\varLambda }\right)\,;\,\,\,\,\hat{h}_{\varLambda|
I}=\left(\matrix{{\cal D}_i F_\varLambda \cr \overline{F}_\varLambda
}\right) \,.\end{aligned}$$ The equations of motion of ${\cal N}=2$ supergravity are invariant under symplectic transformations (also the action, except for the kinetic term for the vectors) if the period matrix transforms as follows $$({ \cal N}) ' = (C+D { \cal N})(A+B { \cal N})^{-1}
\label{periodtrans}$$ These transformations are known as dualities. Only part of these symmetries can be realized in perturbation theory as the symmetry of the action: this requires a lower triangular block form of the symplectic matrix with $B=0$, $D=(A^T)^{-1}$, $A^T C-C^T A=0$: $${\cal S}_{pert}= \left(\matrix{A & 0\cr C & (A^T)^{-1}}\right)
\label{triangular}$$ Under these transformations electric fields ${\cal
F}_{\mu\nu}^\Lambda$ are not mixed with magnetic ones ${\cal
G}_{\Lambda \mu\nu}$ and $X^\Lambda$ are not mixed with $F_{\Lambda}$. The lagrangian under such change is invariant up to a surface term $${\cal L}' = {\cal L} + {\rm Im}[ (C^T A)_{\Lambda \Sigma}\,
{\cal F}^{-\Lambda}_{\mu\nu}\, {\cal F}^{-\Sigma \mu\nu }]=
{\rm Re}[ (C^T A)_{\Lambda \Sigma}]\, {\cal F}^{\Lambda}_{\mu\nu}\,
\tilde{{\cal F}}^{\Sigma \mu\nu }
\label{L}$$ It has been discovered in [@CDFV] that heterotic string theory requires a version of special geometry which is based on the symplectic section for which the prepotential does not exist. In standard supergravities where the prepotential exist, $X^\Lambda(
t^i)$ depend on all independent special coordinates $ t^i$. Here $\Lambda = 0, 1, ..., n$ and $i=1,2, ..., n$. To define the no-prepotential case we have to split all special coordinates into a group $t^i= (t^1=s, t^a)$ where $a=2, ..., n$. A prepotential only exists when the upper part of the symplectic section can be invertibly mapped to the coordinates of the special Kähler manifold. When this is not the case, i.e. when $$\partial X^\varLambda /\partial s =0
\label{noprep}$$ for one of the coordinates $s$, then no prepotential exists. However, a completely consistent version of stringy ${\cal N}=2$ supergravity based on the symplectic section is available. In the heterotic theory $s$ is a dilaton-axion superfield, in type IIB it is a volume-4-form superfield. The no-prepotential theory has some particular features which will be used heavily in what follows.
Overview of ADFT construction
==============================
In the absence of open–string moduli the four–dimensional ${\cal
N}=2$ effective supergravity is defined by a special geometry which is described by the coset space $ \label{stu}
\left(\frac{{\rm SU} (1,1)}{{\rm U}(1)}\right)_s\times
\left(\frac{{\rm SU}(1,1)}{{\rm U}(1)}\right)_t\times
\left(\frac{{\rm SU}(1,1)}{{\rm U}(1)}\right)_u\,,
$ where $s,\,t,\,u$ denote the scalars of the vector multiplets containing the $K3$–volume and the R–R $K3$–volume–form, the $T^2$–complex structure, and the IIB axion–dilaton system, respectively: $$\begin{aligned}
s= C_{(4)} -{\rm i}\, {\rm Vol} (K_3),\,
\qquad
t= \frac{g_{12}}{g_{22}} +{\rm i}\,\frac{\sqrt{{\rm det}
g}}{g_{22}}\,,
\qquad
u= C_{(0)} +{\rm i}\, e^{\phi}\,,\end{aligned}$$ where the matrix $g$ denotes the metric on $T^2$. The total volume of $T^2$, $\sqrt{{\rm det} g}$ belongs to the hypermultiplet and will not be considered here since we will first focus on special geometry.
It was explained in ADFT that the system of interest can be described starting from the following unique trilinear prepotential of special geometry: $$\label{prepot}
{\cal F}(s,t,u,x^k,y^r)\,=\, stu-\frac{1}{2}\,s \,x^k
x^k-\frac{1}{2}\,u\,
y^r y^r\,,$$ where $x^k$ and $y^r$ are the positions of the D7 and D3–branes along $T^2$ respectively, $k=1,\dots, n_7$, $r=1,\dots ,n_3$, and summation over repeated indices is understood. The prepotential in Eq. (\[prepot\]) corresponds to the homogeneous not symmetric spaces called $L(0,n_7,n_3)$ in [@van]. If we set either all the $x^k$ or all the $y^r$ to zero, the special geometry in each case describes a symmetric space: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{symanifold7}
\left(\frac{{\rm SU}(1,1)}{{\rm U}(1)}\right)_s\times
\frac{{\rm SO}(2,2+n_7)}{{\rm SO}(2)\times
{\rm SO}(2+n_7)}\,,\,\,\,\,\,\,\mbox{for
$y^r=0$}\,,\\\label{symanifold3}
\left(\frac{{\rm SU}(1,1)}{{\rm U}(1)}\right)_u\times
\frac{{\rm SO}(2,2+n_3)}{{\rm SO}(2)\times
{\rm SO}(2+n_3)}\,,\,\,\,\,\,\,\mbox{for $x^k=0$}\,.\end{aligned}$$ The components $X^\varLambda,\,F_\varSigma$ of the symplectic section which correctly describe our problem, are chosen by performing a constant symplectic change of basis from the one in (\[specialcoordinate\]) given in terms of the prepotential in Eq. (\[prepot\]). The rotated symplectic section is given by
11 cm =\
2 cm $X^0 = \frac{1}{{\sqrt{2}}}\,(1 - t\,u +
\frac{(x^k)^2}{2})\,,$ $F_0 = \frac{s\,\left( 2 - 2\,t\,u +
(x^k)^2 \right) +
u\,(y^r)^2}{2\,{\sqrt{2}}}$,\
2 cm $X^1 = -\frac{t + u}{{\sqrt{2}}}$,$F_1 =
\frac{-2\,s\,\left( t + u \right) +
(y^r)^2}{2\,{\sqrt{2}}}$,\
2 cm $X^2 = -\frac{1}{{\sqrt{2}}}\,({1 + t\,u -
\frac{(x^k)^2}{2}})$,$F_2=
\frac{s\,\left( 2 + 2\,t\,u - (x^k)^2 \right) -
u\, (y^r)^2}{2\,{\sqrt{2}}}$,\
2 cm $X^3 = \frac{t - u}{{\sqrt{2}}}$,$F_3 = \frac{2\,s\,\left( -t + u \right) + (y^r)^2}{{2\,\sqrt{2}}}$,\
2 cm $X^k = x^k$,$F_k = -
s\,x^k$ ,\
2 cm $X^r = y^r$,$F_r = -u\,y^r$.\
-0.7 cm The Kähler potential $K$ has the following form: $$K = -\log\left[-8\,({\rm Im}(s)\,{\rm Im}(t){\rm
Im}(u)-\frac{1}{2}\,{\rm Im}(s)\,({\rm
Im}(x)^i\,)^2-\frac{1}{2}\,{\rm Im}(u)\,({\rm
Im}(y)^r\,)^2)\right] \,,$$ with ${\rm Im}(s)<0$ and ${\rm Im}(t),\,{\rm
Im}(u)>0$ at $x^k=y^r=0$. Note that, since $\partial X^\varLambda /\partial s =0$ the new sections do not admit a prepotential, and the no–go theorem on partial supersymmetry breaking [@Cecotti] does not apply in this case.
Shift symmetries in positions of D7 branes
===========================================
The symplectic section and the Kähler potential in absence of D3 moduli are given by
11 cm =\
2 cm $X^0 = \frac{1}{{\sqrt{2}}}\,(1 - t\,u +
\frac{(x^k)^2}{2})\,,$ $F_0 = \frac{s\,\left( 2 - 2\,t\,u +
(x^k)^2 \right)
}{2\,{\sqrt{2}}}$,\
2 cm $X^1 = -\frac{t + u}{{\sqrt{2}}}$ ,$F_1 =
\frac{-2\,s\,\left( t + u \right)
}{2\,{\sqrt{2}}}$,\
2 cm $X^2 = -\frac{1}{{\sqrt{2}}}\,({1 + t\,u -
\frac{(x^k)^2}{2}})$,$F_2=
\frac{s\,\left( 2 + 2\,t\,u - (x^k)^2 \right)
}{2\,{\sqrt{2}}}$,\
2 cm $X^3 = \frac{t - u}{{\sqrt{2}}}$,$F_3 = \frac{2\,s\,\left( -t + u \right) }{{2\,\sqrt{2}}}$,\
2 cm $X^k = x^k$,$F_k = -
s\,x^k$ .\
-0.7 cm $$K = -\log[-8\,{\rm Im}(s)] - \log [{\rm Im}(t){\rm
Im}(u)+\frac{1}{16}\,({\rm Im}(x)^i\,)^2] \,.$$ The $SO(2, 2+n_7)$ symmetry is realized manifestly. It is useful to switch to light-cone variables, $ X^{\mp}= {X^0\mp X^2\over
\sqrt{2}}$ and $ Y^{\mp}= {X^1\mp X^3\over \sqrt{2}}, $ where $$X^- X^+ + X^+ X^- + Y^- Y^+ + Y^+ Y^-- (X^k)^2=0
\label{surface}$$ In this basis $$X^\Lambda =\{ X^- = 1, \, X^+ = -tu +x^2/2, \, Y^- = -t, \,
Y^+ = -u,\, X^k = x^k \}$$ $$F_\Lambda =\{ F_-^X = s(-tu +x^2/2), \, F_+^X = s, \, F^Y_- = -su,
\, F_+^Y = -st,\,
F_k = -sx^k \}$$ Thus the model is defined by $$X^\Lambda \eta_{\Lambda \Sigma} X^\Sigma=0 \qquad
F_\Lambda = s \eta_{\Lambda \Sigma} X^{\Lambda}
\label{SOF}$$ Where indices are raised and lowered using $\eta$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&\eta\,=\,\,\left(\matrix{0 &1&0&0&0\cr 1
&0&0&0&0\cr 0 &0&0&1&0\cr 0 &0&1&0&0\cr 0 &0 &0&0&-1}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ The shift of the D7 moduli with the real parameters $\alpha^k$ is given by, $$(x^k )' = x^k +\alpha^k \qquad s'=s \qquad t'=t \qquad u'=u
\label{D7shift}$$ can be realized as a perturbative symplectic transformation, a block-diagonal matrix $${\cal S}^{D7} = \left(\matrix{A & 0\cr 0 & (A^T)^{-1}}\right)$$ with $B=C=0$ and $D= (A^T)^{-1}$. For the simple case of one D7 brane, $k=1$, $A^{\Lambda}{}_{ \Sigma}$ is equal to $$\begin{aligned}
&&A\,=\,\,\left(\matrix{1 &0&0&0&0\cr {\alpha^2\over 2}
&1&0&0&\alpha\cr 0 &0&1&0&0\cr 0 &0&0&1&0\cr \alpha &0 &0&0&1}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ so that the shift is defined by $(X^\Lambda)'= A^{\Lambda}{}_{
\Sigma} X^\Sigma$. In this model one can write down the period matrix, as was shown in [@CDFV] $${\cal N}_{\Lambda\Sigma}(X)=
(s-\bar s)
(\Phi_\Lambda\bar\Phi_\Sigma +\bar\Phi_\Lambda\Phi_\Sigma)+\bar s
\eta_{\Lambda\Sigma} \ ,$$ where $\Phi_\Lambda=\eta_{\Lambda\Sigma}\Phi^\Sigma$, where one can raise or lower indices with $\eta$ and $
\Phi^\Lambda={{ X^\Lambda}\over{\sqrt{ X^\Sigma \eta_{\Sigma\Pi}
\bar X{}^\Pi}}}\ .
$ The real part of the period matrix is $$\rm Re \, {\cal N}_{\Lambda\Sigma}(X)=
(s+\bar s)
\eta_{\Lambda\Sigma} \, .$$ This gives us an information on the gauge coupling for the vector fields. In particular, the axion from the $s$ field, the $C_{(4)}$, couples to $FF*$. It cannot be shifted by a holomorphic function of $x^2$ which would be required, as shown in [@KalloshHsuProk] to change the Kähler potential from $({\rm
Im}x)^2$ to $x\bar x$-type.
In the sector of the gauge fields where the Abelian gauge symmetry is enhanced to a non-Abelian symmetry, instanton corrections may lead to terms in the action of the form $e^{-1/g^2_{YM}}$. This in turn may be understood as coming from a holomorphic superpotential $W=e^{-a s}$, where $a$ is some constant. Notice that the definition of the volume-4-form superfield $s$ is such that the Kähler potential has a shift symmetry under the translation of the D7 brane position, i. e. it depends on $({\rm Im} \, x)^2$. The analysis of the special geometry shows that the non-perturbative potential for the KKLT stabilization can depend on $e^{-a s}$ but cannot depend on any holomorphic function of $x$ as it follows from the period matrix ${\cal N}$. This accomplishes the proof of the shift symmetry for the motion of the D7 brane, both in the Kähler potential and in the superpotential.
Shift symmetries in positions of D3 branes
===========================================
The symplectic section and the Kähler potential in absence of D7 moduli are given by
9 cm =\
4 cm $X^- = 1$, $F_-^X = -stu +u\,(y^r)^2/2$,\
4 cm $X^+ = -tu$ ,$F_+^X = s$,\
4 cm $Y^- = -t$,$F^Y_- = -su$,\
4 cm $Y^+ = -u$,$F_+^Y = -st + (y^r)^2/2$,\
4 cm $X^r = y^r$,$F_r = -u\,y^r$.\
$$K = -\log[-8\,{\rm Im}(u)] - \log [{\rm
Im}(s){\rm Im}(t)+\frac{1}{16}\,({\rm Im}(y)^r\,)^2] \,.$$
The shift in D3 position with real parameters $\beta^r$, $$(y^r )' = y^r +\beta^r \qquad s'=s \qquad t'=t \qquad u'=u
\label{D3shift}$$ can be realized as a lower triangular block form symplectic matrix: $${\cal S}^{D3} = \left(\matrix{A & 0\cr C & (A^T)^{-1}}\right)$$ In case of one D3 brane, $r=1$ we find for $A^{\Lambda}{}_{ \Sigma}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&A\,=\,\,\left(\matrix{1 &0&0&0&0\cr 0
&1&0&0&0\cr 0 &0&1&0&0\cr 0 &0&0&1&0\cr \beta &0 &0&0&1}\right)\,,
\label{AD3}\end{aligned}$$ and for $C_{\Lambda \Sigma}$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&C\,=\,\,\left(\matrix{0 &0&0&-\beta^2/2&0\cr 0 &0&0&0&0\cr 0
&0&0&0&0\cr \beta^2/2&0&0&0&\beta\cr 0 &0
&0&\beta &0}\right)\,. \label{AD3a}\end{aligned}$$ One can calculate the period matrix and find out the gauge couplings for this case. Alternatively, one can study its symmetry properties using Eq. (\[periodtrans\]), adapted to our case. To simplify things we may look at the imaginary part of the period matrix, ${\rm Im}\, { \cal N}$. $$({\rm Im}\, { \cal N})' = (A^T)^{-1} \,{\rm Im}\, { \cal N} A^{-1}
\label{periodtrans2}$$ The crucial observation here is that the total period matrix ${
\cal N}_{\Lambda \Sigma}$ can be split into the part which has terms which interact with the graviphoton vector field and those which are decoupled. In our basis this is a split into ${ \cal
N}_{--}, \, { \cal N}_{- i}$ and ${ \cal N}_{ij}$. Here $i$ includes all components but $-$. Using the explicit form of the matrix $A$ (\[AD3\]) in Eq. (\[periodtrans2\]) one can establish that only the components ${ \cal N}_{--}, \, { \cal
N}_{- i}$ transform, all components ${ \cal N}_{ij}$ are invariant under the shift. The non-perturbative instanton superpotential depends only on gauge coupling in the $ij$ sector of the theory, graviphoton vector field does not contribute [^2]. Thus we conclude that the superpotential must be shift invariant when we use special coordinates for which Kähler potential was invariant from the very beginning.
Conclusion
==========
The bottom line of this strict special geometry analysis for cosmological applications is the following. Assuming that the volume of $T^2$ is the same as the one for $K3$, and that the dilaton and complex structure are fixed via fluxes as in [@Giddings:2001yu], one finds the Kähler potential used in this paper. Using the notation of [@KalloshHsuProk] one finds $K= -3\log [(\rho+\bar \rho -(\phi+\bar \phi)^2]$ for D3 and $K=
-3\log [(\rho+\bar \rho)] +(S+\bar S)^2/2$ for D7. Also one may follow ADFT [@Angelantonj:2003zx] and introduce the gaugings which represents turning on fluxes in string theory. The gaugings lead to a non-vanishing potentials, which may break ${\cal N}=2$ down to ${\cal N}=1$ and stabilize the axion-dilaton and the complex structure. The gauging (introduction of fluxes) does not affect the period matrix of vector multiplets. Therefore, as shown above, the non-perturbative superpotential which may be used for stabilization must be shift-invariant and is given by $W= W_0+ A
e^{-a\rho}$ as in [@KKLT], [@KalloshHsuProk]. This is valid for the case when either D3 is light and D7 is heavy and only D3 can move or D7 is light and D3 is heavy and only D7 can move. In both cases the position of the moving brane is a modulus, since both the Kähler potential and the superpotential are shift invariant.
It is amazing that the proof of the shift symmetry for the application to cosmology is based on exactly the same set of special geometry tools (see eqs. (\[specialcoordinate\])-(\[duality\])), which were used earlier in studies of extremal black holes: they explained the attractor behavior of the scalars near the black hole horizon and the duality symmetries of the black hole entropy formula.
In the setting of this paper special geometry controls duality symmetries which include a shift symmetry for the inflaton field. This may provide a fundamental basis for the realistic string cosmology where almost flat potentials are required for explanation of the cosmological observations.
We are grateful to C. Angelantonj, T. Banks, S. Ferrara. S. Kachru, A. Linde and J. Maldacena for stimulating discussions. This work is supported by NSF grant PHY-0244728. J.H. is also supported by a NSF Graduate Research Fellowship.
Shift symmetries of homogeneous non-symmetric space $L(0, n_7, n_3)$
====================================================================
Here we consider the general case when both positions of D7 as well as positions of D3 branes are turned on. The section of the $Sp(2(4+n_7+ n_3),R)$ bundle is $$X=\left(\begin{array}{c} X^- = 1 \\X^+ = -tu+x^{2}/2\\Y^- =
-t\\Y^+=-u\\X^k = x^k\\X^r=y^r\end{array}\right)$$ $$F=\left(\begin{array}{c} F_-^X = s(-tu+x^{2}/2)+u y^2 /2
\\F_+^X=s \\ F_-^Y = -su\\F_+^Y=-st+y^2 /2\\F_k=-sx^k \\F_r=-uy^r \end{array}\right)$$ Under $x^k \rightarrow x^k + \alpha^k$ and $y^r \rightarrow y^r + \beta^r$, $$\Delta X=\left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\\alpha^k X^k + \alpha^2 X^- /2\\ 0 \\
0 \\ \alpha X^-\\\beta X^-\end{array}\right)$$ $$\Delta F=\left(\begin{array}{c} -\alpha^k F_k + \alpha^2 F_+^X /2 -\beta^r F_r -\beta^2 Y^+ /2\\
0 \\ 0 \\ \beta^r X^r + \beta^2 X^- /2 \\-\alpha F_+^X\\\beta Y^+
\end{array}\right)$$ Note that $\Delta F$ has contributions from both $X$ and $F$, whereas $\Delta X$ involves only $X$. This implies that $B$ in the transformation matrix above is zero. We can reconstruct $A$, $C$ and $D$ by noting that $X+\Delta X = A X$ and $F+\Delta F = C X +
D F$. Using this, we get that, $$A =
\left(\begin{array}{cccccc} 1&0&0&0&0&0\\
\alpha^2 /2 & 1 & 0 & 0 & \alpha & 0\\
0&0&1&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&1&0&0\\
\alpha &0&0&0&1&0\\
\beta &0&0&0&0&1
\end{array}\right)$$ $$D =
\left(\begin{array}{cccccc} 1&\alpha^2 /2&0&0&-\alpha &-\beta \\
0& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0&0&1&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&1&0&0\\
0&-\alpha &0&0&1&0\\
0&0&0&0&0&1
\end{array}\right)$$ $$C =
\left(\begin{array}{cccccc} 0&0&0&-\beta^2 /2&0&0\\
0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0&0&0&0&0&0\\
\beta^2 /2&0&0&0&0&\beta\\
0&0&0&0&0&0\\
0&0&0&\beta&0&0
\end{array}\right)$$ We need to check that the 10x10 matrix is symplectic which amounts to the conditions $A^T C = (A^T C)^T$ and $A^T D = I$. This is in fact true so the transformation is a symplectic one. As far as the period matrix is concerned, we need to know only the properties of the gauge fields kinetic matrix of the form $f(z, \bar z)\eta_{AB}$ where the graviphoton has to be excluded. This will provide us the information on the kinetic terms for the vector fields with the enhancement of gauge symmetries to the non-Abelian ones. $${\rm Im} {\cal N}_{\Lambda \Sigma}'= {\rm Im} f (D \eta D^T)_{\Lambda \Sigma}$$ An explicit calculation gives for $D \eta D^T$ $$\begin{aligned}
&&D \eta D^T=\,\,\left(\matrix{\beta^2 &1&0&0&\beta\cr 1
&0&0&0&0\cr 0 &0&0&1&0\cr 0 &0&1&0&0\cr 0 &\beta &0&0&-1}\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ which proves that $f'=f$. Therefore the non-perturbative superpotential is shift symmetric.
[99]{}
S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. Linde and S. P. Trivedi, “De Sitter vacua in string theory”, Phys. Rev. D68 (2003) 046005, arXiv:hep-th/0301240. C. P. Burgess, R. Kallosh and F. Quevedo, “de Sitter string vacua from supersymmetric D-terms,” JHEP [**0310**]{}, 056 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-th/0309187\]. S. Kachru, R. Kallosh, A. Linde, J. Maldacena, L. McAllister and S. P. Trivedi, “Towards inflation in string theory”, JCAP 0310 (2003) 013, arXiv:hep-th/0308055. J. P. Hsu, R. Kallosh and S. Prokushkin, “On brane inflation with volume stabilisation”, arXiv:hep-th/0311077. K. Dasgupta, C. Herdeiro, S. Hirano and R. Kallosh, “D3/D7 inflationary model and M-theory”, Phys. Rev. D65 (2002) 126002, arXiv:hep-th/0203019.
H. Firouzjahi and S. H. H. Tye, “Closer towards inflation in string theory,” arXiv:hep-th/0312020.
C. Angelantonj, R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara and M. Trigiante, “K3 x T\*\*2/Z(2) orientifolds with fluxes, open string moduli and critical points,” arXiv:hep-th/0312019. F. Koyama, Y. Tachikawa and T. Watari, “Supergravity analysis of hybrid inflation model from D3-D7 system”, arXiv:hep-th/0311191. B. de Wit and A. Van Proeyen, “Potentials And Symmetries Of General Gauged N=2 Supergravity - Yang-Mills Nucl. Phys. B [**245**]{}, 89 (1984).
L. Andrianopoli, M. Bertolini, A. Ceresole, R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara, P. Fre and T. Magri, “N = 2 supergravity and N = 2 super Yang-Mills theory on general scalar manifolds: Symplectic covariance, gaugings and the momentum map,” J. Geom. Phys., 111 (1997) \[arXiv:hep-th/9605032\].
A. Ceresole, R. D’Auria, S. Ferrara and A. Van Proeyen, “Duality transformations in supersymmetric Yang-Mills theories coupled to supergravity”, Nucl. Phys. B444 (1995) 92, arXiv:hep-th/9502072.
B. de Wit and A. Van Proeyen, “Special geometry, cubic polynomials and homogeneous quaternionic spaces”, Commun.Math.Phys. 149 (1992) 307-334, arXive:hep-th/9112027
S. Cecotti, L. Girardello and M. Porrati, “Two Into One Won’t Go,” Phys. Lett. B145 (1984) 61.
S. B. Giddings, S. Kachru and J. Polchinski, “Hierarchies from fluxes in string compactifications,” Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 106006 (2002) \[arXiv:hep-th/0105097\].
[^1]: In [@KTW] a model with only D3 moduli and with cosmological applications was proposed. A corrected consistent version of it is closely related to the one in [@Angelantonj:2003zx].
[^2]: At the point of enhancement of gauge symmetry where the non-Abelian gauge symmetry arises, the graviphoton does not contribute by symmetry reasons. We are grateful to T. Banks for explaining this.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We perform individual-based Monte Carlo simulations in a community consisting of two predator species competing for a single prey species, with the purpose of studying biodiversity stabilization in this simple model system. Predators are characterized with predation efficiency and death rates, to which Darwinian evolutionary adaptation is introduced. Competition for limited prey abundance drives the populations’ optimization with respect to predation efficiency and death rates. We study the influence of various ecological elements on the final state, finding that both indirect competition and evolutionary adaptation are insufficient to yield a stable ecosystem. However, stable three-species coexistence is observed when direct interaction between the two predator species is implemented.'
address:
- 'Department of Physics (MC 0435) and Center for Soft Matter and Biological Physics, Robeson Hall, 850 West Campus Drive, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia 24061, USA'
- 'Wellcome Trust / Cancer Research UK Gurdon Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 1QN, United Kingdom'
author:
- Sheng Chen
- Ulrich Dobramysl
- 'Uwe C. Täuber'
title: 'Evolutionary dynamics and competition stabilize three-species predator-prey communities'
---
Darwinian evolution ,interspecific competition ,Lotka-Volterra model , multi-species coexistence ,character displacement
Introduction {#sec1}
============
Ever since Darwin first introduced his theory that interspecific competition positively contributes to ecological character displacement and adaptive divergence [@d1859], debates abounded about its importance in biodiversity. Character displacement is considered to occur when a phenotypical feature of the animal [@bwe1956], which could be morphological, ecological, behavioral, or physiological, beak size for example, is shifted in a statistically significant manner due to the introduction of a competitor [@dj1992; @mt1992]. One example of ecological character displacement is that the body size of an island lizard species becomes reduced on average upon the arrival of a second, competing lizard kind [@j2002]. Early observational and experimental studies of wild animals provided support for Darwinian evolutionary theory [@l1947; @bwe1956]. One famous observation related to finches, whose beak size would change in generations because of competition [@l1947]. However, recent studies using modern genetic analysis techniques do not find genetic changes to the same extent as the phenotypic break change, thereby casting doubt on Darwin’s observational studies [@g1975; @aw1982]. Another concern with experiments on birds or other animal species is that they may live for decades, rendering this sort of study too time-consuming. Evolutionary theory is based on the assumption that interspecific competition occurs mostly between closely related species because they share similar food resources, thus characters exploiting new resources are preferred. Ecologists perform experiments with wild animals by introducing a second competing species and recording their observable characters including the body size, beak length, and others [@aw1982; @j2002]. Unfortunately, direct control over natural ecosystems is usually quite limited; for example, ecological character displacement with wild animals cannot be shut down at will in natural habitats. However, this is easily doable in carefully designed computer simulations.
Game theory has a long history in the study of biological problems [@j1982]. Among all the mathematical models of studying biodiversity in ecology, the Lotka–Volterra (LV) [@a1920; @v1926] predator-prey model may rank as possibly the simplest one. Only one predator and one prey species are assumed to exist in the system. Individuals from each species are regarded as simple particles with their reaction rates set uniformly and spatially homogeneous. They display three kinds of behaviors which are influenced by pre-determined reaction rates: prey particles may reproduce, predator particles can spontaneously die, and predators may remove a prey particle and simultaneously reproduce. This simple LV model kinetics may straightforwardly be implemented on a regular lattice (usually square in two or cubic in three dimensions) to simulate situations in nature, where stochasticity as well as spatio-temporal correlations play an important role [@hnak1992]–[@su2016]. It is observed in such spatial stochastic LV model systems that predator and prey species may coexist in a quasi-stable steady state where both populations reach non-zero densities that remain constant in time; here, the population density is defined as the particle number of one species divided by the total number of lattice sites. Considering that the original LV model contains only two species, we here aim to modify it to study a multi-species system. We note that there are other, distinct well-studied three-species models, including the rock-paper-scissors model [@rps; @ummu2017], which is designed to study cyclic competitions, and a food-chain-like three-species model [@hn2014], as well as more general networks of competing species [@ummu2017], all of which contain species that operate both as a predator and a prey. In this paper we mainly focus on predator-prey competitions, where any given species plays only one of those ecological roles.
Compared with the original LV model, we introduce one more predator into the system so that there are two predator species competing for the same prey. We find that even in a spatially extended and stochastic setting, the ‘weaker’ of the two predator species will die out fast if all reaction rates are fixed. Afterwards the remaining two species form a standard LV system and approach stable steady-state densities. Next we further modify the model by introducing evolutionary adaptation [@uu2013]. We also add a positive lower bound to the predator death rates in order to avoid ‘immortal’ particles. Finally, we incorporate additional direct competition between predator individuals. Stable multiple-species coexistence states are then observed in certain parameter regions, demonstrating that adaptive ‘evolution’ in combination with direct competition between the predator species facilitate ecosystem stability. Our work thus yields insight into the interplay between evolutionary processes and inter-species competition and their respective roles to maintain biodiversity.
Stochastic lattice Lotka–Volterra Model with fixed reaction rates {#sec2}
=================================================================
Model description {#subsec2.1}
-----------------
We spatially extend the LV model by implementing it on a two-dimensional square lattice with linear system size $L=512$. It is assumed that there are three species in the system: two predator species $A$, $B$, and a single prey species $C$. Our model ignores the detailed features and characters of real organisms, and instead uses simple ‘particles’ to represent the individuals of each species. These particles are all located on lattice sites in a two-dimensional space with periodic boundary conditions (i.e., on a torus) to minimize boundary effects. Site exclusion is imposed to simulate the natural situation that the local population carrying capacity is finite: Each lattice site can hold at most one particle, i.e., is either occupied by one ‘predator’ $A$ or $B$, occupied by one ‘prey’ $C$, or remains empty. This simple model partly captures the population dynamics of a real ecological system because the particles can predate, reproduce, and spontaneously die out; these processes represent the three main reactions directly affecting population number changes. There is no specific hopping process during the simulation so that a particle will never spontaneously migrate to other sites. However, effective diffusion is brought in by locating the offspring particles on the neighbor sites of the parent particles in the reproduction process [@miu2006; @su2016]. The stochastic reactions between neighboring particles are described as follows: $$\begin{split}
\label{lvreac21}
A \xrightarrow{\mu_A} \emptyset \, &, \quad
B \xrightarrow{\mu_B} \emptyset \, , \\
A + C \xrightarrow{\lambda_A } A + A \, &, \quad
B + C \xrightarrow{\lambda_B } B + B \, , \quad \\
C & \xrightarrow{\sigma} C+C \, .
\end{split}$$ The ‘predator’ A (or B) may spontaneously die with decay rate $\mu_A\, (\mu_B) > 0$. The predators may consume a neighboring prey particle $C$, and simultaneously reproduce with ‘predation’ rate $\lambda_{A/B}$, which is to replace $C$ with a new predator particle in the simulation. In nature, predation and predator offspring production are separate processes. But such an explicit separation would not introduce qualitative differences in a stochastic spatially extended system in dimensions $d<4$ [@miu200602]. When a prey particle has an empty neighboring site, it can generate a new offspring prey individual there with birth rate $\sigma > 0$. Note that a separate prey death process $C\rightarrow 0$ can be trivially described by lowering the prey reproduction rate and is therefore not included. We assume asexual reproduction for all three species, i.e., only one parent particle is involved in the reproduction process. Each species consists of homogeneous particles with identical reaction rates. Predator species $A$ and $B$ may be considered as close relatives since they display similar behavior (decay, predation and reproduction, effective diffusion) and most importantly share the same mobile food source $C$. For now, we do not include evolution in the reproduction processes, therefore all offspring particles are exact clones of their parents. We are now going to show that these two related predator species can never coexist.
Mean-field rate equations {#subsec2.2}
-------------------------
The mean-field approximation ignores spatial and temporal correlations and fluctuations, and instead assumes the system to be spatially well-mixed. We define $a(t)$ and $b(t)$ as the predators’ population densities and $c(t)$ as the prey density. Each predator population decreases exponentially with death rate $\mu$, but increases with the predation rate $\lambda$ and prey density $c(t)$. The prey population $c(t)$ increases exponentially with its reproduction rate $\sigma$, but decreases as a function of the predator population densities. The mean-field rate equations consequently read $$\begin{split}
\frac{d a(t)}{dt} &= -\mu_A a(t) + \lambda_A a(t)c(t)\,, \\
\frac{d b(t)}{dt} &= -\mu_B b(t) + \lambda_B b(t)c(t)\,, \\
\frac{d c(t)}{dt} &= \sigma c(t)\bigg[1-\frac{a(t)+b(t)+c(t)}{K}\bigg]
- \lambda_A a(t)c(t) -\lambda_B b(t)c(t)\,.
\end{split}
\label{lvreac22}$$ $K > 0$ represents the finite prey carrying capacity. In order to obtain stationary densities, the left-side derivative terms are set to zero. The ensuing (trivial) extinction fixed points are: (1) $a = b = c = 0$; (2) $a = b = 0$, $c = K$; (3) for $\mu_A<\lambda_AK$: $a=\frac{\sigma(\lambda_AK-\mu_A)}{\lambda_A(\lambda_AK+\sigma)}$, $b=0$, $c=\mu_A/\lambda_A$; (4) for $\mu_B<\lambda_BK$: $a=0$, $b=\frac{\sigma(\lambda_BK-\mu_B)}{\lambda_B(\lambda_BK+\sigma)}$, $c=\mu_B/\lambda_B$. When $\mu_A/\lambda_A \neq \mu_B/\lambda_B$, there exists no three-species coexistence state. Yet in the special situation $\mu_A/\lambda_A = \mu_B/\lambda_B$, another line of fixed points emerges: $(\frac{\sigma}{K}+\lambda_A)a+(\frac{\sigma}{K}+\lambda_B)b
+\frac{\sigma}{K}c=\sigma$, $c=\mu_A/\lambda_A =\mu_B/\lambda_B$.
Lattice Monte Carlo simulation results {#subsec2.3}
--------------------------------------
{width="0.32\columnwidth"} {width="0.32\columnwidth"} {width="0.32\columnwidth"}
In the stochastic lattice simulations, population densities are defined as the particle numbers for each species divided by the total number of lattice sites ($512\times512$). We prepare the system so that the starting population densities of all three species are the same, here set to $0.3$ (particles/lattice site), and the particles are initially randomly distributed on the lattice. The system begins to leave this initial state as soon as the reactions start and the ultimate stationary state is only determined by the reaction rates, independent of the system’s initialization. We can test the simulation program by setting the parameters as $\lambda_A = \lambda_B = 0.5$ and $\mu_A = \mu_B = 0.125$. Since species $A$ and $B$ are now exactly the same, they coexist with an equal population density in the final stable state, as indeed observed in the simulations. We increase the value of $\mu_A$ by $0.001$ so that predator species $A$ is more likely to die than $B$. Fig. \[fig1\] shows the spatial distribution of the particles at $0$, $10\,000$, and $50\,000$ Monte Carlo Steps (MCS, from left to right), indicating sites occupied by $A$ particles in blue, $B$ in red, $C$ in green, and empty sites in white. As a consequence of the reaction scheme (\[lvreac21\]), specifically the clonal offspring production, surviving particles in effect remain close to other individuals of the same species and thus form clusters. After initiating the simulation runs, one typically observes these clusters to emerge quite quickly; as shown in Fig. \[fig1\], due to the tiny difference between the death rates $\mu_A - \mu_B > 0$, the ‘weaker’ predator species $A$ gradually decreases its population number and ultimately goes extinct. Similar behavior is commonly observed also with other sets of parameters: For populations with equal predation rates, only the predator species endowed with a lower spontaneous death rate will survive. Fig. \[fig2\](a) records the temporal evolution of the three species’ population densities. After about $60\,000$ MCS, predator species $A$ has reached extinction, while the other two populations eventually approach non-zero constant densities. With larger values of $\mu_A$ such as $0.127$ or $0.13$, species $A$ dies out within a shorter time interval; the extinction time increases with diminishing death rate difference $|\mu_A-\mu_B|$.
{width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In Figs. \[fig2\](b) and (c), we set $\lambda_A=0.55$, $\lambda_B=0.5$, $\mu_B=0.125$, and various values of $\mu_A > 0.13$. The larger rate $\lambda_A$ gives species $A$ an advantage over $B$ in the predation process, while the bigger rate $\mu_A$ enhances the likelihood of death for $A$ as compared to $B$. Upon increasing $\mu_A$ from $0.135$ to $0.137$, we observe a phase transition from species $B$ dying out to $A$ going extinct in this situation with competing predation and survival advantages. When $\mu_A$ thus exceeds a certain critical value (in this example near $0.136$), the disadvantages of high death rates cannot balance the gains due to a more favorable predation efficiency; hence predator species $A$ goes extinct. In general, whenever the reaction rates for predator species $A$ and $B$ are not exactly the same, either $A$ or $B$ will ultimately die out, while the other species remains in the system, coexisting with the prey $C$. This corresponds to actual biological systems where two kinds of animals share terrain and compete for the same food. Since there is no character displacement occurring between generations, the weaker species’ population will gradually decrease. This trend cannot be turned around unless the organisms improve their capabilities or acquire new skills to gain access to other food sources; either change tends to be accompanied by character displacements [@gg2006; @aald2009; @ytprlj2014; @jmxl2016].
{width="0.9\columnwidth"}
In order to quantitatively investigate the characteristic time for the weaker predator species to vanish, we now analyze the relation between the relaxation time $t_c$ of the weaker predator species ($A$ here) and the difference of death rates $|\mu_A-\mu_B|$ under the condition that $\lambda_A=\lambda_B$. Fig. \[fig2\](a) indicates that prey density (green triangles) reaches its stationary value much faster than the predator populations. When $|\mu_A-\mu_B|$ becomes close to zero, the system returns to a two-species model, wherein the relaxation time of the prey species $C$ is finite. However, the relaxation time of either predator species would diverge because it takes longer for the stronger species to remove the weaker one when they become very similar in their death probabilities. Upon rewriting eqs. for $\lambda_A=\lambda_B$ by replacing the prey density $c(t)$ with its stationary value $\mu_B/\lambda_B$, we obtain a linearized equation for the weaker predator density: $\frac{da(t)}{dt}=-|\mu_A-\mu_B| a(t)$, describing exponential relaxation with decay time $t_c=1/|\mu_A-\mu_B|$.
We further explore the relation between the decay rate of the weak species population density and the reaction rates through Monte Carlo simulations. Fig. \[fig3\](a) shows an example of the weaker predator $A$ population density decay for fixed reaction rates $\lambda_A=0.5$, $\lambda_B=0.5$, $\mu_A=0.126$, $\mu_B=0.125$, and $\sigma=1.0$, and in the inset also the corresponding Fourier amplitude $f(\omega) = | \int e^{- i \omega t} \, \rho_A(t) \, dt |$ that is calculated by means of the fast Fourier transform algorithm. Assuming an exponential decay of the population density according to $\rho_A(t)\sim e^{-t/t_c}$, we identify the peak half-width at half maximum with the inverse relaxation time $1/t_c$. For other values of $\mu_A>0.125$, the measured relaxation times $t_c$ for the predator species $A$ are plotted in Fig. \[fig3\](b). We also ran simulations for various parameter values $\mu_A<0.125$, for which the predator population $B$ would decrease toward extinction instead of $A$, and measured the corresponding relaxation time for $\rho_B(t)$, plotted in Fig. \[fig3\](b) as well. The two curves overlap in the main panel of Fig. \[fig3\](b), confirming that $t_c$ is indeed a function of $|\mu_A-\mu_B|$ only. The inset of Fig. \[fig3\](b) demonstrates a power law relationship $t_c \sim |\mu_A-\mu_B|^{- z \nu}$ between the relaxation time and the reaction rate difference, with exponent $z \nu \approx -1.23\pm 0.01$ as inferred from the slope in the double-logarithmic graph via simple linear regression. This value is to be compared with the corresponding exponent $z \nu \approx 1.295\pm 0.006$ for the directed percolation (DP) universality class [@dp1996]. Directed percolation [@dp] represents a class of models that share identical values of their critical exponents at their phase transition points, and is expected to generically govern the critical properties at non-equilibrium phase transitions that separate active from inactive, absorbing states [@noneq1; @uct2014]. Our result indicates that the critical properties of the two-predator-one-prey model with fixed reaction rates at the extinction threshold of one predator species appear to also be described by the DP universality class.
{width="1.0\columnwidth"}
As already shown in Fig. \[fig1\], individuals from each species form clusters in the process of the stochastically occurring reactions (\[lvreac22\]). The correlation lengths $\xi$, obtained from equal-time correlation functions $C(x)$, characterize the average sizes of these clusters. The definition of the correlation functions between the different species $\alpha, \beta = A, B, C$ is $C_{\alpha\beta}(x)=\langle n_\alpha (x) n_\beta (0) \rangle -
\langle n_\alpha (x) \rangle \langle n_\beta (0) \rangle$, where $n_\alpha (x)=0,1$ denotes the local occupation number of species $\alpha$ at site $x$. First choosing a lattice site, and then a second site at distance $x$ away, we note that the product $n_\alpha(x)n_\beta(0)=1$ only if a particle of species $\beta$ is located on the first site, and a particle of species $\alpha$ on the second site; otherwise the product equals $0$. We then average over all sites to obtain $\langle n_\alpha (x) n_\beta (0)\rangle$. $\langle n_\alpha (x)\rangle$ represents the average population density of species $\alpha$.
In our Monte Carlo simulations we find that although the system has not yet reached stationarity at $0.5\,t_c$, its correlation functions do not vary appreciably during the subsequent time evolution. This is demonstrated in Figs. \[fig4\](b-d) which show the measured correlation lengths from $0.5\,t_c$ to $3.75\,t_c$, during which time interval the system approaches its quasi-stationary state. The main panel in Fig. \[fig4\](a) shows the measured correlation functions after the system has evolved for $0.5\,t_c \approx 2386$ MCS, with predator $A$ death rate $\mu_A=0.128$. Individuals from the same species are evidently spatially correlated, as indicated by the positive values of $C_{\alpha\alpha}$. Particles from different species, on the other hand, display anti-correlations. The inset demonstrates exponential decay: $C_{AA}(x)\sim e^{-|x|/\xi_{AA}}$, where $\xi_{AA}$ is obtained from linear regression of $ln(C_{AA}(x))$. In the same manner, we calculate the correlation length $\xi_{AA}$, $\xi_{BB}$, and $\xi_{AB}$ for every $0.5\,t_c$ the system evolves, for different species $A$ death rates $\mu_A=0.128$, $0.132$, $0.136$, and $0.140$, respectively. Fig. \[fig4\](b) shows that predator $A$ clusters increase in size by about two lattice constants within $1.5\,t_c$ after the reactions begin, and then stay almost constant. In the meantime, the total population number of species $A$ decreases exponentially as displayed in Fig. \[fig3\], which indicates that the number of predator $A$ clusters decreases quite fast. Fig. \[fig4\](c) does not show prominent changes for the values of $\xi_{AB}(t)$ as the reaction time $t$ increases, demonstrating that species $A$ and $B$ maintain a roughly constant distance throughout the simulation. In contrast, Fig. \[fig4\](d) depicts a significant temporal evolution of $\xi_{BB}(t)$: the values of $\xi_{BB}$ are initially close to those of $\xi_{AA}$, because of the coevolution of both predator species $A$ and $B$; after several decay times $t_c$, however, there are few predator $A$ particles left in the system. The four curves for $\xi_{BB}$ would asymptotically converge after species $A$ has gone fully extinct.
To summarize this section, the two indirectly competing predator species cannot coexist in the lattice three-species model with fixed reaction rates. The characteristic time for the weaker predator species to go extinct diverges as its reaction rates approach those of the stronger species. We do not observe large fluctuations of the correlation lengths during the system’s time evolution, indicating that spatial structures remain quite stable throughout the Monte Carlo simulation.
Introducing character displacement {#subsec3}
==================================
Model description {#subsec3.1}
-----------------
The Lotka–Volterra model simply treats the individuals in each population as particles endowed with uniform birth, death, and predation rates. This does not reflect a natural environment where organisms from the same species may still vary in predation efficiency and death or reproduction rates because of their size, strength, age, affliction with disease, etc. In order to describe individually varying efficacies, we introduce a new character $\eta\in[0,1]$, which plays the role of an effective trait that encapsulates the effects of phenotypic changes and behavior on the predation / evasion capabilities, assigned to each individual particle [@uu2013]. When a predator $A_i$ (or $B_j$) and a prey $C_k$ occupy neighboring lattice sites, we set the probability $(\eta_{Ai} + \eta_{Ck})/2$ \[or $(\eta_{Bj} + \eta_{Ck})/2$\] for $C_k$ to be replaced by an offspring predator $A_z$ (or $B_z$). The indices $i$, $j$, $k$, and $z$ here indicate specific particles from the predator populations $A$ or $B$, the prey population $C$, and the newly created predator offspring in either the $A$ or $B$ population, respectively. In order to confine all reaction probabilities in the range $[0,1]$, the efficiency $\eta_{Az}$ (or $\eta_{Bz}$) of this new particle is generated from a truncated Gaussian distribution that is centered at its parent particle efficiency $\eta_{Ai}$ (or $\eta_{Bj}$) and restricted to the interval $[0,1]$, with a certain prescribed distribution width (standard deviation) $\omega_{\eta A}$ (or $\omega_{\eta B}$). When a parent prey individual $C_i$ gives birth to a new offspring particle $C_z$, the efficiency $\eta_{Cz}$ is generated through a similar scheme with a given width $\omega_{\eta C}$. Thus any offspring’s efficiency entails inheriting its parent’s efficacy but with some random mutational adaptation or differentiation. The distribution width $\omega$ models the potential range of the evolutionary trait change: for larger $\omega$, an offspring’s efficiency is more likely to differ from its parent particle. Note that the width parameters $\omega$ here are unique for particles from the same species, but may certainly vary between different species. In previous work, we studied a two-species system (one predator and one prey) with such demographic variability [@uu2013; @uu022013]. In that case, the system arrived at a final steady state with stable stationary positive species abundances. On a much faster time scale than the species density relaxation, their respective efficiency $\eta$ distributions optimized in this evolutionary dynamics, namely: the predators’ efficacies rather quickly settled at a distribution centered at values near $1$, while the prey efficiencies tended to small values close to $0$. This represents a coevolution process wherein the predator population on average gains skill in predation, while simultaneously the prey become more efficient in evasion so as to avoid being killed.
Quasi-species mean-field equations and numerical solution {#subsec3.2}
---------------------------------------------------------
We aim to construct a mean-field description in terms of quasi-subspecies that are characterized by their predation efficacies $\eta$. To this end, we discretize the continuous interval of possible efficiencies $0\leq \eta\leq 1$ into $N$ bins, with the bin midpoint values $\eta_i = (i+1/2)/N$, $i=0, \ldots, N-1$. We then consider a predator (or prey) particle with an efficacy value in the range $\eta_i-1/2\leq \eta \leq \eta_i+1/2$ to belong to the predator (or prey) subspecies $i$. The probability that an individual of species $A$ with predation efficiency $\eta_1$ produces offspring with efficiency $\eta_2$ is assigned by means of a reproduction probability function $f(\eta_1, \eta_2)$. In the binned version, we may use the discretized form $f_{ij}=f(\eta_i, \eta_j)$. Similarly, we have a reproduction probability function $g_{ij}$ for predator species $B$ and $h_{ij}$ for the prey $C$. Finally, we assign the arithmetic mean $\lambda_{ik}=(\eta_i+\eta_k)/2$ to set the effective predation interaction rate of predator $i$ with prey $k$ [@uu2013; @uu022013].
These prescriptions allow us to construct the following coupled mean-field rate equations for the temporal evolution of the subspecies populations: $$\begin{split}
\label{lvreac32}
\frac{\partial a_i(t)}{\partial t}
&= -\mu a_i(t) + \sum_{jk}\lambda_{kj}f_{ki}a_k(t)c_j(t)\,, \\
\frac{\partial b_i(t)}{\partial t}
&= -\mu b_i(t) + \sum_{jk}\lambda_{kj}g_{ki}b_k(t)c_j(t)\,, \\
\frac{\partial c_i(t)}{\partial t} &= \sigma\sum_kh_{ki}c_k(t)
\bigg(1-\frac{\sum_z[a_z(t)+b_z(t)+c_z(t)]}{K}\bigg)\\
&\quad -\sum_j\lambda_{ji}a_j(t)c_i(t) - \sum_j\lambda_{ji}b_j(t)c_i(t)\,.
\end{split}$$ Steady-state solutions are determined by setting the time derivatives to zero, $\partial a_i(t)/\partial t = \partial b_i(t)/\partial t =\partial c_i(t)/\partial t
= 0$. Therefore, the steady-state particle counts can always be found by numerically solving the coupled implicit equations $$\begin{split}
\label{lvreac322}
\mu a_i &= \sum_{jk}\lambda_{kj}f_{ki}a_kc_j\,, \\
\mu b_i &= \sum_{jk}\lambda_{kj}g_{ki}b_kc_j\,, \\
\sigma\sum_kh_{ki}c_k(t)\bigg(1-\frac{\sum_z[a_z(t)+b_z(t)+c_z(t)]}{K}\bigg)
&= \sum_j\lambda_{ji}a_jc_i+ \sum_j\lambda_{ji}b_jc_i\,.
\end{split}$$ In the special case of a uniform inheritance distribution for all three species, $f_{ij}=g_{ij}=h_{ij}=1/N$, the above equations can be rewritten as $$\begin{split}
\label{lvreac323}
\mu (a_i+b_i) &= \frac{1}{N}\sum_{jk}\lambda_{kj}(a_k+b_k)c_j\,, \\
\frac{1}{N}\sigma\sum_kc_k\bigg(1-\frac{\sum_z[a_z(t)+b_z(t)+c_z(t)]}{K}\bigg)
&= \sum_j\lambda_{ji}(a_j+b_j)c_i\,,
\end{split}$$ whose non-zero solutions are $$\label{lvreac324}
\begin{split}
&(i)\quad a_i=0, \quad \frac{b_i}{\sum_jb_j}=\frac{1}{N}\,, \quad
\frac{c_i}{\sum_jc_j}=\frac{2}{N\ln3}\frac{1}{1+2\eta_i}\,; \\
&(ii)\quad b_i=0, \quad \frac{a_i}{\sum_ja_j}=\frac{1}{N}\,, \quad
\frac{c_i}{\sum_jc_j}=\frac{2}{N\ln3}\frac{1}{1+2\eta_i}\,; \\
&(iii)\quad \frac{a_i+b_i}{\sum_j(a_j+b_j)}=\frac{1}{N}\,, \quad
\frac{c_i}{\sum_jc_j}=\frac{2}{N\ln3}\frac{1}{1+2\eta_i}\,.
\end{split}$$ We could not obtain the full time-dependent solutions to the mean-field equations in closed form. We therefore employed an explicit fourth-order Runge–Kutta scheme to numerically solve eqs. , using a time step of $\Delta t=0.1$, the initial condition $a_i(t=0)=b_i(t=0)=c_i(t=0)=1/(3N)$ for $i=1, ..., N$, a number of subspecies $N=100$, and the carrying capacity $K=1$. An example for the resulting time evolution of the predator $B$ density is shown in Fig. \[fig5\](b); its caption provides the remaining parameter values.
Lattice simulation {#subsec3.3}
------------------
We now proceed to Monte Carlo simulations for this system on a two-dimensional square lattice, and first study the case where trait evolution is solely introduced to the predation efficiencies $\eta$. In these simulation, the values of $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are held fixed, as is the nonzero distribution width $\omega$, so that an offspring’s efficiency usually differs from its parent particle. In accord with the numerical solutions for the mean-field equations , we find that the three-species system (predators $A$ and $B$, prey $C$) is generically unstable and will evolve into a final two-species steady state, where one of the predator species goes extinct, depending only on the value of $\omega$ (given that $\mu$ and $\sigma$ are fixed).
At the beginning of the simulation runs, the initial population densities, which are the particle numbers of each species divided by the lattice site number, are assigned the same value $0.3$ for all the three species. The particles are randomly distributed on the lattice sites. We have checked that the initial conditions do not influence the final state by varying the initial population densities and efficiencies. We fix the predator death rate to $\mu=0.125$ for both species $A$ and $B$, and set the prey reproduction rate as $\sigma=1.0$. The predation efficacies for all particles are initialized at $\eta=0.5$. We have varied the values of the distribution width $\omega$ and observed the final (quasi-)steady states. For the purpose of simplification, we fix $\omega_{\eta A}=\omega_{\sigma C}=0.1$, and compare the final states when various values of $\omega_{\eta B}$ are assigned.
{width="0.43\columnwidth"} 
Fig. \[fig5\](a) shows the population density $\rho_B(t)$ of predator species $B$ with the listed values for $\omega_{\eta B}$. Each curve depicts a single simulation run. When $\omega_{\eta B} > 0.1$, the $\rho_B(t)$ quickly tends to zero; following the extinction of the $B$ species, the system reduces to a stable $A$-$C$ two-species predator-prey ecology. When $\omega_{\eta B} = 0.1$, there is no difference between species $A$ and $B$, so both populations survive with identical final population density; for $\omega_{\eta B}=0.01, 0.05$, predator species $A$ finally dies out and the system is reduced to a $B$-$C$ two-species system; we remark that the curve for $\omega_{\eta B}=0.01$ (green triangles up) decreases first and then increases again at very late time points which is only partially shown in the graph. For $\omega_{\eta B}=0.001$ and even smaller, $\rho_B(t)$ goes to zero quickly, ultimately leaving an $A$-$C$ two-species system. We tried another $100$ independent runs and obtained the same results: for $\omega_{\eta B} \neq \omega_{\eta A}$, one of the predator species will vanish and the remaining one coexists with the prey $C$. When $\omega_{\eta B}$ is smaller than $\omega_{\eta A}$ but not too close to zero, predator species $B$ prevails, while $A$ goes extinct. For $\omega_{\eta B} = 0$, there is of course no evolution for these predators at all, thus species $A$ will eventually outlast $B$. Thus there exists a critical value $\omega_{Bc}$ for the predation efficacy distribution width $\omega_{\eta B}$, at which the probability of either predator species $A$ or $B$ to win the ‘survival game’ is $50\%$. When $\omega_{Bc} < \omega_{\eta B} < \omega_{\eta A}$, $B$ has an advantage over $A$, i.e., the survival probability of $B$ is larger than $50\%$; conversely, for $\omega_{Bc} > \omega_{\eta B}$, species $A$ outcompetes $B$. This means that the evolutionary ‘speed’ is important in a finite system, and is determined by the species plasticity $\omega$.
Fig. \[fig5\](b) shows the numerical solution of the associated mean-field model defined by eqs. . In contrast to the lattice simulations, small $\omega_{\eta B}$ do not yield extinction of species $B$; this supports the notion that the reentrant phase transition from $B$ to $A$ survival at very small values of $\omega_{\eta B}$ is probably a finite-size effect, as discussed below. Because of the non-zero carrying capacity, oscillations of population densities are largely suppressed in both Monte Carlo simulations and the mean-field model. Spatio-temporal correlations in the stochastic lattice system rescale the reaction rates, and induce a slight difference between the steady-state population densities in Figs. \[fig5\](a) and (b) even though the microscopic rate parameters are set to identical values. For example, for $\omega_{\eta B}=0.1$, the quasi-stationary population density of predator species $B$ is $\approx 0.19$ (pink plus symbols) in the lattice model, but reaches $0.25$ in the numerical solution of the mean-field rate equations. Time $t$ is measured in units of Monte Carlo Steps (MCS) in the simulation; there is no method to directly convert this (discrete) Monte Carlo time to the continuous time in the mean-field model. For the purpose of comparing the decay of population densities, we therefore normalize time $t$ by the associated relaxation times $t_{0s}=1900$ MCS in the simulations and $t_0=204.32$ in the numerical mean-field solution; both are calculated by performing a Fourier transform of the time-dependent prey densities $\rho_B(t)$ and $b(t)$ for $\omega_{\eta B}=0.05$ (blue squares).
{width="0.7\columnwidth"}
Our method to estimate $\omega_{Bc}$ was to scan the value space of $\omega_{\eta B}\in[0, 1]$, and perform $1000$ independent simulation runs for each value until we found the location in this interval where the survival probability for either $A$ or $B$ predator species was $50\%$. With the simulations on a $512 \times 512$ system and all the parameters set as mentioned above, $\omega_{Bc}$ was measured to be close to $0.008$. We repeated these measurements for various linear system sizes $L$ in the range $[128, 2048]$. Fig. \[fig6\](a) shows $\omega_{Bc}$ as a function of $1/L$, indicating that $\omega_{Bc}$ decreases with a divergent rate as the system is enlarged. Because of limited computational resources, we were unable to extend these results to even larger systems. According to the double-logarithmic analysis shown in Fig. \[fig6\](b), we presume that $\omega_{Bc}$ would fit a power law $\omega_{Bc}\sim L^{-\theta}$ with exponent $\theta=0.2$. This analysis suggests that $\omega_{Bc}=0$ in an infinitely large system, and that the reentrant transition from $B$ survival to $A$ survival in the range $\omega_{\eta B}\in [0, \omega_{\eta A}]$ is likely a finite-size effect. We furthermore conclude that in the three-species system (two predators and a single prey) the predator species with a smaller value of the efficiency distribution width $\omega$ always outlives the other one. A smaller $\omega$ means that the offspring’s efficiency is more centralized at its parent’s efficacy; mutations and adaptations have smaller effects. Evolution may thus optimize the overall population efficiency to higher values and render this predator species stronger than the other one with larger $\omega$, which is subject to more, probably deleterious, mutations. These results were all obtained from the measurements with $\omega_{\eta A}=0.1$. However, other values of $\omega_{\eta A}$ including $0.2$, $0.3$, and $0.4$ were tested as well, and similar results observed.
Our numerical observation that two predator species cannot coexist contradicts observations in real ecological systems. This raises the challenge to explain multi-predator-species coexistence. Notice that ‘Darwinian’ evolution was only applied to the predation efficiency in our model. However, natural selection could also cause lower predator death rates and increased prey reproduction rates so that their survival chances would be enhanced in the natural selection competition. One ecological example are island lizards that benefit from decreased body size because large individuals will attract attacks from their competitors [@j2002]. In the following, we adjust our model so that the other two reaction rates $\mu$ and $\sigma$ do not stay fixed anymore, but instead evolve by following the same mechanism as previously implemented for the predation efficacies $\eta$. The death rate of an offspring predator particle is hence generated from a truncated Gaussian distribution centered at its parent’s value, with positive standard deviations $\omega_{\mu A}$ and $\omega_{\mu B}$ for species $A$ and $B$, respectively. The (truncated) Gaussian distribution width for the prey reproduction rate is likewise set to a non-zero value $\omega_\sigma$.
{width="0.7\columnwidth"}
In the simulations, the initial population densities for all three species are set at $0.3$ with the particles randomly distributed on the lattice. The reaction rates and efficiencies for these first-generation individuals were chosen as $\eta_{A0}=\eta_{B0}=\eta_{C0}=0.5$, $\mu_{A0}=\mu_{B0}=0.125$, and $\sigma_0=1.0$. With this same initial set, we ran simulations with different values of the Gaussian distribution widths $\omega$. Figure \[fig7\] displays the temporal evolution of the three species’ population densities with four sets of given widths $\omega$: In Fig. \[fig7\](a), $\omega_{\eta A}=0.11$, $\omega_{\eta B}=0.1$, $\omega_{\eta C}=0.1$, $\omega_{\mu A}=0.3$, $\omega_{\mu B}=0.125$, and $\omega_{\sigma C}=0$. Since a smaller width $\omega$ gives advantages to the corresponding species, $\omega_{\eta B} < \omega_{\eta A}$ and $\omega_{\mu B} < \omega_{\mu A}$ render predators $B$ stronger than $A$ in general. As the graph shows, species $A$ dies out quickly and finally only $B$ and $C$ remain in the system. In all four cases, the prey $C$ stay active and do not become extinct.
However, it is not common that a species is stronger than others in every aspect, so we next set $\omega$ so that $A$ has advantages over $B$ in predation, i.e., $\omega_{\eta A} < \omega_{\eta B}$, but is disadvantaged through broader-distributed death rates $\omega_{\mu A} > \omega_{\mu B}$. In Fig. \[fig7\](b), $\omega_{\eta A}=0.08$, $\omega_{\eta B}=0.1$, $\omega_{\eta C}=0.1$, $\omega_{\mu A}=0.1$, $\omega_{\mu B}=0.09$, and $\omega_{\sigma C}=0$; in Fig. \[fig7\](c), $\omega_{\eta A}=0.08$, $\omega_{\eta B}=0.1$, $\omega_{\eta C}=0.1$, $\omega_{\mu A}=0.4$, $\omega_{\mu B}=0.39$, and $\omega_{\sigma C}=0$. In either case, none of the three species becomes extinct after $10\,000$ MCS, and three-species coexistence will persist at least for much longer time. Monitoring the system’s activity, we see that the system remains in a dynamic state with a large amount of reactions happening. When we repeat the measurements with other independent runs, similar results are observed, and we find the slow decay of the population densities to be rather insensitive to the specific values of the widths $\omega$. As long as we implement a smaller width $\omega$ for the $A$ predation efficiency than for the $B$ species, but a larger one for its death rates, or vice versa, three-species coexistence emerges. Of course, when the values of the standard deviations $\omega$ differ too much between the two predator species, one of them may still approach extinction fast. One example is shown in Fig. \[fig7\](d), where $\omega_{\eta A}=0.08$, $\omega_{\eta B}=0.1$, $\omega_{\eta C}=0.1$, $\omega_{\mu A}=0.4$, $\omega_{\mu B}=0.09$, and $\omega_{\sigma C}=0$; since $\omega_{\mu A}$ is about five times larger than $\omega_{\mu B}$ here, the predation advantage of species $A$ cannot balance its death rate disadvantage, and consequently species $A$ is driven to extinction quickly. Yet the coexistence of all three competing species in Figs. \[fig7\](b) and (c) does not persist forever, and at least one species will die out eventually, after an extremely long time. Within an intermediate time period, which still amounts to thousands of generations, they can be regarded as quasi-stable because the decay is very slow. This may support the idea that in real ecosystems perhaps no truly stable multiple-species coexistence exists, and instead the competing species are in fact under slow decay which is not noticeable within much shorter time intervals. In Figs. \[fig7\](a) and (d), the predator $A$ population densities decay exponentially with relaxation times of order $100$ MCS, while the corresponding curves in (b) and (c) approximately follow algebraic functions (power law decay).
However, we note that in the above model implementation the range of predator death rates $\mu$ was the entire interval $[0,1]$, which gives some individuals a very low chance to decay. Hence these particles will stay in the system for a long time, which accounts for the long-lived transient two-predator coexistence regime. To verify this assumption, we set a positive lower bound on the predators’ death rates, preventing the presence of near-immortal individuals. We chose the value of the lower bound to be $0.001$, with the death rates $\mu$ for either predator species generated in the predation and reproduction processes having to exceed this value. Indeed, we observed no stable three-species coexistence state, i.e., one of the predator species was invariably driven to extinction, independent of the values of the widths $\omega$, provided they were not exactly the same for the two predator species. To conclude, upon introducing a lower bound for their death rates, the two predator species cannot coexist despite their dynamical evolutionary optimization.
Effects of direct competition between both predator species {#sec4}
===========================================================
Inclusion of direct predator competition and mean-field analysis {#subsec4.1}
----------------------------------------------------------------
We proceed to include explicit direct competition between both predator species in our model. The efficiencies of predator particles are most likely to be different since they are randomly generated from truncated Gaussian distributions. When a strong $A$ individual (i.e., with a large predation efficacy $\eta$) meets a weaker $B$ particle on an adjacent lattice site, or vice versa, we now allow predation between both predators to occur. Direct competition is common within predator species in nature. For example, a strong lizard may attack and even kill a small lizard to occupy its habitat. A lion may kill a wolf, but an adult wolf might kill an infant lion. Even though cannibalism occurs in nature as well, we here only consider direct competition and predation between different predator species. In our model, direct competition between the predator species is implemented as follows: For a pair of predators $A_i$ and $B_j$ located on neighboring lattice sites and endowed with respective predation efficiencies $\eta_{Ai}$ and $\eta_{Bj} < \eta_{Ai}$, particle $B_j$ is replaced by a new $A$ particle $A_z$ with probability $\eta_{Ai} - \eta_{Bj}$; conversely, if $\eta_{Ai} < \eta_{Bj}$, there is a probability $\eta_{Bj} - \eta_{Ai}$ that $A_i$ is replaced by a new particle $B_z$.
We first write down and analyze the mean-field rate equations for the simpler case when the predator species compete directly without evolution, i.e., all reaction rates are uniform and constant. We assume that $A$ is the stronger predator with $\lambda_A > \lambda_B$, hence only the reaction $A+B\to A+A$ is allowed to take place with rate $\lambda_A-\lambda_B$, but not its complement, supplementing the original reaction scheme listed in . The associated mean-field rate equations read $$\label{lvreac42}
\begin{split}
\frac{d a(t)}{dt} &= -\mu_A a(t) + \lambda_A a(t)c(t)
+ (\lambda_A-\lambda_B)a(t)b(t)\,, \\
\frac{d b(t)}{dt} &= -\mu_B b(t) + \lambda_B b(t)c(t)
- (\lambda_A-\lambda_B)a(t)b(t)\,, \\
\frac{d c(t)}{dt} &= \sigma c(t)\bigg[1-\frac{a(t)+b(t)+c(t)}{K}\bigg]
- \lambda_A a(t)c(t) -\lambda_B b(t)c(t)\,,
\end{split}$$ with the non-zero stationary solutions $$\label{lvreac420}
\begin{split}
(i)\quad a=0\,,\quad
b=\frac{\sigma(K\lambda_B-\mu_B)}{\lambda_B(\sigma+K\lambda_B)}\,,\quad
c=\frac{\mu_B}{\lambda_B}\,,\\
(ii)\quad a=\frac{\sigma(K\lambda_A-\mu_A)}{\lambda_A(\sigma+K\lambda_A)}\,,
\quad b=0\,,\quad c=\frac{\mu_A}{\lambda_A}\,,\\
(iii)\quad a+b+c = \frac{\mu_A-\mu_B}{\lambda_A-\lambda_B}\,,\quad \text{when}
\quad a(0)+b(0)+c(0) = \frac{\mu_A-\mu_B}{\lambda_A-\lambda_B}\,.
\end{split}$$ Within this mean-field theory, three-species coexistence states exist only when the total initial population density is set to $a(0)+b(0)+c(0) = \frac{\mu_A-\mu_B}{\lambda_A-\lambda_B}$. In our lattice simulations, however, we could not observe any three-species coexistence state even when we carefully tuned one reaction rate with all others held fixed.
Next we reinstate ‘Darwinian’ evolution for this extended model with direct competition between the predator species. We utilize the function $\hat\lambda_{ij}=|\eta_i-\eta_j|$ to define the reaction rate between predators $A$ and $B$. For the case that the predator death rate $\mu$ is fixed for both species $A$ and $B$, the ensuing quasi-subspecies mean-field equations are $$\label{eq:4.2mfequations}
\begin{split}
\frac{\partial a_i(t)}{\partial t}&=-\mu a_i(t)
+\sum_{jk}\lambda_{kj}f_{ki}a_k(t)c_j(t)
+\sum_{j<k}\hat\lambda_{kj}f_{ki}a_k(t)b_j(t)\\
&\quad -\sum_{j>i}\hat\lambda_{ij}a_i(t)b_j(t)\,,\\
\frac{\partial b_i(t)}{\partial t}&=-\mu b_i(t)
+\sum_{jk}\lambda_{kj}g_{ki}b_k(t)c_j(t)+
\sum_{j<k}\hat\lambda_{kj}g_{ki}b_k(t)a_j(t)\\
&\quad -\sum_{j>i}\hat\lambda_{ji}b_i(t)a_j(t)\,\\
\frac{\partial c_i(t)}{\partial t}&=\sigma\sum_jh_{ji}c_j(t)
\bigg(1-\frac{\sum_z[a_z(t)+b_z(t)+c_z(t)]}{K}\bigg)\\
&\quad -\sum_j\lambda_{ji}[a_j(t)+b_j(t)]c_i(t)\,.
\end{split}$$ Since a closed set of solutions for eqs. (\[eq:4.2mfequations\]) is very difficult to obtain, we resort to numerical integration. As before, we rely on an explicit fourth-order Runge–Kutta scheme with time step $\Delta t=0.1$, initial conditions $a_i(t=0)=b_i(t=0)=c_i(t=0)=1/N$, number of subspecies $N=100$, and carrying capacity $K=3$. Four examples for such numerical solutions of the quasi-subspecies mean-field equations are shown in Fig. \[fig9\], and will be discussed in the following subsection.
The quasi-stable three-species coexistence region {#subsec4.3}
-------------------------------------------------
{width="1.0\columnwidth"}
For the three-species system with two predators $A$, $B$ and prey $C$, we now introduce ‘Darwinian’ evolution to both the predator death rates $\mu$ and the predation efficiencies $\eta$. In addition, we implement direct competition between the predators $A$ and $B$. We set the lower bound of the death rates $\mu$ to $0.001$ for both predator species. The simulations are performed on a $512\times512$ square lattice with periodic boundary conditions. Initially, individuals from all three species are randomly distributed in the system with equal densities $0.3$. Their initial efficiencies are chosen as $\eta_A = 0.5 = \eta_B$ and $\eta_C = 0$. Since there is no evolution of the prey efficiency, $\eta_C$ will stay zero throughout the simulation. The distribution widths for the predation efficiencies are fixed to $\omega_{\eta A}=0.1$ and $\omega_{\eta B}=0.15$, giving species $A$ an advantage over $B$ in the non-linear predation process. We select the width of the death rate distribution of species $B$ as $\omega_{\mu B}=0.1$. If $\omega_{\mu A}$ is also chosen to be $0.1$, the $B$ population density would decay exponentially. $\omega_{\mu A} > \omega_{\mu B}=0.1$ is required to balance species $A$’s predation adaptation advantage so that stable coexistence is possible. Figure \[fig8\] shows the population densities resulting from our individual-based Monte Carlo simulations as a function of time, for different values $\omega_{\mu A} = 0.132$, $0.140$, and $0.160$. These graphs indicate the existence of phase transitions from species $B$ extinction in Fig. \[fig8\](a) to predator $A$-$B$ coexistence in Fig. \[fig8\](b), and finally to $A$ extinction in Fig. \[fig8\](c)). In Fig. \[fig8\](a), species $A$ is on average more efficient than $B$ in predation, but has higher death rates. Predator species $B$ is in general the weaker one, and hence goes extinct after about $100\,000$ MCS. Figure \[fig8\](b) shows a (quasi-)stable coexistence state with neither predator species dying out within our simulation time. In Fig. \[fig8\](c), $\omega_{\mu A}$ is set so high that $A$ particles die much faster than $B$ individuals, so that finally species $A$ would vanish entirely.
Figure \[fig9\](a) displays the time evolution for the solutions of the corresponding quasi-subspecies mean-field model (\[eq:4.2mfequations\]) for four different values of the species $B$ efficiency width $\omega_{\eta,B}$. In particular, it shows that there is a region of coexistence in which both predator species reach a finite steady-state density, supporting the Monte Carlo results from the stochastic lattice model. In contrast, numerical solutions of eqs. (\[eq:4.2mfequations\]) with $\hat{\lambda}_{ij}=0$, equivalent to eqs. (\[lvreac32\]), exhibit no three-species coexistence region; see Fig. \[fig9\](b).
{width="0.9\columnwidth"}
At an active-to-absorbing phase transition threshold, one should anticipate the standard critical dynamics phenomenology for a continuous phase transition: exponential relaxation with time becomes replaced by much slower algebraic decay of the population density [@noneq1; @uct2014]. We determine the three-species coexistence range for our otherwise fixed parameter set to be in the range $\omega_{\mu A} \in [0.136, 0.159]$. Figure \[fig10\](a) shows an exponential decay of the predator population $A$ density with $\omega_{\mu A} = 0.2$, deep in the absorbing extinction phase. The system would attain $B$-$C$ two-species coexistence within of the order $10^4$ MCS. We also ran the Monte Carlo simulation with $\omega_{\mu A} = 0.1$, also inside an absorbing region, but now with species $B$ going extinct, and observed exponential decay of $\rho_B(t)$. By changing the value of $\omega_{\mu A}$ to $0.136$ as plotted in Fig. \[fig10\](b), $\rho_B(t)\sim t^{-\alpha_B}$ fits a power law decay with critical exponent $\alpha_B=1.22$. Since it would take infinite time for $\rho_B$ to reach zero while species $A$ and $C$ densities remain finite during the entire simulation time, the system at this point already resides at the threshold of three-species coexistence. Upon increasing $\omega_{\mu A}$ further, all three species densities would reach their asymptotic constant steady-state values within a finite time and then remain essentially constant (with small statistical fluctuations). At the other boundary of this three-species coexistence region, $\omega_{\mu A} = 0.159$, the decay of $\rho_A(t)$ also fits a power law as depicted in Fig. \[fig10\](c), and $\rho_B(t)$ would asymptotically reach a positive value. However, the critical power law exponent is in this case estimated to be $\alpha_A=0.76$. We do not currently have an explanation for the distinct values observed for the decay exponents $\alpha_A$ and $\alpha_B$, neither of which are in fact close to the corresponding directed-percolation value $\alpha = 0.45$ [@cr1997]. If we increase $\omega_{\mu A}$ even more, species $A$ would die out quickly and the system subsequently reduce to a $B$-$C$ two-species predator-prey coexistence state. We remark that the critical slowing-down of the population density at either of the two thresholds as well as the associated critical aging scaling may serve as a warning signal of species extinction [@ldkj2012; @su2016].
{width="0.7\columnwidth"}
It is of interest to study the spatial properties of the particle distribution. We choose $\omega_{\mu A} = 0.147$ so that the system resides deep in the three-species coexistence region according to Fig. \[fig10\]. The correlation functions are measured after the system has evolved for $10\,000$ MCS as shown in the main plot of Fig. \[fig11\]. The results are similar to those in the previous sections in the sense that particles are positively correlated with the ones from the same species, but anti-correlated to individuals from other species. The correlation functions for both predator species are very similar: $C_{AA}(x)$ and $C_{BB}(x)$ overlap each other for $x\geq 5$, and $C_{AC}$ and $C_{BC}$ coincide for $x\geq 2$ lattice sites. The inset displays the measured characteristic correlation length as functions of simulation time, each of which varies on the scale of $\sim 0.1$ during $70\,000$ MCS, indicating that the species clusters maintain nearly constant sizes and keep their respective distances almost unchanged throughout the simulations. The correlation lengths $\xi_{AA}$ and $\xi_{BB}$ are very close and differ only by less than $0.2$ lattice sites. These data help to us to visualize the spatial distribution of the predators: The individuals of both $A$ and $B$ species arrange themselves in clusters with very similar sizes throughout the simulation, and their distances to prey clusters are almost the same as well. Hence predator species $A$ and $B$ are almost indistinguishable in their spatial distribution.
Monte Carlo simulation results in a zero-dimensional system {#subsec4.4}
-----------------------------------------------------------
{width="1.0\columnwidth"}
The above simulations were performed on a two-dimensional system by locating the particles on the sites of a square lattice. Randomly picked particles are allowed to react (predation, reproduction) with their nearest neighbors. Spatial as well as temporal correlations are thus incorporated in the reaction processes. In this subsection, we wish to compare our results with a system for which spatial correlations are absent, yet which still displays manifest temporal correlations. To simulate this situation, we remove the nearest-neighbor restriction and instead posit all particles in a ‘zero-dimensional’ space. In the resulting ‘urn’ model, the simulation algorithm entails to randomly pick two particles and let them react with a probability determined by their individual character values. We find that if all the particles from a single species are endowed with homogeneous properties, i.e., the reaction rates are fixed and uniform as in section 2, no three-species coexistence state is ever observed. If evolution is added without direct competition between predator species as in section 3, the coexistence state does not exist neither. Our observation is again that coexistence occurs only when both evolution and direct competition are introduced. Qualitatively, therefore, we obtain the same scenarios as in the two-dimensional spatially extended system. The zero-dimensional system however turns out even more robust than the one on a two-dimensional lattice, in the sense that its three-species coexistence region is considerably more extended in parameter space. Figure \[fig12\] displays a series of population density time evolutions from single zero-dimensional simulation runs with identical parameters as in Fig. \[fig8\]. All graphs in Fig. \[fig12\] reside deeply in the three-species coexistence region, while Fig. \[fig8\](a) and (c) showed approaches to absorbing states with one of the predator species becoming extinct. With $\omega_{\eta A}=0.1$, $\omega_{\eta B}=0.15$, and $\omega_{\mu B}=0.1$ fixed, three-species coexistence states in the zero-dimensional system are found in the region $\omega_{\mu A} \in (0, 1)$, which is to be compared with the much narrower interval $(0.136, 0.159)$ in the two-dimensional system, indicating that spatial extent tends to destabilize these systems.
This finding is in remarkable contrast to some already well-studied systems such as the three-species cyclic competition model, wherein spatial extension and disorder crucially help to stabilize the system [@uu2008; @qmu2011]. Even though we do not allow explicit nearest-neighbor ‘hopping’ of particles in the lattice simulation algorithm, there still emerges effective diffusion of prey particles followed by predators. Since predator individuals only have access to adjacent prey in the lattice model, the presence of one predator species would block their neighboring predators from their prey. Imagining a cluster of predator particles surrounded by the other predator species, they will be prevented from reaching their ‘food’ and consequently gradually die out. However, this phenomenon cannot occur in the zero-dimensional system where no spatial structure exists at all, and hence blockage is absent. In the previous section we already observed that the cluster size of predator species remains almost unchanged throughout the simulation process when the total population size of the weaker predator species gradually decreases to zero, indicating that clusters vanish in a sequential way. We also noticed that population densities reach their quasi-stationary values much faster in the non-spatial model, see Fig. \[fig12\], than on the two-dimensional lattice, Fig. \[fig8\]. In the spatially extended system, particles form intra-species clusters, and reactions mainly occur at the boundaries between neighboring such clusters of distinct species, thus effectively reducing the total reaction speed. This limiting effect is absent in the zero-dimension model where all particles have equal chances to meet each other.
Character displacements {#subsec4.5}
-----------------------
{width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Biologists rely on direct observation of animals’ characters such as beak size when studying trait displacement or evolution [@l1947; @bwe1956; @g1975; @aw1982; @gg2006; @aald2009; @ytprlj2014; @jmxl2016]. Interspecific competition and natural selection induces noticeable character changes within tens of generations so that the animals may alter their phenotype, and thus look different to their ancestors. On isolated islands, native lizards change the habitat use and move to elevated perches following invasion by a second lizard kind with larger body size. In response, the native subspecies may evolve bigger toepads [@sjtp2008]. When small lizards cannot compete against the larger ones, character displacement aids them to exploit new living habitats by means of developing larger toepads in this case, as a result of natural selection.
Interestingly, we arrive at similar observations in our model, where predation efficiencies $\eta$ and death rates $\mu$ are allowed to be evolving features of the individuals. In Fig. \[fig13\], the predation efficiency $\eta$ is initially uniformly set to $0.5$ for all particles, and the death rate $\mu=0.5$ for all predators (of either species). Subsequently, in the course of the simulations the values of any offspring’s $\eta$ and $\mu$ are selected from a truncated Gaussian distribution centered at their parents’ characters with distribution width $\omega_{\eta}$ and $\omega_{\mu}$. When the system arrives at a final steady state, the values of $\eta$ and $\mu$ too reach stationary distributions that are independent of the initial conditions. We already demonstrated above that smaller widths $\omega$ afford the corresponding predator species advantages over the other, as revealed by a larger and stable population density. In Fig. \[fig13\], we fix $\omega_{\eta A}=0.15$, $\omega_{\eta B}=0.1$, $\omega_{\mu B}=0.1$, and choose values for $\omega_{\mu A} \in [0.144, 0.15, 0.156]$ (represented respectively by red squares, blue triangles up, and green triangles down), and measure the final distribution of $\eta$ and $\mu$ when the system reaches stationarity after $50\,000$ MCS. Figures \[fig13\](a) and (c) show the resulting distributions for predator species $A$, while (b) and (d) those for $B$. Since both $\mu$ and $\eta$ are in the range $[0,1]$, we divide this interval evenly into $1\,000$ bins, each of length $0.001$. The distribution frequency $P$ is defined as the number of individuals whose character values fall in each of these bins, divided by the total particle number of that species. In Fig. \[fig13\](a), the eventual distribution of $\mu_A$ is seen to become slightly less optimized as $\omega_{\mu A}$ is increased from $0.144$ to $0.156$ since there is a lower fraction of low $\mu_A$ values in the green curve as compared with the red one. Since species $A$ has a larger death rate, its final stable population density decreases as $\mu_A$ increases. In parallel, the distribution of $\eta_A$ becomes optimized as shown in Fig. \[fig13\](c), as a result of natural selection: Species $A$ has to become more efficient in predation to make up for its disadvantages associated with its higher death rates. Predator species $B$ is also influenced by the changes in species $A$. Since there is reduced competition from $A$ in the sense that its population number decreases, the $B$ predators gain access to more resources, thus lending its individuals with low predation efficiencies better chances to reproduce, and consequently rendering the distribution of $\eta_B$ less optimized, see Fig. \[fig13\](d). This observation can be understood as predator species $B$ needs no longer become as efficient in predation because they enjoy more abundant food supply. In that situation, since species $B$ does not perform as well as before in predation, their death rate $\mu_B$ distribution in turn tends to become better optimized towards smaller values, as is evident in Fig. \[fig13\](b).
Periodic environmental changes {#subsec4.6}
------------------------------
{width="0.8\columnwidth"}
Environmental factors also play an important role in population abundance. There already exist detailed computational studies of the influence of spatial variability on the two-species lattice LV model [@uu2008; @uu2013; @uu022013]. However, rainfall, temperature, and other weather conditions that change in time greatly determine the amount of food supply. A specific environmental condition may favor one species but not others. For example, individuals with larger body sizes may usually bear lower temperatures than small-sized ones. Since animals have various characters favoring certain natural conditions, one may expect environmental changes to be beneficial for advancing biodiversity.
We here assume a two-predator system with species $A$ stronger than $B$ so that the predator $B$ population will gradually decrease as discussed in section 3. Yet if the environment changes and turns favorable to species $B$ before it goes extinct, it may be protected from extinction. According to thirty years of observation of two competing finch species on an isolated island ecology [@gg2006], there were several instances when environmental changes saved one or both of them when they faced acute danger of extinction. We take $\omega_{\eta A}$ and $\omega_{\eta B}$ as the sole control parameters determining the final states of the system, holding all other rates fixed in our model simulations. Even though the environmental factors cannot be simulated directly here, we may effectively address environment-related population oscillations by changing the predation efficiency distribution widths $\omega$. We initially set $\omega_{\eta A}=0.2$ and $\omega_{\eta B}=0.3$, with the other parameters held constant at $\mu_A = \mu_B = 0.125$, $\sigma = 1.0$, and $\omega_C=\omega_{\mu A}=\omega_{\mu B}=0$. In real situations the environment may alternate stochastically; in our idealized scenario, we just exchange the values of $\omega_{\eta A}$ and $\omega_{\eta B}$ periodically for the purpose of simplicity. The population average of the spontaneous death rate is around $0.02$, therefore its inverse $\approx 50$ MCS yields a rough approximation for the individuals’ typical dwell time on the lattice. When the time period $T$ for the periodic switches is chosen as $10$ MCS, which is shorter than one generation’s life time, the population densities remain very close to their identical mean values, with small oscillations; see Fig. \[fig14\](a). Naturally, neither species faces the danger of extinction when the environmental change frequency is high. In Fig. \[fig14\](b), we study the case of a long switching time $T = 400$ MCS, or about eight generations. As one would expect, the $B$ population abundance decreases quickly within the first period. Before the $B$ predators reach total extinction, the environment changes to in turn rescue this species $B$. This example shows that when the environment stays unaltered for a very long time, the weaker species that cannot effectively adapt to this environment would eventually vanish while only the stronger species would survive and strive. When the time period $T$ close matches the characteristic decay time $t_c$, see Fig. \[fig14\](b), one observes a resonant amplification effect with large periodic population oscillations enforced by the external driving.
Summary {#sec5}
=======
In this paper, we have used detailed Monte Carlo simulations to study an ecological system with two predator and one prey species on a two-dimensional square lattice. The two predator species may be viewed as related families, in that they pursue the same prey and are subject to similar reactions, which comprise predation, spontaneous death, and (asexual) reproduction. The most important feature in this model is that there exists only one mobile and reproducing food resource for all predators to compete for. We have designed different model variants with the goal of finding the key properties that could stabilize a three-species coexistence state, and thus facilitate biodiversity in this simple idealized system. We find no means to obtain such coexistence when all reaction rates are fixed or individuals from the same species are all homogeneous, which clearly indicates the importance of demographic variability and evolutionary population adaptation. When dynamical optimization of the individuals in the reproduction process is introduced, they may develop various characters related to their predation and reproduction efficiencies. However, this evolutionary dynamics itself cannot stabilize coexistence for all three species, owing to the fixed constraint that both predator kinds compete for the same food resource. In our model, direct competition between predator species is required to render a three-species coexistence state accessible, demonstrating the crucial importance of combined mutation, competition, and natural selection in stabilizing biodiversity.
We observe critical slowing-down of the population density decay near the predator extinction thresholds, which also serves as an indicator to locate the coexistence region in parameter space. When the system attains its quasi-steady coexistence state, the spatial properties of the particle distribution remain stable even as the system evolves further. Character displacements hence occur as a result of inter-species competition and natural selection in accord with biological observations and experiments. Through comparison of the coexistence regions of the full lattice model and its zero-dimensional representation, we find that spatial extent may in fact reduce the ecosystem’s stability, because the two predator species can effectively block each other from reaching their prey. We also study the influence of environmental changes by periodically switching the rate parameters of the two competing predator species. The system may then maintain three-species coexistence if the period of the environmental changes is smaller than the relaxation time of the population density decay. Matching the switching period to the characteristic decay time can induce resonantly amplified population oscillations.
Stable coexistence states with all three species surviving with corresponding constant densities are thus only achieved through introducing both direct predator competition as well as evolutionary adaptation in our system. In sections 3 and 4, we have explored character displacement without direct competition as well as competition without character displacement, yet a stable three-species coexistence state could not be observed in either case. Therefore it is necessary to include both direct competition and character displacement to render stable coexistence states possible in our model. However, both predator species $A$ and $B$ can only coexist in a small parameter interval for their predation efficiency distribution widths $\omega$, because they represent quite similar species that compete for the same resources. In natural ecosystems, of course other factors such as distinct food resources might also help to achieve stable multi-species coexistence.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
The authors are indebted to Yang Cao, Silke Hauf, Michel Pleimling, Per Rikvold and Royce Zia for insightful discussions. U.D. was supported by a Herchel Smith Postdoctoral Fellowship.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[34]{}
C. R. Darwin, 1859, On the origin of species by means of natural selection, [*John Murray*]{}
W. L. Brown, E. O. Wilson, 1956, Character displacement, [*Systematic Zoology*]{}, [**5**]{}, 49–64
D. Schluter, J. D. McPhail, 1992, Ecological character displacement and speciation in sticklebacks, [*American Naturalist*]{}, [**140**]{}, 85–108
M. L. Taper, T. J. Case, 1992, Coevolution among competitors, [*Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology*]{}, [**8**]{}, 63–109
J. Melville, 2002, Competition and character displacement in two species of scincid lizards, [*Ecology letters*]{}, [**5**]{}, 386–393
D. Lack, 1947, Darwin’s finches, [*Cambridge University Press*]{}
P. R. Grant, 1975, The classic case of character displacement, [*Evolutionary Biology*]{}, [**8**]{}, 237
W. Arthur, 1982, The evolutionary consequences of interspecific competition, [*Advances in Ecological Research*]{}, [**12**]{}, 127–87
J. Maynard Smith, 1982, Evolution and the theory of games, [*Cambridge University Press*]{}
A. J. Lotka, 1920, Undamped oscillations derived from the law of mass action, [*Journal of the American Chemical Society*]{}, [**42**]{}, 1595
V. Volterra, 1926, Fluctuations in the abundance of a species considered mathematically, [*Nature*]{}, [**118**]{}, 558
H. Matsuda, N. Ogita, A. Sasaki and K. Satō, 1992, Statistical mechanics of population – the lattice Lotka-Volterra model, [*Progress of Theoretical Physics*]{}, [**88**]{}, 1035–1049
J. E. Satulovsky and T. Tomé, 1994, Stochastic lattice gas model for a predator-prey system, [*Physical Review*]{} E, [**49**]{}, 5073
N. Boccara, O. Roblin and M. Roger, 1994, Automata network predator-prey model with pursuit and evasion, [*Physical Review*]{} E, [**50**]{}, 4531
R. Durrett, 1999, Stochastic spatial models, [*SIAM Review*]{}, [**41**]{}, 677–718
A. Provata, G. Nicolis and F. Baras, 1999, Oscillatory dynamics in low-dimensional supports: a lattice Lotka-Volterra model, [*Journal of Chemical Physics*]{}, [**110**]{}, 8361
A. F. Rozenfeld, E. V. Albano, 1999, Study of a lattice-gas model for a prey-predator system, [*Physica*]{} A, [**266**]{}, 322–329
A. Lipowski, 1999, Oscillatory behavior in a lattice prey-predator system, [*Physical Review*]{} E, [**60**]{}, 5179
A. Lipowski, D. Lipowska, 2000, Nonequilibrium phase transition in a lattice prey-predator system, [*Physica*]{} A, [**276**]{}, 456–464
R. Monetti, A. Rozenfeld, E. Albano, 2000, Study of interacting particle systems: the transition to the oscillatory behavior of a prey-predator model, [*Physica*]{} A, [**283**]{}, 52
M. Droz, A. P[ȩ]{}kalski, 2001, Coexistence in a predator-prey system, [*Physical Review*]{} E, [**63**]{}, 051909
T. Antal, M. Droz, 2001, Phase transitions and oscillations in a lattice prey-predator model, [*Physical Review*]{} E, [**63**]{}, 056119
M. Kowalik, A. Lipowski, A. L. Ferreira, 2002, Oscillations and dynamics in a two-dimensional prey-predator system, [*Physical Review*]{} E, [**66**]{}, 066107
M. Mobilia, I. T. Georgiev, U. C. Täuber, 2006, Fluctuations and correlations in lattice models for predator-prey interaction, [*Physical Review*]{} E, [**73**]{}, 040903
M. Mobilia, I. T. Georgiev, U. C. Täuber, 2006, Phase transitions and spatio–temporal fluctuations in stochastic lattice Lotka-Volterra models, [*Journal of Statistical Physics*]{}, [**128**]{}, 447
M. J. Washenberger, M. Mobilia, U. C. Täuber, 2007, Influence of local carrying capacity restrictions on stochastic predator-prey models, [*Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter*]{}, [**19**]{}, 065139
S. Chen, U. C. Täuber, 2016, Non-equilibrium relaxation in a stochastic lattice Lotka-Volterra model, [*Physical Biology*]{}, [**13**]{}, 025005
L. Frachebourg, P. L. Krapivsky, and E. Ben-Naim, 1996, Spatial organization in cyclic Lotka-Volterra systems, [*Physical Review Letter*]{}, [**77**]{}, 2125
H. Y. Shih, N. Goldenfeld, 2014, Path-integral calculation for the emergence of rapid evolution from demographic stochasticity, [*Physical Review*]{} E, [**90**]{}, 050702
U. Dobramysl, M. Mobilia, M. Pleimling, U. C. Täuber, 2017, Stochastic population dynamics in spatially extended predator-prey systems, to appear in [*Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical*]{} \[arXiv:1708.07055\]
U. Dobramysl, U. C. Täuber, 2013, Environmental versus demographic variability in two-species predator-prey models, [*Physical Review Letter*]{}, [**110**]{}, 048105
P. R. Grant, B. R. Grant, 2006, Evolution of Character Displacement in Darwin’s finches, [*Science*]{}, [**313**]{}, 224–226
A. M. Rice, A. R. Leichty, D. W. Pfennig, 2009, Parallel evolution and ecological selection: replicated character displacement in spadefoot toads, [*Proceedings of the Royal Society*]{} B, [**276**]{}, 4189–4196
Y. E. Stuart, T. S. Campbell, P. A. Hohenlohe, R. G. Reynolds, L. J. Revell, J. B. Losos, 2014, Rapid evolution of a native species following invasion by a congener, [*Science*]{}, [**346**]{}, 463–466
J. Tan, M. R. Slattery, X. Yang, L. Jiang, 2016, Phylogenetic context determines the role of competition in adaptive radiation, [*Proceedings of the Royal Society*]{} B, [**283**]{}
P. Grassberger, Y-C Zhang, 1996, Self-organized formulation of standard percolation phenomena [*Physica*]{} A, [**224**]{}, 169
U. Dobramysl, U. C. Täuber, 2013, Environmental versus demographic variability in stochastic predator-prey models, [*Journal of Statistical Mechanics*]{}, [**2013**]{}, P10001
S. R. Broadbent, J. M. Hammersley, 1957, Percolation Processes, [*Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society*]{}, [**53**]{}, 629
M. Henkel, H. Hinrichsen, S. Lübeck, 2008, [*Non-equilibrium phase transitions*]{} vol 1: Absorbing phase transitions (Bristol, UK: Springer)
U. C. Täuber, 2014, [*Critical dynamics – A field theory approach to equilibrium and non-equilibrium scaling behavior*]{} (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
C. A. Voigt, R. M. Ziff, 1997, Epidemic analysis of the second-order transition in the Ziff-Gulari-Barshad surface-reaction model, [*Physical Review*]{} E, [**56**]{}, R6241
L. Dai, D. Vorselen, K. S. Korolev, J. Gore, 2012, Generic indicators for loss of resilience before a tipping point leading to population collapse, [*Science*]{}, [**336**]{}, 1175
U. Dobramysl, U. C. Täuber, 2008, Spatial variability enhances species fitness in stochastic predator-prey interactions, [*Physical Review Letter*]{}, [**101**]{}, 258102
Q. He, M. Mobilia, U. C. Täuber, 2011, Coexistence in the two-dimensional May–Leonard model with random rates, [*European Physical Journal B*]{}, [**82**]{}, 97 - 105
S. Y. Strauss, J. A. Lau, T. W. Schoener, P. Tiffin, 2008, Evolution in ecological field experiments: implications for effect size, [*Ecology Letters*]{}, [**11**]{}, 199–207
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The [*Saccharomyces cerevisiae*]{} protein-protein interaction map, as well as many natural and man-made networks, shares the scale-free topology. The preferential attachment model was suggested as a generic network evolution model that yields this universal topology. However, it is not clear that the model assumptions hold for the protein interaction network. Using a cross genome comparison we show that (a) the older a protein, the better connected it is, and (b) The number of interactions a protein gains during its evolution is proportional to its connectivity. Therefore, preferential attachment governs the protein network evolution. Evolutionary mechanisms leading to such preference and some implications are discussed.'
author:
- 'Eli Eisenberg and Erez Y. Levanon'
title: Preferential attachment in the protein network evolution
---
The analysis of networks has attracted great interest in recent years. Many man-made networks, including the World Wide Web[@1], scientific[@2] and movie actor[@3] collaborations, and linguistic[@4] networks, have been shown to be scale free, with different nodes having widely different connectivities[@5; @6; @7]. Networks of biological origin, such as metabolic interaction[@8] and protein-protein interaction networks[@9], also share this property. The emergence of the scale-free topology in such diverse examples calls for a universal explanation, based on generic principles, applicable to all the different networks studied. This was achieved by the growing network model, suggested by Barabási and Albert[@10], which assumes the continuous creation of new nodes and their preferential attachment to previously well-connected nodes. An exact solution for the dynamics of the model demonstrates the emergence of the scale-free topology from these generic assumptions, given an asymptotically linear attachment kernel[@11; @12]. The model assumptions seem self-evident for social networks. A direct test for some of these networks have validated the preferential attachment principle, and shown an approximate linear kernel[@13; @14]. However, it is less clear how this model can be justified for natural networks, such as the biological networks. While the dynamic growth of the network can be understood on an evolutionary time scale[@10], the preferential attachment assumption is far from obvious, as the interactions are not formed based on a conscious choice.
In this work, we focus on the [*Saccharomyces cerevisiae*]{} (bakers’ yeast) protein-protein interaction network, which is often used as a model for a biological interaction network. A cross-genome comparison is employed to obtain a classification of the yeast proteins into different age groups. We observe a correlation between a protein’s age and its network connectivity, in accordance with the growing network picture. Furthermore, this classification enables us to directly observe the preferential attachment phenomenon. Signs of this phenomenon have been previously observed through analysis of divergent pairs of duplicated genes [@wagner]. We thus conclude that the Barabási-Albert model is indeed relevant for describing the evolution of the yeast protein-protein interaction map. We further discuss implications of this phenomenon to the governing rules of protein evolution.
![A schematic representation of the relative position of the four studied organisms on the phylogenetic tree, based on Ref. [@16]. The phylogenetic tree describes the evolutionary relationships between organisms. The root corresponds to the origin of life (first living cell), and each branch point describes the emergence of distinct species out of one common ancestor. The evolutionary distance between any two organism is related to the sum of distances between each organism and their closest common ancestor. []{data-label="tree"}](fig1new.eps){width="2.4in"}
We start by classifying the whole database of 6294 bakers’ yeast proteins[@15] into four age groups. For this purpose, we pick three other model organisms for which a fully sequenced genome and a comprehensive list of proteins are available, and are of varying evolutionary distance from the baker’s yeast. The evolutionary distance between two organisms can be extracted from the phylogenetic tree (the “tree of life”) describing the evolutionary branching process[@16] (see figure \[tree\]): [*Escherichia coli*]{}[@17] belongs to the Bacteria branch (estimated time of diversion 4 Giga-years ago, Gya), [*Arabidopsis thaliana*]{}[@18] belongs the Plants branch (estimated diversion 1.6Gya), while [*Schizosaccharomyces pombe*]{}[@19] (fission yeast) and the bakers’ yeast belong to different sub-phyla on the Fungi branch (estimated diversion 1.1Gya). A cross-genome comparison between these organisms is employed in order to estimate the age of each bakers’ yeast protein. We assume that a protein created at a certain time in a certain ancestor organism will have descendants in all organisms that diverged from this ancestor. For example, proteins that are older than the first (Bacteria) diversion should have descendants in all four organisms, while those created after the fission-yeast diversion are expected to have descendants in the bakers’ yeast alone. While the descendant proteins continue to evolve and diverge, they still show higher sequence similarity than a random pair of proteins.
For each of the bakers’ yeast proteins, we search for similar proteins in the other three organisms (see details below), and use the results to classify it into one of four age groups. Proteins with no fission-yeast similarities are expected to be relatively new (group 1, 872 proteins); those with similarities only in fission-yeast are expected to have an ancestor prior to the diversion and are therefore older (group 2, 665 proteins); those with fission-yeast and Arabidopsis similarities are even older (group 3, 2079 proteins); and those with analogues in all three organisms form the oldest group of proteins (group 4, 2678 proteins), with ancestors that predate the first diversion. Only a small fraction (less than 10%) of the similarities were not consistent with the evolutionary timeline. Note that our age-group classification is not sensitive to duplication events [@duplications], and thus new proteins generated by duplication are here classified as old.
Here are some brief technical details on the similarity search done. We use the standard definitions for the similarity distance between sequences, and employ the standard Protein-BLAST program[@20]. The program is given a query sequence (in our case: the yeast protein) and a reference database (the set of all proteins of the other organism), and compares the query sequence to each of the database sequences, in search for shared patterns. Each found match gets a score (termed “E-score”), which is the expected number of same or higher quality matches given a randomized database. The probability to get a match of same or higher quality for a random sequence is $$P(E|{\rm random\ pair})=1-\exp(-E),$$ where $E$ is the E-score. The lower this probability, the higher the confidence that the sequences similarity (or the match) is indeed due to a common ancestor for both sequences. We considered two proteins to be similar if the E-score of their match was lower than the cutoff value $E_c=0.7$, corresponding to $P(E_c|{\rm random\ pair})\simeq 0.5$.
![Connectivity dependence on protein age. Averaged connectivity for four age groups of yeast proteins. Groups are numbered in increasing age order: group 1 proteins (those with no similarities in fission-yeast, Arabidopsis or E.coli genomes) are expected to be the newest, and group 4 proteins (with similarities in all three organisms) are expected to be the oldest. Results are presented for the whole interactions database (solid symbols), and for a restricted set excluding the low-confidence interactions (open symbols). For most data points, the error-bar is smaller than the symbol[]{data-label="age"}](fig2new.eps){width="2.4in"}
In the following, we use the obtained age-group classification of the yeast proteins to analyze the structure of the protein-protein interaction network. We use a published database of yeast protein-protein interactions[@21], and first look at the average connectivity. Figure \[age\] shows a clear dependency of the connectivity on the protein age, with older proteins having significantly more interactions. While group 1 proteins (newest) have only 0.5 links per protein, group 4 proteins (oldest) have 6.2 links per protein. This supports the picture of the growing network model, where the older a node the higher its probability to gather interactions with other late-coming proteins.
![Preferential attachment in protein network evolution. Symbols: The averaged number of links a protein acquires to proteins from new groups $N(k)$, as a function of $k$, its number of connections to all other (older) proteins. In order to study the asymptotic behaviour and estimate the exponent, we plotted (solid lines) the integrated function $\kappa(k)\equiv\int_0^k N(x)dx$. An asymptotic power-law scaling $\kappa(k)\propto k^{\alpha+1}$ is observed with $\alpha\approx 1$, suggesting a linear preferential attachment kernel. The dashed line describes the power law function $k^2$, and is presented for comparison. Results have been obtained using the full interactions database[@21]. (a) new links to proteins from group 1 alone, as a function of the number of links in groups 2, 3 and 4. (b) new links to groups 1 and 2. (c) new links to groups 1, 2 and 3 for all group-4 proteins. []{data-label="pa"}](fig3new.eps){width="3.2in"}
A direct test of the second assumption of the growing network model, namely, the preferential attachment principle, requires detailed information on the network development, which is beyond our reach. However, the above classification provides us with snapshots of the growing network at three points in its evolution, enabling an insight into the evolution of protein interactions. We study the sub-network defined by group 4 proteins and the links connecting them, recording the connectivity of each old protein on this sub-network. This sub-network was used as a model for the interaction map at an early stage of the evolution process (the time of divergence of the Bactria branch). The number of links of each old protein to the newer proteins (groups 1,2,3) is the number of links acquired since that time. We then looked at the number of new links a node gathered as a function of its connectivity in the old network. A similar analysis is done for the sub-networks defined by groups 3 and 4 combined (proteins with an Arabidopsis analogue), and for groups 2,3 and 4 combined (proteins with fission-yeast analogue). As Figure \[pa\] shows, the number of new links tends to increase with the number of links in the old network, which is a signature of preferential attachment. The number of new links appears to be approximately linear in the connectivity, suggesting a linear preferential attachment kernel, and consistent with the scale free topology[@11].
The growing network paradigm suggests a dynamic model for preferential attachment: that is, all nodes are created equal and the attachment probability is related to the actual current connectivity (“rich get richer” model) as defined by the network dynamics. An alternative model[@22] suggests a static explanation in which each node has a different intrinsic fitness that determines its ability to interact and doesn’t change as the network grows. In this model both the actual connectivity and the attachment probability of a protein depend on its intrinsic fitness. Given an appropriate distribution of the fitness parameter, this model can explain the results of figure \[pa\] (“good get richer” model), but it is not consistent with the age-dependence shown in figure \[age\]. While the growing network model predicts that older nodes will be better connected, connectivity in the static model is related solely to the node fitness, and age and connectivity shouldn’t be correlated. Thus, our results (figure \[age\]) support the first option as a model for the protein interaction evolution. Gene duplication was also suggested as an explanation for the scale-free topology of the protein interaction network[@23; @24; @25; @26]. However, since duplication events are not detected by our age-group classification, our results show that the proteins network structure cannot be attributed solely to evolution by duplication.
The question of the evolutionary mechanism leading to the dynamic preferential attachment remains: how does becoming better connected make a protein more attractive for future interactions, and why is the preference linear in the number of connections? We suggest two possible mechanisms that partially answer these questions:
\(i) The more connections a node acquires, the stronger is the selective pressure to make it more connectable. On the molecular level this can be understood as a tendency to increase the number of protein attachment domains[@domains] (such as the WW[@WW] or proline-rich[@proline] domains), or to improve the existing domains such that they bind to more target proteins. In this mechanism the preferential attachment is related to the physico-chemical properties of the highly-connected protein. In order to test this possibility, one can look at the distribution of domains and other reoccuring patterns in the set of highly-connected proteins, and check whether connectability can be traced to sequence motifs. However, the lack of well-studied interaction network for other organisms and the partial understanding of attachmnet properties of protein domains limits our ability to perform such study.
\(ii) Many protein interactions are actually physical interactions that change or regulate the functionality of the interacting parties, such as phosphorylation and complex formation. The number of potential distinct operation modes of a protein increases exponentially with the number of its regulating proteins, and similarly the number of potential variants of a given complex increases exponentially with the number of its building-block proteins. Therefore, the more connected a protein, the stronger the selection towards creating a protein to interact with it. Here, the phenomena relates to the biological functionality of the protein. This mechanism can be validated by the following experiment: current technology enables us to dig out proteins that form a complex together with a given target protein[@tap]. One can look at the different complexes generated under varying conditions and study the different combinations obtained, that is, how many distinct complexes were formed using the target protein. Then, it is possible to study how many new structures have been made available by each complex member. We predict that the contribution of each new member will be multiplicative, i.e., the number of new structures will be, on average, proportional to the total number of structures.
The preferential attachment phenomenon demonstrates an important principle in the process of evolution. It dynamically leads to the formation of big protein complexes and pathways, which introduce high complexity regulation and functionality. New systems are not generated as self-interacting modules of new proteins; rather, new proteins tend to connect to the old well-connected hubs of the network and modify existing functional units. Indeed, 267 of the 872 group 1 proteins (31%, versus 12% of group 4) have no interactions documented in the database, indicating a very low number of actual interactions. Thus, we get information on protein’s centrality based on its sequence alone. This information is helpful in analyzing the protein interaction network given the partial information available.
It was shown that the higher the connectivity of a node, the higher its probability to be essential, i.e. to have a lethal knockout phenotype[@9]. As mentioned above, highly connected nodes tend to be older. We find that essential proteinss also tend to be older: only 8% of the newest proteins are essential, in contrast to 20% of the oldest proteins ($\chi^2$-test p-value $3\cdot 10^{-20}$).
In conclusion, we show that the protein networks evolve by creating new, unconnected links, which attach to the existing network according to the linear preferential attachment principle. This explains the scale-free topology shared by the network, and has implications for understanding the evolutionary mechanisms. The correlation of the protein’s age to its centrality opens new possibilities for deriving information on the interaction network topology based on sequence data.
We thank A.-L Barabási, Y. Kliger, A. Lipshtat and S. Redner for valuable discussions and comments.
[10]{}
R. Albert, H. Jeong, and A.-L. Barabási, Nature [**401**]{}, 130 (1999). M.E. Newman, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. [**98**]{}, 404 (2001). L.A. Amaral [*et al*]{}, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. [**97**]{}, 11149 (2000). S.H. Yook [*et al*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 5835 (2001). S.H. Strogatz, Nature [**410**]{}, 268 (2001). R. Albert and A.-L. Barabási, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**74**]{}, 47 (2002). S.N. Dorogovtsev and J.F.F. Mendes, Adv. Phys. [**51**]{}, 1079 (2002). H. Jeong [*et al*]{}, Nature [**407**]{}, 651 (2000). H. Jeong [*et al*]{}, Nature [**411**]{}, 41 (2001). A.-L. Barabási and R. Albert, Science [**286**]{}, 509 (1999). P.L. Krapivsky, S. Redner, and F. Leyvraz, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 4629 (2000). S.N. Dorogovtsev, J.F.F. Mendes, and A.N. Samukhin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 4633 (2000). H. Jeong, Z. Neda, and A.-L. Barabási, Europhys. Lett. [**61**]{}, 567 (2003). M.E. Newman, Phys. Rev. [**E 64**]{}, 025102 (2001). A. Wagner, Proc. Roy. Soc. London [**B 270**]{}, 457-466 (2003); J. Berg, M. Lässig and A. Wagner, cond-mat/0207711. A. Goffeau [*et al*]{}, Science [**274**]{}, 546 (1996). S.B. Hedges, Nat. Rev. Genet. [**3**]{}, 838 (2002). F.R. Blattner [*et al*]{}, Science [**277**]{}, 1453 (1997). Arabidopsis Genome Initiative, Nature [**408**]{}, 796 (2000). V. Wood [*et al*]{}, Nature [**415**]{}, 871 (2002). Duplication of a whole gene is a common event in the course of evolution. Once a gene is duplicated, the two copies diverge and new functional modules can develop. This is considered to be one of the major sources for the creation of new genes, see S. Ohno, [*Evolution by gene and genome duplication*]{}, Springer, Berlin, 1970.
S. F. Altschul [*et al*]{}, J. Mol. Biol. [**215**]{}, 403 (1990). C. von Mering [*et al*]{}, Nature [**417**]{}, 399 (2002). G. Caldarelli [**et al**]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 258702 (2002). A. Vazquez, A. Flammini, A. Maritan and A. Vespignani, ComPlexUs [**1**]{}, 38 (2003). R.V. Sole, R. Pastor-Satorras, E. Smith, and T.B. Kepler, Advances in Complex Systems [**5**]{}, 43 (2002). F. Chung, L. Lu, T. Gregory-Dewey, and D.J. Galas, J. Comput. Biol. 2003 (in press). J. Kim, P.L. Krapivsky, B. Kahng, and S. Redner Phys. Rev. [**E 66**]{}, 055101 (2002).
Domains are functional units of proteins, each domain having its unique role. The WW domain[@WW] and the proline-rich domain [@proline] are of the most versatile protein-protein interaction modules. Proteins with such domain will potentially have many interactions. M. Sudol [*et al*]{}, FEBS Lett. [**369**]{}, 67 (1995). B.K. Kay, M.P. Williamson, and M. Sudol, FASEB J. [**14**]{}, 231 (2000). A.C. Gavin [*et al*]{}, Nature [**415**]{}, 141 (2002).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Jianfeng Wang, Jingdong Wang, Jingkuan Song, Xin-Shun Xu, Heng Tao Shen, Shipeng Li'
bibliography:
- 'ockmeans.bib'
title: 'Optimized Cartesian $K$-Means'
---
Introduction
============
Nearest neighbor (NN) search in large data sets has wide applications in information retrieval, computer vision, machine learning, pattern recognition, recommendation system, etc. However, exact NN search is often intractable because of the large scale of the database and the curse of the high dimensionality. Instead, approximate nearest neighbor (ANN) search is more practical and can achieve orders of magnitude speed-ups than exact NN search with near-optimal accuracy [@SDI06].
There has been a lot of research interest on designing effective data structures, such as $k$-d tree [@FriedmanBF77], randomized $k$-d forest [@Silpa-AnanH08], FLANN [@MujaL09], trinary-projection tree [@JiaWZZH10; @WangWJLZZH14], and neighborhood graph search [@AryaM93b; @WangL12; @WangWZGLG13a; @WangWZGLG13b].
The hashing algorithms have been attracting a large amount of attentions recently as the storage cost is small and the distance computation is efficient. Such approaches map data points to compact binary codes through a hash function, which can be generally expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{b} = \mathbf{h}(\mathbf{x}) \in \{0, 1\}^{L},\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{x}$ is a $P$-dimensional real-valued point, $\mathbf{h}(\cdot)$ is the hash function, and $\mathbf{b}$ is a binary vector with $L$ entries. For description convenience, we will use a vector or a code to name $\mathbf{b}$ interchangeably.
The pioneering hashing work, locality sensitive hashing (LSH) [@DatarIIM04; @IndykM98], adopts random linear projections and the similarity preserving is probabilistically guaranteed. Other approaches based on random functions include kernelized LSH [@KulisG12], non-metric LSH [@MuY10], LSH from shift-invariant kernels [@RaginskyL09], and super-bit LSH [@JiLYZT12].
To preserve some notion of similarities, numerous efforts have been devoted to finding a good hash function by exploring the distribution of the specific data set. Typical approaches are unsupervised hashing [@GongL11; @KongL12; @KulisD09; @StrechaBBF12; @WangWYL13; @WeissTF08; @XuWLZLY11; @ZhuHCCS13] and supervised hashing [@liuWJ12; @NorouziF11], with kernelized version [@HeLC10; @LiuHLL12], and extensions to multi-modality [@SongYHSH11; @song2013inter; @ZhuHSZ13], etc. Those algorithms usually use Hamming distance, which is only able to produce a few distinct distances, resulting in limited ability and flexibility of distance approximation.
The quantization-based algorithms have been shown to achieve superior performances [@JegouDS11; @NorouziF13]. The representative algorithms include product quantization (PQ) [@JegouDS11] and Cartesian $K$-means (CKM) [@NorouziF13], which are modified versions of the conventional $K$-means algorithm [@macqueen1967some]. The quantization approaches typically learn a *codebook* $\{\mathbf{d}_1, \cdots, \mathbf{d}_K\}$, where each *codeword* $\mathbf{d}_k$ is a $P$-dimensional vector. The data point $\mathbf{x}$ is encoded in the following way, $$\begin{aligned}
k^* = \arg\min\nolimits_{k \in \{1, 2, \cdots, K\}}{\|\mathbf{x} - \mathbf{d}_k\|_2^2},
\label{eqn:hash_func_non_decomposed}\end{aligned}$$ where $\|\cdot\|_2$ denotes the $l_2$ norm. The index $k^*$ indicates which codeword is the closest to $\mathbf{x}$ and can be represented as a binary code of length $\lceil\log_2(K)\rceil$[^1].
The crucial problem for quantization algorithms is how to learn the codebook. In the traditional $K$-means, the codebook is composed of the cluster centers with a minimal squared distortion error. The drawbacks when applying $K$-means to ANN search include that the size of the codebook is quite limited and computing the distances between the query and the codewords is expensive. PQ [@JegouDS11] addresses this problem by splitting the $P$-dimensional space into multiple disjoint subspaces and making the codebook as the Cartesian product of the *sub codebooks*, each of which is learned on each subspace using the conventional $K$-means algorithm. The compact code is formed by concatenating the indices of the selected sub codeword within each sub codebook. CKM [@NorouziF13] improves PQ by optimally rotating the $P$ dimensional space to give a lower distortion error.
In PQ and CKM, only one sub codeword on each subvector is used to quantize the data points. which results in limited capability of reducing the distortion error and thus limited search accuracy. In this paper, we first present a simple algorithm, extended Cartesian $K$-means (ECKM), which extends CKM by using multiple (e.g., $C$) sub codewords for a data point from the sub codebook in each subspace. Then, we propose the optimized Cartesian $K$-means (OCKM) algorithm, which learns $C$ sub codebooks in each subspace instead of a single sub codebook like ECKM, and selects $C$ sub codewords, each chosen from a different sub codebook. We show that both PQ and CKM are constrained versions of our OCKM under the same code length, which suggests that our OCKM can lead to a lower quantization error and thus a higher search accuracy. Experimental results also validate that our OCKM achieves superior performance.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Related work is first reviewed in Sec. \[sec:preliminary\]. The proposed ECKM is introduced in Sec. \[sec:sck\_means\], followed by the OCKM in Sec. \[sec:ock\_means\]. Discussions and experimental results are given in Sec. \[sec:discussion\] and \[sec:exp\], respectively. Finally, a conclusion is made in Sec. \[sec:conclusion\].
Related work {#sec:preliminary}
============
Hashing is an emerging technique to represent the high-dimensional vectors as binary codes for ANN search, and has achieved a lot of success in multimedia applications, e.g. image search [@HeFLCLCC12; @KuoCCH09], video retrieval [@CaoLMC12; @SongYHSH11], event detection [@RevaudDSJ13], document retrieval [@SalakhutdinovH09].
According to the form of the hash function, we roughly categorize the binary encoding approaches as those based on Hamming embedding and on quantization. Roughly, the former adopts the Hamming distance as the dissimilarity between the codes, while the latter does not.
Table \[tbl:notations\] illustrates part of the notations and descriptions used in the paper. Generally, we use the uppercase unbolded symbol as a constant, the lowercase unbolded as the index, the uppercase bolded as the matrix and the lowercase bolded as the vector.
Symbol Description
---------------------- ------------------------------------------------
$N$ number of training points
$P$ dimension of training points
$M$ number of subvectors
$S$ number of dimensions on each subvector
$K$ number of (sub) codewords
$m$ index of the subvector
$i$ index of the training point
$\mathbf{R}$ rotation matrix
$\mathbf{D}^{m}$ codebook on $m$-th subvector
$\mathbf{b}^{m}_{i}$ $1$-of-$K$ encoding vector on $m$-th subvector
: Notations and descriptions.[]{data-label="tbl:notations"}
Hamming embedding
-----------------
Linear mapping is one of typical hash functions. Each bit is calculated by $$\begin{aligned}
h_i(\mathbf{x}) =
\operatorname{sign}(\mathbf{w}_i^{T}\mathbf{x} + u_i),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{w}_i$ is the projection vector, $u_i$ is the offset, and $\operatorname{sign}(z)$ is a sign function which is $1$ if $z>0$, and $0$ otherwise.
Such approaches include [@DatarIIM04; @GongL11; @KongL12]. The differences mainly reside in how to obtain the parameters in the hash function. For example, LSH [@DatarIIM04] adopts a random parameter and the similarity is probability preserved. Iterative quantization hashing [@GongL11] constructs hash functions by rotating the axes so that the difference between the binary codes and the projected data is minimized.
Another widely-used approach is the kernel-based hash function [@HeLC10; @KulisD09; @KulisG12; @LiuHLL12], i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
h_i(\mathbf{x}) =
\operatorname{sign}(\sum_{j}w_{ij}{
\kappa(\mathbf{x}, \mathbf{z}_j)}),\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{z}_j$ is the vector in the same space with $\mathbf{x}$, and $\kappa(\cdot, \cdot)$ is the kernel function. The cosine function can also be used to generate the binary codes, such as in [@WeissTF08].
Quantization
------------
In the quantization-based encoding methods, different constraints on the codeword lead to different approaches, i.e. $K$-Means [@Lloyd82; @macqueen1967some], Product Quantization (PQ) [@JegouDS11] and Cartesian $K$-Means (CKM) [@NorouziF13].
### $K$-Means
Given $N$ $P$-dimensional points $\mathcal{X} = \{\mathbf{x}_1, \cdots, \mathbf{x}_N\}\subset \mathbb{R}^{P}$, the $K$-means algorithm partitions the database into $K$ clusters, each of which associates one codeword $\mathbf{d}_i\in
\mathbb{R}^{P}$. Let $\mathbf{D} =
[\mathbf{d}_1, \cdots, \mathbf{d}_K]
\subset
\mathbb{R}^{P}$ be the corresponding codebook. Then the codebook is learned by minimizing the within-cluster distortion, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\min~~&{\sum_{i = 1}^{N}{\|\mathbf{x}_i - \mathbf{D}\mathbf{b}_i\|_2^2}} \\
\operatorname{s.t.}~~&\mathbf{b}_i \in \{0, 1\}^{K} \\
& \|\mathbf{b}_i\|_1 = 1 ~~ i\in \{1, \cdots, N\} \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{b}_i$ is a $1$-of-$K$ encoding vector ($K$ dimensions with one $1$ and $K - 1$ $0$s. ) to indicate which codeword is used to quantize $\mathbf{x}_i$, and $\|\cdot\|_1$ is the $l_1$ norm.
The problem can be solved by iteratively alternating optimization with respect to $\mathbf{D}$ and $\{\mathbf{b}_i\}_{i = 1}^{N}$ [@Lloyd82].
### Product Quantization
One issue of $K$-Means is the size of the codebook is quite limited due to the storage and computational cost. To address the problem, PQ [@JegouDS11] splits each $\mathbf{x}_i$ into $M$ disjoint subvectors. Assume the $m$-th subvector contains $S_m$ dimensions and then $\sum_{m = 1}^{M}{S_m} = P$. Without loss of generality, $S_m$ is set to $S \triangleq P / M$ and $P$ is assumed to be divisible by $M$. On the $m$-th subvector, $K$-means is performed to obtain $K$ *sub codewords*. By this method, it generates $K^M$ clusters with only $O(KP)$ storage, while $K$-means requires $O(K^MP)$ storage with the same number of clusters. Meanwhile, the computing complexity is reduced from $O(K^MP)$ to $O(KP)$ to encode one data point.
Let $\mathbf{D}^m \in \mathbb{R}^{S \times K}$ be the matrix of the $m$-th sub codebook and each column is a $S$-dimensional sub codeword. PQ can be taken as optimizing the following problem with respect to $\{\mathbf{D}^m\}_{m = 1}^{M}$ and $\{\mathbf{b}_i^m\}_{i = 1, m = 1}^{N, M}$. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\min ~~ &f_{\text{pq}, M, K} = \sum_{i = 1}^{N}
{
\left\|
\mathbf{x}_i -
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{D}^1 \mathbf{b}_i^1\\
\vdots \\
\mathbf{D}^{M} \mathbf{b}_i^M
\end{bmatrix}
\right\|_2^2
} \\
\operatorname{s.t.}~~&\mathbf{b}_i^{m} \in \{0, 1\}^{K} \\
& \|\mathbf{b}_i^{m}\|_1 = 1~~ i \in \{1, \cdots, N\}, m\in \{1, \cdots, M\}
\end{split}
\label{eqn:pq}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{b}_i^{m}$ is also the $1$-of-$K$ encoding vector on the $m$-th subvector and the index of $1$ indicates which sub codeword is used to encode $\mathbf{x}_i$.
### Cartesian $K$-Means
CKM [@NorouziF13] optimally rotates the original space and formulates the problem as $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\min ~~ & f_{\text{ck}, M, K} = \sum_{i = 1}^{N}
\left\|
\mathbf{x}_i -
\mathbf{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{D}^1 \mathbf{b}_i^1 \\
\vdots \\
\mathbf{D}^{M} \mathbf{b}_i^M
\end{bmatrix}
\right\|_2^2 \\
\operatorname{s.t.} ~~ & \mathbf{R}^T \mathbf{R} = \mathbf{I}\\
& \mathbf{b}_i^{m} \in \{0, 1\}^{K} \\
& \|\mathbf{b}_i^{m}\|_1 = 1~~ i \in \{1, \cdots, N\}, m\in \{1, \cdots, M\}
\end{split}
\label{eqn:ck_means}\end{aligned}$$ The rotation matrix $\mathbf{R}$ is optimally learned by minimizing the distortion.
If $\mathbf{R}$ is constrained to be the identity matrix $\mathbf{I}$, it will be reduced to Eqn. \[eqn:pq\]. Thus, we can assert that under the optimal solutions, we have $f^*_{\text{ck}, M, K} \le f^*_{\text{pq}, M, K}$, where the asterisk superscript indicates the objective function with the optimal parameters.
Extended Cartesian $K$-Means {#sec:sck_means}
============================
In both PQ and CKM, only one sub codeword is used to encode the subvector. To make the representation more flexible, we propose the extended Cartesian $K$-means (ECKM), where multiple sub codewords can be used in each subspace.
Mathematically, we allow the $l_1$ norm of $\mathbf{b}_i^m$ to be a pre-set number $C$ ($C\ge 1$), instead of limiting it to be exactly 1. Meanwhile, any entry of $\mathbf{b}_i^m$ is relaxed as a non-negative integer instead of a binary value. The formulation is $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\min ~~ & f_{\text{eck}, M, K, C} = \sum_{i = 1}^{N}
\left\|
\mathbf{x}_i -
\mathbf{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{D}^1 \mathbf{b}_i^1\\
\vdots \\
\mathbf{D}^{M} \mathbf{b}_i^M
\end{bmatrix}
\right\|_2^2\\
\operatorname{s.t.} ~~ & \mathbf{R}^T \mathbf{R} = \mathbf{I}\\
& \mathbf{b}_i^m \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}^{K}\\
& \|\mathbf{b}_i^m\|_1 = C
\end{split}
\label{eqn:ick}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbb{Z}_{+}$ denotes the set of non-negative integers. The constraint is applied on all the points $i \in \{1, \cdots, N\}$ and on all the subspaces $m\in \{1, \cdots, M\}$. In the following, we omit the range of $i, m$ without confusion.
For the $m$-th sub codebook $\mathbf{D}^m \in \mathbb{R}^{S\times K}$, traditionally only one sub codeword can be selected and there are only $K$ choices to encode the $m$-th subvector of $\mathbf{R}^{T}\mathbf{x}_i$. In the extended version, any feasible $\mathbf{b}_i^m$ satisfying $\mathbf{b}_i^m \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}^{K}$ and $\|\mathbf{b}_i^m\|_1 = C$ constructs a quantizer, i.e. $\mathbf{D}^{m}\mathbf{b}_i^m$. Thus, the total number of choices is $\binom{K + C - 1}{K - 1} \ge K$. For example with $K = 256$ and $C = 2$, the difference is $\binom{K + C - 1}{K - 1} = 32896 \gg K = 256$. With a more powerful representation, the distortion errors can be potentially reduced.
In theory, $\log_2\binom{K + C - 1}{K - 1}$ bits can be used to encode one $\mathbf{b}_i^m$, and the code length is $M\log_2(\binom{K + C - 1}{K - 1})$. Practically, we use $\log_2(K)$ bits to encode one position of $1$. The $l_1$ norm of $\mathbf{b}_i^m$ is $C$, which can be interpreted that there are $C$ $1$s in $\mathbf{b}_i^m$. Then $MC\log_2(K)$ bits are allocated to encode one data point.
Learning
--------
Similar to [@NorouziF13], we present an iterative coordinate descent algorithm to solve the problem in Eqn. \[eqn:ick\]. There are three kinds of unknown variables, $\mathbf{R}$, $\mathbf{D}^m$, and $\mathbf{b}_i^m$. In each iteration, two of them are fixed, and the other one is optimized.
### Solve $\mathbf{R}$ with $\mathbf{b}_i^m$ and $\mathbf{D}^m$ fixed
With $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{X} &\triangleq
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{x}_1 & \cdots & \mathbf{x}_N
\end{bmatrix} \\
\mathbf{D} &\triangleq
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{D}^{1} & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & \mathbf{D}^{M}
\end{bmatrix} \\
\mathbf{B} &\triangleq
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{b}_1 & \cdots & \mathbf{b}_N
\end{bmatrix} \\
\mathbf{b}_i &\triangleq
\begin{bmatrix}
{\mathbf{b}_i^1}^{T} & \cdots & {\mathbf{b}_i^M}^{T}
\end{bmatrix}^{T},\end{aligned}$$ we re-write the objective function of Eqn. \[eqn:ick\] in a matrix form as $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathbf{X} - \mathbf{R}\mathbf{D}\mathbf{B}\|_F^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $\|\cdot\|_F$ is the Frobenius norm. The problem of solving $\mathbf{R}$ is the classic Orthogonal Procrustes problem [@Peter66] and the solution can be obtained as follows: if SVD of $\mathbf{X}{(\mathbf{D}\mathbf{B})}^{T}$ is $\mathbf{X}{(\mathbf{D}\mathbf{B})}^{T} = \mathbf{U}\Sigma \mathbf{V}^T$, the optimal $\mathbf{R}$ will be $\mathbf{U}\mathbf{V}^{T}$.
### Solve $\mathbf{D}^m$ with $\mathbf{b}_i^m$ and $\mathbf{R}$ fixed
Let $\mathbf{z}_i \triangleq \mathbf{R}^{T}\mathbf{x}_i$ and the $m$-th subvector of $\mathbf{z}_i$ be $\mathbf{z}_i^m$. The objective function of Eqn. \[eqn:ick\] can also be written as, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{i = 1}^{N} \sum_{m = 1}^{M}{\|\mathbf{z}_i^m - \mathbf{D}^m\mathbf{b}_i^m\|_2^2} = \sum_{m = 1}^{M}\|\mathbf{Z}^{m} - \mathbf{D}^{m}\mathbf{B}^{m}\|_F^2,
\label{eqn:represent_z_i_m}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{Z}^m & \triangleq [\mathbf{z}_1^m, \cdots, \mathbf{z}_N^m] \\
\mathbf{B}^m & \triangleq [\mathbf{b}_1^m, \cdots, \mathbf{b}_N^m].\end{aligned}$$
Each $\mathbf{D}^{m}$ can be individually optimized as $(\mathbf{Z}^{m} {\mathbf{B}^{m}}^{T}) (\mathbf{B}^{m} {\mathbf{B}^{m}}^{T})^{+}$, where $(\cdot)^{+}$ denotes the matrix (pseudo)inverse.
### Solve $\mathbf{b}_i^m$ with $\mathbf{D}^m$ and $\mathbf{R}$ fixed
From Eqn. \[eqn:ick\] and Eqn. \[eqn:represent\_z\_i\_m\], $\mathbf{b}_i^m$ can be solved by optimizing $$\begin{aligned}
\min ~~&g_{\text{eck}} (\mathbf{b}_i^m) = \|\mathbf{z}_i^m - \mathbf{D}^m\mathbf{b}_i^m\|_2^2 \\
\operatorname{s.t.}~~& \mathbf{b}_i^m \in \mathbb{Z}_{+}^{K} \\
&\|\mathbf{b}_i^m\|_1 = C\end{aligned}$$
This is an integer quadratic programming and challenging to solve. Here, we present a simple but practically efficient algorithm, based on matching pursuit [@MallatZ93] and illustrated in Alg. \[alg:ick\_code\]. In each iteration, we hold a residual variable $\mathbf{r}$, initialized by $\mathbf{z}_i^m$ (Line \[line:init\_r\] in Alg. \[alg:ick\_code\]). Let $\mathbf{d}_{k}^{m}$ be the $k$-th column of $\mathbf{D}^{m}$. Each column is scanned to obtain the best one to minimize the distortion error (Line \[line:best\_k\]), i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
k^* = \arg\min_{k}{\|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{d}_{k}^{m}\|_2^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Then $\mathbf{r}$ is subtracted by $\mathbf{d}_{k^*}^m$ (Line \[line:update\_r\]) for the next iteration, and the $k^*$-th dimension of $\mathbf{b}_i^m$ increases by $1$ (Line \[line:update\_b\]) to indicate the $k^*$-th sub codeword is selected. The process stops until $C$ iterations are reached.
$\mathbf{z}_i^m$, $\mathbf{D}^m \in \mathbb{R}^{S\times K}$, $C$ $\mathbf{b}_i^m$ $\mathbf{b}_i^m = \text{zeros}(K, 1)$ $\mathbf{r} = \mathbf{z}_i^m$ \[line:init\_r\] $k^* = \arg\min_{k}{\|\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{d}_{k}^m\|_2^2}$ \[line:best\_k\] $\mathbf{r} = \mathbf{r} - \mathbf{d}_{k^*}^{m}$ \[line:update\_r\] ${b}_i^m(k^*) = {b}_i^m(k^*) + 1$ \[line:update\_b\]
Optimized Cartesian $K$-Means {#sec:ock_means}
=============================
Before introducing the proposed OCKM, we first present another equivalent formulation of the ECKM. Since each entry of $\mathbf{b}_i^m$ in Eqn. \[eqn:ick\] is a non-negative integer, and the sum of all the entries is $C$, we replace it by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{b}_i^m = \sum_{c = 1}^{C}{\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}}
\label{eqn:construct_b_im}\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
& \mathbf{b}_{i}^{m, c} \in \{0, 1\}^{K} \\
& \|\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}\|_1 = 1.
\end{split}
\label{eqn:seperate_new_constraint}\end{aligned}$$
Given any feasible $\mathbf{b}_i^{m}$, we can always find at least one group of $\{\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}\}_{c = 1}^{C}$ satisfying Eqn. \[eqn:seperate\_new\_constraint\] and Eqn. \[eqn:construct\_b\_im\]. Any group of $\{\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}\}_{c = 1}^{C}$ satisfying Eqn. \[eqn:seperate\_new\_constraint\] can also construct a valid $\mathbf{b}_i^m$ by Eqn. \[eqn:construct\_b\_im\] for Eqn. \[eqn:ick\]. For example, if $\mathbf{b}_i^m = \begin{bmatrix}
2 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}$, we can replace it by the summation of $\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}$, $\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
$ and $
\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 1 & 0
\end{bmatrix}
$.
Substituting Eqn. \[eqn:construct\_b\_im\] into the objective function of Eqn. \[eqn:ick\], we have $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\text{eck}, M, K, C}
= \sum_{i = 1}^{N}{\left\|\mathbf{x}_i - \mathbf{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
\sum_{c}{\mathbf{D}^{1}\mathbf{b}_i^{1, c}} \\
\vdots\\
\sum_{c}{\mathbf{D}^{M}\mathbf{b}_i^{M, c}}
\end{bmatrix}
\right\|_2^2}.\end{aligned}$$
On the $m$-th subvector, $\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}$ represents the selected sub codeword. There are in total of $C$ selections from a single sub codebook. To further reduce the distortion errors, we propose to expand one sub codebook to $C$ different sub codebooks $\mathbf{D}^{m, c}\in \mathbb{R}^{S \times K}, c\in \{1, \cdots, C\}$, each of which is used for sub codeword selection. In summary, the formulation is as follows. $$\begin{aligned}
\begin{split}
\min & f_{\text{ock}, M, K, C}
= \sum_{i = 1}^{N}{\left\|\mathbf{x}_i - \mathbf{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
\sum_{c}{\mathbf{D}^{1, c}\mathbf{b}_i^{1, c}} \\
\vdots\\
\sum_{c}{\mathbf{D}^{M, c}\mathbf{b}_i^{M, c}}
\end{bmatrix}
\right\|_2^2} \\
\operatorname{s.t.}
& ~\mathbf{R}^T \mathbf{R} = \mathbf{I}\\
& ~\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c} \in \{0, 1\}^{K} \\
& ~\|\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}\|_1 = 1
\end{split}
\label{eqn:ock_means}\end{aligned}$$ which we call Optimized Cartesian $K$-Means (OCKM).
Since any $\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}$ requires $\log_2(K)$ bits to encode, the code length of representing each point is $MC\log_2(K)$.
Learning
--------
Similar with ECKM, an iterative coordinate descent algorithm is employed to optimize $\mathbf{R}$, $\mathbf{D}^{m, c}$ and $\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}$.
### Solve $\mathbf{R}$ with $\mathbf{D}^{m, c}$ and $\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}$ fixed
The objective function is re-written in a matrix form as $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathbf{X} - \mathbf{R}\hat{\mathbf{D}}\hat{\mathbf{B}}\|_F^2,\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{\mathbf{D}} & \triangleq
\begin{bmatrix}
\hat{\mathbf{D}}^m & & \\
& \ddots & \\
& & \hat{\mathbf{D}}^m
\end{bmatrix}
\\
\hat{\mathbf{D}}^m &\triangleq
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{D}^{m, 1} & \cdots & \mathbf{D}^{m, C}
\end{bmatrix} \label{eqn:hat_d_m}
\\
\hat{\mathbf{B}} & \triangleq \begin{bmatrix}
{{}\hat{\mathbf{B}}^{1}}^{T} &
\cdots &
{{}\hat{\mathbf{B}}^{M}}^{T}
\end{bmatrix}^{T}
\\
\hat{\mathbf{B}}^{m} & \triangleq \begin{bmatrix}
\hat{\mathbf{b}}_1^m & \cdots & \hat{\mathbf{b}}_N^m
\end{bmatrix} \\
\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i^m & \triangleq
\begin{bmatrix}
{\mathbf{b}_i^{m, 1}}^{T} &
\cdots &
{\mathbf{b}_i^{m, C}}^{T}
\end{bmatrix}^{T}. \label{eqn:hat_b_i_m}\end{aligned}$$ Then optimizing $\mathbf{R}$ is the Orthogonal Procrustes Problem [@Peter66].
### Solve $\mathbf{D}^{m, c}$ with $\mathbf{R}$ and $\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}$ fixed
Similar with Eqn. \[eqn:represent\_z\_i\_m\] in ECKM, the objective function of OCKM can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m = 1}^{M}{\|\mathbf{Z}^m - \hat{\mathbf{D}}^{m}\hat{\mathbf{B}}^m\|_F^2}.\end{aligned}$$ Each $\hat{\mathbf{D}}^{m}$ can also be individually solved by the matrix (pseudo)inversion.
### Solve $\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}$ with $\mathbf{R}$ and $\mathbf{D}^{m, c}$ fixed {#subsubsec:solve_b}
The sub problem is $$\begin{aligned}
\min ~~&g_{\text{ock}}(\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i^{m, c}) = \|\mathbf{z}_i^m - \sum_{c = 1}^{C}{\mathbf{D}^{m, c}\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}}\|_2^2 \\
\operatorname{s.t.}~~& \mathbf{b}_i^{m, c} \in \{0, 1\}^{K} \\
&\|\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}\|_1 = 1\end{aligned}$$
One straightforward method to solve the sub problem is to greedily find the best sub codeword in $\mathbf{D}^{m, c}$ one by one similar with Alg. \[alg:ick\_code\] for ECKM. One drawback is the succeeding sub codewords can only be combined with the previous one sub codeword.
$\mathbf{z}_i^m$, $\hat{\mathbf{D}}^{m} \in \mathbb{R}^{S\times KC}$ $\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i^{m}$ \[$\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i^{m}$, $\text{error}$\] = GenCodeOck($\mathbf{z}_i^m$, $\hat{\mathbf{D}}^{m}$, 1)
$k^* = \arg\min_{k}{\|\mathbf{z} - \mathbf{d}_{k}^{m, \text{idx}}\|_2^2}$ \[line:last\_best\] $\mathbf{b} = \text{zeros}(K, 1)$ ${b}(k^*) = 1$ $\text{error} = \|\mathbf{z} - \mathbf{d}^{m, \text{idx}}_{k^*}\|_2^2$ $[k^*_1, \cdots, k^*_{T}] = \arg\min_{k}{\|\mathbf{z}_i^m - \mathbf{d}_{k}^{m, \text{idx}}\|_2^2}$ \[line:best\_T\_columns\] $\text{best}.\text{error} = \text{LARGE}$ \[line:init\_best\_error\] $k \leftarrow k_i^*$ $\mathbf{z}' = \mathbf{z}_i^m - \mathbf{d}_{k}^{m, \text{idx}}$ \[line:substract\_target\] \[$\hat{\mathbf{b}}'$, $\text{error}'$\] = GenCodeOck($\mathbf{z}'$, $\hat{\mathbf{D}}^{m}$, $\text{idx} + 1$) \[line:recursive\_calling\] $\text{best}.\text{error}= \text{error}'$ $\text{best}.\text{idx}= k$ $\text{best}.\hat{\mathbf{b}} = \hat{\mathbf{b}}'$ $\mathbf{b}^1 = \text{zero}(K, 1)$ \[line:init\_b1\] ${b}^1(\text{best}.\text{idx}) = 1$ \[line:set\_b1\] $\hat{\mathbf{b}} = [\mathbf{b}^{1}; \text{best}.\hat{\mathbf{b}}]$ \[line:construct\_hat\_b\]
To increase the accuracy with a reasonable time cost, we improve it as multiple best candidates matching pursuit. The algorithm is illustrated in Alg. \[alg:opt\_ck\_b\] and Alg. \[alg:opt\_ck\_b\_recur\]. The input is the target vector $\mathbf{z}_i^m$, and the sub codebooks $\hat{\mathbf{D}}^{m}$ (defined in Eqn. \[eqn:hat\_d\_m\]). The output is the binary code represented as $\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i^m$ (defined in Eqn. \[eqn:hat\_b\_i\_m\]).
The function $[\hat{\mathbf{b}}, \text{error}] = \text{GenCodeOck}(\mathbf{z}_i^m, \hat{\mathbf{D}}^m, \text{idx})$ in Alg. \[alg:opt\_ck\_b\_recur\] encodes $\mathbf{z}_i^m$ with the last $(C - \text{idx} + 1)$ sub codebooks $\{\mathbf{D}^{m, c}, c\in \{\text{idx}, \cdots, C\}\}$. The encoding vector $\hat{\mathbf{b}}$ with $(C - \text{idx} + 1)K$ dimensions and the distortion $\text{error}$ are returned.
At first, $\text{idx} = 1$ and we search the top-$T$ best columns in $\mathbf{D}^{m, \text{idx}}$ (Line \[line:best\_T\_columns\] in Alg. \[alg:opt\_ck\_b\_recur\]) with $T$ being a pre-defined parameter. Let $\mathbf{d}_{k}^{m, \text{idx}}$ be the $k$-th column of $\mathbf{D}^{m, \text{idx}}$. The final selected one is taken among the $T$ best candidates. For each candidate, the target vector is substracted by the corresponding sub codeword (Line \[line:substract\_target\]), and then the rest codes $\hat{\mathbf{b}}'$ are generated by recursively calling the function $\text{GenCodeOck}$ with the parameter $\text{idx} + 1$ (Line \[line:recursive\_calling\]).
Among the $T$ candidates, the one with the smallest distortion error stored in $\text{best}.\text{idx}$ is selected to construct the final binary representation (Line \[line:init\_b1\], \[line:set\_b1\], \[line:construct\_hat\_b\]). In Line \[line:init\_best\_error\], the error is initialized as a large enough constant $\text{LARGE}$.
**Analysis.** The parameter $T$ controls the time cost and the accuracy towards the optimality. If the time complexity is $J(C)$, we can derive the recursive relation $$\begin{aligned}
J(C) = SK + TJ(C - 1).\end{aligned}$$ As shown in Line \[line:best\_T\_columns\] of Alg. \[alg:opt\_ck\_b\_recur\], $T$ sub codewords are selected and here we simply compare with each sub codeword, resulting in $O(SK)$ complexity. Since $T$ is generally far smaller than $K$, the cost of partially sorting to obtain the $T$ best ones can be ignored. For each of the $T$ best sub codeword, the complexity of finding the binary code in the rest sub codebooks is $J(C - 1)$ (Line \[line:recursive\_calling\]). With $J(1) = SK$, we can derive the complexity is $$\begin{aligned}
J(C) = SK\frac{T^C - 1}{T - 1}.\end{aligned}$$ Since there are $M$ subvectors, the complexity of encoding one full vector is $J(C)M = PK(T^{C} - 1) / (T - 1) = O(PKT^{C - 1})$. The time cost increases with a larger $T$.
Generally, Alg. \[alg:opt\_ck\_b\] can achieve a better solution with a larger $T$. If the position of $1$ in $\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}$ is uniformly distributed and independent with the others, we can calculate the probability of obtaining the optimal solution by Alg. \[alg:opt\_ck\_b\]. On each subvector, there are $K^{C}$ different cases for $\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i^{m}$. In Alg. \[alg:opt\_ck\_b\], Line \[line:best\_T\_columns\] is executed $C - 1$ times, and thus $T$ sub codewords are selected for each of the first $C - 1$ sub codebooks. All the sub codewords in the last sub codebook can be taken to be tried to find the one with the minimal distortion (Line \[line:last\_best\]). Then, $T^{C - 1}K$ different cases are checked, and the probability to find the optimal solution is $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{T^{C - 1} K}{K^{C}} = \left(\frac{T}{K}\right) ^ {C - 1}.\end{aligned}$$
If $T = K$, the probability will be $1$. It is certain that the optimal solution can be found, but with a high time cost. The probability increases with a larger $T$. Meanwhile, it decreases exponentially with $C$. Generally, we set $C = 2$ to have a better sub optimal solution. Fig. \[fig:sift1m3\_diff\] illustrates the relationship between the optimized distortion errors and $T$ on the SIFT1M training set, which is described in Sec. \[sec:exp\]. In practice, we choose $T = 10$ as a tradeoff.
Discussions {#sec:discussion}
===========
Connections {#sec:connection}
-----------
Our approaches are closely related with PQ [@JegouDS11] and CKM [@NorouziF13]. PQ splits the original vector into multiple subvectors to address the scalability issues. CKM rotates the space optimally and thus can achieve better accuracy. In each subspace, both PQ and CKM generate a single sub codebook and choose one sub codeword to quantize the original point. Our ECKM extends the idea by choosing multiple sub codewords from the single sub codebook, while our OCKM generates multiple sub codebooks, each of which contributes one sub codeword.
Next, we theoretically discuss the relations between our OCKM and others.
\[thm:same\_number\_subvector\] Under optimal solutions, we have: $$\begin{aligned}
f_{\text{ock}, M, K, C}^*
& \le f_{\text{ck}, M, K}^*
\label{eqn:less_equal_ck_ock}
\\
f_{\text{ock}, M, K, C}^* & \le
f_{\text{eck}, M, K, C}^{*}.
\label{eqn:less_equal_ours}\end{aligned}$$
If we limit $\mathbf{D}^{m, c_1} = \mathbf{D}^{m, c_2}, c_1, c_2 \in \{1, \cdots, C\}$ in Eqn. \[eqn:ock\_means\], OCKM is reduced to the ECKM in Eqn. \[eqn:ick\] by relations in Eqn. \[eqn:construct\_b\_im\] and Eqn. \[eqn:seperate\_new\_constraint\], which proves the Eqn. \[eqn:less\_equal\_ours\].
Denote $\mathbf{R}_{\text{ck}}, \{\mathbf{D}^{m}_{\text{ck}}\}_{m = 1}^{M}, \{\mathbf{b}_{i, \text{ck}}^m\}_{i = 1, m = 1}^{N, M}$ as the optimal solution of CKM in Eqn. \[eqn:ck\_means\]. A feasible solution of OCKM can be constructed by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{R}_{\text{ock}} & = \mathbf{R}_{\text{ck}} \\
\mathbf{D}^{m, c}_{\text{ock}} &=
\begin{cases}
\mathbf{D}_{\text{ck}}^{m} & c = 1\\
\mathbf{0} & c \ge 2
\end{cases}\\
\mathbf{b}_{i, \text{ock}}^{m, c} & = \mathbf{b}_{i, \text{ck}}^{m}~~ c \in \{1, \cdots, C\}.\end{aligned}$$ With the constructed parameters, the objective function of OCKM remains the same with CKM, which proves the Eqn. \[eqn:less\_equal\_ck\_ock\].
This theorem implies the proposed OCKM can potentially achieve a lower distortion error with the number of partitions $M$ and $K$ fixed.
Under the optimal solutions, we have, $$\begin{aligned}
f^*_{\text{ock}, M', K, C} \le f_{\text{ck}, M, K}^{*}
\label{eqn:un_equal_subvector}\end{aligned}$$ if $M' = M/C$ and $M$ is divisible by $C$. \[thm:code\_length\]
The basic idea is for the optimal solution of CKM, every consecutive $C$ sub codebooks and the binary representation are grouped to construct a feasible solution of OCKM with an equal objective function.
Specifically, the construction is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{R}_{\text{ock}} &= \mathbf{R}_{\text{ck}} \\
\mathbf{D}_{\text{ock}}^{p, q} &= \begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{0}_{(q - 1)S \times K} \\
\mathbf{D}_{\text{ck}}^{(p - 1)C + q}\\
\mathbf{0}_{(C - q)S \times K}
\end{bmatrix} \\
\mathbf{b}_{i, \text{ock}}^{p, q} & = \mathbf{b}_{i, \text{ck}}^{(p - 1)C + q}, \end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{0}_{a \times b}$ is a matrix of size $a\times b$ with all entries being $0$, and $p\in \{1, \cdots, M'\}, q\in \{1, \cdots, C\}$.
Take $C = 2$, $M = 2$ as an example. The formulation of CKM is $$\begin{aligned}
\min ~~&f_{\text{ck}, 2, K} = \sum_{i = 1}^{N}\left\|\mathbf{x}_i - \mathbf{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{D}^{1} & \mathbf{0} \\
\mathbf{0} & \mathbf{D}^{2}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{b}_i^{1} \\
\mathbf{b}_i^{2}
\end{bmatrix}
\right\|_2^2 \\
\operatorname{s.t.}~~& \mathbf{R}^{T}\mathbf{R} = \mathbf{I} \\
& \mathbf{b}_i^{m} \in \{0, 1\}^{K}\\
& \|\mathbf{b}_i^{m}\|_1 = 1\end{aligned}$$ Let $\mathbf{R}_{\text{ck}}$, $\{\mathbf{D}^{m}_{\text{ck}}\}_{m = 1}^{2}$, $\{\mathbf{b}_{i, \text{ck}}^{m}\}_{i = 1, m = 1}^{N, 2}$, be the optimal solutions of CKM. Then $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{R}_{\text{ock}} &= \mathbf{\mathbf{R}}_{\text{ck}} \\
\mathbf{D}_{\text{ock}}^{1, 1} &=
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{D}_{\text{ck}}^{1} \\
\mathbf{0}
\end{bmatrix}\\
\mathbf{D}_{\text{ock}}^{1, 2} & =
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{0} \\
\mathbf{D}_{\text{ck}}^{2}
\end{bmatrix} \\
\mathbf{b}_{\text{ock}}^{1, c} &= \mathbf{b}_{\text{ck}}^{c}~~c \in \{1, 2\}\end{aligned}$$ will be feasible for the problem of OCKM, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\min ~~&f_{\text{ock}, 1, K, 2} = \sum_{i = 1}^{N}{\left\|\mathbf{x}_i - \mathbf{R}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{D}^{1, 1} & \mathbf{D}^{1, 2}
\end{bmatrix}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{b}_i^{1, 1}\\
\mathbf{b}_i^{1, 2}
\end{bmatrix}
\right\|_2^2} \\
\operatorname{s.t.} ~~&\mathbf{R}^{T}\mathbf{R} = \mathbf{I} \\
&\mathbf{b}_i^{1, c} \in \{0, 1\}^{K}\\
& \|\mathbf{b}_i^{1, c}\|_1 = 1\end{aligned}$$ and they have identical objective function values.
In Theorem \[thm:code\_length\], the code length of both approaches is $M / C \times C \times \log_2(K) = M\log_2(K)$, which ensures the distortion error of OCKM is not larger than that of CKM with the same code length.
Theorem \[thm:same\_number\_subvector\] and Theorem \[thm:code\_length\] guarantee the advantages of our OCKM with multiple sub codebooks over the approach with single sub codebook.
Inequality Constraints or Equality Constraints
----------------------------------------------
One may expect to replace the equality constraint $\|\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}\|_1 = 1$ in Eqn. \[eqn:ock\_means\] as the inequality, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\|\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}\|_1 \le 1.\end{aligned}$$ This can potentially give a lower distortion under the same $M$ and $K$. However, under the same code length, this inequality constraint cannot be better than the equality constraints.
For the inequality case, there are $K + 1$ different values for $\mathbf{b}_{i, \text{inequality}}^{m}$, i.e. $\|\mathbf{b}_{i, \text{inequality}}^{m, c}\|_1 = 0$, or $1$. The subscripts $\text{equality}$ and $\text{inequality}$ are used for the problem with the equality constraint and that with the inequality constraint, respectively. Then, the code length is $MC\log_2(K + 1)$.
With the same code length, the equality case can consume $K + 1$ sub codewords on each subvector. The size of $\mathbf{D}_{\text{equality}}^{m, c}$ is $S\times (K + 1)$, and the size of $\mathbf{b}_{i, \text{equality}}^{m, c}$ is $(K + 1) \times 1$.
From any feasible solution of the inequality case, we can derive the feasible solution of the equality case with the same objective function value, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{R}_{\text{equality}} & = \mathbf{R}_{\text{inequality}} \\
\mathbf{D}_{\text{equality}}^{m, c} & =
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{D}_{\text{inequality}}^{m, c}, \mathbf{0}_{S\times 1}
\end{bmatrix} \\
\mathbf{b}_{\text{equality}}^{m, c} & = \begin{cases}
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{b}_{\text{inequality}}^{m, c}\\
0
\end{bmatrix} &\text{if } \|\mathbf{b}_{\text{inequality}}^{m, c}\|_1 = 1 \\
\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{0}_{K\times 1} \\
1
\end{bmatrix} &\text{if }
\|\mathbf{b}_{\text{inequality}}^{m, c}\|_1 = 0.
\end{cases}\end{aligned}$$
In the equality case, the last sub codeword is enforced to be $\mathbf{0}_{S\times 1}$, and the other sub codewords are filled by the one in the inequality case. If $\mathbf{b}^{m, c}_{\text{inequality}}$ is all $0$s, the entry of $\mathbf{b}_{\text{equality}}^{m, c}$ corresponding to the last sub codeword is set as $1$, or follows $\mathbf{b}^{m, c}_{\text{inequality}}$. This can ensure the multiplication $\mathbf{D}_{\text{equality}}^{m, c}\mathbf{b}_{\text{equality}}^{m, c}$ equals $\mathbf{D}_{\text{inequality}}^{m, c}\mathbf{b}_{\text{inequality}}^{m, c}$.
The objective function value remains the same, while with the optimal solution the equality case may obtain a lower distortion.
$\{\mathbf{x}_i\}_{i = 1}^{N}$, $M$ $\mathbf{R}$, $\{\mathbf{D}^{m, c}\}_{m = 1, c = 1}^{M, C}$, and $\{\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}\}_{i = 1,m = 1,c = 1}^{N, M, C}$ $\mathbf{R} = \mathbf{I}$ Randomly initialize $\{\mathbf{D}^{m, c}\}_{m = 1, c = 1}^{M, C}$ from the data set. Update $\{\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}\}_{i = 1, m = 1, c = 1}^{N, M, C}$ by Alg. \[alg:opt\_ck\_b\] Update $\mathbf{R}$ Update $\{\mathbf{D}^{m, c}\}_{m = 1, c = 1}^{M, C}$ Get ${\mathbf{new\_\hat{b}}}_i^{m, c}$ from Alg. \[alg:opt\_ck\_b\] $\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i^{m} = {\mathbf{new\_\hat{b}}}_i^{m}$
Implementation
--------------
In OCKM and ECKM, there are three kinds of optimizers: rotation matrix $\mathbf{R}$, sub codebooks $\mathbf{D}^{m}$ or $\mathbf{D}^{m, c}$, and $\mathbf{b}_i^{m}$ or $\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}$. In our implementation, $\mathbf{R}$ is initialized as the identity matrix $\mathbf{I}$. The sub codebook $\mathbf{D}^{m}$ and $\mathbf{D}^{m, c}$ are initialized by randomly choosing the data on the corresponding subvector.
The solution of $\mathbf{R}$, $\mathbf{D}^{m}$ and $\mathbf{D}^{m, c}$ are optimal in the iterative optimization process, but the solution of $\mathbf{b}_i^m$ and $\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}$ are sub optimal. To guarantee that the objective function value is non-increasing in the iterative coordinate descent algorithm, we update $\mathbf{b}_i^m$ or $\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}$ only if the codes of Alg. \[alg:ick\_code\] or Alg. \[alg:opt\_ck\_b\] can provide a lower distortion error. The whole algorithm of OCKM is shown in Alg. \[alg:opt\] and the one of ECKM can be similarly obtained.
The distortion errors of OCKM with different numbers of iterations are shown in Fig. \[fig:convergence\] on SIFT1M (Sec. \[sec:dataset\] for the dataset description), and we use $100$ iterations through all the experiments. The optimization scheme is fast and for instance on the training set of SIFT1M, the time cost of each iteration is about $4.2$ seconds in our implementations. (All the experiments are conducted on a server with an Intel Xeon 2.9GHz CPU.)
Distance Approximation for ANN search {#sec:ann_search}
-------------------------------------
In this subsection, we discuss the methods of the Euclidean ANN search by OCKM, and analyze the query time. Since ECKM is a special case of OCKM, we only discuss OCKM.
Let $\mathbf{q}\in \mathbb{R}^{D}$ be the query point. The approximate distance to $\mathbf{x}_i$ encoded as ${\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i}^T \triangleq \begin{bmatrix}
{{}\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i^{1}}^{T} & \cdots & {{}\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i^{M}}^{T}
\end{bmatrix}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
& \text{distAD}(\mathbf{q}, \hat{\mathbf{b}}_i) \label{eqn:asd} \\
= & \|\mathbf{q} -
\mathbf{R}
\hat{\mathbf{D}}
\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i\|_2^2 \notag \\
= & \|\mathbf{q}\|_2^2 - 2 \sum_{m = 1}^{M} \sum_{c = 1}^{C}{{\mathbf{z}^m}^{T}(\mathbf{D}^{m, c}\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}) + \|\hat{\mathbf{D}}\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i\|_2^2} \notag\\
\propto & \frac{1}{2}\|\mathbf{q}\|_2^2 - \sum_{m = 1}^{M}\sum_{c = 1}^{C}{{\mathbf{z}^m}^{T}(\mathbf{D}^{m, c}\mathbf{b}_i^{m, c}) + \frac{1}{2}\|\hat{\mathbf{D}}\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i\|_2^2},
\label{eqn:app_dist}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mathbf{z}^{m}$ is the $m$-th subvector of $\mathbf{R}^{T} \mathbf{q}$.
The first item $\|\mathbf{q}\|_2^2 / 2$ is constant with all the database points and can be ignored in comparison. The third item $\|\hat{\mathbf{D}}\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i\|_2^2 / 2$ is independent of the query point. Thus, it is precomputed once as the lookup table for all the quires. This precomputation cost is not low compared with the linear scan cost for a single query, but is negligible for a large amount of queries which is the case in real applications. Moreover, this term is computed only using the binary code $\hat{\mathbf{b}}_i$ and no access to the original $\mathbf{x}_i$ is required. For the second item, we can pre-compute $\{-{\mathbf{z}^m}^{T}\mathbf{d}_{k}^{m, c}\}_{k = 1, m = 1, c = 1}^{K, M, C}$ and store it as the lookup tables. Then there are $MC + 1$ table lookups and $M C + 1$ addition operations to calculate the distance. The $1$ corresponds to the third item of Eqn. \[eqn:app\_dist\].
If the query point is also represented by the binary codes, denoted as $\hat{\mathbf{b}}_q$, we can recover $\mathbf{q}$ as $\mathbf{q}'
\triangleq \mathbf{R}\hat{\mathbf{D}}\hat{\mathbf{b}}_q$. Then the approximate distance to any database point will be identical with Eqn. \[eqn:asd\], i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\text{distSD}(\hat{\mathbf{b}}_q, \hat{\mathbf{b}}_i) = \text{distAD}(\mathbf{q}', \hat{\mathbf{b}}_i).
\label{eqn:sd}\end{aligned}$$
Eqn. \[eqn:asd\] is usually referred as the asymmetric distance while Eqn. \[eqn:sd\] as the symmetric distance. Since the symmetric distance encodes both the query and the database points, the accuracy is generally lower than the asymmetric distance, which only encodes the database points.
**Analysis of query time.** We adopt an exhaustive search in which each database point is compared against the query point and the points with smallest approximate distances are returned. The exhaustive search scheme is fast in practice because each comparison only requires a few table lookups and additional operations.
Table \[tbl:query\_comparison\] lists the code length and the comparison among PQ, CKM and our OCKM for exhaustive search. Under the same code length, OCKM consumes only one more table lookup and one more addition than the others. Considering the other computations in the querying, the differences of time cost are minor in practice.
Take $M_{\text{ck}} = 8$, $K = 256$, $C = 2$, $M_{\text{ock}} = 4$ as an example. The code length of OCKM and CKM are both $64$. The number of table lookups are $9$ for OCKM and $8$ for CKM. With these configurations on SIFT1M data set, the exhaustive querying over 1 million database points costs about $24.3$ms for OCKM and $23.5$ms for CKM in our implementations. Thus, the on-line query time is comparable with the state-of-the-art approaches, but the proposed approach can potentially provide a better accuracy.
OCKM CKM [@NorouziF13] PQ [@JegouDS11]
------------------- ---------------- ------------------- -----------------
Code Length $M C\log_2(K)$ $M\log_2(K)$ $M\log_2(K)$
\#(Table Lookups) $M C + 1$ $M$ $M$
\#(Additions) $M C + 1$ $M$ $M$
: Comparison in terms of the code length, the number of table lookups and the number of addition operations for exhaustive search.[]{data-label="tbl:query_comparison"}
Experiments {#sec:exp}
===========
Settings
--------
### Datasets {#sec:dataset}
Experiments are conducted on three widely-used high-dimensional datasets: SIFT1M [@JegouDS11], GIST1M [@JegouDS11], and SIFT1B [@JegouDS11]. Each dataset comprises of one training set (from which the parameters are learned), one query set, and one database (on which the search is performed). SIFT1M provides $10^5$ training points, $10^4$ query pints and $10^6$ database points with each point being a $128$-dimensional SIFT descriptor of local image structures around the feature points. GIST1M provides $5\times 10^5$ training points, $10^3$ query points and $10^6$ database points with each point being a $960$-dimensional GIST feature. SIFT1B is composed of $10^8$ training points, $10^4$ query points and as large as $10^9$ database points. Following [@NorouziF13], we use the first $10^6$ training points on the SIFT1B datasets. The whole training set is used on SIFT1M and GIST1M.
### Criteria
ANN search is conducted to evaluate our proposed approaches, and three indicators are reported.
- [Distortion: ]{} distortion is referred here as the sum of the squared loss after representing each point as the binary codes or the indices of the sub codewords. Generally speaking, the accuracy is better with a lower distortion.
- [Recall: ]{} recall is the proportion over all the queries where the true nearest neighbor falls within the top ranked vectors by the approximate distance.
- [Mean overall ratio: ]{} mean overall ratio [@TaoYSK10] reflects the general quality of all top ranked neighbors. Let $\mathbf{r}_i$ be the $i$-th nearest vector of a query $\mathbf{q}$ with the exact Euclidean distance, and $\mathbf{r}_i^*$ be the $i$-th point of the ranking list by the approximate distance. The rank-$i$ ratio, denoted by $R_i(\mathbf{q})$, is $$\begin{aligned}
R_i(\mathbf{q}) = \frac{\|\mathbf{q} - \mathbf{r}_i^*\|_2}{\|\mathbf{q} - \mathbf{r}_i\|_2}.\end{aligned}$$ The overall ratio is the mean of all $R_i(\mathbf{q})$, i.e. $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{1}{k}\sum_{i = 1}^{k}{R_i(\mathbf{q})}.\end{aligned}$$ The mean overall ratio is the mean of the overall ratios of all the queries. When the approximate results are the same as exact search results, the overall ratio will be $1$. The performance is better with a lower mean overall ratio.
------------- -------------
\(a) SIFT1M \(b) GIST1M
------------- -------------
------------- -------------
\(a) SIFT1M \(b) GIST1M
------------- -------------
### Approaches
We compare our Optimized Cartesian $K$-Means (OCKM) with Product Quantization (PQ) [@JegouDS11] and Cartesian $K$-Means (CKM) [@NorouziF13]. Besides, the results of our extended Cartesian $K$-Means (ECKM) are also reported. Following [@NorouziF13], we set $K = 256$ to make the lookup tables small and fit the sub index into one byte.
A suffix ‘-A’ or ‘-S’ is appended to the name of approaches to distinguish the asymmetric distance or the symmetric distance in ANN search. For example, OCKM-A represents the database points are encoded by OCKM, and the asymmetric distance is used to rank all the database points.
We do not compare with other state-of-the-art hashing algorithms, such as spectral hashing (SH) [@WeissTF08] and iterative quantization (ITQ) hashing [@GongL11], because it is demonstrated PQ is superior over SH [@JegouDS11] and CKM is better than ITQ [@NorouziF13].
Results
-------
### Comparison with the number of subvectors fixed
The distortion errors on the training set and database set are illustrated in Fig. \[fig:distortion\_train\] and Fig. \[fig:distortion\_base\], respectively. From the two figures, our OCKM achieves the lowest distortion, followed by ECKM. This is because under the same $M$, both CKM and ECKM are the special case of OCKM, as discussed in Theorem \[thm:same\_number\_subvector\].
------------- -------------
\(a) SIFT1M \(b) GIST1M
------------- -------------
------------- -------------
\(a) SIFT1M \(b) GIST1M
------------- -------------
Fig. \[fig:rec10\] and Fig. \[fig:mor10\] show the recall and the mean overall ratio for ANN search at the $10$-th top ranked point, respectively. With the same type of the approximate distance, our approach OCKM achieves the best performance: the highest recall and the lowest mean overall ratio. With the lowest distortion errors demonstrated in Fig. \[fig:rec10\] and Fig. \[fig:mor10\], the OCKM is more accurate for encoding the data points.
----- ----- -----
32 64 128
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e) (f)
(g) (h) (i)
----- ----- -----
### Comparison with the code length fixed
We use $M_{\text{ock}}$, $M_{\text{eck}}$, $M_{\text{ck}}$, $M_{\text{pq}}$ to denote the number of subvectors in OCKM, ECKM, CKM, and PQ, respectively. The code length of CKM is $M_{\text{ck}}\log_2(K)$, while the code length of OCKM is $M_{\text{ock}}C\log_2(K)$. Fixing $C = 2$ as the analysis in Sec. \[subsubsec:solve\_b\], we set $M_{\text{ock}} = M_{\text{ck}} / 2$ with $M_{\text{ck}}$ being $4$, $8$, and $16$ for code length $32$, $64$ and $128$, respectively. The $M_{\text{pq}}$ is identical with $M_{\text{ck}}$, while $M_{\text{eck}}$ is with $M_{\text{ock}}$. In this way, the code length is identical through all the approaches.
The results in terms of recall on SIFT1M, GIST1M, and SIFT1B are shown in Fig. \[fig:both\_rec\_32\_64\_128\]. From these results, we can see that:
------------- -------------
\(a) SIFT1M \(b) GIST1M
------------- -------------
------------- ------------- -------------
\(a) SIFT1M \(b) GIST1M \(c) SIFT1B
------------- ------------- -------------
- Generally, our OCKM outperforms all the others under the same type of approximate distance. For example of the asymmetric distance with 64 bits, the improvement of OCKM is about $5$ percents on SIFT1M in Fig. \[fig:both\_rec\_32\_64\_128\] (b), $4$ percents on GIST1M in Fig. \[fig:both\_rec\_32\_64\_128\] (e), $4$ percents on SIFT1B in Fig. \[fig:both\_rec\_32\_64\_128\] (h) at the $10$-th top ranked point. The performance of OCKM mainly benefits from the low distortion errors, which is also discussed in Theorem \[thm:code\_length\]. Fig. \[fig:distortion\_code\_length\] illustrates the distortion on the database under the same code length for SIFT1M and GIST1M. We can see under the same code length, our approach achieves the lowest distortions.
- The improvement is even better with a smaller code length. To present the observation more clearly, we extract the recall at the $100$-th nearest neighbor from Fig. \[fig:both\_rec\_32\_64\_128\] and plot Fig. \[fig:recall100\_code\]. With a larger code length, the recalls of our OCKM and the second best CKM approach $1$. With a smaller code length, our OCKM gains larger improvement.
- ECKM is not quite competitive with the same code length. The possible reason is that the number of sub codebooks is smaller than those of the others. Take the code length of $64$ bits as an example. There are $8$ subvectors and each has one sub codebook for PQ and CKM, resulting in $8$ sub codebooks. OCKM is equipped with $4$ subvectors, but each has two sub codebooks, also resulting in $8$ sub codebooks. Comparatively, ECKM has $4$ subvectors, each of which has one sub codebook, and there are only $4$ sub codebooks in total. Smaller numbers of sub codebooks may degrade the performance of ECKM. Compared with SIFT1M and SIFT1B, ECKM achieves even better results than PQ on GIST1M, which indicates GIST1M is more sensitive to the rotation.
Fig. \[fig:both\_32\_64\_128\] illustrates the experiment results in terms of mean overall ratio with different code lengths on SIFT1M and GIST1M. Mean overall ratio captures the whole quality of the returned points while the recall captures the position of the nearest neighbor and ignores the quality of the other points. Under this criterion, our OCKM achieves the lowest mean overall ratio and outperforms all the others. This implies the returned nearest neighbors of OCKM are of high quality and close to the query points.
---- ---- -----
32 64 128
---- ---- -----
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In this paper, we proposed the Optimized Cartesian $K$-Means (OCKM) algorithm to encode the high-dimensional data points for approximate nearest neighbor search. The key idea of OCKM is that in each subspace multiple sub codebooks are generated and each sub codebook contributes one sub codeword for encoding the subvector. The benefit is that it reduces the quantization error with comparable query time under the same code length. The theoretical analysis and experimental results show that OCKM achieves superior performance for ANN search over state-of-the-art approaches.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was partially supported by the National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) under Grant 2014CB347600 and ARC Discovery Project DP130103252.
[Jianfeng Wang]{} received his B.Eng. degree from the Department of Electronic Engineering and Information Science in the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) in 2010. Currently, he is a PhD student in MOE-Microsoft Key Laboratory of Multimedia Computing and Communication, USTC. His research interests include multimedia retrieval, machine learning and its applications.
[Jingdong Wang]{} received the BSc and MSc degrees in Automation from Tsinghua University, Beijing, China, in 2001 and 2004, respectively, and the PhD degree in Computer Science from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, Hong Kong, in 2007. He is currently a Lead Researcher at the Visual Computing Group, Microsoft Research, Beijing, P.R. China. His areas of interest include computer vision, machine learning, and multimedia search. At present, he is mainly working on the Big Media project, including large-scale indexing and clustering, and Web image search and mining. He is an editorial board member of Multimedia Tools and Applications.
[Jingkuan Song]{} is currently a Research Fellow in University of Trento, Italy. He received his Ph.D degree from The University of Queensland, and BS degree in Software Engineering from University of Electronic Science and Technology of China. His research interest includes large-scale multimedia search, computer vision and machine learning.
[Xin-Shun Xu]{} received his M.S. and Ph.D. Degrees in computer science from Shandong University, China, in 2002, and Toyama University, Japan, in 2005, respectively. He joined the School of Computer Science and Technology at Shandong University as an associate professor in 2005, and joined the LAMDA group of the National Key Laboratory for Novel Software Technology, Nanjing University, China, as a postdoctoral fellow in 2009. Currently, he is a professor of the School of Computer Science and Technology at Shandong University, and the leader of MIMA (Machine Intelligence and Media Analysis) group of Shandong University. His research interests include machine learning, information retrieval, data mining, bioinformatics, and image/video analysis.
[Heng Tao Shen]{} is a Professor of Computer Science in School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland. He obtained his B.Sc. (with 1st class Honours) and Ph.D. from Department of Computer Science, National University of Singapore in 2000 and 2004 respectively. He then joined the University of Queensland as a Lecturer and became a Professor in 2011. His research interests include Multimedia/Mobile/Web Search and Big Data Management. He is the winner of Chris Wallace Award for outstanding Research Contribution in 2010 from CORE Australasia. He is an Associate Editor of IEEE TKDE, and will serve as a PC Co-Chair for ACM Multimedia 2015.
[Shipeng Li]{} joined and helped to found Microsoft Research’s Beijing lab in May 1999. He is now a Principal Researcher and Research Area Manager coordinating multimedia research activities in the lab. His research interests include multimedia processing, analysis, coding, streaming, networking and communications. From Oct. 1996 to May 1999, Dr. Li was with Multimedia Technology Laboratory at Sarnoff Corporation as a Member of Technical Staff. Dr. Li has been actively involved in research and development in broad multimedia areas and international standards. He has authored and co-authored 6 books/book chapters and 280+ referred journal and conference papers. He holds 140+ granted US patents. Dr. Li received his B.S. and M.S. in Electrical Engineering (EE) from the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC), Hefei, China in 1988 and 1991, respectively. He received his Ph.D. in EE from Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA in 1996. He was a faculty member in Department of Electronic Engineering and Information Science at USTC in 1991-1992. Dr. Li received the Best Paper Award in IEEE Transaction on Circuits and Systems for Video Technology (2009). Dr. Li is a Fellow of IEEE.
[^1]: In the following, we omit the $\lceil \cdot \rceil$ operator without affecting the understanding.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In recent years, the class of energy-conserving methods named Hamiltonian Boundary Value Methods (HBVMs) has been devised for numerically solving Hamiltonian problems. In this short note, we study their natural formulation as continuous-stage Runge-Kutta(-Nyström) methods, which allows a deeper insight in the methods.
continuous-stage Runge-Kutta methods, Runge-Kutta-Nyström methods, Hamiltonian Boundary Value Methods, HBVMs.
65L05, 65P10.
author:
- Pierluigi Amodio$^1$
- Luigi Brugnano$^2$
- Felice Iavernaro$^1$
date: |
$^1$ [Dipartimento di Matematica, Università di Bari, Italy, [{pierluigi.amodio,felice.iavernaro}@uniba.it]({pierluigi.amodio,felice.iavernaro}@uniba.it) ]{}\
$^2$ [Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica “U.Dini”, Università di Firenze, Italy, [[email protected]]([email protected])]{}
title: 'A note on the continuous-stage Runge-Kutta(-Nyström) formulation of Hamiltonian Boundary Value Methods (HBVMs)'
---
Introduction
============
The numerical solution of Hamiltonian problems has been recently tackled by defining energy-conserving methods, which can be regarded as continuous-stage Runge-Kutta (RK, hereafter) methods (e.g., [@QMcL2008; @BIT2010; @Ha2010; @TS2014]). In their simplest (and most effective) form,[^1] continuous-stage RK methods are “methods” that, when applied for solving an initial value problem for ODEs (ODE-IVP, hereafter), which we assume without loss of generality in the form $$\label{ivp}
\dot y(t) = f(y(t)), \qquad t\in[0,h], \qquad y(0) = y_0\in\RR^m,$$ with $f$ analytical, define an approximating function $u:[0,h]\rightarrow \RR^m$ such that $$\label{csRK1}
u(ch) = y_0 + h\int_0^1 a_{c\tau} f(u(\tau h))\dd\tau, \qquad c\in[0,1],$$ with $a_{c\tau}:[0,1]\times[0,1]\rightarrow\RR$, and a corresponding approximation to $y(h)$, $$\label{csRK2}
y_1 = y_0 + h\int_0^1 f(u(ch))\dd c.$$ As is usual, this procedure can be summarized by the following (generalized) Butcher tableau, $$\begin{array}{c|c}
c &a_{c\tau}\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& 1\end{array}~.$$ We observe that (\[csRK1\])-(\[csRK2\]) is not yet an actual numerical method, due to the fact that the involved integrals need to be conveniently approximated by means of quadrature rules. In so doing, one obtains “usual” RK methods.[^2] Nevertheless, (\[csRK1\])-(\[csRK2\]) can be useful for purposes of analysis [@Bu2008; @BIT2012; @TS2012; @TS2014; @TZ2018; @TSZ2019; @LiWu2019] since, essentially, it allows to discuss all Runge-Kutta methods derived by using different quadratures for approximating the involved integrals. In particular, the papers [@TZ2018; @TSZ2019] have inspired the present note, where we provide the continuous-stage RK formulation of Hamiltonian Boundary Value Methods (HBVMs) [@BIT2009; @BIS2010; @BIT2010; @BIT2012-1; @BIT2015; @LIMbook2016; @BI2018], a class of energy-conserving methods for Hamiltonian problems, which have been developed along several directions [@BCMR2012; @BI2012; @BIT2012-2; @BIT2012-3; @BS2014; @BGI2018; @BGIW2018], including Hamitonian BVPs [@ABI2015], highly-oscillatory problems [@BMR2018; @ABI2019], Hamiltonian PDEs [@BFCI2015; @BBFCI2018; @BIMR2018; @BFCI2019; @BGS2019; @BZL2018; @BGZ2019], and also considering their efficient implementation [@BIT2011; @BFCI2014]. Here, we shall also consider the continuous formulation of such methods when applied for solving special second-order problems [@LIMbook2016], i.e., problems in the form $$\label{ivp2}
\ddot q(t) = f(q(t)), \qquad t\in[0,h], \qquad q(0) = q_0, ~ \dot q(0) = p_0\,\in\,\RR^m,$$ where, for the sake of brevity, we shall again assume $f$ to be analytical.
With these premises, the structure of the paper is as follows: in Section \[fop\] we study the case of first order ODE problems; Section \[sop\] is devoted to study the case where one solves special second-order problems; at last, a few concluding remarks are drawn in Section \[fine\].
The framework {#fop}
=============
Generalizing the arguments in [@BIT2012], let us consider the orthonormal Legendre polynomial basis $\{P_j\}_{j\ge0}$ on the interval $[0,1]$: $$\label{orto}
P_j\in\Pi_j, \qquad \int_0^1 P_i(c)P_j(c)\dd c = \delta_{ij}, \qquad \forall i,j\ge0,$$ where $\Pi_j$ is the set of polynomials of degree $j$. Then, the ODE-IVP (\[ivp\]) can be written, by expanding the right-hand side along the Legendre basis, as $$\label{ivp1}
\dot y(ch) = \sum_{j\ge0} P_j(c)\gamma_j(y), \qquad c\in[0,1], \qquad \gamma_j(y) = \int_0^1P_j(\tau) f(y(\tau h))\dd \tau, \qquad j\ge0,$$ from which, integrating side by side, one obtains the following formal expression for the solution of (\[ivp\]): $$\label{y}
y(ch) = y_0 + h\sum_{j\ge0} \int_0^c P_j(x)\dd x\, \gamma_j(y), \qquad c\in[0,1].$$ The above equations can be cast in vector form by introducing the infinite vectors $$\label{PIgamma}
\P_\infty(c) := \pmatrix{c} P_0(c)\\[1mm] P_1(c)\\ \vdots\, \endpmatrix,\quad
\I_\infty(c) := \int_0^c \P_\infty(x)\dd x \equiv \pmatrix{c} \int_0^cP_0(x)\dd x\\[2mm] \int_0^cP_1(x)\dd x\\ \vdots\, \endpmatrix,\quad
\bfgamma(y) = \pmatrix{c} \gamma_0(y)\\[1mm] \gamma_1(y)\\ \vdots \endpmatrix,$$ respectively as: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{y1gamma}
\dot y(ch) = \P_\infty(c)^\top\otimes I_m\bfgamma(y), \qquad c\in[0,1],\qquad \bfgamma(y) = \int_0^1 \P_\infty(\tau)\otimes I_m f(y(\tau h))\dd \tau,\end{aligned}$$ and $$\label{ych}
y(ch) = y_0 + h\I_\infty(c)^\top\otimes I_m\,\bfgamma(y), \qquad c\in[0,1].$$ Moreover, by considering that $$\label{IXPPI}
\I_\infty(c)^\top = \P_\infty(c)^\top X_\infty, \qquad \int_0^1 \P_\infty(c) \P_\infty(c)^\top\dd c = I,$$ with $I$ the identity operator and $$\label{X}
X_\infty = \pmatrix{cccc}
\xi_0 & -\xi_1\\
\xi_1 & 0 & -\xi_2 \\
& \xi_2 & \ddots &\ddots\\
& &\ddots &\ddots\endpmatrix, \qquad \xi_i = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{|4i^2-1|}}, \quad i\ge0,$$ one also obtains that $$\label{PIX}
\int_0^1 \P_\infty(c) \I_\infty(c)^\top\dd c = X_\infty.$$
Setting $y_1\equiv y(h),$ we can cast (\[ych\]) as: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
y(ch) &=& y_0 + h\int_0^1 \I_\infty(c)^\top \P_\infty(\tau)f(y(\tau h))\dd\tau, \qquad c\in[0,1],\\
y_1 &=& y_0 + h\int_0^1 f(y(ch))\dd c,\label{cRK}\end{aligned}$$ which, by virtue of (\[IXPPI\])–(\[PIX\]), can be also written as $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
y(ch) &=& y_0 + h\int_0^1 \P_\infty(c)^\top X_\infty \P_\infty(\tau)f(y(\tau h))\dd\tau, \qquad c\in[0,1],\\
y_1 &=& y_0 + h\int_0^1 f(y(ch))\dd c.\label{cRK1}\end{aligned}$$ In other words, we are speaking about the application of the following continuous-stage RK method to problem (\[ivp\]) : $$\label{RK}
\begin{array}{c|c}
c & \I_\infty(c)^\top \P_\infty(\tau)\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& 1 \end{array}
\qquad \equiv \qquad
\begin{array}{c|c}
c & \P_\infty(c)^\top X_\infty \P_\infty(\tau)\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& 1\end{array}\qquad =: \qquad
\begin{array}{c|c}
c &a_{c\tau}^{(\infty)}\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& 1\end{array}~.$$ As is clear, by virtue of (\[IXPPI\])-(\[X\]), the coefficients of this “continuous-stage RK method”, providing the exact solution of (\[ivp\]), are given by $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
a_{c\tau}^{(\infty)} &:=& \sum_{j=0}^\infty \int_0^c P_j(x)\dd x\, P_j(\tau) \\ \label{actau}
&\equiv& c + \sum_{j=1}^\infty [\xi_{j+1}P_{j+1}(c)-\xi_jP_{j-1}(c)]P_j(\tau), \qquad c,\tau\in[0,1].\end{aligned}$$
Polynomial approximation {#poli1}
------------------------
In order to obtain a polynomial approximation $\sigma\in\Pi_s$ to $y$, let us now introduce the truncated vectors $$\label{PIs}
\P_s(c) := \pmatrix{c} P_0(c) \\ \vdots\\ P_{s-1}(c)\endpmatrix, \qquad
\I_s(c) := \int_0^c \P_s(x)\dd x \equiv \pmatrix{c} \int_0^cP_0(x)\dd x \\ \vdots\\ \int_0^cP_{s-1}(x)\dd x\endpmatrix,$$ in place of the corresponding infinite ones in (\[PIgamma\]). In so doing, we replace (\[RK\]) with the continuous-stage RK method $$\label{RKs}
\begin{array}{c|c}
c & \I_s(c)^\top \P_s(\tau)\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& 1 \end{array}
\qquad =: \qquad
\begin{array}{c|c}
c &a_{c\tau}^{(s)}\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& 1\end{array}~,$$ whose coefficients are now polynomials of degree $s$. Consequently, by setting now $y_1\equiv \sigma(h)$ the approximation to $y(h)$, one obtains: $$\label{RKs1}
\sigma(ch) = y_0+h\int_0^1 a_{c\tau}^{(s)}f(\sigma(\tau h))\dd\tau, \qquad c\in[0,1], \qquad y_1 = y_0+h\int_0^1 f(\sigma(ch))\dd c.$$ The following straightforward result holds true.
\[HBVMs\] The continuous-stage RK method (\[RKs\])-(\[RKs1\]) coincides with the HBVM$(\infty,s)$ method in [@BIT2010].[^3]
In fact, from (\[PIs\]), one has that (\[RKs1\]) is equivalent to $$\label{MFE}
\sigma(ch) = y_0 + h\sum_{j=0}^{s-1} \int_0^cP_j(x)\dd x \int_0^1 P_j(\tau)f(\sigma(\tau h))\dd\tau, \qquad c\in[0,1],$$ which, according to [@BIT2010 Definition1] (see also [@BI2018]), is the [*Master Functional Equation*]{} defining a HBVM$(\infty,s)$ method.
Furthermore, by considering that (see (\[PIs\]) and (\[X\])) $$\label{PIXs}
\I_s(c)^\top = \P_{s+1}(c)^\top \pmatrix{ccccc}
\xi_0 & -\xi_1\\
\xi_1 & 0 & -\xi_2 \\
& \xi_2 & \ddots &\ddots\\
& &\ddots &\ddots &-\xi_{s-1}\\
& & & \xi_{s-1} & 0\\ \hline
& & & &\xi_s \endpmatrix =:\P_{s+1}(c)^\top\hat X_s \equiv \P_{s+1}(c)^\top \pmatrix{c} X_s\\ \hline 0,\dots,0,\xi_s \endpmatrix,$$ one easily obtains that (compare with (\[actau\])) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{actaus}
a_{c\tau}^{(s)} &=& \sum_{j=0}^{s-1} \int_0^c P_j(x)\dd x\, P_j(\tau) \\ \nonumber
&\equiv& c + \sum_{j=1}^{s-1} [\xi_{j+1}P_{j+1}(c)-\xi_jP_{j-1}(c)]P_j(\tau), \qquad c,\tau\in[0,1].\end{aligned}$$ As a result, from (\[RKs\]) and (\[PIXs\]), one obtains that $$\label{RK1s}
\begin{array}{c|c}
c & \I_s(c)^\top \P_s(\tau)\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& 1 \end{array}
\qquad \equiv \qquad
\begin{array}{c|c}
c & \P_{s+1}(c)^\top \hat X_s \P_s(\tau)\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& 1 \end{array}
\qquad \equiv \qquad
\begin{array}{c|c}
c &a_{c\tau}^{(s)}\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& 1\end{array}~,$$ which is clearly equivalent to (\[RKs1\]).
We observe that, in a sense, (\[RK1s\]) can be regarded as a continuous extension of the $W$-transformation in [@HW2002 Section IV.5]. Moreover, by considering, in place of (\[RK1s\]), the following Butcher tableau, $$\begin{array}{c|c}
c & \P_s(c)^\top X_s \P_s(\tau)\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& 1 \end{array}~,$$ one obtains the continuous extension of the low-rank symplectic methods in [@BuBu2012].
### Discretization {#discr}
We conclude this section by recalling that [@BIT2010; @BIT2012; @LIMbook2016] for the polynomial $\sigma$ defined in (\[RKs1\])-(\[MFE\]), one has $\sigma(h)-y(h)=O(h^{2s+1})$.[^4] Moreover, by approximating the integrals $$\int_0^1 P_j(\tau)f(\sigma(\tau h))\dd\tau$$ appearing in (\[MFE\]) by means of a Gauss-Legendre formula of order $2k$, one obtains a HBVM$(k,s)$ method, which retains the order $2s$ of the approximation defined by (\[MFE\]), for all $k\ge s$. In particular, when $k=s$, one obtains the $s$-stage Gauss-Legendre collocation method. As a result, the Butcher tableau of a HBVM$(k,s)$ method turns out to be given by $$\label{hbvms}
\begin{array}{c|c}
\bfc & \I_s \P_s^\top\Omega\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& \bfb^\top \end{array}
\qquad \equiv \qquad
\begin{array}{c|c}
\bfc & \P_{s+1} \hat X_s \P_s^\top\Omega\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& \bfb^\top \end{array}
\qquad =: \qquad
\begin{array}{c|c}
\bfc & A=(a_{ij})\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& \bfb^\top \end{array}
\,,$$ with $\hat X_s$ the matrix defined in (\[PIXs\]), $$\label{bc}
\bfb = \pmatrix{ccc} b_1,&\dots,&b_k\endpmatrix^\top,\qquad
\bfc = \pmatrix{ccc} c_1,&\dots,&c_k\endpmatrix^\top,$$ the vectors containing the weights and abscissae of the quadrature, respectively,[^5] $$\label{OmIs}
\Omega = \pmatrix{ccc} b_1\\ &\ddots\\ && b_k\endpmatrix,\qquad
\I_s = \pmatrix{ccc}
\int_0^{c_1} P_0(x)\dd x & \dots &\int_0^{c_1} P_{s-1}(x)\dd x\\
\vdots & &\vdots\\
\int_0^{c_k} P_0(x)\dd x & \dots &\int_0^{c_k} P_{s-1}(x)\dd x
\endpmatrix\in\RR^{k\times s},$$ and $$\label{Pr}
\P_r = \pmatrix{ccc}
P_0(c_1) & \dots &P_{r-1}(c_1)\\
\vdots & &\vdots\\
P_0(c_k) & \dots &P_{r-1}(c_k)
\endpmatrix\in\RR^{k\times r}, \qquad r=s,s+1.$$ In particular, from (\[actaus\]) one obtains that the entries of matrix $A$ in (\[hbvms\]) are given by $$a_{ij} = a_{c_ic_j}^{(s)}, \qquad i,j=1,\dots,k.$$
Second order problems {#sop}
=====================
Inspired by [@TZ2018; @TSZ2019] (see also [@LIMbook2016]), we now consider the case of special second order problems, i.e., ODE-IVPs in the form (\[ivp2\]). By setting $p(t)\equiv \dot q(t)$, one then obtains the following equivalent system of first order ODEs, $$\label{ivp2_1}
\dot q(t) = p(t), \qquad \dot p(t) = f(q(t)), \qquad t\in[0,h], \qquad q(0) = q_0, \, \dot q(0) = p_0\,\in\,\RR^m.$$ HBVMs have been considered for numerically solving this problem [@BIT2011]. We can then consider the use of HBVM$(\infty,s)$, too. To begin with, by applying same steps as above, one then obtains that (\[ivp2\_1\]) can be formally written as $$\begin{aligned}
\dot q(ch) &=& \P_\infty(c)^\top\otimes I_m \left[\int_0^1 \P_\infty(\tau)\otimes I_m\, p(\tau h)\,\dd\tau\right], \\
\dot p(ch) &=& \P_\infty(c)^\top\otimes I_m \left[\int_0^1 \P_\infty(\tau)\otimes I_m\, f(q(\tau h))\,\dd\tau\right], \qquad c\in[0,1].\end{aligned}$$ Simplifying the expressions, integrating side by side, and imposing the initial conditions, then gives $$\begin{aligned}
q(ch) &=& q_0 + h\int_0^1 \I_\infty(c)^\top\P_\infty(\tau)\otimes I_m p(\tau h)\,\dd\tau, \\
p(ch) &=& p_0 + h\int_0^1\I_\infty(c)^\top\P_\infty(\tau)\otimes I_m f(q(\tau h))\,\dd\tau, \qquad c\in[0,1].\end{aligned}$$ Substituting the second equation in the first one, and taking into account (\[IXPPI\])-(\[X\]), then gives, setting $e_1=\pmatrix{ccc} 1,&0,&\dots~\endpmatrix^\top$ and considering that $\I_\infty(c)e_1=c$, $$\begin{aligned}
q(ch) &=& q_0 + h\int_0^1 \I_\infty(c)^\top\P_\infty(\xi)\otimes I_m p(\xi h)\,\dd\xi\\
&=& q_0 + h\int_0^1 \I_\infty(c)^\top\P_\infty(\xi)\otimes I_m \left[p_0 + h\int_0^1\I_\infty(\xi)^\top\P_\infty(\tau)\otimes I_m f(q(\tau h))\,\dd\tau\right]\,\dd\xi\\
&=& q_0 + h \I_\infty(c)^\top\underbrace{\int_0^1\P_\infty(\xi)\dd\xi}_{=\,e_1}\otimes p_0 \\ &&+\, h^2 \I_\infty(c)^\top\underbrace{\int_0^1\P_\infty(\xi)\I_\infty(\xi)^\top\dd\xi}_{=X_\infty}\int_0^1\P_\infty(\tau)\otimes I_m f(q(\tau h))\,\dd\tau \\
% \end{aligned}$$$$\begin{aligned}
&=& q_0 + ch p_0 + h^2 \int_0^1 \I_\infty(c)^\top X_\infty \P_\infty(\tau)\otimes I_m f(q(\tau h))\,\dd\tau\\
&=& q_0 + ch p_0 + h^2 \int_0^1 \P_\infty(c)^\top X_\infty^2 \P_\infty(\tau)\otimes I_m f(q(\tau h))\,\dd\tau\\
&=:& q_0 + ch p_0 + h^2 \int_0^1 \bar{a}_{c\tau}^{(\infty)}\otimes I_m f(q(\tau h))\,\dd\tau, \qquad c\in[0,1],\end{aligned}$$ where, by considering that (see (\[X\])) $$\label{X2}
X_\infty^2 = \pmatrix{ccccc}
\xi_0^2-\xi_1^2 &-\xi_0\xi_1 & \xi_1\xi_2\\[2mm]
\xi_0\xi_1 &-\xi_1^2-\xi_2^2 & ~~0 & \xi_2\xi_3\\
\xi_1\xi_2 & ~~0 &-\xi_2^2-\xi_3^2 & ~~0 &\ddots\\
&\xi_2\xi_3 &~~0 &\ddots &\ddots \\
& &\ddots&\ddots&\ddots
\endpmatrix$$ and taking into account (\[PIgamma\]), we have set : $$\begin{aligned}
\label{bactau}
\lefteqn{\bar{a}_{c\tau}^{(\infty)} ~=~ \I_\infty(c)^\top X_\infty\P_\infty(\tau)~\equiv~ \P_\infty(c)^\top X_\infty^2\P_\infty(\tau) ~\equiv~ \frac{1}6+\frac{\xi_1}2(P_1(c)-P_1(\tau)) ~+~}\\
&& -~ \sum_{j=1}^\infty \left[(\xi_j^2+\xi_{j+1}^2)P_j(c)P_j(\tau) - \xi_j\xi_{j+1}(P_{j-1}(c)P_{j+1}(\tau)+P_{j-1}(\tau)P_{j+1}(c))\right], \qquad c,\tau\in[0,1].\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, by setting $q_1\equiv q(h)$ and (see (\[ivp2\_1\])) $\dot q_1\equiv p(h)$, one obtains $$\dot q_1 = \dot q_0 + h\int_0^1 f(q(ch))\dd c,$$ and, by also considering that $f(q(\tau h)) = \sum_{j\ge0} P_j(\tau)\int_0^1 P_j(\xi)f(q(\xi h))\dd\xi$,$\tau\in[0,1]$, $$\begin{aligned}
q_1 &=& q_0 + h\int_0^1 p(ch)\dd c ~=~ q_0 + h\int_0^1\left[ \dot q_0 + h\int_0^c \dot p(\tau h)\dd\tau\right]\dd c\\
&=& q_0 + h\dot q_0 +h^2\int_0^1\int_0^c f(q(\tau h))\dd\tau\dd c \\
&=& q_0 + h\dot q_0 +h^2\int_0^1\int_0^c \left[ \sum_{j\ge0} P_j(\tau)\int_0^1 P_j(\xi)f(q(\xi h))\dd\xi\right]\dd\tau\dd c\\
&=& q_0 + h\dot q_0 +h^2\int_0^1 \left[ \sum_{j\ge0} P_j(\xi)\int_0^1\int_0^cP_j(\tau)\dd\tau\dd c\right]f(q(\xi h))\dd\xi \\
&=& q_0 + h\dot q_0 +h^2\int_0^1 \left[\P_\infty(\xi)^\top \int_0^1 \I_\infty(c)\dd c\right] f(q(\xi h))\dd\xi\\
&\equiv& q_0 + h\dot q_0 +h^2\int_0^1 \bar b_\xi f(q(\xi h))\dd\xi.\end{aligned}$$ Next, by taking into account (\[IXPPI\]), one obtains: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\bar b_\xi &:=& \P_\infty(\xi)^\top \int_0^1 \I_\infty(c)\dd c ~=~ \P_\infty(\xi)^\top X_\infty^\top \int_0^1 P_\infty(c)\dd c\\
&=&\P_\infty(\xi)^\top X_\infty^\top e_1 = \xi_0 -\xi_1 P_1(\xi) ~=~ 1-\xi. \label{bxi}\end{aligned}$$ In conclusion, we can summarize the above procedure as follows (see (\[bactau\])): $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
q(ch) &=& q_0 + ch \dot q_0 + h^2 \int_0^1 \bar a_{c\tau}^{(\infty)} f(q(\tau h))\dd\tau, \qquad c\in[0,1],\\ \label{cRK2}
q_1 &=& q_0 + h\dot q_0 + h^2 \int_0^1 (1-c) f(q(ch))\dd c,\\
\dot q_1 &=& \dot q_0 + h \int_0^1 f(q(ch))\dd c.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ In other words, we are speaking about the application of the following “continuous-stage Runge-Kutta-Nyström (RKN, hereafter) method” for solving problem (\[ivp2\_1\]), i.e., (\[ivp2\]) : $$\label{RK2}
\begin{array}{c|c}
c & \I_\infty(c)^\top X_\infty \P_\infty(\tau)\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-3mm]
& 1-c \\\hline
\\[-3mm]
& 1
\end{array}
\qquad \equiv \qquad
\begin{array}{c|c}
c & \P_\infty(c)^\top X_\infty^2 \P_\infty(\tau)\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-3mm]
& 1-c \\\hline
\\[-3mm]
& 1\end{array}\qquad \equiv \qquad
\begin{array}{c|c}
c &\bar a_{c\tau}^{(\infty)}\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-3mm]
& 1-c \\\hline
\\[-3mm]
& 1\end{array}~,$$ which provides the exact solution of the problem.
Polynomial approximation {#poli2}
------------------------
As done for first order problems, also in this case we can consider a polynomial approximation $\sigma\in\Pi_s$ to $q$. This is done by resorting to the same finite vectors and matrices defined in (\[PIs\]) and (\[PIXs\]), resulting into the following continuous-stage RKN method: $$\label{RK2n}
\begin{array}{c|c}
c & \I_s(c)^\top X_s \P_s(\tau)\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-3mm]
& 1-c \\\hline
\\[-3mm]
& 1
\end{array}
\qquad \equiv \qquad
\begin{array}{c|c}
c & \P_{s+1}(c)^\top \hat X_s X_s \P_s(\tau)\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-3mm]
& 1-c \\\hline
\\[-3mm]
& 1\end{array}\qquad \equiv \qquad
\begin{array}{c|c}
c &\bar a_{c\tau}^{(s)}\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-3mm]
& 1-c \\\hline
\\[-3mm]
& 1\end{array}~,$$ which defines the application of the HBVM$(\infty,s)$ method for solving (\[ivp2\]). One has, then, $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\sigma(ch) &=& q_0 + ch \dot q_0 + h^2 \int_0^1 \bar a_{c\tau}^{(s)} f(\sigma(\tau h))\dd\tau, \qquad c\in[0,1],\\ \label{cRK2s}
q_1 &=& q_0 + h\dot q_0 + h^2 \int_0^1 (1-c) f(\sigma(ch))\dd c,\\
\dot q_1 &=& \dot q_0 + h \int_0^1 f(\sigma(ch))\dd c.\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ It is well-known [@LIMbook2016; @BI2018] that $q_1-q(h)=\dot q_1-\dot q(h) = O(h^{2s+1})$.[^6]
\[sge2\] We observe, however, that in order for (\[bxi\]) to hold, one must have $s\ge 2$. Conversely, one would obtain $\bar b_\xi\equiv 1$, in place of $\bar b_\xi = 1-\xi$.
Moreover, considering that (compare with (\[X2\])) $$\label{X2s}
\hat X_s X_s = \pmatrix{ccccc}
\xi_0^2-\xi_1^2 &-\xi_0\xi_1 & \xi_1\xi_2\\[2mm]
\xi_0\xi_1 &-\xi_1^2-\xi_2^2 & ~~0 & \ddots\\
\xi_1\xi_2 & ~~0 &\ddots & \ddots &\xi_{s-2}\xi_{s-1}\\
&\ddots &\ddots &-\xi_{s-2}^2-\xi_{s-1}^2 &0 \\
& &\xi_{s-2}\xi_{s-1}&0&-\xi^2_{s-1}\\
& & &\xi_{s-1}\xi_s &0
\endpmatrix \in \RR^{(s+1)\times s},$$ one obtains: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\lefteqn{\bar{a}_{c\tau}^{(s)} ~=~ \I_s(c)^\top X_s\P_s(\tau)~\equiv~ \P_{s+1}(c)^\top \hat X_sX_s\P_s(\tau) ~\equiv~ \frac{1}6+\frac{\xi_1}2(P_1(c)-P_1(\tau)) ~+~}\\ \nonumber
&& -~ \sum_{j=1}^{s-2} \left[(\xi_j^2+\xi_{j+1}^2)P_j(c)P_j(\tau) - \xi_j\xi_{j+1}(P_{j-1}(c)P_{j+1}(\tau)+P_{j-1}(\tau)P_{j+1}(c))\right] ~+~\\
&& -~\xi_{s-1}^2P_{s-1}(c)P_{s-1}(\tau)~ -~\xi_{s-1}\xi_sP_s(c)P_{s-1}(\tau), \qquad c,\tau\in[0,1],\label{bactaus}\end{aligned}$$ in place of (\[bactau\]).
### Discretization {#discr2}
We conclude this section by recalling that, by approximating the integrals appearing in (\[cRK2s\]) by means of a Gauss-Legendre formula of order $2k$, one obtains a HBVM$(k,s)$ method, which retains the order $2s$ of the approximation defined by (\[cRK2s\]), for all $k\ge s$.[^7] The Butcher tableau of this $k$-stage RKN method turns out to be given by: $$\label{hbvm2s}
\begin{array}{c|c}
\bfc & \I_s X_s\P_s^\top\Omega\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& \bfb^\top\circ(1-\bfc^\top)\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& \bfb^\top \end{array}
\qquad \equiv \qquad
\begin{array}{c|c}
\bfc & \P_{s+1} \hat X_s X_s \P_s^\top\Omega\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& \bfb^\top\circ(1-\bfc^\top)\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& \bfb^\top \end{array}
\qquad =: \qquad
\begin{array}{c|c}
\bfc & \bar A = (\bar a_{ij})\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& \bfb^\top\circ(1-\bfc^\top)\\[2mm]
\hline
\\[-2mm]
& \bfb^\top \end{array}
\,,$$ with $\circ$ the Hadamard (i.e., componentwise) product, and the same matrices and vectors defined in (\[PIXs\]) and (\[bc\])–(\[Pr\]). As in the case of first order problems, one has that the entries of the Butcher matrix $\bar A$ in (\[hbvm2s\]) are given by (see (\[bactaus\])) $$\bar a_{ij} = \bar a_{c_ic_j}^{(s)}, \qquad i,j=1,\dots,k,$$ for all $k\ge s$ and $s\ge 2$.
Conclusions {#fine}
===========
In this paper, we have studied the formulation of the class of energy-conserving methods named [*Hamiltonian Boundary Value Methods (HBVMs)*]{} as continuous-stage RK methods. When applied for solving special second-order problems, such methods also provide a class of continuous-stage RKN methods, whose derivation has been provided in full details. The formulation of HBVMs as continuous-stage RK/RKN methods, in turn, is interesting by itself, even though the efficient implementation and analysis of the methods is better addressed, in our opinion, in their original formulation (see, e.g., the monograph [@LIMbook2016] or the review paper [@BI2018].)
[99]{} P.Amodio, L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro. Energy-conserving methods for Hamiltonian Boundary Value Problems and applications in astrodynamics. [*Adv. Comput. Math.*]{} [**41**]{} (2015) 881–905.
P.Amodio, L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro. Analysis of Spectral Hamiltonian Boundary Value Methods (SHBVMs) for the numerical solution of ODE problems. [*Numer. Algorithms*]{} (2019) 1–20. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11075-019-00733-7>
L.Barletti, L.Brugnano, G.Frasca Caccia, F.Iavernaro. Energy-conserving methods for the nonlinear Schrödinger equation. [*Appl. Math. Comput.*]{} [**318**]{} (2018) 3–18.
L.Brugnano, M.Calvo, J.I.Montijano, L.Rández. Energy preserving methods for Poisson systems. [*J. Comput. Appl. Math.*]{} [**236**]{} (2012) 3890–3904.
L.Brugnano, G.Frasca Caccia, F.Iavernaro. Efficient implementation of Gauss collocation and Hamiltonian Boundary Value Methods. [*Numer. Algorithms*]{} [**65**]{} (2014) 633–650.
L.Brugnano, G.Frasca Caccia, F.Iavernaro. Line Integral Solution of Hamiltonian PDEs. [*Mathematics*]{} [**7**]{}(3) (2019) article n.275. <https://doi.org/10.3390/math7030275>
L.Brugnano, G.Frasca Caccia, F.Iavernaro. Energy conservation issues in the numerical solution of the semilinear wave equation. [*Appl. Math. Comput.*]{} [**270**]{} (2015) 842–870.
L.Brugnano, G.Gurioli, F.Iavernaro. Analysis of Energy and QUadratic Invariant Preserving (EQUIP) methods. [*J. Comput. Appl. Math.*]{} [**335**]{} (2018) 51–73.
L.Brugnano, G.Gurioli, F.Iavernaro, E.Weinmüller. Line Integral Solution of Hamiltonian Systems with Holonomic Constraints. [*Appl. Numer. Math.*]{} [**127**]{} (2018) 56–77.
L.Brugnano, G.Gurioli, Y.Sun. Energy-conserving Hamiltonian Boundary Value Methods for the numerical solution of the Korteweg-de Vries equation. [*J. Comput. Appl. Math.*]{} [**351**]{} (2019) 117–135.
L.Brugnano, G.Gurioli, C.Zhang. Spectrally accurate energy-preserving methods for the numerical solution of the “Good" Boussinesq equation. [*Numer. Methods Partial Differential Eq.*]{} [**35**]{}, No.4 (2019) 1343–1362.
L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro. [*Line Integral Methods for Conservative Problems*]{}. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2016.
L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro. Line Integral Methods which preserve all invariants of conservative problems. [*J. Comput. Appl. Math.*]{} [**236**]{} (2012) 3905–3919.
L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro. Line Integral Solution of Differential Problems. [*Axioms*]{} [**7**]{}(2) (2018) article n.36. <http://dx.doi.org//10.3390/axioms7020036>
L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro, J.I.Montijano, L.Rández. Spectrally accurate space-time solution of Hamiltonian PDEs. (2018) <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11075-018-0586-z>
L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro, T.Susca. Numerical comparisons between Gauss-Legendre methods and Hamiltonian BVMs defined over Gauss points. [*Monogr. Real Acad. Cienc. Zaragoza*]{} [**33**]{} (2010) 95–112.
L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro, D.Trigiante. Hamiltonian BVMs (HBVMs): A family of “drift-free” methods for integrating polynomial Hamiltonian systems. [*AIP Conf. Proc.*]{} [**1168**]{} (2009) 715–718.
L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro, D.Trigiante. Hamiltonian Boundary Value Methods (Energy Preserving Discrete Line Integral Methods). [*JNAIAM J. Numer. Anal. Ind. Appl. Math.*]{} [**5**]{},1-2 (2010) 17–37.
L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro, D.Trigiante. A note on the efficient implementation of Hamiltonian BVMs. [*J. Comput. Appl. Math.*]{} [**236**]{} (2011) 375–383.
L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro, D.Trigiante. A simple framework for the derivation and analysis of effective one-step methods for ODEs. [*Appl. Math. Comput.*]{} [**218**]{} (2012) 8475–8485.
L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro, D.Trigiante. The lack of continuity and the role of infinite and infinitesimal in numerical methods for ODEs: the case of symplecticity. [*Appl. Math. Comput.*]{} [**218**]{} (2012) 8053–8063.
L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro, D.Trigiante. A two-step, fourth-order method with energy preserving properties. [*Computer Phys. Commun.*]{} [**183**]{} (2012) 1860–1868.
L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro, D.Trigiante. Energy and QUadratic Invariants Preserving integrators based upon Gauss collocation formulae. [*SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*]{} [**50**]{}, No.6 (2012) 2897–2916.
L.Brugnano, F.Iavernaro, D.Trigiante. Analisys of Hamiltonian Boundary Value Methods (HBVMs): A class of energy-preserving Runge-Kutta methods for the numerical solution of polynomial Hamiltonian systems. [*Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul.*]{} [**20**]{} (2015) 650–667.
L.Brugnano, J.I.Montijano, L.Rández. On the effectiveness of spectral methods for the numerical solution of multi-frequency highly-oscillatory Hamiltonian problems. [*Numer. Algorithms*]{} [**81**]{} (2019) 345–376. <http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11075-018-0552-9>
L.Brugnano, Y.Sun. Multiple invariants conserving Runge-Kutta type methods for Hamiltonian problems. [*Numer. Algorithms*]{} [**65**]{} (2014) 611–632.
L.Brugnano, C.Zhang, D.Li. A class of energy-conserving Hamiltonian boundary value methods for nonlinear Schrödinger equation with wave operator. [*Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simulat.*]{} [**60**]{} (2018) 33–49.
K.Burrage, P.Burrage. Low rank Runge-Kutta methods, symplecticity and stochastic Hamiltonian problems with additive noise. [*J. Comput. Appl. Math.*]{} [**236**]{} (2012) 3920–3930.
J.C.Butcher. [*Numerical Methods for Ordinary Differential Equations, 2nd ed.*]{} Wiley, Chichester, England, 2008.
E.Hairer. Energy-preserving variant of collocation methods. [*JNAIAM J. Numer. Anal. Ind. Appl. Math.*]{} [**5**]{},1-2 (2010) 73–84.
E.Hairer, G.Wanner. [*Solving Ordinary Differential Equations II, 2nd revised edition*]{}. Springer, Heidelberg, 2002.
J.Li, X.Wu. Energy-preserving continuous stage extended Runge-Kutta-Nyström methods for oscillatory Hamiltonian systems. [*Appl. Numer. Math.*]{} (2019) <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2019.05.009>
Y.Miyatake, J.C.Butcher. A characterization of energy preserving methods and the construction of parallel integrators for Hamiltonian systems. [*SIAM J. Numer. Anal.*]{} [**54**]{}, No.3 (2016) 1993–2013.
G.R.W.Quispel, D.I.McLaren. A new class of energy-preserving numerical integration methods. [*J. Phys. A Math. Theor.*]{} [**41**]{} (2008) 045206.
W.Tang, Y.Sun. Time finite element methods: A unified framework for numerical discretizations of ODEs. [*Appl. Math. Comput.*]{} [**219**]{} (2012) 2158–2179.
W.Tang, Y.Sun. Construction of Runge–Kutta type methods for solving ordinary differential equations. [*Appl. Math. Comput.*]{} [**234**]{} (2014) 179–191.
W.Tang, Y.Sun, J.Zhang. High order symplectic integrators based on continuous-stage Runge-Kutta-Nyström methods. [*Appl. Math. Comput.*]{} [**361**]{} (2019) 670–679.
W.Tang, J.Zhang. Symplecticity-preserving continuous stage Runge-Kutta-Nyström methods. [*Appl. Math. Comput.*]{}, [**323**]{} (2018) 204–219.
[^1]: For a more general form which, however, we shall not consider here, we refer, e.g., to [@MiBu2016].
[^2]: I.e., having discrete stages.
[^3]: In particular when $s=1$ one retrieves the AVF method in [@QMcL2008].
[^4]: One could obtain the result also by using the [*symplifying assumptions*]{} for continuous-stage RK methods [@TS2012; @TS2014; @MiBu2016].
[^5]: Any quadrature is in principle allowed, provided that it is enough accurate.
[^6]: Also in this case, one could derive the result through the simplifying assumptions for continuous-stage RKN methods [@TSZ2019].
[^7]: In particular, when $k=s$, one obtains the RKN method induced by the $s$-stage Gauss collocation method, $s\ge 2$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- '$^{1,2,3}$, B. Bhattacharyya$^{4,5}$, M. Kramer$^{6,4}$, B. W. Stappers$^{4}$, S. D. Bates$^{7}$, M. Burgay$^{8}$, S. Chatterjee$^{9}$, D. J. Champion$^{6}$, R. P. Eatough$^{6}$, J. W. T. Hessels$^{10,11}$, G. Janssen$^{10}$, K. J. Lee$^{12,6}$, J. van Leeuwen$^{10,11}$, J. Margueron$^{13}$, M. Oertel$^{14}$, A. Possenti$^{8}$, S. Ransom$^{15}$, G. Theureau$^{16}$ & P. Torne$^{6}$\'
title: A Cosmic Census of Radio Pulsars with the SKA
---
Introduction
============
The SKA will be a discovery machine. Apart from delivering transformational science based on the expected huge increase in pulsar timing precision, the SKA’s high sensitivity, wide field of view (FoV), and frequency coverage will allow us to explore the variable radio sky in an unprecedented way. This will lead to the discovery of previously unknown types of sources and enable us to probe a wide range of explosive and dynamic events. Eventually, it will lead to a full census of detectable radio pulsars in the Milky Way and beyond. Among the new sources will be fast, spin-stable millisecond pulsars (MSPs) whose period distribution reflects the equation of state of nuclear matter and some of which will serve as detectors of nano-Hz gravitational waves (GWs). Relativistic binary pulsars, particularly those with orbital periods of a few hours or less, will allow strong-field tests of General Relativity and other theories of gravity. The discovered pulsars will also be superb probes for an enhanced understanding of the Milky Way, its structure and its constituents, including magnetic fields, the free electron distribution etc. Other applications across a wide range of physics and astrophysics topics are described in the accompanying chapters.
The first step toward these unique achievements will be enabled by Phase I of the SKA (referred to as SKA1 hereafter). Apart from being a transformational telescope in its own right, the first science phase of this unique telescope will set the scene for the experiments to be conducted with the full array. However, it is important to realize that for searching, SKA1 is not only a simple stepping stone towards SKA2. Due to limitations in processing power, it is unlikely that the full area of the completed SKA can be utilized for a blind, large-scale survey for some time to come. Hence, SKA1, with a highly concentrated core, represents a significant fraction of the collecting area usable for surveys with SKA2, and substantial achievements can be made in pulsar searching in the early science phase.
When considering the specifications for SKA1, we point out that, in general, a loss in sensitivity (i.e. collecting area) cannot be simply compensated by longer integration times. In the best case, a reduction in collecting area that can be phased up coherently may require a significant increase in computing power (both for beam-forming, and processing). These costs are typically prohibitive, e.g. as illustrated by Figure \[fig:cost\] a $30\%$ loss in raw sensitivity, if compensated for by doubling the observing time, results in a ten-fold increase in computation in order to find *the same pulsars*. Rephrased, this shows that as SKA1 approaches the optimal combination of dishes in the core region, pulsar searching becomes ever more efficient. In the worst case, a loss in sensitivity means a degradation in the science that is possible.
![[]{data-label="fig:cost"}](./accelproc_zoom-1.png){width="4in"}
Pulsar Searching Basics
-----------------------
The pulsar signal is periodic with known periods covering nearly four orders of magnitude, i.e. $1$ ms to $10$ s. The pulse duty cycle ranges, typically, from less than one degree in rotational phase to the full pulse period. Hence, the discovery of pulsars requires a search of the radio sky in dispersion measure, pulse period and pulse duty cycle. For binary pulsars, a search for acceleration is also required. The standard search technique is consequently computationally expensive and it involves the Fourier-transform of correspondingly prepared time-series where the search in duty cycle uses a technique known as [*harmonic summing*]{}. Apart from these data processing requirements, forming beams for a sufficiently large FoV to enable reasonable survey speed, is computationally challenging in the signal processing chain, in particular if the array configuration is not sufficiently compact. In order to ease the computational requirements, we have explored different observing strategies for the search for pulsars, depending on sky (i.e. Galactic) location, frequency (and hence receiver technology), and observing modes.
Acceleration searches
---------------------
Arguably, the most interesting systems to be found will be highly accelerated. The SKA promises an advance over existing telescopes in the particular ability to allow for short integration times due to its large sensitivity. That means that only a small fraction of the orbit is sampled, so that the pulse frequency may not change significantly due to varying Doppler shifts. In contrast, reduced sensitivities imply longer integration times, which mean more Doppler-smearing that needs to be compensated for (if possible at all) by computational means. In the best case, one can assume constant acceleration. Even in the simplest acceleration search, the computing power needed scales with the cube of the observing time. In other words, a 10%-reduction in sensitivity implies a required increase in computing efforts by a factor of two in order to find the same systems (see Figure \[fig:cost\]). In practice, the penalty is much higher, for two reasons. Firstly, the previous assumption of constant acceleration will be wrong for the most compact systems when the integration time becomes a significant fraction of the orbital period (depending also on the unknown eccentricity of the system). Secondly, even if antennae at longer baselines could be included coherently in effective collecting area, it would require an increased amount of beam forming.
The impact on the population so-lost is difficult to quantify as the result depends not only on the (unknown) luminosity of the sources, but also on the orbital parameters. Population syntheses are used to infer information (see § \[sec:sims\]), but we can be certain that there are more compact orbits than the Double Pulsar ($P_{\mathrm{b}}=147$ min) or the shortest pulsar binaries known ($P_{\mathrm{b}}=92$ min). It is notable that the Double Pulsar was not detected in the regular pointings of the Parkes Multi-beam Pulsar Survey ($t_{\rm
int}=35$ min) because of Doppler-smearing. Only in the 10-times shorter integrations of the “PH”-survey, was it finally discovered. It is conceivable that most of the strong (mildly-accelerated) sources are discovered with the currently available sensitivity and computer resources. This would imply that the remaining sources are either relatively weak or very highly accelerated. In other words a loss in SKA sensitivity (the largest that we can ever expect to achieve) would suggest a certain (and final) blindness to the most exciting systems.
SKA radio pulsar surveys will produce a large volume of prospective candidates, the majority of which will be forms of noise. Typically, such large numbers of candidates need to be visually inspected in order to determine if they are real pulsars. This process can be labour intensive and delay the candidate confirmation. In order to process pulsar searching candidates in a real time fashion, computer software to perform candidate ranking or classifying is demanded. At present, software using machine learning [@eatough10; @lyon2013; @Zhu14] or statistical classifiers [@lee13; @mbb+14] can increase the identification rate by a factor of about 50 to 1000. This will significantly improve the efficiency of pulsar searches with SKA1 and SKA2, allowing for fast identification and confirmation of the candidates.
Structure of this Chapter
-------------------------
The remainder of this chapter is structured as follows: In § \[sec:parameter\_space\] we describe the large parameter space probed in pulsar searches. Surveys with SKA-LOW and SKA-MID are described in § \[sec:skalow\] and § \[sec:skamid\], respectively. § \[sec:sims\] describes the results of population syntheses, and the results of simulations of the survey yields, and evaluates different search strategies. In addition to the ‘blind’ surveys we describe targeted searches in § \[sec:target\]. We review, in § \[sec:discoveries\], the wide range of anticipated discoveries and their scientific importance. Finally, in § \[sec:followup\] we discuss the important issue of the follow-up timing strategies of the newly discovered pulsars which are needed to maximize the scientific yield.
Pulsar searches with the SKA
============================
Parameter-space for search {#sec:parameter_space}
--------------------------
As described above, and elsewhere in this book, one of the key aims of the SKA, in both Phase 1 and with SKA2, is to discover as many pulsars as possible. The pulsars of interest for the different astrophysical goals may be located anywhere within, or even beyond, our Galaxy and so it is necessary to perform a “blind” survey of the entire sky visible from the sites in Australia and South Africa. To survey this area efficiently we need to achieve the maximum possible survey speed and this requires excellent sensitivity combined with a wide-FoV [@sks+09]. The high time resolution required to discover pulsars means that it is not effective to search for them in the images that are the traditional data product of interferometers like the SKA. Instead we have to form the coherent sum of as many dishes/stations as possible to give us the required sensitivity. However, as the dishes are sparsely distributed, the FoV shrinks as we add more dishes to improve our sensitivity. This can be overcome by forming more beams, but that comes with a computing cost associated with forming and processing those beams. Depending on the exact configuration of the all-sky pulsar survey to be undertaken with SKA1 between 1500 and 2200 tied-array beams are required for SKA1-MID and 500 tied-array beams are required for SKA1-LOW. With SKA2 at least 10,000 beams will be required, which will allow more dishes to be included in the array, improving sensitivity, but while also increasing the FoV (this increased ‘survey speed’ also allowing longer integrations).
The radio emission from pulsars is dispersed, before it arrives at Earth, by the free electrons along the line of sight to the pulsar. This causes a frequency-dependent delay which needs to be removed in order to recover the pulsed signal. Unfortunately, the degree of dispersion cannot be predicted and so a search over a range of so-called dispersion measures is required. The maximum dispersion measure is of course highly dependent on where the pulsar is located, and with the majority of pulsars located in the Galactic plane, where the dispersion can reach its highest values, it is necessary to search over a wide range of dispersion measures. This is very important for the SKA where the sensitivity is high enough to allow us to discover the most distant sources. With SKA1 it is proposed that the search be possible out to dispersion measures of 3000 DM units; with the proposed search parameters — $|\mathrm{acc}|<350$ m/s/s, $2048$ beams and harmonic folding — the computaional requirement is at least 7 Petaflop/s. However, with SKA2 and/or higher frequency observations it should be possible to search out to dispersion measures of 10,000 DM units and beyond.
To search for the systems critical to the key gravity studies, such as the pulsar-black hole (PSR-BH) and double neutron star (DNS) systems, requires that one is able to at least partially correct the modulation of the pulse frequency caused by its motion in the binary — usually via acceleration searches. The orbital acceleration that might be observed in compact PSR-BH binaries could be an order of magnitude larger than that seen in the most relativistic DNS systems (see § \[sec:psrbh\]). For the proposed integration time of SKA1 (10 min, see § \[sec:skamid\]) the aim is to search for accelerations $>1000$ m/s/s; indeed using fluctuation frequency domain methods this will be readily achievable for spin periods greater than $>16$ ms [@lk05]. In highly eccentric PSR-BH systems, the acceleration can be larger by factors of a few near periastron. While at the moment acceleration searches (in both the time and frequency domain) over such ranges and with uniform spin frequency sensitivity are computationally prohibitive, for SKA this should be the goal.
An all-sky pulsar survey with SKA-LOW {#sec:skalow}
-------------------------------------
All-sky pulsar searches are often most efficiently done using low radio observing frequencies ($100 - 600$MHz). Such surveys benefit from the typically steep spectra of pulsars ($S \propto \nu^{-1.6}$; @bat+13), as well as the naturally larger FoV of the telescope (FoV scales as $\nu^{-2}$ for a fixed aperture size or baseline length). Interstellar propagation effects, most notably dispersive delay, multi-path propagation due to scattering, and sky temperature, are the main limitations at low frequencies. Dispersive delay, which scales as $\nu^{-2}$, is a correctable effect however, as long as the channel bandwidth is sufficiently narrow that intra-channel smearing of the pulse is minimal compared with the sampling time. Scattering, which scales as $\sim \nu^{-4}$, is not practically correctable in a blind survey and is a major limitation for finding distant pulsars in the Galactic plane, especially at short rotational periods. Sky temperature scales as $\nu^{-2.6}$, but is only $\sim 35$K (at 400MHz) for high Galactic latitudes. For these reasons low-frequency pulsar surveys are the preferred option for Galactic latitudes beyond $|b| \approx 5$degrees.
Of the $\sim2300$ known pulsars: there are 766 pulsars with $|b| >
5$degrees; of the 172 Galactic Fields MSPs (P $<30$ ms): 113, i.e. [*two thirds*]{} are at $|b| > 5$degrees [@man+05]. Furthermore, population synthesis of the entire Galactic pulsar population indicates that if SKA1-LOW and SKA1-MID are used in a complementary way to survey the entire SKA-visible sky, then the maximum yield of pulsar discoveries can be achieved (assuming a constant on-sky survey time) if SKA1-LOW surveys at Galactic latitude $|b| > 5$degrees and SKA1-MID surveys the Galactic plane. There are currently three major, ongoing low-frequency pulsar surveys: (i) the Arecibo 327-MHz Drift Survey[^1], operating from $300-350$MHz; (ii) the Green Bank Northern Celestial Cap Survey[^2], which in a certain sense is a continuation of the Green Bank Drift-Scan Survey[^3] as well as the GBT350 Galactic Plane survey, and is operating from $300-400$MHz; and (iii) the LOFAR Tied-Array All-Sky Survey[^4], which is operating from $119-151$MHz and is very similar in approach to how SKA-LOW will survey for pulsars and fast transients. Together, these low-frequency GBT, Arecibo and LOFAR surveys have discovered 176 pulsars in the last decade. The GBT surveys have used scan lengths of $\sim 2$minutes and reached a minimum flux density $S^{350}_{\mathrm{min}} \approx
1$mJy. Each pointing covers 0.25sq. degrees. The Arecibo survey provides only 40-s in-beam time, and reaches $S^{350}_{\mathrm{min}}
\approx 0.5$mJy. Each pointing covers 0.05sq. degrees. LOFAR’s much larger FoV — which is enabled by the use of 219 simultaneous tied-array beams to cover 9sq. degrees of sky — allows 1-hr integrations, which reach $S^{150}_{\mathrm{min}} \approx 1$mJy. SKA1-LOW will provide an enormous leap in sensitivity and survey efficiency compared with these ongoing surveys. An all-sky survey using just the 600-m (radius) core of SKA1-LOW along with 10-min dwell time and 500 tied-array beams will reach $S^{350}_{\mathrm{min}} \approx 0.05$mJy (ten times deeper than any ongoing survey) and will cover $\sim1$sq. degrees per pointing. We also note that the instantaneous sensitivity of the 600-m SKA1-LOW core at 350MHz will be a factor of a few greater than Arecibo. Instantaneous sensitivity is the important factor for detecting weak individual pulses, like those from the intermittent radio pulsars and the fast radio bursts (see the Chapter on “Fast Transients at Cosmological Distances”, @mkg+14, for a discussion of this). We emphasize that a cosmic census of radio-emitting neutron stars requires the complementarity provided by SKA-LOW and SKA-MID (here, to clarify, we are referring to both SKA1 and SKA2). For the reasons outlined above (primarily scattering and $T_{\rm sky}$), SKA-MID will be the main tool for discovering distant pulsars in the Galactic plane, whereas SKA-LOW can both go deeper and survey faster at higher Galactic latitudes. Together, these two surveys will characterize the spectra and distribution of Galactic radio pulsars in beautiful detail. They will both discover exotic individual systems which can be used to test theories of dense matter and gravity. For example the GBT Drift-Scan survey found PSR J0337+1715, a unique millisecond pulsar in a stellar triple system, which promises a very strong constraint on deviations from the Strong Equivalence Principle of General Relativity [@rsa+14].
Composite survey with SKA1-LOW and SKA1-MID {#sec:skamid}
-------------------------------------------
To consider the usefulness of surveying with SKA1-LOW, we first compare the number and type of pulsars it will find with those found by SKA1-MID. We have shown with the help of simulations (see the next section for details) that all-sky surveys with SKA1-MID find a larger number of normal pulsars and MSPs than SKA1-LOW. However, with SKA1-LOW we will find many additional pulsars to those found with SKA1-MID, thereby the two greatly complement each other. While young pulsars (ages of $10^3 - 10^7$yr) are strongly confined to their birth places in the Galactic plane (though sources at $\lesssim 1$kpc will still appear to be isotropic), the much older MSPs (ages of $\gtrsim 10^8$yr) will appear across the sky. This means that an all-sky pulsar survey is critical for finding the best pulsar clocks for use in direct GW detection and other fundamental physics experiments. Conversely, a deep Galactic plane search is needed to find the DNS binaries or the PSR-BH binaries that will provide the most stringent tests of General Relativity.
To carry out a large area survey with SKA1-LOW would require that a beamformer and a pulsar search backend be built. In the present scenario we have considered that we would use the collecting area of SKA1-LOW out to a radius of 700 m to include a total of 500 stations. Although this is a larger radius than used for SKA1-MID the significantly lower observing frequency means that the beam size is about 7 times larger for SKA1-LOW and so to achieve the same survey speed fewer beams would be required. We consider here a scenario where we preserve the total number of beams defined in the baseline design for the SKA1-MID beamformer of about 2048 beams and we split them across both telescopes with SKA1-LOW having 500 beams and SKA1-MID having 1500 beams. As the pulsar survey processing cost scales approximately linearly with the number of beams this transferring of the beams from SKA1-MID to SKA1-LOW is almost cost neutral. We also note that in this scenario the decrease in the area to be surveyed with SKA1-MID would allow for a smaller tied-array beam size. If one changes the integration times for SKA1-LOW to (say) 1800 s and SKA1-MID to 2600 s respectively, the relative yield will be different from the results obtained with a fixed integration time of 600 s for both telescopes. This optimization can be performed later, when further results from the ongoing surveys with Parkes, LOFAR and the GBT are available, enabling an informed judgment. It is clear, however, that SKA1-LOW should be equipped with searching capabilities.
Simulations {#sec:sims}
===========
SKA1 Simulations
----------------
To determine how to achieve the maximal possible number of pulsar discoveries with SKA1 we have performed a number of simulations which take into account all of the potentially available resources. We then consider how this might project forward to SKA2. Our simulations presented here are based on the [*PSRPOP.py*]{} code [@blrs14] but are consistent with those obtained with the code used in @vs10 for LOFAR. The simulations only considered SKA1-LOW and SKA1-MID, as large area surveys with SKA1-SUR require integration times that are too long to achieve useful sensitivity and, therefore, require presently unachievable computational requirements to reveal the desired binary systems.
We first considered the optimal frequency for pulsar searching with SKA1-LOW by performing simulations across the entire expected available band from $100-450$MHz assuming sensitivity parameters as described in the baseline design. We find that, for a 100-MHz bandwidth, the optimum central frequency is 250MHz, where this is a compromise between pulsar spectral index, sky temperature and effective collecting area of the log-dipole antennas. Multiple simulations were then performed for all-sky surveys with SKA1-LOW and SKA1-MID assuming a fixed integration time of 600s per pointing as described in the baseline design. These show that SKA1-MID would detect about 9000 normal pulsars and about 1400 MSPs while the numbers for SKA1-LOW are about 7000 normal pulsars and about 900 MSPs. It appears, therefore, that SKA1-LOW is less competitive, but it is important to remember that SKA1-LOW sees a smaller fraction of the sky and if one looks at the number of pulsars discovered as a function of dispersion measure, that SKA1-LOW finds more pulsars at low dispersion measure. This clearly shows that the lower frequencies observed with SKA1-LOW mean that the dispersion smearing and the scattering in the ISM along lines of sight to and through the Galactic plane reduce the number of pulsars that can be detected there, while the superior collecting area of SKA1-LOW means that it is able to find more pulsars nearby.
![[]{data-label="fig1"}](./histograms_again.pdf)
![[]{data-label="fig2"}](./galactic_plots_again.png)
*The results of these simulations indicate that a composite survey, where the complementary regions are covered by the two telescopes, provides the best combination to maximise the number of pulsars that can be found with SKA1*. We therefore performed composite survey simulations which used both telescopes to survey different regions to maximise the pulsar yield and we found that an optimal survey strategy would be to search with SKA1-MID up to Galactic latitudes of about $\pm$10 degrees and the region of the sky in the North where SKA1-LOW cannot reach. SKA1-LOW would then be used to survey the rest of the sky down to a Galactic latitude of $\pm$5 degrees. The reason for the overlap in this region is two-fold: firstly it allows effective cross-calibration of the two surveys, to ensure that the relative sensitivities are understood as required for effective modeling of the population; and secondly because, as we can see from the MSP simulations, it is apparent that in this region of the sky the two telescopes are finding different sources, SKA1-LOW faint nearby objects and SKA1-MID further away objects. This will, therefore, maximize the return on MSPs, the key target of the survey. In this scenario we find that we can detect a total of about 10,000 normal pulsars and as many as 1500 MSPs.
This highlights the importance of having the beam former and pulsar search capabilities available for SKA1-LOW in both phases of the SKA. It also offers up the possibility of an ever-higher pulsar yield, as with the survey being split across both telescopes, the same survey can be achieved in the same time with longer integration times, further enhancing our sensitivity, with the proviso of the highly accelerated binary systems. We have also examined the yield of a preliminary survey with an early phase SKA1, defined as 50% the sensitivity of SKA1. For the same integration times as above, a composite survey would detect about 6000 normal pulsars and as many as 700 MSPs. As expected, doubling the integration time to increase the sensitivity results in a higher yield of 7500 normal pulsars and 950 MSPs, but at a much higher, and impractical, processing cost (a factor of $\gtrsim 10$ times increase), as per Figure \[fig:cost\].
Full SKA Simulations
--------------------
We have carried out simulations for the number of pulsars that will be found with SKA2 in both the LOW and MID (DISH) configurations. In the case of LOW we have assumed that there is a four-fold sensitivity increase and that all of that increase can also be applied to the pulsar search application, when compared to SKA1. In the case of MID-DISH the nominal improvement in sensitivity is expected to be about an order of magnitude. However, depending on how those dishes are distributed and the amount of compute resource that is available it may not be possible to utilise all of that increase for pulsar searches. Therefore we consider here two options: the full ten-fold increase can be used and a five-fold increase in sensitivity. With SKA-LOW we find a total of 11,000 pulsars including about 1500 MSPs, while SKA-MID(DISH) will find between 24,000 and 30,000 pulsars, of which between 2400 and 3000 will be MSPs depending on the exact improvement in sensitivity. In some regions of the sky *this corresponds to detecting the entire population of pulsars that are beamed in our direction*. As with SKA1, LOW and MID are highly complementary with LOW finding the nearby pulsars and MID probing deep into the Galaxy.
Simulations of pulsar surveys with a mid-frequency aperture array centered at 750 MHz with 500 MHz of bandwidth show that such a system would likely be complementary to the LOW and MID surveys already considered. The survey would detect around 27,000 normal pulsars, around 6000 of which would not be detected in either the LOW or MID surveys, and 3000 MSPs, 800 of which would be unique discoveries. Further analysis will be required on computational costs and scientific returns to see how the survey will be distributed over the three antenna types when more detailed specifications are available.
Targeted Searches {#sec:target}
=================
Targeted searches allow for longer integration times and hence better sensitivity than wide-area surveys. This enables characterisation of specific environments in ways unattainable otherwise, and can elucidate evolutionary links between different types of neutron stars and their progenitors.
Galactic Centre Pulsars {#subsection:Galactic Centre}
-----------------------
The Galactic Centre (GC) is a region of intense interest as pulsars discovered here are excellent tools for measurements of the magnetised ISM in this extreme environment, and could act as unrivaled probes of the space-time surrounding our nearest supermassive black hole candidate, Sgr A\* [@lwk+12]. Despite strong evidence for a large neutron star population in the GC, e.g. $\gtrsim1000$ in the central pc around Sgr A\* [@wha12; @cl14], and multi-frequency searches for pulsars, the number of detections remains low with just 6 active radio pulsars within $15'$ ($36$ pc) of Sgr A\*. This has primarily been explained by extreme scattering of radio waves caused by inhomogeneities in the ionised component of the GC ISM [@cl97; @lc98]. Scattering, which causes temporal broadening of pulses, and a corresponding reduction in pulse signal-to-noise ratio (S/N), can only be mitigated by observing at higher frequencies. Unfortunately, the steep radio spectra of pulsars typically prohibits detection above $2$ GHz. Finding the optimum balance between the effects of pulse scattering in the GC and the intrinsic luminosity of pulsars has been an on-going problem. It is therefore clear that the large increase in sensitivity offered by the proposed collecting areas of SKA1 and the complete SKA will greatly help searches in the GC.
The recent detection of an X-ray and radio loud magnetar just 3” ($\sim0.1$ pc) from Sgr A\* has both raised hopes for the possibility of more pulsars in this region, and allowed measurements of the level of pulse scattering, $\tau_{\rm scatt}$, in this direction [@ken13; @mor13; @eat13b; @sj13; @spi14; @tkb+14]. While the exact nature of scattering toward the GC remains uncertain, these recent measurements suggest that normal slow and some recycled pulsars might be observable in the GC with SKA1-MID bands 3 and 4 ($\tau_{\rm scatt}\sim50$ ms and 7 ms respectively), whereas MSPs will require band 5 ($\tau_{\rm scatt}\sim4$ ms to $60\,\upmu$s at the bottom and top of band 5 respectively). For a more detailed discussion of the prospects for GC pulsar searches and fundamental physics to be performed therewith we refer the reader to the chapter on observing radio pulsars in the Galactic Centre [@eat14].
Extragalactic {#subsection:Extragalactic}
-------------
Pulsars beyond the disk of the Milky Way are currently known only in globular clusters and in the Magellanic Clouds, owing to their intrinsic faintness. While single, non-repeating bursts of apparent extragalactic origin have recently been detected [@lbm+07; @kea+12; @tsb+13; @spi14], their astrophysical source remains unclear. For repetitive, pulsar-like bursts, only much weaker candidates were found. With the SKA, galaxies in the local group are within reach using periodicity searches while giant pulses like those seen from the Crab pulsar can be detected from galaxies out to well beyond a Mpc. [*What is the importance of detecting pulsars in other Galaxies?*]{} The pulsars likely to be detected will be young with high luminosities that can be correlated with catalogs of supernova remnants. This will yield estimates of the star-formation rate and the branching ratio for supernovae to form spin-driven pulsars as opposed to magnetars and black holes. Extragalactic pulsars will also provide information about the magnetoionic media along the line of sight through determination of the dispersion, scattering and rotation measures. Unambiguous study of the intergalactic medium in the local group requires removal of contributions to these measures from the foreground gas in the Galaxy and gas in the host galaxy. The more pulsars detected in a galaxy, the more robust this removal will be. Extragalactic pulsars can be found through blind surveys for both periodic sources and individual giant pulses. Additional successes will follow from targeted surveys of individual supernova remnants in the nearest galaxies. In §\[sec:parameter\_space\] we discussed the requirements on sensitivity and FoV. The SKA2-MID sensitivity will be applied to targeted searches of, for instance, supernova remnants in nearby galaxies. However, blind surveys over wider fields such as whole galaxies, will only use the core array. Giant pulses from the Crab pulsar serve as a useful prototype for estimating detection of strong pulses from nearby galaxies. The strongest pulse observed at $0.43$ GHz in one hour has $S/N_{\rm max}
= 10^4$, even with the system noise dominated by the Crab Nebula. For objects in other galaxies, the system noise is dominated by non-nebular contributions, implying that the S/N in this case would have increased by a factor of about $300$. We can estimate the maximum distance of detection at a specified signal-to-noise ratio, $(S/N)_{\rm det}$ as: $$D_{\rm max} = \frac{ 1.6\,{\rm Mpc} } { \sqrt{(S/N)_{\rm
det}/5} } \left (\frac{f_{\rm core} ~ S_{{\rm SKA-{MID}}}}{S_{\rm
Arecibo}} \right)^{1/2} = \frac{ 1.6\,{\rm Mpc} } {
\sqrt{(S/N)_{\rm det}/5} } \left (\frac{0.4 \times 1630 \, {\rm
m^2/K}}{{\rm 1150\, m^2/K}} \right)^{1/2}$$ where S$_{\rm {\rm SKA-{MID}}}$ and $S_{\rm Arecibo}$ are the ratios of effective area over system temperature for SKA-MID and Arecibo, respectively (Table 1 in [SKA-TEL-SKO-DD-001]{}); and $f_{\rm core}$ is the SKA collecting area that can be used for a giant pulse survey. For $f_{\rm core} = 0.4$, $A_{\rm SKA} / A_{\rm Arecibo}
\approx 1$, the standard one-per-hour pulse seen at Arecibo could be detected out to $\approx$ 1.2 Mpc. In conclusion, SKA will enable not only the discovery of most, if not all, pulsars in the Milky Way which are beamed towards Earth, but also allows present-day-survey sensitivities to pulsars in the closest galaxies. With the single-pulse search techniques, it should be possible to detect giant pulses from pulsars as distant as the Virgo Cluster. Studies of the significant numbers of extragalactic pulsars expected to be detectable by the SKA would allow measurements of the *intergalactic*, as opposed to the interstellar, medium.
Globular Clusters & High Energy Targets {#subsection:Globular Clusters}
---------------------------------------
\[subsection:High Energy Targets\] Targeted searches of globular clusters with SKA1-LOW and SKA1-MID will utilise the vastly improved sensitivity to discover many new exotic systems. Pulsars in globular clusters are subject to a much higher rate of encounters which enables systems to form which would be impossible in the lower density environment of the Milky Way. For a detailed discussion of globular cluster search strategies, and the scienctific applications of these systems, we refer the reader to the chapter on Globular Clusters [@hes14].
Similarly, targeted searches of unidentified sources found by high-energy telescopes (such as the LAT on Fermi) will be employed, as has been done with great success in recent years [@ray+12]. These discoveries are mainly highly energetic young pulsars, and millisecond pulsars, both isolated and in binary systems. The first group of energetic pulsars is opening a new window to the pulsars’ radio and high-energy emission mechanisms. The second group, of older neutron stars, is increasing our ability to study neutron star evolution and is adding numbers to the important population of MSPs, that are also required to build a Galaxy-size gravitational wave detector based on these objects (see section \[sec:MSP-PTA\]). The SKA will be able to probe high-energy sources that are still unidentified with greater sensitivity, and more generally it will be able to search for unknown radio pulsars in any sources found by telescopes operating across the spectrum. Particularly for very high energy targets the wide FoV of the SKA is also a great advantage. Since in many cases the exact location of the small neutron star within the high-energy emitting region is unknown, current large single-dish telescopes, with their small beams, need to do several pointings in order to overcome these positional uncertainties in the surveys. More on the possibility of finding new pulsars in sources discovered at different wavelengths or in completely different regimes (e.g. gravitational waves and neutrinos) is described in the chapters on multi-messenger pulsar science and on the neutron star population [@lucas14; @tkb+14].
Expected discoveries and their importance {#sec:discoveries}
=========================================
Pulsar-Black Hole Binaries and other binaries for GR tests {#sec:psrbh}
----------------------------------------------------------
Since early in the conception of the SKA, the detection and study of highly relativistic binary pulsar systems has been one of the Key Science goals [@kbc+04]. Such systems have provided the first strong evidence for the existence of GWs with the double neutron star PSR B1913+16 [@tfm79], the most precise tests of Einstein’s theory of General Relativity (GR) with the double pulsar PSRs J0737–3039A/B [@ksm+06], and the best tests of alternative gravity theories with, for example, PSR J0348+0432 [@afw+13]. However, in the collection of these remarkable “gravity labs” the most prized system has so far eluded detection: a pulsar - black hole binary (hereafter PSR-BH). The study of a PSR-BH will allow not only precision tests of GR, but should, for the first time, allow the properties of the BH to be measured in a model independent fashion. [*The Science prospects from discovery of a PSR-BH system:*]{} A PSR-BH system will allow us to probe BH properties, as well providing stringent tests of theories of gravity in general. If the “No-hair theorem” holds, we expect that BHs are remarkably simple objects described by mass and spin (and perhaps charge) only. Once the mass and spin are known, other properties like the quadrupole moment are pre-determined, so that by measuring all quantities at the same time the no-hair theorem can be tested. For the same reason, we do not expect a BH to carry a “scalar charge”, in contrast to other compact objects like neutron stars where this is possible. The existence, or not, of a scalar charge results in vastly different behaviours in the orbital motion of a system involving a BH, when predictions of GR are compared with alternatives like tensor-scalar theories. Indeed, it can be argued that a PSR-BH is probably the best foreseeable probe for testing alternative theories of gravity [@de96]. Moreover, measuring relativistic spin-orbit coupling and frame dragging, will allow us to determine the spin of the BH with high precision. While the mass of the BH can be determined with high precision, the (unitless) spin parameter should be measured to be smaller than unity, in order for an event horizon to exist — a fact that can, with the SKA, be easily tested [@kbc+04]. Measuring the effects of classical spin-orbit coupling will also provide the quadrupole moment of the BH, which can then be compared to the predictions based on the mass and the spin. Whether we will be able to measure the spin and quadrupole moment depends also on the mass of the BH. While @lwk+12 have shown that it will be difficult to measure the qudrupole moment for stellar-sized BHs, the BH in the centre of the Milky Way is an ideal target to attempt this experiment (see e.g. @eat14).
![[]{data-label="fig_psr_bh"}](./OPLOT_A_new.pdf "fig:") ![[]{data-label="fig_psr_bh"}](./OPLOT_B_new.pdf "fig:")
[*The search strategy:*]{} Naturally, these exceptional gravity tests will first require the detection of a PSR-BH. As outlined above, a composite survey with SKA-LOW and -MID is proposed to find all pulsars beaming towards us, with significant inroads being made already with SKA1. However, it is fair to say that a PSR-BH might be the most challenging of all the systems in the “pulsar zoo” to detect. In Figure \[fig\_psr\_bh\] the effectiveness of acceleration searches in the detection of a simulated PSR-BH is shown. Panels (a) and (b) show contours of 30%, 60% and 90% signal recovery at the orbital phase at which the integration has started[^5]. For longer integration times (Panel (a), $\sim6$% of the orbital period) full pulsar signal recovery levels are only achieved at a minority of orbital phases where the acceleration is varying least. By reducing the integration time, the amount by which the signal is smeared out (due to higher order effects) in the frequency domain is reduced. Panel (b) shows acceleration searches on integrations with half the duration ($\sim3$% of orbital period). Although the raw sensitivity would be reduced by a factor of $\sqrt{2}$, the recovery level is now $>90$% over the majority of the orbit. From sensitivity considerations the 60% contours in Panel (a) are approximately equivalent to the 90% contours in Panel (b), however there is uneven sensitivity coverage across the entire orbit at 60% levels in Panel (a). The increased instantaneous sensitivity, and therefore reduced integration time, offered by the SKA will undoubtedly improve the chances of detecting a PSR-BH.
Searches with SKA1 and SKA2 are expected to be performed in real-time (or pseudo real-time) because of data storage constraints. In searches for PSR-BH systems, where extreme levels of orbital acceleration might be observed (see Figure \[fig\_psr\_bh\] where the line of sight acceleration can be greater than $1000~{\rm m\,s}^{-2}$), even one-dimensional acceleration searches constitute an extreme data processing task. The degree of computational requirements of time-domain pulsar acceleration search algorithms has a strong dependence on the integration time ($\propto T^3$). As shown in Figure \[fig\_psr\_bh\], acceleration analyses of half length integrations can result in an equivalent sensitivity to extreme PSR-BH as in longer integrations, but with 8 times less computational expense. Of course, it is only because of the superb sensitivity of the SKA that integration times will be able to be kept to a minimum. In addition, the reduced integration length also implies that more computational effort can be spent searching a wider parameter space.
MSPs for PTAs and GW searches {#sec:MSP-PTA}
-----------------------------
Millisecond pulsars live $10^2-10^3$ times longer than $\sim$1-sec pulsars and have substantially larger scale heights in the Galaxy. For these reasons, the majority of the $\sim$200 currently known Galactic MSPs are [*local*]{} objects within $\sim$1$-$2kpc from the Sun, and as such, are distributed nearly isotropically on the sky (see Figure \[fermi\_MSPs\]). Recent population studies [@gk13; @lorimer13; @levin+13] suggest that the Galaxy holds about 30,000 detectable MSPs in total, thousands of which will be within reach of SKA pulsar surveys. The MSPs are undoubtedly some of the most difficult pulsars to detect, due to their rapid spin rates (demanding fast sampling and high frequency resolution) and their typical binary nature. However, their high rotational stability and related timing precision makes these searches eminently worthwhile, as they can be used for some of our most important physics experiments, such as the direct detection of nano-Hz-frequency GWs [@ipta2013]. Pulsar timing arrays require the very best MSPs, which are selected based on their flux density, the shapes of their radio pulses (narrow features are better), their timing stability (unknown until measured), and their distribution across the sky (a nearly isotropic distribution is close to ideal for the detection of a stochastic GW background). SKA all-sky surveys will find thousands of new MSPs, but only a relatively small fraction — perhaps 5$-$10% — will be of sufficient quality to include in an SKA-based PTA (e.g. Figure \[MSP\_PTAs\]). Finding these rare pulsars is crucial as recent work has shown that GW sensitivities are [*directly*]{} proportional to the number of ‘good’ pulsars being timed [@siemens+13]. In addition, these ultra-stable MSPs will provide spectacular ‘secondary’ science such as high-precision pulsar masses which will constrain the Equation of State of nuclear matter [@dprrh10].
{width="4in"}
{width="4in"}
Testing the neutron star equation of state {#sec:NS-EoS}
------------------------------------------
Together with precise mass determinations in binary systems (see e.g. @dprrh10 [@afw+13]), pulsar spin rates are among the most accurately known observables which could constrain the neutron star EoS. Pulsars can only be spun up to a limiting period, $P_{\mathrm{\rm
sh}}$, below which the star, due to centrifugal forces, becomes unstable to [*mass shedding*]{} at its equator. The binary MSP J1748$-$2446ad [@hrs+06], is the neutron star with the shortest known rotational period, $P_{\rm min}=1.396$ ms[^6], implying that the radius, if it were a canonical 1.4 $\mathrm{M}_\odot$ neutron star, should be smaller than $\sim 15$ km [@hrs+06]. Irrespective of the proposed EoSs, the period $P_{\rm min}$ of J1748$-$2446ad must be longer than $P_{\rm sh}.$ The value of $P_{\rm sh}$ strongly depends on the EoS [@pk94; @sf95], with the observed $P_{\mathrm{min}}$ very close to the mass-shedding limit for the most ‘stiff’ EoSs (see Figure \[fig:NS\_EOS\]). However, the re-acceleration of a neutron star with an initial mass of $1.4$ $\mathrm{M}_\odot$ could in principle proceed down to limiting spin periods as fast as $0.6$ ms for most ‘soft’ EoSs [@cst94]. As a consequence, even the discovery of one sub-ms pulsar, with a rotational frequency well above $1$ kHz, would lead to the rejection of a wide class of EoSs and provide crucial information about the behaviour of matter at supra-nuclear densities.
Although few recent pulsar surveys could have detected sub-millisecond radio pulsations, a strong bias exists against detecting fast spinning MSPs as a result of the observed preference of these neutron stars to be hosted in eclipsing binaries (9 cases out of a total of 11 binary MSPs with $P<2$ ms, including PSR J1748$-$2446ad). In these systems matter released by the companion engulfs the system and obscures the radio pulsations for a large fraction of the orbital period and, occasionally, for the entire orbit, particularly at lower radio frequencies. Also, a pulsar like J1748$-$2446ad is too faint (about 80 $\upmu$Jy at 1.95 GHz) to be detectable by most of the past and/or ongoing large scale surveys. Most of these difficulties will be overcome, or strongly mitigated, by a deep all-sky survey at a frequency of about $2$ GHz with SKA1-MID. Provided sub-ms pulsars exist, and they mostly reside in eclipsing binaries, this experiment will provide an unprecedented opportunity to uncover these objects.
{width="8cm"}
Importance of follow-up timing and strategies {#sec:followup}
=============================================
When new pulsars are discovered their rotational, astrometric and binary properties (in case of a companion), need to be determined in order to be able to acquire a stable timing model that can be used to predict the arrival times of the pulses. It is this which enables the many high precision measurements possible using pulsars. The first approximation of a timing model requires very regular observations, starting from daily monitoring to gradually increased spacing between observations. In order to separate the position of the pulsar from the basic spin parameters, at least half a year of timing is necessary (although positional determination using VLBI methods, where possible, can remove this requirement). Pulsars in binary orbits need a high-cadence sampling of the binary orbit to measure the first-order binary parameters. In case of relativistic binaries, the post-Keplerian parameters can usually only be measured after multiple years of timing.
For all pulsars, multi-band monitoring is required to mitigate ISM effects on the signal. In general, lower frequencies are better for measuring dispersion measure variations and scattering delays, and therefore we expect most pulsars will require monitoring at the lower bands of SKA-MID. In addition, SKA-LOW can also be used for follow-up timing for the relatively brighter and/or more nearby pulsars. However, in some cases higher frequencies (around $3$ GHz) will be essential to get a better coverage of binary orbits. As described above, the fastest-spinning pulsars are likely to be found in eclipsing binaries. Due to the fact that the effect on the higher-frequency part of the signal is smaller, the pulses can be detected for a larger fraction of the orbit at those frequencies and makes determining and monitoring the binary parameters possible or easier.
We aim for regular follow-up for all known and newly discovered pulsars visible in the SKA sky. Even the slow pulsars need to be covered in the SKA timing programme on a regular basis. The 45-year timing programme at Jodrell Bank, where up to 800 pulsars have been observed, has led to unexpected results on various timescales for all kinds of pulsars [@lhk+10; @elsk11; @lgw+13] showing that different types of pulsars require different strategies in their follow-up and long-term timing observations.
[*Pulsars that show timing noise or rotational irregularities:*]{} These are typically young pulsars, or high-magnetic field pulsars that show timing irregularities, mode changes on various timescales or glitches. The required cadence for observing depends on the relevant variability time scales and varies from once a week to once a month. Many pulsars exhibit glitches, sudden (probably instantaneous) increases in the rotation rate of a pulsar that happen on different timescales and on an irregular basis [@elsk11]. They are thought to be the result of changes in the interior of the neutron star where angular momentum is transferred from the interior to the crust. Therefore closely monitoring the recovery in the spin parameters of the pulsar after a glitch can provide us with information of the glitch mechanism itself, and the equation-of-state inside the neutron star (for more details see @anna14). [ *Intermittent and mode-changing pulsars:*]{} these sources show differences in spin-down rates on various timescales [@ksm+06; @lhk+10]. An observing cadence matching the time scale of the variability is required. [*Rotational RAdio Transients (RRATs):*]{} These are neutron stars that only emit detectable single pulses [@mclaughlin2006; @km11] on a very irregular basis and therefore require more integrated observing time and/or a higher cadence per source to get to a stable timing solution.
[*Binary MSPs:*]{} observations at least once a month, and occasional high-cadence (or full-orbit, when orbital periods are less than about a day) orbital sampling are required to measure the orbital parameters. GR tests need both dense orbital coverage to measure the binary parameters accurately, as well as a long-term timing programme to detect and monitor secular changes in binary orbits and astrometric parameters, and to disentangle those. [*Exotic binary MSPs:*]{} the SKA promises to uncover many exotic systems, e.g. when PSR-BH systems are found we might expect that the post-Keplerian effects on the orbit could become more complex than in the currently known systems that are used for GR tests. Second, or higher order, post-Newtonian effects would then become important requiring long-term and high-cadence observations. In this scenario it is necessary to obtain a high-cadence coverage of the PSR-BH binary orbit (or full-orbit observations, depending on the orbital period) as well as daily monitoring of the system to ensure coherence is maintained. It is likely that other exotic systems like triple systems will be found, especially in globular cluster searches, as multi-body systems are more likely to be found there. It has been shown [@rsa+14] that daily monitoring is required to maintain coherence for those systems.
[*PTA pulsars*]{}: one of the main goals of long-term timing is to directly detect low-frequency GWs using a pulsar timing array. A set of stable MSPs is used as a Galaxy-scale GW detector which depends on having long-term timing observations for pulsars distributed across the sky. There are different classes of GWs which may each require a slightly different observing strategy (for more information, see the chapter on “Gravitational wave astronomy with the SKA”, @gemma14). Overall, given the large number of MSPs that the SKA will discover (see above), for GW work the requirements are: (1) observe as many MSPs as possible on a regular basis with multi-frequency coverage; and (2) identify the most stable pulsars by long-term monitoring and determining the red-noise contamination in their timing residuals. As most PTA pulsars are in binaries, they have the same requirements as those listed above for the binary pulsars.
Follow-up pulsar timing also supports multi-wavelength observations by providing precise ephemerides. Over a hundred pulsars are now known to emit pulses in the X$-$ray and/or $\gamma -$ray regimes. To fold their photons correctly, in many cases the $\gamma -$ray and sometimes X$-$ray communities are dependent on up-to-date timing ephemerides based on radio observations. Also, multiwavelength counterpart observations can be used to independently constrain distances, and study the pulsar emission mechanism. Thus the short-term follow-up timing of all newly discovered sources requires a short-spacing campaign to make an initial coherent timing solution. Depending on the parameters and the complexity of the source (timing irregularities, binary parameters, etc) the longer-term timing cadence can be expected to be somewhere between daily and monthly, with full-orbit campaigns on a regular basis for the most important or complex systems.
[*In this chapter, we have demonstrated that significant achievements can be made in pulsar searching in the early science phase of SKA1 with a highly concentrated core. In contrast, in order to achieve the highest precision in pulsar timing, the gain in using SKA2 is enormous when compared to timing observations enabled with SKA1. It is this gain in timing precision for selected KSP objects which will ultimately require the sensitivity of SKA2.*]{}
[90]{} natexlab\#1[\#1]{} Antoniadis, I., Freire, P. C. C., Wex, N., et al., 2013 Science, 340, 448
Bates, S. D., Lorimer, D. R., Verbiest, J. P. W. 2013, MNRAS, 431, 1352
Bates, S. D., Lorimer, D. R., Rane, A. & Swiggum, J., 2014, MNRAS, 439, 2893
Chennamangalam, J, Lorimer, D. R., 2014, MNRAS, 440, L86-L90
Cordes, J. M., & Lazio, J. T. W. 1997, ApJ, 475, 557
Cook, G. B., Shapiro, S. L. & Teukolsky, S. A. 1994, ApJ, 424, 823
Damour, T. & Esposito-Farèse, G., 1996, PhysRevD, 54, 1474
Demorest, P.B., Pennucci, T., Ransom, S.M., Roberts, M.S.E. & Hessels, J.W.T., 2010, Nature, 467, 1081
Eatough, R. P., Molkenthin, N., Kramer, M. et al., 2010, MNRAS, 407, 2443
Eatough, R. P., Falcke, H., Karuppusamy, R. et al. 2013, Nature, 501, 391E
Eatough, R. P., Lazio, J. T. W., Casanellas, J. et al., 2014, Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array, PoS(AASKA14)045
Espinoza, C. M., Lyne A. G., Stappers, B. W. & Kramer, M., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 1679
Gr[é]{}goire T & Kn[ö]{}dlseder J., 2013, A&A, 554, A62
Guillemot L. et al., 2014, Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array, PoS(AASKA14)153
van Haasteren, R., Levin, Y., McDonald, P. & Lu, T., 2009, MNRAS, 395, 1005
Hessels, J. W. T., Ransom, S. M., Stairs, I. H. et al., 2006, Science, 311, 1901 730, L36
Hessels, J. W. T., Possenti, A., Bailes, M. et al., 2014, Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array, PoS(AASKA14)047
Janssen, G. H., Hobbs, G., McLaughlin, M. A. et al., 2014, Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array, PoS(AASKA14)037
Kaaret, P., Prieskorn, Z., in ’t Zand, J. J. et al., 2007, ApJ, 657, L97
Kennea, J. A., Burrows, D. N., Kouveliotou, C. et al., 2013, ApJ, 770L, 24
Keane, E. F. & McLaughlin, M. A., 2011, BASI, 39, 333
Keane, E.F., Stappers, B.W., Kramer, M. & Lyne, A.G., 2012, MNRAS, 425, L71
Kramer, M., Backer, D. C., Cordes, J. M. et al., 2004, New Astronomy Reviews, 48, 993
Kramer, M., Stairs, I. H., Manchester, R. N. et al., 2006, Science, 314, 97
Lee, K. J., Stovall, K., Jenet, F. A. et al., 2013, MNRAS, 433, 688
Lazio, T. J. W. & Cordes, J. M., 1998, ApJ, 505, 715
van Leeuwen, J. & Stappers, B. W., 2010, A&A, 509, 7
Levin, L., Bailes, M., Barsdell, B. R. et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 1387
Liu, K., Wex, N., Kramer, M. & Cordes, J. M., 2012, ApJ, L747, 1
Lorimer, D. R. & Kramer, M., 2005, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy, CUP.
Lorimer, D. R., 2013, IAU, 291, 237
Lorimer, D.R., Bailes, M., McLaughlin, M.A., Narkevic, D.J. & Crawford, F. 2007, Science, 318
Lyon, R., Brooke, J. M., Knowles, J. D. & Stappers, B. W., 2013, IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.
Lyne, A. G., Hobbs, G., Kramer, M. & Stairs I. H., 2010, Science, 329, 408
Lyne, A. G., Graham-Smith, F., Weltevrede, P. et al., 2013, Science, 342, 598
Mori, K., Gotthelf, E. V., Zhang, S. et al., 2013, ApJ, 770L, 23M
Manchester, R.N., Hobbs, G.B., Teoh, A. & Hobbs, M. 2005, VRODC, 7245
Manchester R. N., IPTA, 2013, CQG 30: 224010
Macquart, J.-P., Keane, E. F., Grainge, K. et al. 2014, Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array, PoS(AASKA14)055
McLaughlin M. A., Lyne, A. G., Lorimer, D. R. et al., 2006, Nature, 439, 817
Morello, V., Barr, E. D., Bailes, M. et al., 2014, MNRAS, 443, 1651
Phinney, E. S., & Kulkarni, S. R. 1994, ARAA, 32, 591
Ray, P. S., Abdo, A. A., Parent, D. et al. 2011, Fermi Symposium proceedings - eConf C110509
Ransom, S. M., Stairs, I. H., Archibald, A. M. et al. 2014, Nature, 505, 520.
Siemens X., Ellis J., Jenet F. & Romano J. D. 2013, CQG 30: 224015.
Shannon, R. M. & Johnston, S., MNRAS, 2013, 435L, 29
Smits, R., Kramer, M. & Stappers, B. W., 2009, A&A, 493, 1161
Spitler, L. G., Lee, K. J., Eatough, R. P. et al. 2014, ApJ, 780L, 3
Stergioulas, N., & Friedman, J. 1995, ApJ, 444, 306
Tauris, T. M., Kaspi, V. M. Breton, R. P. et al., 2014, Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array, PoS(AASKA14)039
Taylor, J. H., Fowler, L. A. & McCulloch, P. M., 1979, Nature, 277, 437
Thornton, D., Stappers, B., Bailes, M. et al. 2013, Science, 341
Watts, A. L, Xu, R., Espinoza, C. M. et al. 2014, Advancing Astrophysics with the Square Kilometre Array, PoS(AASKA14)043
Wharton, R. S., Chatterjee, S., Cordes, J. M., Deneva, J. S. & Lazio, T. J. W., 2012, ApJ, 753, 108
Zhu, X.-J., Hobbs, G., Wen, L. et al., 2014, ApJ, 781, 117
[^1]: http://www.naic.edu/ deneva/drift-search/
[^2]: http://arcc.phys.utb.edu/gbncc/
[^3]: http://astro.phys.wvu.edu/GBTdrift350/
[^4]: http://www.astron.nl/lotaas/
[^5]: Here “signal recovery” is given by the S/N achieved in an acceleration search, normalised by the S/N for an equivalent search of the same pulsar, but with no orbital motion.
[^6]: An 0.89-ms period for the X-ray source XTE J1739$-$285 [@k++07] still awaits confirmation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The purpose of this article is to study the problem of finding sharp lower bounds for the norm of the product of polynomials in the ultraproducts of Banach spaces $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$. We show that, under certain hypotheses, there is a strong relation between this problem and the same problem for the spaces $X_i$.'
address: 'IMAS-CONICET'
author:
- Jorge Tomás Rodríguez
title: On the norm of products of polynomials on ultraproducts of Banach spaces
---
Introduction
============
In this article we study the factor problem in the context of ultraproducts of Banach spaces. This problem can be stated as follows: for a Banach space $X$ over a field ${\mathbb K}$ (with ${\mathbb K}={\mathbb R}$ or ${\mathbb K}={\mathbb C}$) and natural numbers $k_1,\cdots, k_n$ find the optimal constant $M$ such that, given any set of continuous scalar polynomials $P_1,\cdots,P_n:X\rightarrow {\mathbb K}$, of degrees $k_1,\cdots,k_n$; the inequality $$\label{problema}
M \Vert P_1 \cdots P_n\Vert \ge \, \Vert P_1 \Vert \cdots \Vert P_n \Vert$$ holds, where $\Vert P \Vert = \sup_{\Vert x \Vert_X=1} \vert P(x)\vert$. We also study a variant of the problem in which we require the polynomials to be homogeneous.
Recall that a function $P:X\rightarrow {\mathbb K}$ is a continuous $k-$homogeneous polynomial if there is a continuous $k-$linear function $T:X^k\rightarrow {\mathbb K}$ for which $P(x)=T(x,\cdots,x)$. A function $Q:X\rightarrow {\mathbb K}$ is a continuous polynomial of degree $k$ if $Q=\sum_{l=0}^k Q_l$ with $Q_0$ a constant, $Q_l$ ($1\leq l \leq k$) an $l-$homogeneous polynomial and $Q_k \neq 0$ .
The factor problem has been studied by several authors. In [@BST], C. Benítez, Y. Sarantopoulos and A. Tonge proved that, for continuous polynomials, inequality (\[problema\]) holds with constant $$M=\frac{(k_1+\cdots + k_n)^{(k_1+\cdots +k_n)}}{k_1^{k_1} \cdots k_n^{k_n}}$$ for any complex Banach space. The authors also showed that this is the best universal constant, since there are polynomials on $\ell_1$ for which equality prevails. For complex Hilbert spaces and homogeneous polynomials, D. Pinasco proved in [@P] that the optimal constant is $$\nonumber
M=\sqrt{\frac{(k_1+\cdots + k_n)^{(k_1+\cdots +k_n)}}{k_1^{k_1} \cdots k_n^{k_n}}}.$$ This is a generalization of the result for linear functions obtained by Arias-de-Reyna in [@A]. In [@CPR], also for homogeneous polynomials, D. Carando, D. Pinasco and the author proved that for any complex $L_p(\mu)$ space, with $dim(L_p(\mu))\geq n$ and $1<p<2$, the optimal constant is $$\nonumber
M=\sqrt[p]{\frac{(k_1+\cdots + k_n)^{(k_1+\cdots +k_n)}}{k_1^{k_1} \cdots k_n^{k_n}}}.$$
This article is partially motivated by the work of M. Lindström and R. A. Ryan in [@LR]. In that article they studied, among other things, a problem similar to (\[problema\]): finding the so called polarization constant of a Banach space. They found a relation between the polarization constant of the ultraproduct $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ and the polarization constant of each of the spaces $X_i$. Our objective is to do an analogous analysis for our problem (\[problema\]). That is, to find a relation between the factor problem for the space $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ and the factor problem for the spaces $X_i$.
In Section 2 we give some basic definitions and results of ultraproducts needed for our discussion. In Section 3 we state and prove the main result of this paper, involving ultraproducts, and a similar result on biduals.
Ultraproducts
=============
We begin with some definitions, notations and basic results on filters, ultrafilters and ultraproducts. Most of the content presented in this section, as well as an exhaustive exposition on ultraproducts, can be found in Heinrich’s article [@H].
A filter ${\mathfrak U}$ on a family $I$ is a collection of non empty subsets of $I$ closed by finite intersections and inclusions. An ultrafilter is maximal filter.
In order to define the ultraproduct of Banach spaces, we are going to need some topological results first.
Let ${\mathfrak U}$ be an ultrafilter on $I$ and $X$ a topological space. We say that the limit of $(x_i)_{i\in I} \subseteq X$ respect of ${\mathfrak U}$ is $x$ if for every open neighborhood $U$ of $x$ the set $\{i\in I: x_i \in U\}$ is an element of ${\mathfrak U}$. We denote $$\displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} x_i = x.$$
The following is Proposition 1.5 from [@H].
\[buenadef\] Let ${\mathfrak U}$ be an ultrafilter on $I$, $X$ a compact Hausdorff space and $(x_i)_{i\in I} \subseteq X$. Then, the limit of $(x_i)_{i\in I}$ respect of ${\mathfrak U}$ exists and is unique.
Later on, we are going to need the next basic Lemma about limits of ultraproducts, whose proof is an easy exercise of basic topology and ultrafilters.
\[lemlimit\] Let ${\mathfrak U}$ be an ultrafilter on $I$ and $\{x_i\}_{i\in I}$ a family of real numbers. Assume that the limit of $(x_i)_{i\in I} \subseteq {\mathbb R}$ respect of ${\mathfrak U}$ exists and let $r$ be a real number such that there is a subset $U$ of $\{i: r<x_i\}$ with $U\in {\mathfrak U}$. Then $$r \leq \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} x_i.$$
We are now able to define the ultraproduct of Banach spaces. Given an ultrafilter ${\mathfrak U}$ on $I$ and a family of Banach spaces $(X_i)_{i\in I}$, take the Banach space $\ell_\infty(I,X_i)$ of norm bounded families $(x_i)_{i\in I}$ with $x_i \in X_i$ and norm $$\Vert (x_i)_{i\in I} \Vert = \sup_{i\in I} \Vert x_i \Vert.$$ The ultraproduct $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ is defined as the quotient space $\ell_\infty(I,X_i)/ \sim $ where $$(x_i)_{i\in I}\sim (y_i)_{i\in I} \Leftrightarrow \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \Vert x_i - y_i \Vert = 0.$$
Observe that Proposition \[buenadef\] assures us that this limit exists for every pair $(x_i)_{i\in I}, (y_i)_{i\in I}\in \ell_\infty(I,X_i)$. We denote the class of $(x_i)_{i\in I}$ in $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ by $(x_i)_{\mathfrak U}$.
The following result is the polynomial version of Definition 2.2 from [@H] (see also Proposition 2.3 from [@LR]). The reasoning behind is almost the same.
\[pollim\] Given two ultraproducts $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$, $(Y_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ and a family of continuous homogeneous polynomials $\{P_i\}_{i\in I}$ of degree $k$ with $$\displaystyle\sup_{i\in I} \Vert P_i \Vert < \infty,$$ the map $P:(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}\longrightarrow (Y_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ defined by $P((x_i)_{\mathfrak U})=(P_i(x_i))_{\mathfrak U}$ is a continuous homogeneous polynomial of degree $k$. Moreover $\Vert P \Vert = \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \Vert P_i \Vert$.
If ${\mathbb K}={\mathbb C}$, the hypothesis of homogeneity can be omitted, but in this case the degree of $P$ can be lower than $k$.
Let us start with the homogeneous case. Write $P_i(x)=T_i(x,\cdots,x)$ with $T_i$ a $k-$linear continuous function. Define $T:(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}^k \longrightarrow (Y_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ by $$T((x^1_i)_{\mathfrak U},\cdots,(x^k_i)_{\mathfrak U})=(T_i(x^1_i,\cdots ,x^k_i))_{\mathfrak U}.$$ $T$ is well defined since, by the polarization formula, $ \displaystyle\sup_{i\in I} \Vert T_i \Vert \leq \displaystyle\sup_{i\in I} \frac{k^k}{k!}\Vert P_i \Vert< \infty$.
Seeing that for each coordinate the maps $T_i$ are linear, the map $T$ is linear in each coordinate, and thus it is a $k-$linear function. Given that $$P((x_i)_{\mathfrak U})=(P_i(x_i))_{\mathfrak U}=(T_i(x_i,\cdots,x_i))_{\mathfrak U}=T((x_i)_{\mathfrak U},\cdots,(x_i)_{\mathfrak U})$$ we conclude that $P$ is a $k-$homogeneous polynomial.
To see the equality of the norms for every $i$ choose a norm $1$ element $x_i\in X_i$ where $P_i$ almost attains its norm, and from there is easy to deduce that $\Vert P \Vert \geq \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \Vert P_i \Vert$. For the other inequality we use that $$|P((x_i)_{\mathfrak U})|= \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}}|P_i(x_i)| \leq \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}}\Vert P_i \Vert \Vert x_i \Vert^k = \left(\displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}}\Vert P_i \Vert \right)\Vert (x_i)_{\mathfrak U}\Vert^k .$$
Now we treat the non homogeneous case. For each $i\in I$ we write $P_i=\sum_{l=0}^kP_{i,l}$, with $P_{i,0}$ a constant and $P_{i,l}$ ($1\leq l \leq k$) an $l-$homogeneous polynomial. Take the direct sum $X_i \oplus_\infty {\mathbb C}$ of $X_i$ and ${\mathbb C}$, endowed with the norm $\Vert (x,\lambda) \Vert =\max \{ \Vert x \Vert, | \lambda| \}$. Consider the polynomial $\tilde{P_i}:X_i \oplus_\infty {\mathbb C}\rightarrow Y_i$ defined by $\tilde{P}_i(x,\lambda)=\sum_{l=0}^k P_{i,l}(x)\lambda^{k-l}$. The polynomial $\tilde{P}_i$ is an homogeneous polynomial of degree $k$ and, using the maximum modulus principle, it is easy to see that $\Vert P_i \Vert = \Vert \tilde{P_i} \Vert $. Then, by the homogeneous case, we have that the polynomial $\tilde{P}:(X_i \oplus_\infty {\mathbb C})_{\mathfrak U}\rightarrow (Y_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ defined as $\tilde{P}((x_i,\lambda_i)_{\mathfrak U})=(\tilde{P}_i(x_i,\lambda_i))_{\mathfrak U}$ is a continuous homogeneous polynomial of degree $k$ and $\Vert \tilde{P} \Vert =\displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \Vert \tilde{P}_i \Vert =\displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \Vert P_i \Vert$.
Via the identification $(X_i \oplus_\infty {\mathbb C})_{\mathfrak U}=(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}\oplus_\infty {\mathbb C}$ given by $(x_i,\lambda_i)_{\mathfrak U}=((x_i)_{\mathfrak U},\displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \lambda_i)$ we have that the polynomial $Q:(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}\oplus_\infty {\mathbb C}\rightarrow {\mathbb C}$ defined as $Q((x_i)_{\mathfrak U},\lambda)=\tilde{P}((x_i,\lambda)_{\mathfrak U})$ is a continuous homogeneous polynomial of degree $k$ and $\Vert Q\Vert =\Vert \tilde{P}\Vert$. Then, the polynomial $P((x_i)_{\mathfrak U})=Q((x_i)_{\mathfrak U},1)$ is a continuous polynomial of degree at most $k$ and $\Vert P\Vert =\Vert Q\Vert =\displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \Vert P_i \Vert$. If $\displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \Vert P_{i,k} \Vert =0 $ then the degree of $P$ is lower than $k$.
Note that, in the last proof, we can take the same approach used for non homogeneous polynomials in the real case, but we would not have the same control over the norms.
Main result
=============
This section contains our main result. As mentioned above, this result is partially motivated by Theorem 3.2 from [@LR]. We follow similar ideas for the proof. First, let us fix some notation that will be used throughout this section.
In this section, all polynomials considered are continuous scalar polynomials. Given a Banach space $X$, $B_X$ and $S_X$ denote the unit ball and the unit sphere of $X$ respectively, and $X^*$ is the dual of $X$. Given a polynomial $P$ on $X$, $deg(P)$ stands for the degree of $P$.
For a Banach space $X$ let $D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)$ denote the smallest constant that satisfies (\[problema\]) for polynomials of degree $k_1,\cdots,k_n$. We also define $C(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)$ as the smallest constant that satisfies (\[problema\]) for homogeneous polynomials of degree $k_1,\cdots,k_n$.
Throughout this section most of the results will have two parts. The first involving the constant $C(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)$ for homogeneous polynomials and the second involving the constant $D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)$ for arbitrary polynomials. Given that the proof of both parts are almost equal, we will limit to prove only the second part of the results.
Recall that a space $X$ has the $1 +$ uniform approximation property if for all $n\in {\mathbb N}$, exists $m=m(n)$ such that for every subspace $M\subset X$ with $dim(M)=n$ and every $\varepsilon > 0$ there is an operator $T\in \mathcal{L}(X,X)$ with $T|_M=id$, $rg(T)\leq m$ and $\Vert T\Vert \leq 1 + \varepsilon$ (i.e. for every $\varepsilon > 0$ $X$ has the $1+\varepsilon$ uniform approximation property).
\[main thm\] If ${\mathfrak U}$ is an ultrafilter on a family $I$ and $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ is an ultraproduct of complex Banach spaces then
1. $C((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \geq \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}}(C(X_i,k_1,\cdots,k_n)).$
2. $D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \geq \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}}(D(X_i,k_1,\cdots,k_n)).$
Moreover, if each $X_i$ has the $1+$ uniform approximation property, equality holds in both cases.
In order to prove this Theorem some auxiliary lemmas are going to be needed. The first one is due to Heinrich [@H].
\[aprox\] Given an ultraproduct of Banach spaces $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$, if each $X_i$ has the $1+$ uniform approximation property then $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ has the metric approximation property.
When working with the constants $C(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)$ and $D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)$, the following characterization may result handy.
\[alternat\] a) The constant $C(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)$ is the biggest constant $M$ such that given any $\varepsilon >0$ there exist a set of homogeneous continuous polynomials $\{P_j\}_{j=1}^n$ with $deg(P_j)\leq k_j$ such that
$$\label{condition} M\left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} P_j \right \Vert \leq (1+\varepsilon) \prod_{j=1}^{n} \Vert P_j \Vert.$$
b\) The constant $D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)$ is the biggest constant satisfying the same for arbitrary polynomials.
To prove this Lemma it is enough to see that $D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)$ is decreasing as a function of the degrees $k_1,\cdots, k_n$ and use that the infimum is the greatest lower bound.
\[rmkalternat\] It is clear that in Lemma \[alternat\] we can take the polynomials $\{P_j\}_{j=1}^n$ with $deg(P_j)= k_j$ instead of $deg(P_j)\leq k_j$. Later on we will use both versions of the Lemma.
One last lemma is needed for the proof of the Main Theorem.
\[normas\] Let $P$ be a (not necessarily homogeneous) polynomial on a complex Banach space $X$ with $deg(P)=k$. For any point $x\in X$ $$|P(x)|\leq \max\{\Vert x \Vert, 1\}^k \Vert P\Vert . \nonumber$$
If $P$ is homogeneous the result is rather obvious since we have the inequality $$|P(x)|\leq \Vert x \Vert^k \Vert P\Vert . \nonumber$$ Suppose that $P=\sum_{l=0}^k P_l$ with $P_l$ an $l-$homogeneous polynomial. Consider the space $X \oplus_\infty {\mathbb C}$ and the polynomial $\tilde{P}:X \oplus_\infty {\mathbb C}\rightarrow {\mathbb C}$ defined by $\tilde{P}(x,\lambda)=\sum_{l=0}^k P_l(x)\lambda^{k-l}$. The polynomial $\tilde{P}$ is homogeneous of degree $k$ and $\Vert P \Vert = \Vert \tilde{P} \Vert $. Then, using that $\tilde{P}$ is homogeneous we have $$|P(x)|=|\tilde{P} (x,1)| \leq \Vert (x,1) \Vert^k \Vert \tilde{P} \Vert = \max\{\Vert x \Vert, 1\}^k \Vert P\Vert . \nonumber$$
We are now able to prove our main result.
Throughout this proof we regard the space $({\mathbb C})_{\mathfrak U}$ as ${\mathbb C}$ via the identification $(\lambda_i)_{\mathfrak U}=\displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \lambda_i$.
First, we are going to see that $D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \geq \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}}(D(X_i,k_1,\cdots,k_n))$. To do this we only need to prove that $\displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}}(D(X_i,k_1,\cdots,k_n))$ satisfies (\[condition\]). Given $\varepsilon >0$ we need to find a set of polynomials $\{P_{j}\}_{j=1}^n$ on $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ with $deg(P_{j})\leq k_j$ such that $$\displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}}(D(X_i,k_1,\cdots,k_n)) \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} P_j \right \Vert \leq (1+\varepsilon) \prod_{j=1}^{n} \left \Vert P_j \right \Vert .$$
By Remark \[rmkalternat\] we know that for each $i\in I$ there is a set of polynomials $\{P_{i,j}\}_{j=1}^n$ on $X_i$ with $deg(P_{i,j})=k_j$ such that $$D(X_i,k_1,\cdots,k_n) \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} P_{i,j} \right \Vert \leq (1 +\varepsilon)\prod_{j=1}^{n} \left \Vert P_{i,j} \right \Vert.$$ Replacing $P_{i,j}$ with $P_{i,j}/\Vert P_{i,j} \Vert$ we may assume that $\Vert P_{i,j} \Vert =1$. Define the polynomials $\{P_j\}_{j=1}^n$ on $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ by $P_j((x_i)_{\mathfrak U})=(P_{i,j}(x_i))_{\mathfrak U}$. Then, by Proposition \[pollim\], $deg(P_j)\leq k_j$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}}(D(X_i,k_1,\cdots,k_n)) \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} P_{j} \right \Vert &=& \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \left(D(X_i,k_1,\cdots,k_n)\left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} P_{i,j} \right \Vert \right) \nonumber \\
&\leq& \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}}\left((1+\varepsilon)\prod_{j=1}^{n}\Vert P_{i,j} \Vert \right)\nonumber \\
&=& (1+\varepsilon)\prod_{j=1}^{n} \Vert P_{j} \Vert \nonumber
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ as desired.
To prove that $D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \leq \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}}(D(X_i,k_1,\cdots,k_n))$ if each $X_i$ has the $1+$ uniform approximation property is not as straightforward. Given $\varepsilon >0$, let $\{P_j\}_{j=1}^n$ be a set of polynomials on $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ with $deg(P_j)=k_j$ such that $$D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} P_j \right \Vert \leq (1+\varepsilon)\prod_{j=1}^{n} \Vert P_j \Vert .$$
Let $K\subseteq B_{(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}}$ be the finite set $K=\{x_1,\cdots, x_n\}$ where $ x_j$ is such that $$|P_j(x_j)| > \Vert P_j\Vert (1- \varepsilon) \mbox{ for }j=1,\cdots, n.$$ Being that each $X_i$ has the $1+$ uniform approximation property, then, by Lemma \[aprox\], $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ has the metric approximation property. Therefore, exist a finite rank operator $S:(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}\rightarrow (X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ such that $\Vert S\Vert \leq 1 $ and $$\Vert P_j - P_j \circ S \Vert_K< |P_j(x_j)|\varepsilon \mbox{ for }j=1,\cdots, n.$$
Now, define the polynomials $Q_1,\cdots, Q_n$ on $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ as $Q_j=P_j\circ S$. Then $$\left\Vert \prod_{j=1}^n Q_j \right\Vert \leq \left\Vert \prod_{j=1}^n P_j \right\Vert$$ $$\Vert Q_j\Vert_K > | P_j(x_j)|-\varepsilon | P_j(x_j)| =| P_j(x_j)| (1-\varepsilon) \geq \Vert P_j \Vert(1-\varepsilon)^2.$$ The construction of this polynomials is a slight variation of Lemma 3.1 from [@LR]. We have the next inequality for the product of the polynomials $\{Q_j\}_{j=1}^n$ $$\begin{aligned}
D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} Q_{j} \right \Vert &\leq& D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} P_{j} \right \Vert \nonumber \\
&\leq& (1+\varepsilon) \prod_{j=1}^{n} \left \Vert P_{j} \right \Vert . \label{desq}\end{aligned}$$
Since $S$ is a finite rank operator, the polynomials $\{ Q_j\}_{j=1}^n$ have the advantage that are finite type polynomials. This will allow us to construct polynomials on $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ which are limit of polynomials on the spaces $X_i$. For each $j$ write $Q_j=\sum_{t=1}^{m_j}(\psi_{j,t})^{r_{j,t}}$ with $\psi_{j,t}\in (X_i)_{\mathfrak U}^*$, and consider the spaces $N=\rm{span} \{x_1,\cdots,x_n\}\subset (X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ and $M=\rm{span} \{\psi_{j,t} \}\subset (X_i)_{\mathfrak U}^*$. By the local duality of ultraproducts (see Theorem 7.3 from [@H]) exist $T:M\rightarrow (X_i^*)_{\mathfrak U}$ an $(1+\varepsilon)-$isomorphism such that $$JT(\psi)(x)=\psi(x) \mbox{ } \forall x\in N, \mbox{ } \forall \psi\in M$$ where $J:(X_i^*)_{\mathfrak U}\rightarrow (X_i)_{\mathfrak U}^*$ is the canonical embedding. Let $\phi_{j,t}=JT(\psi_{j,t})$ and consider the polynomials $\bar{Q}_1,\cdots, \bar{Q}_n$ on $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ with $\bar{Q}_j=\sum_{t=1}^{m_j}(\phi_{j,t})^{r_{j,t}}$. Clearly $\bar{Q}_j$ is equal to $Q_j$ in $N$ and $K\subseteq N$, therefore we have the following lower bound for the norm of each polynomial $$\Vert \bar{Q}_j \Vert \geq \Vert \bar{Q}_j \Vert_K = \Vert Q_j \Vert_K >\Vert P_j \Vert(1-\varepsilon)^2 \label{desbarq}$$
Now, let us find an upper bound for the norm of the product $\Vert \prod_{j=1}^n \bar{Q}_j \Vert$. Let $x=(x_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ be any point in $B_{(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}}$. Then, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\prod_{j=1}^n \bar{Q}_j(x)\right| &=& \left|\prod_{j=1}^n \sum_{t=1}^{m_j}(\phi_{j,t} (x))^{r_{j,t}}\right|=\left|\prod_{j=1}^n \sum_{t=1}^{m_j} (JT\psi_{j,t}(x))^{r_{j,t}} \right| \nonumber \\
&=& \left|\prod_{j=1}^n \sum_{t=1}^{m_j}((JT)^*\hat{x}(\psi_{j,t}))^{r_{j,t}}\right|\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Since $(JT)^*\hat{x}\in M^*$, $\Vert (JT)^*\hat{x}\Vert =\Vert JT \Vert \Vert x \Vert \leq \Vert J \Vert \Vert T \Vert \Vert x \Vert< 1 + \varepsilon$ and $M^*=\frac{(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}^{**}}{M^{\bot}}$, we can chose $z^{**}\in (X_i)_{\mathfrak U}^{**}$ with $\Vert z^{**} \Vert < \Vert (JT)^*\hat{x}\Vert+\varepsilon < 1+2\varepsilon$, such that $\prod_{j=1}^n \sum_{t=1}^{m_j} ((JT)^*\hat{x}(\psi_{j,t}))^{r_{j,t}}= \prod_{j=1}^n \sum_{t=1}^{m_j} (z^{**}(\psi_{j,t}))^{r_{j,t}}$. By Goldstine’s Theorem exist a net $\{z_\alpha\} \subseteq (X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ $w^*-$convergent to $z$ in $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}^{**}$ with $\Vert z_\alpha \Vert = \Vert z^{**}\Vert$. In particular, $ \psi_{j,t}(z_\alpha)$ converges to $z^{**}(\psi_{j,t})$. If we call ${\mathbf k}= \sum k_j$, since $\Vert z_\alpha \Vert< (1+2\varepsilon)$, by Lemma \[normas\], we have $$\left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} Q_j \right \Vert (1+2\varepsilon)^{\mathbf k}\geq \left|\prod_{j=1}^n Q_j(z_\alpha)\right| = \left|\prod_{j=1}^n \sum_{t=1}^{m_j} ((\psi_{j,t})(z_\alpha))^{r_{j,t}}\right| . \label{usecomplex}$$ Combining this with the fact that $$\begin{aligned}
\left|\prod_{j=1}^{n} \sum_{t=1}^{m_j} ((\psi_{j,t})(z_\alpha))^{r_{j,t}}\right| &\longrightarrow& \left|\prod_{j=1}^{n} \sum_{t=1}^{m_j} (z^{**}(\psi_{j,t}))^{r_{j,t}}\right|\nonumber\\
&=& \left|\prod_{j=1}^{n} \sum_{t=1}^{m_j} ((JT)^*\hat{x}(\psi_{j,t}))^{r_{j,t}}\right| = \left|\prod_{j=1}^{n} \bar{Q}_j(x)\right|\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ we conclude that $\left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} Q_j \right \Vert (1+2\varepsilon)^{\mathbf k}\geq |\prod_{j=1}^{n} \bar{Q}_j(x)|$.
Since the choice of $x$ was arbitrary we arrive to the next inequality $$\begin{aligned}
D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} \bar{Q}_j \right \Vert &\leq& (1+2\varepsilon)^{\mathbf k}D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} Q_j \right \Vert \nonumber \\
&\leq& (1+2\varepsilon)^{\mathbf k}(1+\varepsilon) \prod_{j=1}^{n} \left \Vert P_{j} \right \Vert \label{desbarq2} \\
&<& (1+2\varepsilon)^{\mathbf k}(1+\varepsilon) \frac{\prod_{j=1}^{n} \Vert \bar{Q}_j \Vert }{(1-\varepsilon)^{2n}} .\label{desbarq3} \\end{aligned}$$ In (\[desbarq2\]) and (\[desbarq3\]) we use (\[desq\]) and (\[desbarq\]) respectively. The polynomials $\bar{Q}_j$ are not only of finite type, these polynomials are also generated by elements of $(X_i^*)_{\mathfrak U}$. This will allow us to write them as limits of polynomials in $X_i$. For any $i$, consider the polynomials $\bar{Q}_{i,1},\cdots,\bar{Q}_{i,n}$ on $X_i$ defined by $\bar{Q}_{i,j}= \displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{m_j} (\phi_{i,j,t})^{r_{j,t}}$, where the functionals $\phi_{i,j,t}\in X_i^*$ are such that $(\phi_{i,j,t})_{\mathfrak U}=\phi_{j,t}$. Then $\bar{Q}_j(x)=\displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \bar{Q}_{i,j}(x)$ $\forall x \in (X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ and, by Proposition \[pollim\], $\Vert \bar{Q}_j \Vert = \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \Vert \bar{Q}_{i,j} \Vert$. Therefore $$\begin{aligned}
D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} \bar{Q}_{i,j} \right \Vert &=& D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} \bar{Q}_{j} \right \Vert \nonumber \\
&<& \frac{(1+\varepsilon)(1+2\varepsilon)^{\mathbf k}}{(1-\varepsilon)^{2n}} \prod_{j=1}^{n} \Vert \bar{Q}_{j} \Vert \nonumber \\
&=& \frac{(1+\varepsilon)(1+2\varepsilon)^{\mathbf k}}{(1-\varepsilon)^{2n}} \prod_{j=1}^{n} \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \Vert \bar{Q}_{i,j} \Vert .
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$
To simplify the notation let us call $\lambda = \frac{(1+\varepsilon)(1+2\varepsilon)^{\mathbf k}}{(1-\varepsilon)^{2n}} $. Take $L>0$ such that
$$D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} \bar{Q}_{i,j} \right \Vert < L < \lambda \prod_{j=1}^{n} \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \Vert \bar{Q}_{i,j} \Vert . \nonumber$$
Since $(-\infty, \frac{L}{D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n)})$ and $(\frac{L}{\lambda},+\infty)$ are neighborhoods of $\displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} \bar{Q}_{i,j} \right \Vert$ and $\prod_{j=1}^{n} \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \Vert \bar{Q}_{i,j} \Vert$ respectively, and $\prod_{j=1}^{n} \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \Vert \bar{Q}_{i,j} \Vert= \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} \prod_{j=1}^{n} \Vert \bar{Q}_{i,j} \Vert$, by definition of $\displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}}$, the sets $$A=\{i_0: D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} \bar{Q}_{i_0,j} \right \Vert <L\} \mbox{ and }B=\{i_0: \lambda \prod_{j=1}^{n} \Vert \bar{Q}_{i_0,j} \Vert > L \}$$ are elements of ${\mathfrak U}$. Since ${\mathfrak U}$ is closed by finite intersections $A\cap B\in {\mathfrak U}$. If we take any element $i_0 \in A\cap B$ then, for any $\delta >0$, we have that $$D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} \bar{Q}_{i_0,j} \right \Vert \frac{1}{\lambda}\leq \frac{L}{\lambda} \leq \prod_{j=1}^{n} \Vert \bar{Q}_{i_0,j} \Vert < (1+ \delta)\prod_{j= 1}^{n} \Vert \bar{Q}_{i_0,j} \Vert \nonumber$$ Then, since $\delta$ is arbitrary, the constant $D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\frac{1}{\lambda}$ satisfy (\[condition\]) for the space $X_{i_0}$ and therefore, by Lemma \[alternat\], $$\frac{1}{\lambda}D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \leq D(X_{i_0},k_1,\cdots,k_n). \nonumber$$
This holds true for any $i_0$ in $A\cap B$. Since $A\cap B \in {\mathfrak U}$, by Lemma \[lemlimit\], $\frac{1}{\lambda}D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\leq \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} D(X_i,k_1,\cdots,k_n) $. Using that $\lambda \rightarrow 1$ when $\varepsilon \rightarrow 0$ we conclude that $D((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\leq \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}} D(X_i,k_1,\cdots,k_n).$
Similar to Corollary 3.3 from [@LR], a straightforward corollary of our main result is that for any complex Banach space $X$ with $1+$ uniform approximation property $C(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)=C(X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n)$ and $D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)=D(X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n)$ . Using that $X^{**}$ is $1-$complemented in some adequate ultrafilter $(X)_{{\mathfrak U}}$ the result is rather obvious. For a construction of the adequate ultrafilter see [@LR].
But following the previous proof, and using the principle of local reflexivity applied to $X^*$ instead of the local duality of ultraproducts, we can prove the next stronger result.
Let $X$ be a complex Banach space. Then
1. $C(X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\geq C(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n).$
2. $D(X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n \geq D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)).$
Moreover, if $X^{**}$ has the metric approximation property, equality holds in both cases.
The inequality $D(X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \geq D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)$ is a corollary of Theorem \[main thm\] (using the adequate ultrafilter mentioned above).
Let us prove that if $X^{**}$ has the metric approximation property then $D((X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\geq D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)$. Given $\varepsilon >0$, let $\{P_j\}_{j=1}^n$ be a set of polynomials on $X^{**}$ with $deg(P_j)=k_j$ such that $$D(X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} P_{j} \right \Vert \leq (1+\varepsilon)\prod_{j=1}^{n} \left \Vert P_{j} \right \Vert .\nonumber$$
Analogous to the proof of Theorem \[main thm\], since $X^{**}$ has the metric approximation, we can construct finite type polynomials $Q_1,\cdots,Q_n$ on $X^{**}$ with $deg(Q_j)=k_j$, $\Vert Q_j \Vert_K \geq \Vert P_j \Vert (1-\varepsilon)^2$ for some finite set $K\subseteq B_{X^{**}}$ and that $$D(X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} Q_{j} \right \Vert < (1+\varepsilon)\prod_{j=1}^{n} \left \Vert P_{j} \right \Vert . \nonumber$$
Suppose that $Q_j=\sum_{t=1}^{m_j}(\psi_{j,t})^{r_{j,t}}$ and consider the spaces $N=\rm{span} \{K\}$ and $M=\rm{span} \{\psi_{j,t} \}$. By the principle of local reflexivity (see [@D]), applied to $X^*$ (thinking $N$ as a subspaces of $(X^*)^*$ and $M$ as a subspaces of $(X^*)^{**}$), there is an $(1+\varepsilon)-$isomorphism $T:M\rightarrow X^*$ such that $$JT(\psi)(x)=\psi(x) \mbox{ } \forall x\in N, \mbox{ } \forall \psi\in M\cap X^*=M,$$ where $J:X^*\rightarrow X^{***}$ is the canonical embedding.
Let $\phi_{j,t}=JT(\psi_{j,t})$ and consider the polynomials $\bar{Q}_1,\cdots, \bar{Q}_n$ on $X^{**}$ defined by $\bar{Q}_j=\sum_{t=1}^{m_j}(\phi_{j,t})^{r_{j,t}}$. Following the proof of the Main Theorem, one arrives to the inequation $$D(X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} \bar{Q_j} \right \Vert < (1+ \delta) \frac{(1+\varepsilon)(1+2\varepsilon)^{\mathbf k}}{(1-\varepsilon)^{2n}} \prod_{j=1}^{n} \Vert \bar{Q_j} \Vert \nonumber$$ for every $\delta >0$. Since each $\bar{Q}_j$ is generated by elements of $J(X^*)$, by Goldstine’s Theorem, the restriction of $\bar{Q}_j$ to $X$ has the same norm and the same is true for $\prod_{j=1}^{n} \bar{Q_j}$. Then $$D(X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} \left.\bar{Q_j}\right|_X \right \Vert < (1+ \delta) \frac{(1+\varepsilon)(1+2\varepsilon)^{\mathbf k}}{(1-\varepsilon)^{2n}} \prod_{j=1}^{n} \Vert \left.\bar{Q_j}\right|_X \Vert \nonumber$$ By Lemma \[alternat\] we conclude that $$\frac{(1-\varepsilon)^{2n}}{(1+\varepsilon)(1+2\varepsilon)^{\mathbf k}}D(X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\leq D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n).$$ Given that the choice of $\varepsilon$ is arbitrary and that $\frac{(1-\varepsilon)^{2n}}{(1+\varepsilon)(1+2\varepsilon)^{\mathbf k}} $ tends to $1$ when $\varepsilon$ tends to $0$ we conclude that $D(X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\leq D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n)$.
Note that in the proof of the Main Theorem the only parts where we need the spaces to be complex Banach spaces are at the beginning, where we use Proposition \[pollim\], and in the inequality (\[usecomplex\]), where we use Lemma \[normas\]. But both results holds true for homogeneous polynomials on a real Banach space. Then, copying the proof of the Main Theorem we obtain the following result for real spaces.
If ${\mathfrak U}$ is an ultrafilter on a family $I$ and $(X_i)_{\mathfrak U}$ is an ultraproduct of real Banach spaces then $$C((X_i)_{\mathfrak U},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \geq \displaystyle\lim_{i,{\mathfrak U}}(C(X_i,k_1,\cdots,k_n)).$$
If in addition each $X_i$ has the $1+$ uniform approximation property, the equality holds.
Also we can get a similar result for the bidual of a real space.
Let $X$ be a real Banach space. Then
1. $C(X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n)\geq C(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n).$
2. $D(X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \geq D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n).$
If $X^{**}$ has the metric approximation property, equality holds in $(a)$.
The proof of item $(a)$ is the same that in the complex case, so we limit to prove $D(X^{**},k_1,\cdots,k_n) \geq D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n))$. To do this we will show that given an arbitrary $\varepsilon >0$, there is a set of polynomials $\{P_{j}\}_{j=1}^n$ on $X^{**}$ with $deg(P_{j})\leq k_j$ such that $$D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n) \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} P_j \right \Vert \leq (1+\varepsilon) \prod_{j=1}^{n} \left \Vert P_j \right \Vert .$$
Take $\{Q_{j}\}_{j=1}^n$ a set of polynomials on $X$ with $deg(Q_j)=k_j$ such that $$D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n) \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} Q_{j} \right \Vert \leq (1 +\varepsilon)\prod_{j=1}^{n} \left \Vert Q_{j} \right \Vert.$$
Consider now the polynomials $P_j=AB(Q_j)$, where $AB(Q_j)$ is the Aron Berner extension of $Q_j$ (for details on this extension see [@AB] or [@Z]). Since $AB\left( \prod_{j=1}^n P_j \right)=\prod_{j=1}^n AB(P_j)$, using that the Aror Berner extension preserves norm (see [@DG]) we have
$$\begin{aligned}
D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n) \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} P_{j} \right \Vert &=& D(X,k_1,\cdots,k_n) \left \Vert \prod_{j=1}^{n} Q_{j} \right \Vert\nonumber \\
&\leq& (1 +\varepsilon)\prod_{j=1}^{n} \left\Vert Q_{j} \right\Vert \nonumber \\
&=& (1 +\varepsilon)\prod_{j=1}^{n} \left \Vert P_{j} \right \Vert \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
as desired.
As a final remark, we mention two types of spaces for which the results on this section can be applied.
Corollary 9.2 from [@H] states that any Orlicz space $L_\Phi(\mu)$, with $\mu$ a finite measure and $\Phi$ an Orlicz function with regular variation at $\infty$, has the $1+$ uniform projection property, which is stronger than the $1+$ uniform approximation property.
In [@PeR] Section two, A. Pełczyński and H. Rosenthal proved that any ${\mathcal L}_{p,\lambda}-$space ($1\leq \lambda < \infty$) has the $1+\varepsilon-$uniform projection property for every $\varepsilon>0$ (which is stronger than the $1+\varepsilon-$uniform approximation property), therefore, any ${\mathcal L}_{p,\lambda}-$space has the $1+$ uniform approximation property.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
I would like to thank Professor Daniel Carando for both encouraging me to write this article, and for his comments and remarks which improved its presentation and content.
[HD]{}
R. M. J. Arias-de-Reyna. *Gaussian variables, polynomials and permanents*. Linear Algebra Appl. 285 (1998), 107–114.
R. M. Aron and P. D. Berner. *A Hahn-Banach extension theorem for analytic mapping*. Bull. Soc. Math. France 106 (1978), 3–24.
C. Benítez, Y. Sarantopoulos and A. Tonge. *Lower bounds for norms of products of polynomials*. Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 124 (1998), 395–408.
D. Carando, D. Pinasco y J.T. Rodríguez. *Lower bounds for norms of products of polynomials on $L_p$ spaces*. Studia Math. 214 (2013), 157–166.
A. M. Davie and T. W. Gamelin. *A theorem on polynomial-star approximation*. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 106 (1989) 351–356.
D. W. Dean. *The equation $L(E,X^{**})=L(E,X)^{**}$ and the principle of local reflexivity*. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society. 40 (1973), 146-148.
S. Heinrich. *Ultraproducts in Banach space theory*. J. Reine Angew. Math. 313 (1980), 72–104.
M. Lindström and R. A. Ryan. *Applications of ultraproducts to infinite dimensional holomorphy*. Math. Scand. 71 (1992), 229–242.
A. Pełczyński and H. Rosenthal. *Localization techniques in $L_p$ spaces*. Studia Math. 52 (1975), 265–289.
D. Pinasco. *Lower bounds for norms of products of polynomials via Bombieri inequality*. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 364 (2012), 3993–4010.
I. Zalduendo. *Extending polynomials on Banach Spaces - A survey*. Rev. Un. Mat. Argentina 46 (2005), 45–72.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We show experimentally and theoretically that an electrically biased $200\,\mu$m multi-transverse mode Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Laser can be passively mode-locked using optical feedback from a distant Resonant Saturable Absorber Mirror. This is achieved when one cavity is placed at the Fourier plane of the other. Such non conventional optical feedback leads to the formation of two tilted plane waves traveling in the external cavity with opposite transverse components and alternating in time at every round-trip. Each of these plane waves gives birth to a train of mode-locked pulses separated by twice the external cavity round-trip, while the two trains are time shifted by a round-trip. A large portion of the transverse section of the device contributes to mode-locked emission leading to pulses of approximately 1 W peak power and $10\,$ps width. We discuss how inhomogeneities in the transverse section of the saturable absorber select the emitted tilted waves, thus leading to tunable emission over 4 nm.'
author:
- 'M. Marconi, J. Javaloyes, , S. Balle, and M. Giudici .[^1][^2][^3]'
bibliography:
- '../../BIBLIO/full.bib'
title: 'Passive Mode-Locking and Tilted Waves in Broad-Area Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Lasers '
---
Mode-Locking, Broad-Area Lasers, VCSELs
Introduction
============
mode-locking (ML) is a fascinating self-organized cooperative effect involving a large number of longitudinal modes that was recently linked to out-of-equilibrium phase transitions [@GP-PRL-02]. From a practical point of view many applications require sources of short pulses like e.g. medicine, metrology and communications [@haus00rev]. Passive ML (PML) is arguably one of the most elegant method to obtain such pulses. It is achieved by combining two elements, a laser amplifier providing gain and a saturable absorber acting as a pulse shortening element. Under appropriate conditions, the different dynamical properties of the absorption and of the gain favor pulsed emission by creating a limited time window for amplification around an intensity pulse [@haus75f; @haus75s]. PML can also be achieved using artificial absorbers like e.g. nonlinear polarization rotation [@DLY-JQE-03], Kerr lens mode-locking [@ippen94], Crossed-Polarization [@JMB-PRL-06] or Stark effect modulation [@WMD-OL-08]. The PML mechanism has led to the shortest and most intense optical pulses ever generated and pulses in the femto-second range are produced by dye [@FSY-JQE-83] and solid-state lasers [@keller96]. However, the large size of these devices and the need for optical pumping strongly limit their application domain.
More compact solutions can be envisaged using semiconductor devices: PML is obtained in monolithic edge-emitting semiconductor lasers which have the advantage of being electrically biased and to operate at high repetition rates ($1\sim160$ GHz) although the peak powers that can be obtained are usually limited because of Catastrophic Optical Damage (COD) [@avrutin00]. Large output peak power in the kilowatt range is commonly achieved by coupling Vertical-External-Cavity Surface-Emitting Lasers (VECSEL) with a Semiconductor Saturable Absorber Mirror [@RWM-OE-10; @WTB-OE-13]. The external cavity is designed to operate in the fundamental Gaussian mode while a large section of the VECSEL is optically pumped to achieve large power, in this configuration the external cavity length leads to repetition rates from a few to tens of GHz. In both monolithic and external-cavity schemes, the presence of higher order transverse modes of the resonator is usually perceived as detrimental for mode-locking stability and it is avoided by cavity design. In fact, when several higher order modes are present, the emission profile is usually not stationary [@Fischer_1996], and even chaotic filamentation may occur [@Thompson_1972]. This is due to thermal effects imposing a current-dependent refractive index profile, and to the so-called Spatial Hole Burning (SHB). This phenomenon occurs in regions of high optical intensity, where the local gain (and thus the local carrier density) is depressed by stimulated emission, hence leading to a local increase of refractive index which contributes to strengthen light confinement and to further increase the local field intensity. On the other hand, the possibility of achieving a cooperative effect of transverses modes where they would contribute coherently to longitudinal mode locking is very attractive for increasing the pulse power, since it would allow to circumvent COD.
In this work we propose a scheme for achieving mode-locking using an electrically biased, $200\,\mu$m section Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Laser (VCSEL). This device is mounted in an external cavity configuration closed by a Resonant Saturable Absorber Mirror (RSAM). Mode-locking is obtained when placing the RSAM in the exact Fourier transform plane of the VCSEL near-field profile, i.e. when imaging the VCSEL far-field profile onto the RSAM. As a consequence, the VCSEL profile is imaged onto itself after a single external cavity round-trip, but inverted. This corresponds to a transverse magnification of -1. We show that such configuration leads to the generation of two tilted plane waves traveling in the external cavity with an opposite transverse component and alternating each other at every round-trip. Each one of these plane waves gives birth to a train of mode-locked pulses separated by twice the external cavity round trip ($2\tau_{e}$), while the two trains are time shifted of $\tau_{e}$. Almost the entire transverse section of the VCSEL contributes to mode-locking leading to pulses of 10 ps width and peak power around $1\,$W. We analyze the mechanism leading to the selection of the tilted waves and we demonstrate a technique for tuning the central wavelength of the mode-locked emission. Our experimental findings are confirmed by a spatially resolved model for the VCSEL and the RSAM taking into account the multiple reflections in the external cavity and our specific imaging conditions.
Experiment
==========
The VCSEL is a $980\,$nm device manufactured by ULM Photonics [@701502]. Its standalone threshold current ($J_{st}$) is about $380\,$mA, though emission is localized only at the external perimeter of the device up to $J=850\,$mA, after which roll-off starts to occur. The 980 nm RSAM (BaTop Gmbh) has a transverse dimension of $4\times4$ mm$^{2}$ and it exhibits a low unsaturated reflectivity of 1% that increases up to $60\,\%$ when saturated. The RSAM saturation fluence is $15\,\mu$J.cm$^{-2}$. These values are obtained at the RSAM resonant wavelength which can be thermally tuned over $3\,$nm (between $T_{1}=10\,\text{\textdegree C}$ and $T_{2}=50\,\text{\textdegree C}$). The Full Width at Half Maximum (FWHM) of the RSAM resonance is around $16\,$nm and the saturable absorption recovery time is around $1\,$ps.
![Experimental Set-up: Temperature-stabilized VCSEL and RSAM. Coll.: Aspheric Lens, BS : Beam Splitter, M: Mirror and D1/D2: Detectors and CCD cameras.\[setup\]](setup_art){width="48.00000%"}
![Panel a): Temporal trace of the VCSEL in the mode-locked regime. Panel b): Corresponding Near-Field emission of VCSEL. Panel c): Corresponding Far-field emission from the VCSEL. Intensity grows from white to black. $J$=600 mA.\[modelocking\] ](Fig2a){width="50.00000%"}
![Panel a): Temporal trace of the VCSEL in the mode-locked regime. Panel b): Corresponding Near-Field emission of VCSEL. Panel c): Corresponding Far-field emission from the VCSEL. Intensity grows from white to black. $J$=600 mA.\[modelocking\] ](FF-NF1_article2){width="50.00000%"}
The set up is shown in Fig. \[setup\]. Both the VCSEL and RSAM are mounted on temperature controlled substrates which allow for tuning the resonance frequency of each cavity; parameters are set for having the emission of the VCSEL resonant with the RSAM. The light emitted by the VCSEL is collected by a large numerical aperture (0.68) aspheric lens and a similar lens is placed in front of the RSAM. A $10\,\%$ reflection beam splitter allows for light extraction from the external cavity and to monitor both the VCSEL and the RSAM outputs. Intensity output is monitored by a $33\,$GHz oscilloscope coupled with fast $10\,$GHz detector. Part of the light is sent to two CCD cameras; the first one records the near-field profile of the VCSEL, while the second records the VCSEL’s far-field profile. The light reflected by the RSAM is also used for monitoring and a third CCD camera records the light on the RSAM surface. The external cavity length is fixed to $L=30\,$cm. One of the most important parameters for achieving mode-locking in this setup is the imaging condition of the VCSEL onto the RSAM. We obtain mode-locking when the RSAM is placed in the plane where the exact Fourier transform of the VCSEL near-field occurs. This working condition is obtained by imaging the VCSEL near-field profile onto the front focal plane of the aspheric lens placed in front of the RSAM, while the RSAM is placed onto the back focal plane of this lens. We remark that this leads to a non-local feedback from the RSAM onto the VCSEL: if the RSAM were a normal mirror, the VCSEL near-field profile would be inversely imaged onto itself after a cavity round-trip.
Panel a) in Fig. \[modelocking\] displays the time trace of the VCSEL in the mode-locking regime which consists of a regular train of pulses with a period equal to the round-trip time in the external cavity $\tau_{e}=2L/c=2\,$ns. The pulse width cannot be determined from the oscilloscope traces, which are limited by our real-time detection system ($10\,$GHz effective bandwidth). However, an estimate of the pulse width can be obtained from the optical spectrum of the output, which exhibits a broad spectral peak whose FWHM is around $0.12\,$nm that corresponds, assuming a time-bandwidth product of $0.4$, to a pulse width of $10\,$ps FWHM. The pulse was also detected by a 42 GHz detector, which confirms a pulse width of less than $12\,$ps FWHM considering the oscilloscope bandwidth limit.
Panels b) and c) in Fig. \[modelocking\] show the time-averaged near-field and far-field profiles of the VCSEL, respectively. In addition, we verified that the image of the RSAM surface (not shown) is very similar to Fig. \[modelocking\]c), thus revealing that the RSAM is effectively placed in the Fourier plane of the VCSEL’s near-field. The far-field of the VCSEL exhibits two bright, off-axis spots that indicate the presence of two counter-propagating tilted waves along the cross section of the VCSEL. The transverse wave vector of each of these waves is related in direction and modulus to the position of the spots, and their symmetry with respect to the optical axis indicates that the two transverse wave vectors are one opposite to the other.
![Temporal signal obtained when detecting simultaneously the two spots (panel a) of the far-field emission of the VCSEL or a single spot (panel b). The insets represent the detected spots in the far-field. \[twospots\] ](Fig3bis){width="8.5cm"}
Remarkably, however, no interference pattern is visible in the near-field emission of the VCSEL. The concentric rings close to the limit of the VCSEL arise from current crowding [@BLA-PRE-04] and do not contribute significantly to the bright spots in the far-field, as it was verified by filtering them out. The lack of interference pattern between the counter-propagating waves in the time-averaged near field implies that these waves are not simultaneously present; they rather should alternate each other in time. This is apparent in Fig. \[twospots\], where the time trace obtained from the whole far-field is compared to the one obtained by detecting only one of the two bright spots. While the former trace has the characteristics discussed above, the latter trace consists of a periodic train of pulses at a period $2\tau_{e}$. Thus the trace from the whole far-field is obtained by interleaving two identical pulse trains of period $2\tau_{e}$ with a time delay $\tau_{e}$ one with respect to the other, each train corresponding to a tilted wave with opposite transverse wave vector.
This mode-locked dynamics does not depend critically on the transverse wave vector value selected by the system. Such value can be modified by shifting the RSAM device laterally (i.e. along the back focal plane of its collimating lens) or slightly displacing the collimating lens off the axis defined by the centers of the VCSEL and the RSAM. The change in selected transverse wave vector is evidenced by the variations in the separation between the two spots on the RSAM mirror, as shown in Fig. \[tilted\_ML\]. The position of each spot on the RSAM with respect to the optical axis is related to the transverse wave vector $\vec{K}_{\bot}=\vec{K}-\vec{K}_{0}$ of the plane wave by $$\vec{r}_{s}=\lambda f\frac{\vec{K}_{\bot}}{2\pi}\;,$$ where $f$ is the focal length of the lens in front of the RSAM, $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the light, $\vec{K}$ is the wave vector emitted by the VCSEL while $\vec{K}_{0}$ is its component along the cavity axis. Although substantial changes in emission wavelength —over 4 nm tuning— can be induced in this way, it is observed that within a wide parameter range, the temporal characteristics of the pulse train do not change. This fact opens very interesting possibilities in terms of wavelength tuning and of beam stirring of a mode-locked emission. The only noticeable effect of varying the position of the spot is a slight reduction of the pulse peak power. We attribute this effect to the increased losses experienced in the external cavity by wave vectors with large $K_{\bot}$ as a result of the DBRs reflectivity angular dependence and/or the finite numerical aperture of the collimating lenses. This point will be further discussed in the theoretical section.
Beyond the maximal separation of the two spots on the RSAM shown in Fig. \[tilted\_ML\], mode-locking is suddenly lost. Importantly, mode-locking strongly deteriorates in regularity when the two spots are brought to coincide, leading, in some cases, to CW emission. Hence, in our setup, regular mode-locking was not achieved with $K_{\perp}\simeq0$, i.e. for a plane-wave emission almost parallel to the optical axis of the VCSEL.
The mode-locking regime is stable in a very broad range of the VCSEL current, namely $285\,$mA$<J<703\,$mA. If the bias current is varied within this range while keeping the alignment, the separation of the two bright spots in the far-field profile remains constant, see Fig. \[vsJ\]. However the spectral peak corresponding to the mode-locking emission redshifts from 976 nm ($J=285\,$mA) up to 978 nm ($J=703\,$mA) due to Joule heating of the VCSEL. Therefore, the selection of $K_{\bot}$ does not depend on the detuning between the two cavities, at least in the range spanned.
We also found that, for the external cavity length considered, the PML regime is bistable with the off solution for $J<J_{st}$, see [@MJB-PRL-14] for details. In these conditions and after setting the system in the off solution, we were able to start PML emission by perturbing optically the RSAM section at the point where one of the two spots appears when the system operates in the PML regime. The local perturbation has been realized by injecting an external coherent beam tuned with the RSAM cavity resonance and having a waist diameter of less than $10\,\mu$m.
![Off-axis position of a single spot in the far-field profile as a function of the spectral emission peak of the VCSEL. Far-field profile is shown for a discrete number of points in the graph. VCSEL emission is in the mode-locking regime for all green points of the graph while the one at the highest wavelength, where a single on-axis spot appears in the far-field profile, corresponds to an irregular dynamics. VCSEL is biased at 700 mA. The transverse wave vector is selected by laterally shifting the RSAM along the back focal plane of its collimating lens. The large size of the RSAM section ( $4\times4\,$mm) with respect to the far-field size (0.7 mm at most) renders this operation feasible. The blue line has been obtained plotting $r_{s}=\frac{\lambda_{0}f}{2\pi}\sqrt{\lambda^{-2}-\lambda_{0}^{-2}}$, with $\lambda_{0}=978.65\,$nm and $f=8\,$mm. A similar tuning curve is obtained by laterally shifting the collimating lens of the RSAM. \[tilted\_ML\] ](Fig4){width="8.5cm"}
![VCSEL time traces emission and corresponding far-field emission profile in the mode-locking regime for two values of the VCSEL bias. The upper and the lower panels correspond to $J=703\,$mA and $J=285\,$mA. \[vsJ\] ](Fig5){width="8.5cm"}
Discussion of the experimental evidences
========================================
These observations disclose a possible explanation about the emergence of the mode-locking regime in our system. From the dynamical point of view, mode-locking is favored when the saturable absorber is more easily saturated than the amplifier [@haus00rev]. In our scheme, this is achieved when the VCSEL emits a tilted plane wave, which imposes a low power density (hence low saturation) in the gain section and, at the same time, a strong local saturation of the RSAM. The reason is that the VCSEL and the RSAM lie one into the Fourier plane of the other and in these conditions any plane wave emitted by the VCSEL yields a spot on the RSAM and vice-versa. On the other hand, the unsaturated reflectivity of the RSAM is very low ($\sim1\,\%$) at resonance, rising up to $\sim60\,\%$ when fully saturated. Hence, if the VCSEL emits a pulse in the form of a plane wave with a transverse wave vector $\vec{K}_{\bot}$, all the power will concentrate on a single spot at $\vec{r}_{s}$ on the RSAM, hereby strongly saturating the RSAM which becomes reflective. The light thus comes back to the VCSEL, where it arrives with a transverse component $-\vec{K}_{\bot}$. Upon amplification and reflection at the VCSEL, the process repeats for this plane wave with opposite transverse wave vector, which is now imaged onto the RSAM at $-\vec{r}_{s}$. Thus, after two round-trips the original wave at $\vec{K}_{\bot}$ overlaps with itself, leading to a pulse train at twice the round-trip time for this wave which is alternating in time with a delay of one round-trip with its replica at $-\vec{K}_{\bot}$.
This explains the observed dynamics, and also the lack of interference pattern in the form of rolls in the VCSEL near-field: even if two tilted waves are propagating within the VCSEL resonator, they alternate in time with a delay of one round-trip in the external cavity, so that they never coexist and do not yield the expected interference pattern. The two spots appearing simultaneously in the far-field (i.e. over the RSAM) are only an artifact of the time-averaging operated by the CCD camera. At variance with tilted waves leading to narrow spots onto the RSAM, the flower mode present on the external frontier of the VCSEL does not contribute to PML. In fact, the Fourier Transform of such flower mode is a radial Bessel function of large order $\sim J_{m}\left(r\right)$ with $m\gg1$, which corresponds to an extended ring profile. In this case, the power density on the RSAM remains always below the saturation fluence of the RSAM.
While the above scenario is valid for a large interval of values of the transverse wave vector $\vec{K}_{\bot}$, experimental results show that the system selects a well-defined value when operating in the PML regime. In principle, this selection may arise from several factors. On the one hand, both the VCSEL and the RSAM are Fabry-Perot cavities defined by Bragg mirrors which complex reflectivity have an angular dependence. Moreover, the reflectivity of a Fabry-Perot cavity depends not only on the wavelength but also on the angle of incidence of the light, and the resonant wavelength of the cavity blue-shifts as the incidence angle increases. This effect can be further enhanced in our system due to the compound-cavity effect. Nevertheless, experimental evidences shown in Fig. \[vsJ\], where the VCSEL cavity resonance is varied over 2 nm while leaving the transverse wave vector unchanged, seems to indicate that cavities detuning do not play an important role in selecting the value of $\vec{K}_{\bot}.$ This can be understood when considering that the FWHM bandwidth of the RSAM absorption curve (16 nm) is much larger than the VCSEL one (1 nm).
On the other hand, wave vector selectivity may also arise from any imperfections on the RSAM/VCSEL mirrors that break the spatial invariance. State-of-the-art fabrication process does not fully prevent from formation of small size (a few $\mu$m) defects in the transverse plane of semiconductor micro-resonators. These are in general local spatial variations of the semiconductor resonator characteristics [@OKS-OQEL-92], which in the case of RSAM would be mainly related to a local variation of unsaturated reflectivity. Visual inspection of the reflection profile of a transversally homogeneous injected monochromatic field onto several used RSAMs has indeed shown the existence of these local variations. **** Such inhomogeneities on the RSAM surface may correspond to locations where the RSAM exhibits a lower unsaturated reflectivity, hence leading the system to select the tilted wave which image on the RSAM surface coincide with one of these defect. By laterally shifting the RSAM along the back focal plane of its collimating lens, the position of the defect changes in the far-field plane, thus selecting a tilted wave with another transverse wave vector component. This leads to a continuous scan of the distance between the two spots in the far-field, as shown in Fig. \[tilted\_ML\] and a corresponding change of the emission wavelength, as expected for tilted waves. The experimental evidence of Fig. \[tilted\_ML\] seems to indicate that, in our system, the presence of these inhomogeneities is ruling the selection of the transverse wave vector. The role of small imperfections in the RSAM structure in the transverse wave vector selection is confirmed by the theoretical results in the next section.
Theoretical results
===================
Our model for the dynamical evolution of the fields $E_{j}$ and the normalized carrier density $N_{j}$ in the quantum well (QW) regions of the VCSEL $(j=1)$ and the RSAM $(j=2)$ is deduced in detail in the appendix, and it reads $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{E}_{1} & \negthickspace\negthickspace=\negthickspace\negthickspace & \left[\left(1-i\alpha_{1}\right)N_{1}-1+i\Delta_{\perp}+c_{1}\Delta_{\perp}^{2}\right]E_{1}+h_{1}Y_{1},\label{eq:E1}\\
\dot{E}_{2} & \negthickspace\negthickspace=\negthickspace\negthickspace & \left[\left(1-i\alpha_{2}\right)N_{2}-z+ib\Delta_{\perp}+c_{2}\Delta_{\perp}^{2}\right]E_{2}+h_{2}Y_{2},\label{eq:E2}\\
\dot{N}_{1} & \negthickspace\negthickspace=\negthickspace\negthickspace & \gamma_{1}\left[J_{1}-\left(1+\vert E_{1}\vert^{2}\right)N_{1}\right]+\mathcal{D}_{1}\Delta_{\perp}N_{1},\label{eq:D1}\\
\dot{N}_{2} & \negthickspace\negthickspace=\negthickspace\negthickspace & \gamma_{2}\left[J_{2}-\left(1+s\vert E_{2}\vert^{2}\right)N_{2}\right]+\mathcal{D}_{2}\Delta_{\perp}N_{2},\label{eq:D2}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_{\perp}=\partial_{x}^{2}+\partial_{y}^{2}$ is the transverse Laplacian and $Y_{j}$ denotes the field injected in device $j$. In Eqs. (\[eq:E1\]-\[eq:D2\]) time and space are normalized to the photon lifetime $\kappa_{1}^{-1}$ and the diffraction length in the VCSEL $L_{d}$, respectively. The complex parameter $z$ is decomposed as $z=a-i\delta$ where $a$ represents the ratio of the photon decay rates between the VCSEL and the RSAM cavities and $\delta$ is the scaled detuning between the two cavity resonances. The scaled carrier recovery rates and the biases are denoted $\gamma_{j}$ and $J_{j}$ respectively. We define the ratio of the saturation intensities of the VCSEL and the RSAM as $s$. The angular dependence from the reflectivity of the DBR mirrors as well as the one stemming from the Fabry-Perot cavities are contained in the transverse Laplacian and the parameters $c_{1,2}.$ The RSAM being a broadband fast absorber, it is characterized by $J_{2}<0$, $\gamma_{2}\gg\gamma_{1}$, $a\gg1$ as well as $s\gg1$.
### Injected fields and device coupling
In the case of a self-imaging configuration, the link between the two devices is achieved by expressing the emitted fields $O_{j}$ as a combination of the reflection of the injection fields $Y_{j}$ and the self-emission $E_{j}$, which reads $$O_{j}\left(r,t\right)=\eta_{j}E_{j}\left(r,t\right)-Y_{j}\left(r,t\right),\label{eq:output_field}$$ where we defined $\eta_{j}=t_{1}^{j}/\left(1+r_{1}^{j}\right)$ with $t_{1}^{j}$ and $r_{1}^{j}$ the transmission and reflection coefficients in amplitude of the emitting DBR from the inside to the outside of the cavity. Considering the propagation delay and the losses incurred by the beam-splitter allowing for the light extraction, the link between the two devices in ensured by the following two delayed Algebraic Equations [@JB-OE-12] $$Y_{1}\left(r,t\right)=t_{bs}O_{2}\left(r,t-\tau_{e}\right),Y_{2}\left(r,t\right)=t_{bs}O_{1}\left(r,t-\tau_{e}\right),$$ with $t_{bs}$ a complex number whose modulus and phase model the losses induced by the beam-splitter and the single trip feedback phase, respectively.
However, the image of the VCSEL through its collimator is placed exactly at the object focal plane of the collimator in front of the RSAM. In turn, the RSAM is on the image focal plane of its collimator. In this configuration, and assuming that the collimators have a large diameter, the field injected in one device is the (delayed) Fourier transform in space of the field coming from the other, which is modelized via Kirchhoff’s formula for a lens with focal length $f$ as $$\begin{aligned}
Y_{1}(r,t) & \negthickspace\negthickspace=\negthickspace\negthickspace & t_{bs}\int\, O_{2}(r^{'},t-\tau_{e})e^{-i\frac{\omega_{0}}{c}\frac{r\text{\ensuremath{\cdot}r'}}{f}}d^{2}r'\equiv\mathcal{F}_{\tau}(O_{2})\label{eq:Y1}\\
Y_{2}(r,t) & \negthickspace\negthickspace=\negthickspace\negthickspace & t_{bs}\int\, O_{1}(r^{'},t-\tau_{e})e^{-i\frac{\omega_{0}}{c}\frac{r\text{\ensuremath{\cdot}r'}}{f}}d^{2}r'\equiv\mathcal{F}_{\tau}(O_{1})\label{eq:Y2}\end{aligned}$$
and where the beam-splitter losses may contain a normalization constant due to the Kirchhoff’s integral. It is worth remarking that Eqs. (\[eq:Y1\]-\[eq:Y2\]) describe the coupling of the two devices to all orders of reflection in the external cavity. They define a delayed map where the field injected into one device returns inverted. This can be seen, for instance, using Eq. (\[eq:output\_field\]) and saying that the RSAM has an effective reflectivity such that $O_{j}=r_{eff}Y_{j}$ and substituting in Eq. (\[eq:Y1\]), which yields $$Y_{1}(r_{\perp},t)=\mu E_{1}(-r_{\perp},t-2\tau)$$ where we have used that $\mathcal{F}_{\tau}\circ\mathcal{F}_{\tau}\left[Y_{2}\right]=\alpha Y_{2}\left(-r_{\perp},t-2\tau\right)$ and $\mu$ = t$_{bs}^{2}r_{eff}$ describes the combined effect of the beam splitter and of the RSAM reflection. Thus, after one round-trip, $Y_{1}$ overlaps with a spatially reversed copy of itself, and it requires a second round-trip to achieve proper overlap.
### Parameters
The reflectivities of the DBRs in the VCSEL and the RSAM are taken as $\left(r_{1}^{\left(1\right)},r_{2}^{\left(1\right)}\right)=\left(\sqrt{0.942},1\right)$ and $\left(r_{1}^{\left(2\right)},r_{2}^{\left(2\right)}\right)=\left(\sqrt{0.59},1\right)$. We assume that the single trip in the VCSEL and the RSAM is $\tau=30\,$fs corresponding to an effective length $L_{z}=2.6\,\mu$m with a index of $n=3.5$. This gives us $\kappa_{1}=10^{12}\,$rad.s$^{-1}$ and $\kappa_{2}=10^{13}\,$rad.s$^{-1}$, yielding a FWHM for the resonances of $\Delta\lambda_{j}=\kappa_{j}\lambda_{0}^{2}/\left(\pi c\right)$ of $1\,$nm and $10\,$nm respectively. Incidentally, we find that $a=10$ and $\left(h_{1},h_{2}\right)=\left(2,20\right)$. The diffraction length is found to be $L_{d}=\sqrt{L_{z}\left[q_{0}\left(1-r_{1}r_{2}\right)\right]^{-1}}=2\,\mu$m. We define two numerical domains which are twice the size of the VCSEL and of the RSAM which have both a normalized length $L_{\perp}=200$. The other parameters are $\alpha_{1}=2$, $\alpha_{2}=0.5$, $b=10^{-2}$,$\gamma_{1}=10^{-3}$, $\gamma_{2}=0.1$, $s=10$, $t_{bs}=0.9$, $\mathcal{D}_{1}=\mathcal{D}_{2}=10^{-3}$ $c_{1}=10^{-2}$ and $c_{2}=10^{-6}.$
### Numerical considerations
The simulation of PML lasers is a very demanding problem from the computational point of view: while pulses may form on a relatively short time scale of a few tens of round-trips, the pulse characteristics only settle on a much longer time scale [@JB-JQE-10]. If anything, the complex transverse dynamics present in our case shall slow down the dynamics even further. Considering a delay of $\tau_{e}=2\,$ns and a time step of $\delta t=10^{-2}$ implies that one must keep four memory buffers for $E_{j}$ and $Y_{j}$ of size $\left(\tau_{e}\kappa_{1}/\delta t\right)N_{x}N_{y}\sim2\times10^{3}N_{x}N_{y}$ with $N_{x}$ and $N_{y}$ the number of mesh points in the two transverse directions. This amounts to $32\,$Gigabytes with $N_{x}=N_{y}=512$. Notice in addition that such values of $N_{x,y}$ are not particularly large if one considers that only half of the mesh discretization in the VCSEL is electrically pumped, the rest being used only for letting the field decay to zero and prevent aliasing, a common problem with spectral methods in broad-area lasers, see for instance [@PJB-JSTQE-13] for a discussion. The time step of $\delta t=10^{-2}$ is neither particularly small if one considers the stiffness incurred by the RSAM response. For these reasons we restrict our analysis to a single transverse dimension. We believe that the main spatial feature being lost by such simplification is the description of the non mode-locked two dimensional radial flower mode [@BLA-PRE-04] on the border of the VCSEL, which has already been qualitatively discussed. To conclude, for the sake of simplicity, we used a time delay of $\tau_{e}=200\,$ps (instead of $1\,$ns) to avoid the temporal complexity of our setup (leading to localized structures, as discussed in [@MJB-PRL-14]), and to concentrate only on the spatial aspects of the problem. We integrated numerically Eqs. (\[eq:E1\]-\[eq:D2\]) using a semi-implicit split-step method where the spatial operators are integrated using the Fourier Transform. Such semi-implicit method is particularly appropriate to the stiffness induced by the broad response of the RSAM. The simulation time was $500$ single-trips in the external cavity, i.e. $100\,$ns.
### RSAM characteristics
![Reflectivity as a function of the input field intensity (left) for various values of the wavelength, the resonance being chosen to be $\lambda_{0}=980\,$nm and (right) reflectivity as a function of wavelength for increasing input power. \[RSAM\_theo\] ](RSAM_theo){width="50.00000%"}
The basic properties of the RSAM can be found assuming an incoming plane wave of amplitude $Y$ at normal incidence and at frequency $\omega$ i.e. $Y_{2}=Y\exp\left(-i\omega t\right)$. The response of the RSAM is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\left(z-i\omega-\frac{J_{2}\left(1-i\alpha_{2}\right)}{1+s|E_{2}|^{2}}\right)E_{2} & = & h_{2}Y.\label{eq:RSAM}\end{aligned}$$
The effective reflectivities are obtained setting $O_{2}=rY_{2}$ that is to say $r=E_{2}/Y_{2}-1$ yielding the unsaturated and saturated responses as $$r_{u}=\frac{h_{2}-z+i\omega+J_{2}\left(1-i\alpha_{2}\right)}{z-i\omega-J_{2}\left(1-i\alpha_{2}\right)},r_{s}=\frac{h_{2}-z+i\omega}{z-i\omega}.$$
By choosing $J_{2}=a-h_{2}$ we obtain a perfectly absorbing RSAM, i.e. $r_{u}=0$ at the frequency $\omega=\delta+\alpha\left(a-h_{2}\right)$. In between these unsaturated and saturated regimes, the effective reflectivity can be obtained by solving Eq. (\[eq:RSAM\]) numerically. We represent the results of this procedure for $R=\left|r\right|^{2}$ in Fig. \[RSAM\_theo\].
### Defect in the RSAM surface
We assume that the impurity on the RSAM surface has the effect of locally lowering the reflectivity of the top mirror. As such the parameters $a$ and $h_{2}$ are allowed to vary in the transverse dimension. A decrease of $r_{1}^{\left(2\right)}$of $0.1$ modifies $a$ and $h_{2}$ to be $a=12$ and $h_{2}=24$. We assume a Gaussian profile for such transverse variations whose FWHM is $\sim5\,\mu$m.
Mode-Locking dynamics
---------------------
![Panels a) and b): Averaged Intensity profile $I_{1}$ as a function of time showing stable PML. Panels c) and d) represent the averaged population inversion in the VCSEL and in the RSAM as a function of time. \[PML\_theo-1\] ](PML_theo1){width="45.00000%"}
The bias current is fixed to $J_{1}=0.92$, i.e. below the threshold of the solitary VCSEL but above the threshold of the compound device. We depict in Fig. \[PML\_theo-1\], the output time trace for the intensity averaged over the surface of the VCSEL as well as the averaged population inversion in the active region of the VCSEL and in the RSAM. One recognizes the standard PML temporal pattern where the gain experiences depletion during the passing of the pulse followed by an exponential recovery. The same yet inverted pattern is also visible on the RSAM population inversion. We found the pulse width to be of the order of $4\,$ps, in good qualitative agreement with the experimental results.
![Panel a): Phase profile of $E_{1}$ as a function of space and time. A tilted wave with alternate wave vector from one round-trip to the next is clearly visible. Panel b) Intensity profile of $E_{1}$ showing that the transverse intensity profile is uniform. Panel c): Population inversion in the RSAM. The FWHM size of the population inversion spot is $\sim6\,\mu$m and the RSAM is fully saturated locally by the pulse. \[PML\_theo-2\] ](PML_theo2){width="45.00000%"}
Such averaged representation describes well the experimental situation when the full output of the VCSEL is captured by the photo-detector. Yet it does not shed light onto the hidden transverse dynamics. We represent in Fig. \[PML\_theo-2\] the spatially resolved temporal output of the VCSEL. In Fig. \[PML\_theo-2\]a) the phase profile $\phi_{1}=\arg\left(E_{1}\right)$ discloses the existence of alternate transverse waves while the intensity profile in Fig. \[PML\_theo-2\]b) remains uniform. Such field profile directly impings the RSAM via its Fourier Transform which explains that the temporal time trace of population inversion in the RSAM (Fig. \[PML\_theo-2\]c)) exhibits two spots at two opposite locations with respect to its center. In Fig. \[PML\_theo-2\]c) we represented the center of the pinning potential with a dotted line while the two white lines represent its FWHM. The horizontal axis in Fig. \[PML\_theo-2\]c) is scaled in normalized spatial frequencies. The transverse value of the wave vector here is $\sim16$ which corresponds to $8$ transverse oscillations along the active region of the VCSEL, i.e. a wavelength of $\sim25\,\mu$m.
We found that by slowly displacing the center of the pinning potential it was possible to tune the normalized transverse wave vector between $q_{x}L=0$ and $q_{x}L=36$, which corresponds to a minimal wavelength of $11\,\mu$m. The associated shift in the emission wavelength is $\sim4\,$nm around $980\,$nm, in excellent agreement with the experimental results. Several points along such tuning curve are presented in Fig. \[PML\_theo-3\]. All cases correspond to stable PML regimes that would seem to be almost identical if one would considers only the averaged temporal output like e.g. in Fig. \[PML\_theo-1\]. Noteworthy, we also found some perfectly regular PML regimes when the inhomogeneity was located at the center of the RSAM. We provide several explanations for such discrepancy. First, the dissipation of the energy and of the associated heat incurred by the light absorption is doubled when the two spots are well separated onto the RSAM. Such thermal effects are not taken in consideration by our model. Second, other spatial inhomogeneities, these ones detrimental to PML, could very well be located on the sides of the pinning defect favoring PML. When the two spots become less and less separated experimentally, the spot that is not experiencing the pinning defect (i.e. the left spot in Fig. \[PML\_theo-3\]) will eventually be the victim of such other detrimental inhomogeneities.
![Evolution of the transverse wave vector as a function of the position of the pinning potential. Panels a1), b1) and c1) correspond to the population inversion in the RSAM while the panels a2), b2) and c2) correspond to the real part of $E_{1}$. The FWHM size of the population inversion spot in the RSAM corresponds to $\sim6\,\mu$m and the RSAM is fully saturated locally by the pulse.\[PML\_theo-3\] ](PML_theo3){width="50.00000%"}
Conclusions
===========
We have shown that electrically biased broad-area VCSELs with optical feedback from a RSAM can be passively mode-locked when the VCSEL and RSAM are placed each at the Fourier plane of the other. In this configuration, the system emits a train of pulses of $\sim10\,$ps width with a period equal to the round-trip time of the external cavity $\tau_{e}$. In this PML regime the time-averaged VCSEL far-field, which is imaged onto RSAM plane, exhibits two bright peaks symmetrically located around the optical axis, thus indicating that the VCSEL emits two tilted waves with opposite transverse components. The time traces corresponding to each spot consist of a pulse train with a period $2\tau_{e}$, and the two trains are delayed by one round-trip one with respect to the other. Accordingly, the two tilted waves are alternatively emitted at every round-trip. We have shown that the mechanism leading to wave vector selection is related to the existence of inhomogeneities in the transverse section of the RSAM. Because the RSAM is in the Fourier plane of the VCSEL near-field, a defect may favor a tilted wave emission with a well-defined transverse component. By shifting the RSAM laterally, the defect moves in the Fourier plane, thus selecting another transverse wave vector and allowing for wavelength tuning of the mode-locked emission.
Appendix
========
Our approach extends the methodology developed in [@MB-JQE-05] for single-mode VCSELs under optical injection to the case of broad-area devices. The Quantum-Well active region is considered as infinitely thin, and the wave equation is exactly solved inside the cavity for monochromatic plane-waves. Transforming back to a spatio-temporal representation provides the time-domain evolution of the field inside cavity. Finally, the coupling of the two cavities is included by describing how the injection terms depend on the intra-cavity fields.
The starting point is the scalar Maxwell equation for a monochromatic field as in [@MB-JQE-05] $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\partial_{z}^{2}+\Delta_{\perp}\right)\mathcal{E}\left(\omega,\vec{r}\right)+\frac{\omega^{2}}{\upsilon^{2}}\mathcal{E}\left(\omega,\vec{r}\right) & \negthickspace\negthickspace=\negthickspace\negthickspace & \frac{-\omega^{2}}{c^{2}\varepsilon_{0}}\mathcal{P}\left(\omega,\vec{r}\right)\,,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_{\perp}=\partial_{x}^{2}+\partial_{y}^{2}$, $\mathcal{P}$ is the polarization of the QW active region and $\upsilon=c/n$ with $n$ the index of refraction. In the longitudinal direction, the cavity is defined by two Bragg mirrors at $z=0$ and $z=L$.
Fourier transforming over the transverse coordinates yields $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\partial_{z}^{2}+\frac{\omega^{2}}{\upsilon^{2}}-q_{\perp}^{2}\right)\mathcal{E}\left(\omega,q_{\perp},z\right) & \negthickspace\negthickspace\negthickspace=\negthickspace\negthickspace\negthickspace & \frac{-\omega^{2}W}{c^{2}\varepsilon_{0}}P\left(\omega,q_{\perp}\right)\delta_{l}.\label{eq:MAX}\end{aligned}$$ We assumed that the Quantum Well(s) of width $W\ll\lambda$ are located at $z=l$ and defined $\delta_{l}=\delta\left(z-l\right)$. In the empty regions where there is no polarization the solution of Eq. (\[eq:MAX\]) reads $$\mathcal{E}\left(\omega,q_{\perp},z\right)=\begin{cases}
L_{+}e^{iQz}+L_{-}e^{-iQz} & \mbox{if }0<z<l\\
R_{+}e^{iQz}+R_{-}e^{-iQz} & \mbox{if }l<z<L
\end{cases}$$ where the longitudinal wave vector $Q\left(q_{\perp},\omega\right)=\sqrt{\frac{\omega^{2}}{\upsilon^{2}}-q_{\perp}^{2}}$ . The boundary conditions at the mirrors and at the QW impose that $$\begin{aligned}
r_{1}L_{-}+t_{1}^{'}Y & = & L_{+}\\
r_{2}R_{+}e^{iQL} & = & R_{-}e^{-iQL}\\
L\left(l\right) & = & R\left(l\right)=\mathcal{E}\left(\omega,q_{\perp},l\right)\\
\partial_{z}R\left(l\right)-\partial_{z}L\left(l\right) & = & -\frac{\omega^{2}}{\varepsilon_{0}c^{2}}P\end{aligned}$$ where the primed indexes are for transmission and reflection processes starting outside of the cavity, $r_{1}$ and $r_{2}$ the top (emitting) and bottom reflectivities and $Y$ is the amplitude of the external field impinging on the device. After some algebra the equation linking $\mathcal{E}$, $P$ and $Y$ is found to be $$\begin{aligned}
F_{1}\left(Q\right)\mathcal{E} & = & -\frac{\omega^{2}}{2iQ\varepsilon_{0}c^{2}}\Gamma WP+F_{2}\left(Q\right)Y\label{eq:EY}\end{aligned}$$ with $$F_{1}=\left(1-r_{1}r_{2}e^{2iQL}\right),\, F_{2}=t'_{1}e^{iQl}\left(1+r_{2}e^{2iQ\left(L-l\right)}\right).$$
The modes of the VCSEL correspond to the minima of $F_{1}$, and the QW is placed in order to maximize the optical confinement factor $\Gamma=\left(1+r_{1}e^{2iQl}\right)\left(1+r_{2}e^{2iQ\left(L-l\right)}\right)$ for the fundamental mode at $q_{\perp}=0$. For fixed magnitude of the reflectivities, this is achieved by imposing that $$2\frac{\omega}{\upsilon}l+\phi_{1}=2\pi n_{1},\,2\frac{\omega}{\upsilon}(L-l)+\phi_{2}=2\pi n_{2}$$
where $\phi_{1,2}$ are the phases of the reflectivities $r_{1,2}$ and $n_{1}$and $n_{2}$ two integers. Thus the modal frequencies are determined by the effective cavity length $L_{e}=L+2\upsilon\left(\phi_{1}+\phi_{2}\right)/\omega$. Around any modal frequency $\omega_{0}$, and in paraxial conditions, $F_{2}$ and $\Gamma/Q$ vary much more slowly than $F_{1}$. In order to have a spatio-temporal description of the dynamics of the field, we then fix $\Gamma/Q$ and $F_{2}$ and expand $$F_{1}=F_{1}^{0}+(\omega-\omega_{0})\partial_{\omega}F_{1}+q_{\perp}^{2}\partial_{q_{\perp}^{2}}F_{1}+\cdots$$
and transform back to space and time using that $\omega\rightarrow\omega_{0}+i\partial_{t}$ and $q_{\perp}^{2}\rightarrow-\Delta_{\perp}$. Since $F_{1}$ is at a minimum of its modulus, $\partial_{\omega}F_{1}$ is purely imaginary, and the field evolution can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\tau_{c}\frac{d\mathcal{E}}{dt} & = & i\frac{\omega_{0}\Gamma W}{2n\varepsilon_{0}c}P-\kappa\tau_{c}\mathcal{E}+iL_{diff}^{2}\Delta_{\perp}\mathcal{E}\nonumber \\
& + & t_{1}^{'}(1+\vert r_{2}\vert)\left(-1\right)^{m}Y+C\Delta_{\perp}^{2}\mathcal{E}\end{aligned}$$
where $\tau_{c}\approx\vert r_{1}r_{2}\vert2L_{e}/v$ is the effective cavity transit time, $\kappa\approx1-\vert r_{1}r_{2}\vert$ are the cavity losses under normal incidence at resonance, $L_{diff}\approx\vert r_{1}r_{2}\vert\frac{2\upsilon\partial_{q_{\perp}^{2}}L_{e}}{\omega_{0}}$ is the diffraction length, and $C$ describes the variation of cavity losses with the angle of incidence.
The polarization of the QW active region determines the gain and index change induced by the carriers, and we adopt the simple adiabatic approximation $$P=\varepsilon_{0}(\alpha-i)g_{0}(N-N_{t})E$$ where $\alpha$ is Henry’s linewidth enhancement factor, $g_{0}$ is the material gain coefficient and $N_{t}$ is the transparency carrier density. The carrier density, in turn, obeys the standard description as in [@MB-JQE-05]. Upon normalization, the evolution for the field and carrier density can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\partial E}{\partial t} & = & \left[\left(1-i\alpha\right)N-1+i\Delta_{\perp}+c\Delta_{\perp}^{2}\right]E+hY,\label{eq:E1-1}\\
\frac{\partial N}{\partial t} & = & \gamma\left[J-\left(1+\vert E\vert^{2}\right)N\right]+\mathcal{D}\Delta_{\perp}N,\label{eq:D1-1}\end{aligned}$$
where $\gamma$ is the scaled carrier lifetime, $J$ is the current injection above transparency, $\mathcal{D}$ is the diffusion coefficient and $h$ describes the coupling of the output field onto the QW and reads $$\begin{aligned}
h & = & t_{1}^{'}\frac{1+r_{2}}{1-r_{1}r_{2}}\end{aligned}$$
As a last step, we evaluate the field at the laser output $O$ as a combination of the reflection of the injected beam $r_{1}^{'}Y$ as well as transmission of the left intra-cavity propagating field $L_{-}$, i.e. $O=t_{1}L_{-}+r_{1}^{'}Y$. Around resonance and using the Stokes relations $tt'-rr'=1$ and $r'=-r$ we find, defining $\eta=t_{1}/\left(1+r_{1}\right)$ $$\begin{aligned}
O & = & \eta\left(-1\right)^{m}\mathcal{E}-Y\end{aligned}$$ although the $\left(-1\right)^{m}$ is irrelevant in the sense that the QW experiences also a field with a $\left(-1\right)^{m}$ which can therefore be removed. In the case of two devices, we scale the photon lifetime, the coupling and the saturation field with respect to the first one leading to the following definitions $$h_{2}=t_{3}^{'}\frac{1+r_{4}}{1-r_{1}r_{2}}\frac{r_{1}r_{2}}{r_{3}r_{4}}\:,\: a=\frac{1-r_{3}r_{4}}{1-r_{1}r_{2}}\frac{r_{1}r_{2}}{r_{3}r_{4}}\:,\: b=\frac{r_{1}r_{2}}{r_{3}r_{4}}$$
and $s=\left(g_{2}\gamma_{1}\right)/\left(g_{1}\gamma_{2}\right)$.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
J.J. acknowledges financial support from the Ramon y Cajal fellowship and the CNRS for supporting a visit at the INLN where part of his work was developed. J.J. and S.B. acknowledge financial support from project RANGER (TEC2012-38864-C03-01) and from the Direcció General de Recerca, Desenvolupament Tecnològic i Innovació de la Conselleria dInnovació, Interior i Justícia del Govern de les Illes Balears co-funded by the European Union FEDER funds. M.M. and M.G. acknowledge funding of Région PACA with the Projet Volet Général 2011 GEDEPULSE.
[Mathias Marconi]{} was born in Nice, France, in 1988. From 2006 to 2011, he was a student at Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis (UNS), France. In 2011, he was an exchange student at Strathclyde university, Glasgow, U.K. The same year he obtained the Master degree in optics from UNS. He is currently pursuing the Ph.D. degree at the Institut Non-linéaire de Nice, Valbonne, France. His research interests include semiconductor laser dynamics and pattern formation in out of equilibrium systems. He is a member of the European Physical Society.
[Julien Javaloyes]{} (M11) was born in Antibes, France in 1977. He obtained his M.Sc. in Physics at the ENS Lyon the PhD in Physics at the Institut Non Linéaire de Nice / Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis working on recoil induced instabilities and self-organization processes in cold atoms. He worked on delay induced dynamics in coupled semiconductor lasers, VCSEL polarization dynamics and monolithic mode-locked semiconductor lasers. He joined in 2010 the Physics Department of the Universitat de les Illes Balears as a Ramón y Cajal fellow. His research interests include laser dynamics and bifurcation analysis.
[Salvador Balle]{} (M92) was born in Manacor, Mallorca. He graduated in Physics at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, where he obtained a PhD in Physics on the electronic structure of strongly correlated Fermi liquids. After postdoctoral stages in Palma de Mallorca and Philadelphia where he became interested in stochastic processes and Laser dynamics, he joined in 1994 the Physics Department of the Universitat de les Illes Balears, where he is Professor of Optics since 2006. His research interests include laser dynamics, semiconductor optical response modeling, multiple phase fluid dynamics and laser ablation.
[Massimo Giudici ]{} (M09) received the Laurea in Fisica from University of Milan in 1995 and Ph.D from Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis in 1999. He is now full professor at Université de Nice Sophia-Antipolis and deputy director of the laboratory Institut Non Linéaire de Nice, where he carries out his research activity. Prof. Giudici’s research interests revolve around the spatio-temporal dynamics of semiconductor lasers. In particular, he is actively working in the field of dissipative solitons in these lasers. His most important contributions concerned Cavity Solitons in VCSELs, longitudinal modes dynamics, excitability and stochastic resonances in semiconductor lasers and the analysis of lasers with optical feedback. He is authors of more than 50 papers and he is Associated Editor of IEEE Photonics Journal.
[^1]: M. Marconi and M. Giudici are with the Institut Non Linéaire de Nice, Université de Nice Sophia Antipolis - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1361 route des lucioles, F-06560 Valbonne, France, e-mails: [[email protected]](http://[email protected]) and [[email protected]](http://[email protected]).
[^2]: J. Javaloyes is with the Departament de Fisica, Universitat de les Illes Baleares, C/ Valldemossa, km 7.5, E-07122 Palma de Mallorca, Spain, e-mail: [[email protected]](http://[email protected])
[^3]: S. Balle is with the Institut Mediterrani d’Estudis Avançats, CSIC-UIB, E-07071 Palma de Mallorca, Spain, e-mail: [[email protected]](http://[email protected])
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Magneto-structural instability in the ferromagnetic shape memory alloy of composition Ni$_2$Mn$_{1.4}$Sn$_{0.6}$ is investigated by transport and magnetic measurements. Large negative magnetoresistance is observed around the martensitic transition temperature (90-210 K). Both magnetization and magnetoresistance data indicate that upon the application of an external magnetic field at a constant temperature, the sample attains a field-induced arrested state which persists even when the field is withdrawn. We observe an intriguing behavior of the arrested state that it can remember the last highest field it has experienced. The field-induced structural transition plays the key role for the observed anomaly and the observed irreversibility can be accounted by the Landau-type free energy model for the first order phase transition.'
author:
- 'S. Chatterjee'
- 'S. Giri'
- 'S. Majumdar'
- 'S. K. De'
title: 'Metastability and magnetic memory effect in Ni-Mn-Sn alloy'
---
The functional behavior of the shape memory alloys as actuators, magneto-mechanical transducers, switching devices, is related to the structural instability known as martensitic transition (MT). It is defined as a displacive, diffusionless first-order solid to solid phase transition from the high temperature austenite to the low temperature martensite [@mt]. Ferromagnetic shape memory alloys (FSMAs) combine shape memory effect and the bulk ferromagnetic behavior. MT, being key to the shape memory and some other metallurgic phenomena, has been under extensive research for over a century. The first order MT in Heusler based alloys, influenced by the disorder, often developed with a region of metastability with austenite and the martensite coexisting together [@kartha; @sbroy; @chatterjee]. MT is found to be highly sensitive to the external parameters like stress and magnetic field, and magnetic field-induced strain[@shape; @kainuma], super-elasticity, magneto-caloric effect [@imce; @krenke], giant magnetoresistance [@mr1; @vishnu] have been reported for many FSMAs. Materials with general formula Ni$_2$Mn$_{1+z}$X$_{1-z}$ (where X is an $sp$ element like, Sn, Sb, In etc.) are found to be quite useful for possible multi-functional applications.
It is important to understand the effect of magnetic field on the electronic and magnetic behavior of those FSMAs. This is not only essential for the technological applications but can provide fundamental insight of the phase separated scenario. In order to address the issue, we have performed detailed study of the magneto-transport and magnetic properties of the alloy Ni$_2$Mn$_{1.4}$Sn$_{0.6}$, which has been reported to show ferromagnetic shape memory effect and inverse magneto-caloric effect. The sample orders ferromagnetically below 330 K and on cooling it undergoes MT from the cubic phase to orthorhombic phase around 180 K [@sutou] with a wide region of phase separation which extends from 90-210 K. Our Study reveals large magnetoresistance (MR) around MT and unique magnetic behavior which go beyond the previous observations in case of ferromagnetic shape memory alloys. The resistivity and the magnetization show striking memory effect with respect to the applied magnetic field ($H$).
The present investigation was carried out on polycrystalline sample of Ni$_2$Mn$_{1.4}$Sn$_{0.6}$ prepared by argon arc melting. The sample was characterized by X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. The resistivity ($\rho$) of the sample was measured by usual four point method. MR (=$\frac{\rho(H)-\rho(0)}{\rho(0)}$) measurement was carried out using a superconducting magnet system in the transverse geometry ($H \perp$ current). Magnetization ($M$) was measured using a commercial Vibrating Sample Magnetometer (Cryogenic Ltd., UK).
Fig. \[fig1\] (a) shows $\rho$ versus temperature ($T$) behavior of the sample measured at $H$ = 0 and $H$ = 50 kOe for both heating and cooling cycles. The clear thermal hysteresis around the first order MT is present for both zero field and 50 kOe runs. However, the MT is shifted to lower $T$ in presence of $H$. In the cooling run, the martensite develops between temperatures $M_s$ and $M_f$, while austenite develops between $A_s$ and $A_f$ during heating. In the $H-T$ phase diagram of the sample (inset of Fig. \[fig1\](a)), the white and black shadings respectively denote the region of phase coexistence for cooling and heating legs. The average estimated shift of $M_s$ for 50 kOe of magnetic field is about 12 K. This produces large negative MR in the sample. Fig. \[fig1\](b) shows the plot of MR at 50 kOe versus $T$ for both heating and cooling legs. MR of about -16% is observed in the sample for the heating leg, while on the cooling leg, MR is found to be around -19%. It is clear that the large MR is only observed around the region of phase separation, which is approximately the region of thermal hysteresis. The apparent difference of the magnitude of MR in the heating and cooling is due to the difference in the austenite and martensite fractions in the sample.
In order to get a better look of the MR behavior, we measured $\rho$ as a function of field at different constant $T$ (Fig.\[fig2\](a)). The magnitude of MR is very small at 15 K, where the sample is in the pure martensite. However, larger negative MR is observed in the region of MT, which is in line with the $\rho(T)$ measurements performed at different fields. The interesting observation from the MR versus $H$ data is that in the region of metastability, the MR is highly irreversible with respect to the applied magnetic field. The large change in $\rho$ is observed when the field is applied first, however sample almost retains its low $\rho$ when the field is removed, and it persists for subsequent field cycling. This has been clearly depicted in Fig. \[fig2\](a) where five loop field cycling is performed. For example, in case of 185 K isotherm, the initial application of 50 kOe of field (virgin leg) produces about -11% of MR, while in the subsequent field removal and application (even in the negative $H$ quadrant) do not produce much effect on $\rho$, only a mere 2.5% change is observed. This type of field arrested state is only restricted across the MT and no indication of arrested state is observed above and below the MT (15 K and 300 K respectively in Fig. \[fig2\](a)). Notably, the MR does not show any signature of saturation till 90 kOe, and the arrested state can be created even at 90 kOe (not shown here).
In a ferromagnetic alloy, it is expected that the MR anomaly has some magnetic origin. To probe it, we measured isothermal $M$ as a function of field at different constant temperatures. The initial magnetization leg (virgin leg: 0 to 50 kOe) at 185 K shows larger slope beyond the point of technical saturation as compared to the return leg. On subsequent field cycling, very similar to the MR behavior, $M$ traces the return leg with almost zero coercivity. The virgin loop remains well outside (below) the subsequent field-cycling loops (see inset of figure 2 (b)). It appears that by the application of 50 kOe of field, the sample has been arrested to a state with a very soft ferromagnetic character. Similar field-induced arrested state is also reported for Ni-Mn-X based alloys [@kainuma; @vishnu; @koyama]. For the present sample, we find that there is a threshold field of about 1 kOe for the production of this arrested state.
It is tempting to know the character of this field-induced arrested state and what happens to the resistivity if the temperature is varied after this state is achieved. For this purpose, we performed $\rho$ measurement in the following protocol (see figure 3(a)). The sample was first cooled in zero magnetic field from 240 K to 80 K (point $c$ to $d$ in figure 3) and heated back to 180 K (point $e$). At this point, 50 kOe of field was applied, and $\rho$ drops down to point $f$. Immediately, field was removed and the sample was allowed to heat up. $\rho$ followed a completely different path ($gh$) and eventually joined up with the zero field heating curve at the point $h$. It clearly depicts that the application and subsequent removal of $H$ at a certain point inside the thermal hysteresis region produces a state which is different from the zero field state as far as the $T$ dependence of resistivity is concerned. However, eventually it approaches the zero field virgin state.
The noteworthy observation is the magnetic memory effect as depicted in fig \[fig4\]. We have seen that the sample goes to a different electronic and magnetic state on application of a field and the state is retained on removal of the field. The question is whether the nature of the arrested state depends upon $H$ or not. To shed light on it, the sample was first zero field cooled to 10 K and then heated back to 180 K. At 180 K, $H$ was increased from zero to a certain value $H_m$ and then removed gradually. This was repeated for increasing values of $H_m$ (say, $H_m^1$, $H_m^2$...$H_m^i$...) staring from 5 kOe to 50 kOe. As expected, once a certain field $H_m^i$ was applied, the sample retained the lower resistivity value even after the field was brought back to zero. In the next cycle, when the field was ramped up to the next higher value of $H_m^{i+1}$, $\rho$ followed the same ramping down path till the previous applied field $H_m^i$ was reached. Beyond $H_m^i$, $\rho$ followed the master path, $pq$. The master path can be obtained if $H$ is ramped up monotonously to its highest value. The minor paths (like, $sr$) intercepted the master path on their respective maximum exposed field values. This clearly shows that the field-induced state remembers the value of the last highest field ($H_m^i$) it has experienced. This is an example of magnetic memory found in this alloy, where different electronic and magnetic states can be created by varying the value of $H_m$. It has been depicted in figure 4: for example, the field was first ramped up to 5 kOe (point $p$ to $r$) and then ramped down to zero ($r$ to $s$). When the field was again ramped up from zero to the next field value of 10 kOe, $\rho$ followed the path $s$ to $r$ till the previous highest experienced field (here 5 kOe) was reached (point $r$) and after that it followed the master path ($pq$) to reach the point $t$ corresponding to $H_m$ = 10 kOe. Similar thing happens for higher and higher values of $H_m$ (even observed for $H_m$ = 90 kOe). The memory effect is also seen in the $M$ versus $H$ measurement at 180 K as depicted in Fig. \[fig4\](b).
Magnetic field-induced arrested state and magnetic memory effect has been observed in systems like frozen ferro-fluids, interacting nanoparticles, metal-insulator multilayer. However, in all those cases the physics behind it is the spin-glass like dynamics [@sun]. We do not see any signature of glassiness in the sample, for example, the ac susceptibility does not show any change in the martensitic transition temperature with frequency. The more probable scenario here is the magnetic field-induced first order phase transition [@sbr]. The ability of the present sample to remember the field from where it has been backtracked is referred as [*return point memory effect*]{} [@sethna; @ortin] and it can take place as a function of stress or temperature in addition to $H$. This is connected to the metastability of the system in the vicinity of a disordered induced first order transition [@sethna]. Recently, X-ray diffraction measurement has confirmed field-induced first order transition in Ni-Mn-Sn alloy, where martensite fraction transformed into the austenite by the application of $H$ [@koyama]. When a magnetic field is applied, some martensite fraction transforms into asutenite, which has a lower resistivity than martensite resulting large negative MR. The martensite has lower magnetic moment than austenite, as a result the effect of the transformation is also visible in $M$. When the field is removed the system does not recover the martensite fraction. This irreversible nature of the field-induced transition was found in XRD measurement by Koyama [*et al.*]{} [@koyama].
Phenomenologically, Landau type of free energy expression can been used to describe the first order MT [@falk; @huo], where free energy and the order parameter($\varphi$) are related as $f(\varphi) = a_2\varphi^2 -a_4\varphi^4 + a_6\varphi^6 -\gamma\varphi$ with $a_i$’s are the parameters for the particular material, and $\gamma$ is a term proportional to the externally applied field. For $T$-dependent transition, $a_2 \sim a_2^0(T-T_0)$, and the free energy curves for different $T$ are plotted in Fig. \[fig3\](b). Across the region of transition, the martensite and the austenite coexist in different free energy minima separated by energy barrier. Thermal irreversibility in various physical quantities arise due to the fact that one of the states becomes metastable (supercooled or superheated state) and the system remains trapped there even when $T$ crosses the critical point.
Similar situation can arise when the transition takes place as a function of $H$ rather than $T$. Since field favors the formation of austenite, application of $H$ is equivalent to the increase of temperature. $H$ changes the free energy pattern as well and allow redistribution of the relative fraction of product and parent phases. Suppose, the system is in a particular state at temperature $T_0$ and field $H_0$, where both phases are coexisting with austenite and martensite fractions being respectively, x$_A$ and x$_M$ = 1- x$_A$. This state can be represented by curve (III) of free energy plot shown in Fig. \[fig3\](b). As we increase $H$ isothermally, the free energy curve will change to curve (II). Here, the martensitic minimum lifts up to higher value and the barrier ($\sigma$ =$\sigma(T, H)$ ) between the parent and product phases decreases, allowing the formation of austenite. The new phase fractions becomes x$_A'$= x$_A$ + $\delta$x$_A$, x$_M'$ = (1- x$_A$ - $\delta$x$_A$). The fraction, $\delta$x$_A$, transformed from martensite to austenite, depends upon the change in $H$. When the field is brought back to $H_0$, the free energy curve return back to its previous field patter (from curve II to curve III). However, the free energy barrier does not allow the martensite to regain its transformed fraction, and we get a state with arrested (metastable) austenite fraction, $\delta$x$_A$. This state will bear the memory of the highest field, $H_m$, it has exposed to by virtue of the amount of $\delta$x$_A$ it contains. The arrested state remains arrested until the barrier height is changed through the change in $T$ or $H$. If $T$ is kept constant, and $H$ is increased from $H_0$, nothing will happen until the last highest exposed field is crossed. Further increase of $H$ (beyond $H_m$), however produces more amount of austenite and the system attains a different x$_A$, x$_M$ ratio through further reduction of the free energy barrier. It is to be noted that different field induced arrested states can be created by any arbitrary applied field. This is in contrast with the arrested states in Gd$_5$Ge$_4$ and Mn-site doped manganites [@hardy], where field-induced transitions take place only at certain values of $H$.
In conclusion, the sample Ni$_2$Mn$_{1.4}$Sn$_{0.6}$ shows reasonably large magnetoresistance around the region of first order martesnitic transition. MR is highly irreversible with respect to the applied magnetic field. A nice magnetic memory effect is observe, as the sample remembers the last highest field that it was exposed to. This can be exploited for important device related applications in future.
[99]{}
G. Guenin, Phase Transitions 14 (1989) 165.
S. Kartha, J. A. Krumhansl, J. P. Sethna, and L. A. Wickham, Phys. Rev. B 52 (1995), 803.
S. B. Roy and P. Chaddah Phase Transitions [**77**]{} 767 (2004).
S. Chatterjee, S. Giri, S. Majumdar, A. K. Deb, S. K. De, and V Hardy, J. Phys.: Condens. Matter [**19**]{}, 346213 (2007).
A. Sozinov, A. A. Likhachev, N. Lanska, and K. Ullakko, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**80**]{} 1746 (2002).
R. Kainuma, Y. Imano, Y. Sutou, H. Morito, S. Okaoto, O Kitakam, K. Oikawa, A. Fujita, T. Kanomata, and K. Ishta, Nature [**439**]{}, 957 (2006).
T. Krenke, M. Acet, E. F. Wassermann, X. Moya, L. Mañosa, and A. Planes, Nat. Mater. [**4**]{},450 (2005).
T. Krenke, E. Duman, M. Acet, E. F. Wassermann, X. Moya, L. Mañosa, A. Planes, E. Suard, and B. Ouladdiaf, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{} 104414(2007).
Z. H. Liu, H. Liu, and X. X. Zhang, X. K. Zhang and John Q. Xiao, Z. Y. Zhu, X. F. Dai, G. D. Liu, J. L. Chen, and G. H. Wu, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**86**]{} 182507 (2005).
V. K. Sharma, M. K. Chattopadhyay, K. H. B. Shaeb, Anil Chouhan, and S. B. Roy, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**89**]{} 222509 (2006).
Y. Sutou, Y. Imano , N. Koeda , T. Omori , R. Kainuma , K. Ishida, and K. Oikawa, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**85**]{} 4358 (2004).
Y. Sun, M. B. Salamon, K. Garnier and R. S. Averback, Phys. Rev. Letts. [**91**]{}, 167206 (2003).
M. K. Chattopadhyay, S. B. Roy, and P. Chaddah, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 72, 180401(R) (2005).
J. P. Sethna, K. Dahmen, S. Kartha, J. A. Krumhansl, B. W. Roberts, and J. D. Shore, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**70**]{}, 3347 (1993).
J. Ortin, J. Appl. Phys. [**71**]{}, 1454 (1992).
K. Koyama, K. Watanabe, T. Kanomata, R. Kainuma, K. Oikawa, and K. Ishida, Appl. Phys. Lett. [**88**]{} 132505 (2006).
F. Falk and . Konopka, J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**2**]{} 61 (1990).
Y. Huo, Continuum Mech. Thermodyn. [**1**]{}, 283 (1989).
V. Hardy, S. Majumdar, S. Crowe, M. R. Lees, D. McK. Paul, L. Hervé, A. Maignan, S. Hébert, C. Martin, C. Yaicle, M. Hervieu, B. Raveau, Phys. Rev. B 69, 020407(R) (2004) and references therein.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Absolute [*K*]{}-shell photoionization cross sections for atomic nitrogen have been obtained from both experiment and state-of-the-art theoretical techniques. Because of the difficulty of creating a target of neutral atomic nitrogen, no high-resolution [*K*]{}-edge spectroscopy measurements have been reported for this important atom. Interplay between theory and experiment enabled identification and characterization of the strong $1s$ $\rightarrow$ $np$ resonance features throughout the threshold region. An experimental value of 409.64 $\pm$ 0.02 eV was determined for the [*K*]{}-shell binding energy.'
author:
- 'M. M. Sant’Anna'
- 'A. S. Schlachter'
- 'G. Öhrwall'
- 'W. C. Stolte'
- 'D. W. Lindle'
- 'B. M. McLaughlin'
title: '[*K*]{}-shell x-ray spectroscopy of atomic nitrogen'
---
The atomic form of the seventh element, nitrogen, plays important roles in such diverse areas as x-ray astronomy, planetary physics, and materials science, fields that collectively span about 28 orders of magnitude on the length scale. Yet, to date, the [*K*]{}-shell spectroscopy of neutral atomic nitrogen has been the subject of limited theoretical predictions, untested by any high-quality experimental measurements. It is the purpose of this work to remedy this situation by reporting on high-resolution [*K*]{}-edge spectra, along with state-of-the-art theory, providing absolute atomic nitrogen [*K*]{}-shell cross sections for the first time.
In x-ray astronomy, the satellites [*Chandra*]{} and [*XMM-Newton*]{} are providing a wealth of x-ray spectra of astronomical objects. Spectroscopy in the soft-x-ray region (5-45 Å), including [*K*]{}-shell transitions of C, N, O, Ne, S, and Si and [*L*]{}-shell transitions of Fe and Ni, provides a valuable tool for probing extreme environments in active galactic nuclei, x-ray binary systems, cataclysmic variable stars, and Wolf-Rayet Stars [@wolf03; @Skinner10], as well as interstellar media (ISM) [@garcia11]. The latter, recent work, for example, demonstrated that x-ray spectra from [*XMM-Newton*]{} can be used to characterize ISM, provided accurate atomic oxygen [*K*]{}-edge cross sections are available. Analogous results concerning the chemical composition of ISM are expected with the availability of accurate atomic nitrogen [*K*]{}-edge cross sections [@garcia].
In planetary science, inner-shell photoabsorption of atomic nitrogen is known to affect the energetics of the terrestrial upper atmosphere and, together with atomic oxygen and molecular nitrogen determine the ion-neutral chemistry and the temperature structure of the thermosphere through production of nitric oxide [@link99]. Since the nitric-oxide abundance is highly correlated with soft-x-ray irradiance, a full picture requires accurate knowledge of both the solar flux and the x-ray cross sections of these species. As demonstrated by observations using [*Chandra*]{}, atomic nitrogen and oxygen play a vital role in the terrestrial aurora, as well as similar phenomena on other planets, such as Jupiter [@bhardwaj07].
In materials science, one application of [*K*]{}-edge spectroscopy of atomic nitrogen is in determining how the surface topology of a crystal affects dissociation of nitric oxide molecules adsorbed on stepped surfaces by measuring chemical shifts in the nitrogen [*K*]{} binding energies for different geometries [@rempel09; @esch99]. The structural sensitivity of such reactions is fundamental to the understanding of heterogeneous catalysis. Atomic [*K*]{}-edge spectroscopy may also prove critical to understanding a non-molecular phase of solid nitrogen, identified at high pressures via optical measurements, and likely related to an insulator-to-metal phase transition [@gonch00].
These diverse applications typically rely on tabulations of photoionization cross sections ([*e.g.*]{}, [@henke93]) determined from a combination of basic theory and measurements of either molecular-phase or solid-phase N$_2$. A lack of high-quality data for atomic nitrogen has clearly impeded progress in some areas [@bmcl01]. Unfortunately no experiments have been reported to date in the atomic nitrogen [*K*]{}-edge region. The primary barrier to such experiments, of course, is the difficulty of producing a dense atomic-nitrogen sample as a target. Experimental studies of atomic nitrogen in its ground state $\rm 1s^22s^22p^3~^4S^o$ in the vicinity of the [*K*]{} edge may be further hampered by both the presence of metastable states of the atomic species as well as molecular resonances, such as $\rm 1s \rightarrow \pi^{\ast}$, in the N$_2$ gas used as a precursor in the production of atomic nitrogen.
In this Letter, we report high-resolution [*K*]{}-edge spectra of gas-phase atomic nitrogen, in combination with state-of-the art theoretical calculations, in order to provide benchmark values for x-ray photoabsorption cross sections of this important species. The measurements were performed in the 390-418 eV photon-energy range, with a resolution of 60 meV, on the high-brightness undulator beamline 8.0 at the Advanced Light Source (ALS) synchrotron radiation facility in Berkeley, California. The atomic-nitrogen target was produced by partial dissociation of N$_2$ molecules in a microwave discharge [@stolte97] and introduced to the interaction region with the x-ray beam. Singly, doubly, and triply charged nitrogen cations were extracted from this region, selected with a magnetic mass analyzer [@stolte08], and their yields were measured as a function of photon energy. Careful extraction of the ion yields due to undissociated N$_2$ in the target permits determination of partial-ion yields due solely to photoionization of atomic nitrogen. Fortunately, while the intense N$_2$ $\rm 1s\rightarrow\pi^{\ast}$ molecular resonance is present in this energy region, it does not overlap with any atomic-nitrogen features, allowing easy discernment of the nitrogen 1s2s$^2$2p$^3$$n$p core-excited atomic resonances.
![\[Fig1color\] Partial cross sections for photoionization of atomic nitrogen to (a) N$^+$, (b) N$^{2+}$, and (c) N$^{3+}$. Figures (d) and (e) are experimental results from a mixture of atomic/molecular nitrogen and molecular nitrogen resulting in N$^{2+}$.](NewFig1){width="6.25cm"}
For the present measurements, gaseous N$_2$ was passed into a microwave cavity, and all products of the nitrogen plasma then flowed into the interaction region after passing through an L-shaped Pyrex tube [@stolte97]. It was found that collisions with the walls of this tube strongly quenched the nitrogen atoms created in long-lived metastable states ($\rm 1s^22s^22p^3$\[$\rm ^2D^o$, $\rm ^2P^o$\]) before they reached the interaction region, leaving only $\rm 1s^22s^22p^3$\[$\rm ^4S^o$\] ground-state atoms and molecular N$_2$ to interact with the x-rays (examples are shown in Fig 1(d) and 1(e)). To enhance the efficiency of the microwave discharge, a constant magnetic field, satisfying the electron-cyclotron resonance condition, was superimposed on the microwave cavity perpendicular to the 2.45 GHz electric and magnetic fields. The magnetic field aided in confinement and electron-cyclotron heating of the plasma, increasing the dissociation fraction of N$_2$ [@geddes94] (which is intrinsically low due to the strength of the triple bond), to 4% for the present experiments. While dissociation fractions as high as 80% for O$_2$ [@stolte97] and 20% for C$\ell_2$ [@sam86] have been achieved for other open-shell atoms, previous measurements of valence-shell photoionization of atomic nitrogen achieved only about 1% [@sam90]. Thermal dissociation of N$_2$, an alternate technique, is even less efficient [@marcelo97].
The partial-ion yields measured as described above include contributions from both ground-state atomic nitrogen and molecular N$_2$, but which differ as a function of photon energy. Since the spectroscopy of molecular N$_2$ is well known [@chen89; @semen06], its presence provides an internal energy calibration. The cross section, $\sigma^{q+}$ ${\rm (E)}$, as a function of photon energy, E, for photoionization of atomic nitrogen to an ion of charge +$q$ can be obtained from [@sam85]: $$\sigma^{q+} {\rm (E)} = {\rm C}_{q^+} ({\rm I}_{\rm on}^{q+} - f \times {\rm I}_{\rm off}^{q+}),
\label{eq:ion}$$ where I$_{\rm on}^{q+}$, Fig 1(d), and I$_{\rm off}^{q+}$, Fig 1(e), are normalized ion yields measured as a function of photon energy with the microwave discharge on or off, and C$_{q+}$ is a constant dependent on the number density of nitrogen atoms and the ion-collection efficiency of the apparatus. Absolute data for single and multiple photoionization of N$_2$ [@stolte98] were used to determine values for the constants C$_{q+}$. The parameter $f$ = $(n {(\rm{N}_2^{\rm on})/} n (\rm{N}_2^{\rm off})$), with $n {(\rm{N}}_2^{\rm on})$ and $n (\rm{N}_2^{\rm off})$ being number densities of N$_2$ with the microwave discharge on or off, represents the fraction of N$_2$ molecules that do not dissociate in the discharge. The value of $f$ is empirically chosen to eliminate the molecular peaks from the measured ion yields via a weighted subtraction [@sam86; @sam90]. As noted above, the dissociation fraction, 1-$f$, was about 4%. Finally, the collection efficiency for each ion N$^{q+}$ produced by photoionization of atomic nitrogen was assumed equal to the collection efficiency of the same ion generated in dissociative photoionization of N$_2$.
Figure 1 (a) – (c) shows partial cross section spectra for single, double, and triple photoionization of atomic nitrogen in the photon-energy range 390.0-418.5 eV. The energy region from 398.5-403.5 eV is intentionally left blank due to the presence of spurious structure from the subtraction of two large numbers in the vicinity of the $\rm 1s \rightarrow {\pi}^{\ast}$ molecular resonance. The strong peak in the cross section at 396.26 eV is due to 1s $\rightarrow$ 2p promotion from the $\rm 1s^22s^22p^3[^{4}S^o]$ ground state to the lowest-lying core-excited $\rm 1s2s^22p^4[^4P]$ autoionizing resonance state. At higher energies, the peaks correspond to transitions to $\rm 1s2s^22p^3[^{5}S^o]$n$p$ resonances below the lowest [*K*]{}-edge threshold as well as $\rm 1s2s^22p^3[^{3}D^o]$n$p$, $\rm 1s2s^22p^3[^{3}S^o]$n$p$, and $\rm 1s2s^22p^3[^{3}P^o]$n$p$ core-excited resonance states leading to higher-energy thresholds, as indicated in the figure and in Table I. Similar to molecular photofragmentation, N$^+$ is the prevalent ion formed, and most pronounced on the first resonance, whereas the other charge states are stronger for the higher lying resonances. Although atomic and molecular nitrogen have different electronic structures, our observed natural line width of 111 meV for the $\rm 1s2s^22p^4[^4P]$ resonance is virtually identical to the 113 eV previously observed for the N$_2$ (N 1s, $\nu$=0)$\rightarrow$($\pi_g$\*,$\nu\,^{\prime}$) state [@kato].
State-of-the-art [*ab-initio*]{} theoretical methods are routinely used now [@bmcl01; @fred04; @scully05; @garcia05; @scully06; @mueller09; @witthoeft09; @mueller10; @fatih10] to study inner-shell atomic processes, earlier studies were limited and primarily used the Hartree-Fock (HF) approximation [@rm79; @yeh93; @chant95]. The present theoretical predictions of atomic-nitrogen photoabsorption cross sections used the R-matrix method [@rmat]: in this close-coupling approximation the core ion is represented by an N-electron system, and the total wavefunction expansion, $\Psi$(E), of the (N+1)-electron system for any symmetry $SL\pi$ is expressed as $$\Psi({\rm E}) = A \sum_{i} \chi_{i}\theta_{i} + \sum_{j} c_{j} \Phi_{j},
\label{eq:rmat}$$ where $\chi_{i}$ is the core wavefunction in a specific state $S_iL_i\pi_i$ and $\theta_{i}$ is the wavefunction for the (N+1)th electron in a channel labeled as $S_iL_i\pi_ik_{i}^{2}\ell_i(SL\pi)$, with $k_{i}^{2}$ being its incident kinetic energy. The $\Phi_j$ are correlation wavefunctions of the (N+1)-electron system that account for short-range correlation and orthogonality between continuum and bound orbitals, with $c_j$ being the expansion coefficients. $\Psi({\rm E})$ is a bound (N+1)-electron wavefunction when the energy $\rm E < 0$, with all channels closed, and a continuum wavefunction when $\rm E > 0$, with some or all continuum channels open.
All of the (390) target levels in this work were represented by multi-configuration-interaction wavefunctions, obtained from $n=2$ physical and pseudo 3$\overline{\ell}$ orbitals of the residual N$^+$ ion core. The $LS$ coupling R-matrix cross-section calculations included both radiative and Auger damping. The scattering wavefunctions were generated by allowing two-electron promotions out of the designated base configurations. The resonance features were resolved in the scattering problem with a fine-energy mesh of 1.36 $\mu$eV (10$^{-7}$ Rydbergs).
Results for the autoionizing resonances are presented in Table I, indicating good agreement between experiment and theory. Precise energy calibration was achieved by comparing positions of the atomic-nitrogen features to resonances in the well-known molecular spectrum [@chen89], specifically the narrow 3s$\sigma$ (406.150 eV) and 3p$\pi$ (407.115 eV) Rydberg transitions. The absolute energy scale was confirmed using the $v_0$ vibrational level of the $\rm 1s \rightarrow {\pi}^{\ast}$ resonance at 400.868 eV [@chen89]. The atomic-nitrogen ion-yield spectra (Fig. 1) were fitted to Voigt functions for the peaks and arctangent functions for the thresholds to obtain accurate peak positions. Experimentally, the lowest-energy 1s $\rightarrow$ $n$p Rydberg series, with a N$\rm {^+}[{^5S^o}]$ core, was found to converge to a binding energy of 409.64 $\pm$ 0.02 eV, based on the Rydberg formula. This threshold is 0.30 $\pm$ 0.02 eV lower than the accepted value for the atomic nitrogen 1s binding energy in N$_2$ [@chen89; @Johan73].
![\[Fig2color\]Atomic-nitrogen total photoionization cross section. Theoretical results were convoluted with a 60 meV FWHM Gaussian to simulate experiment. Experimental results include molecular components between 400 and 406 eV.](Fig2color)
The experimental cross sections for photoionization of atomic nitrogen to N$\rm ^{+}$, N$\rm ^{2+}$, and N$\rm ^{3+}$ ions in Fig. 1 were summed to obtain the total photoionization cross section, shown in Fig. 2 along with theoretical predictions using the R-matrix method. Good agreement is found between theory and experiment for both the resonance energies and absolute cross sections. Observed differences in the background between experiment and theory are consistent with uncertainties resulting from the experimental normalization procedure. Approximately 96% of our partially dissociated target is composed of N$_2$ and as we are subtracting in (1) two large numbers of comparable magnitude, the contribution from N$_2$ in I$_{\rm on}^{q+}$ is not completely equivalent to the room-temperature I$_{\rm off}^{q+}$, the vibrational structure is different. This is clearly observed in Fig. 2 by the remaining $\pi$\* resonance with the discrepancy manifesting itself more with increasing photon energy. Our results demonstrate strong resonant features dominate the photoionization cross section of atomic nitrogen in the vicinity of the [*K*]{} edge, the atomic resonances differing significantly from those in molecular nitrogen which are absent in existing tabulations. Rydberg states above the first ionization threshold at 409.64 eV show clear Fano-Beutler profiles, indicating strong interferences between the core-excited intermediate resonance states and the open continua.
[ccccccc]{} Resonances & Energy (Expt) & Energy (Theory) &$\Gamma$ (Expt) &$\Gamma$ (Theory)& $\mu$ (Expt) & $\mu$ (Theory)\
\
$\rm 1s2s^22p^4$ &396.27 $\pm$ 0.02 &396.18 &111 $\pm$ 10 &109 &0.99 $\pm$ 0.02 &0.99\
$\rm 1s2s^22p^3[^5S^o]3p$ &407.05 $\pm$ 0.02 &407.08 & 99 $\pm$ 20 &107 &0.71 $\pm$ 0.02 &0.70\
$\rm 1s2s^22p^3[^5S^o]4p$ &408.40 $\pm$ 0.02 &408.46 & 89 $\pm$ 20 &106 &0.69 $\pm$ 0.02 &0.61\
$\rm 1s2s^22p^3[^5S^o]5p$ &408.92 $\pm$ 0.03 &408.94 & 95 $\pm$ 10 & 98 &0.65 $\pm$ 0.03 &0.59\
$\rm 1s2s^22p^3[^5S^o]6p$ &409.16 $\pm$ 0.04 &409.18 & 80 $\pm$ 10 & 80 &0.68 $\pm$ 0.04 &0.56\
$\rm ^5S^o$ series limit &409.64 $\pm$ 0.02 & & & & &\
– & – & – & – & – & – & –\
$\rm 1s2s^22p^3[^3D^o]3p$ &412.28 $\pm$ 0.02 &412.42 & 83 $\pm$ 10 & 80 &0.69 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.62\
$\rm ^3D^o$ series limit &414.82 $\pm$ 0.05 & & & & &\
– & – & – & – & – & – & –\
$\rm 1s2s^22p^3[^3S^o]3p$ &412.96 $\pm$ 0.06 &413.14 & 237 $\pm$ 20 &235 &0.70 $\pm$ 0.06 & 0.62\
$\rm 1s2s^22p^3[^3S^o]4p$ &414.38 $\pm$ 0.03 &414.45 & 116 $\pm$ 10 &107 &0.56 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.45\
$\rm ^3S^o$ series limit &415.53 $\pm$ 0.05 & & & & &\
– & – & – & – & – & – &\
$\rm 1s2s^22p^3[^3P^o]3p$ &413.83 $\pm$ 0.02 &413.91 & 100 $\pm$ 10 &108 &0.68 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.64\
$\rm ^3P^o$ series limit &416.36 $\pm$ 0.05 & & & & &\
The experiments were supported by NSF, DOE, the DOE Facilities Initiative, Nevada DOE EPSCoR, and CNPq (Brazil). The theoretical work was supported by NSF and NASA grants to ITAMP at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory. The computational work was done at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center in Oakland, CA and on the Tera-grid at the National Institute for Computational Sciences (NICS), in Knoxville, TN, which is supported in part by NSF.
[99]{} S. L. Skinner [*et al.*]{}, Astronom. J. [**139**]{}, 825 (2010). R. Ignace [*et al.*]{}, Astron. and Astrophys. [**408**]{}, 353 (2003). J. García [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J [**731**]{}, L15 (2011). J. García, [*private communication*]{}. R. Link, [*private communication*]{}. A. Bhardwaj [*et al.*]{}, J. Atm. Solar-Terr. Phys. [**69**]{}, 179 (2007). J. Rempel [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. Chem. C [**113**]{}, 20623 (2009). F. Esch [*et al.*]{}, J. Chem. Phys. [**110**]{}, 4013 (1999). A. F. Goncharov [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 1262 (2000). B. L. Henke [*et al.*]{}, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables [**54**]{}, 181 (1993). B. M. McLaughlin, *Spectroscopic Challenges of Photoionized Plasma ([ASP]{} Con$f$. Series vol 247*) ed G. Ferland and D. W. Savin (San Francisco, CA: Astronomical Society of the Pacific) p 87, (2001) W. C. Stolte [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. B [**30**]{}, 4489 (1997). W. C. Stolte [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. B [**41**]{}, 145102 (2008). J. Geddes [*et al.*]{}, Plasma Sources Sci. Technol. [**3**]{}, 58 (1994). J. A. R. Samson, [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**56**]{}, 2020 (1986). J. A. R. Samson and G. C. Angel, Phys. Rev. A [**42**]{}, 1307 (1990). M. M. Sant’Anna [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. B [**132**]{}, 306 (1997). C. T. Chen [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. A [**40**]{}, 6737 (1989). S. K. Semenov [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. B [**39**]{}, 375 (2006). J. A. R. Samson and P. N. Pareek, Phys. Rev. A [**31**]{}, 1470 (1985). W. C. Stolte [*et al.*]{}, At. Data Nucl. Data Tables [**69**]{}, 171 (1998). M. Kato [*et al*]{}, J. Electron. Spectrosc. and Relat. Phenom. [**160**]{} 39, (2007). A. S. Schlachter [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. B [**37**]{}, L103 (2004). S. W. J. Scully [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. B [**38**]{}, 1967 (2005). J. García [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. [**158**]{}, 68 (2005). S. W. J. Scully [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. B [**39**]{}, 3957 (2006). A. M[ü]{}ller [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. B [**42**]{}, 235602 (2009). J. García [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. [**185**]{}, 477 (2009). A. M[ü]{}ller [*et al.*]{}, J. Phys. B [**43**]{}, 135602 (2010). M. F. Haso[ğ]{}lu [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**724**]{}, 1296 (2010). R. F. Reilman and S. T. Manson, Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. [**40**]{}, 815 (1979). J. Yeh, *Atomic Calculation of Photoionization Cross-Sections and Asymmetry Parameters*, Gordon & Breach, New York, USA (1993). C. T. Chantler, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data [**24**]{} 71 (1995). P. G. Burke and K. A. Berrington, *Atomic and Molecular Processes: an R-matrix Approach*, IOP Publishing, Bristol, UK (1993). G. Johansson [*et al*]{}, J. Electron. Spectrosc. and Relat. Phenom. [**2**]{} 295, (1973).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Let $X$ be a smooth scheme over an algebraically closed field. When $X$ is proper, it was proved in [@me1] that the moduli of $\ell$-adic continuous representations of $\pi_1^\et(X)$, $\LocSys(X)$, is representable by a (derived) $\Ql$-analytic space. However, in the non-proper case one cannot expect that the results of [@me1] hold mutatis mutandis. Instead, assuming $\ell$ is invertible in $X$, one has to bound the ramification at infinity of those considered continuous representations.
The main goal of the current text is to give a proof of such representability statements in the open case. We also extend the representability results of [@me1]. More specifically, assuming $X$ is assumed to be proper, we show that $\LocSys(X)$ admits a canonical shifted symplectic form and we give some applications of such existence result.
address: 'Jorge António, IMT Toulouse, 118 Rue de Narbonne 31400 Toulouse'
author:
- Jorge António
title: 'Moduli of $\ell$-adic pro-étale local systems for smooth non-proper schemes'
---
Introduction
============
The goal of this paper
----------------------
Let $X$ be a smooth scheme over an algebraically closed field $k$ of positive characteristic $p>0$. Without the properness assumption the étale homotopy group $\pi_1^\et(X)$ fits in a short exact sequence of profinite groups $$\label{ss_intro}
1 \to \pi_1^w(X) \to \pi_1^\et(X) \to \pi_1^\tame(X) \to 1,$$ where $\pi_1^w(X)$ and $\pi_1^\tame(X)$ denote the *wild* and *tame* fundamental groups of $X$, respectively. One can prove that the profinite group $\pi_1^\tame(X)$ is topologically of profinite type. However, the profinite group $\pi_1^\et(X)$ is, in general, a profinite pro-$p$ group satisfying no finiteness condition or whatsoever. Needless to say, the étale fundamental group $\pi_1^\et(X)$ will in general not admit a finite number of topological generators. Consider $X = \bA^1_k$, the affine line. Its étale and wild fundamental groups agree, but they are not topologically of finite type.
For this reason, the main results of \[me1\] do not apply for a general smooth scheme $X$. In particular, one cannot expect that the moduli of $\ell$-adic continuous representations of $X$, $\LocSys(X)$, is representable by a $\Q_\ell$-analytic stack. The purpose of the current text, is to study certain moduli substacks of $\LocSys$ parametrizing continuous representations $$\rho \colon \pi_1^\et (X) \to \GLn(A), \quad A \in \Afdl$$ such that the restriction $\rho_{\vert \wildpi(X)}$ factors through a finite quotient $p_\Gamma \colon \wildpi(X) \to \Gamma$. Denote $\abLocSys(X)$ such stack. Our main result is the following:
\[intro:main\] The moduli stack $\abLocSys(X) \colon \Afdl \to \cS$ can be promoted naturally to a derived moduli stack $$\abdLocSys(X) \colon \dAfdl \to \cS$$ which is representable by a derived $\Q_\ell$-analytic stack. Given $\rho \in \abdLocSys(X)$, the analytic cotangent complex $\bL_{\abdLocSys, \rho} \in \Mod_{\Ql}$ is naturally equivalent to $$\bL^\an_{\abdLocSys (X), \rho } \simeq \rmC^*_\emphet \big( X, \Ad ( \rho) \big)^\vee[-1]$$ in the derived $\Mod_{\Ql}.$
In particular, \[intro:main\] implies that the inclusion morphism of stacks $$j_\Gamma \colon \abdLocSys(X) \hookrightarrow \dLocSys(X)$$ induces an equivalence on contangent complexes, in particular it is an étale morphism. We can thus regard $\abdLocSys(X)$ as an admissible substack of $\dLocSys$, in the sense of $\Q_\ell$-analytic geometry.
The knowledge of the analytic cotangent complex allow us to have a better understanding of the local geometry of $\dLocSys$. In particular, given a continuous representation $$\overline{\rho} \colon \pi_1^\et(X) \to \GLn(\overline{\bF}_\ell)$$ one might ask how $\overline{\rho}$ can be deformed into a continuous representation $\rho \colon \pi_1^\et (X) \to \GLn(\overline{Q}_\ell)$. This amounts to understand the formal moduli problem $\Def_{\overline{\rho}} \colon \CAlg_{\bF_\ell}^\sm \to \cS$ given on objects by the formula $$A \in \smCAlg \mapsto \Map_{\cont} \left(\Sh_\et(X), \rmB \GLn(A) \right) \times_{ \Map_{\cont} \left(\Sh_\et(X), \rmB \GLn(\bF_\ell) \right)} \{ \rho \}
\in \cS,$$ where $\Sh_\et(X) \in \pro \big( \cS^{\fc} \big)$ denotes the étale homotopy type of $X$. Given $\overline{\rho}$ as above, the functor $\Def_{\overline{\rho}}$ was first considered by Mazur in [@mazurDG], for Galois representations, in the discrete case. More recently, Galatius and Venkatesh studied its derived structure in detail, see [@galatius_dg] for more details.
One can prove, using similar methods to those in [@me1] that the tangent complex of $\Def_{\overline{\rho}}$ is naturally equivalent to $$\bT_{\Def_{\overline{\rho}} } \simeq \rmC^*_\et \big(X, \Ad(\rho) \big)[1],$$ in the derived $\Mod_{\overline{\bF}_\ell}$. We can consider $\Def_{\overline{\rho}}$ as a derived $W(\bF_\ell)$-adic scheme which is locally admissible, in the sense of [@me2]. Therefore, one can consider its rigidification $$\Def^\rig_{\overline{\rho}} \in \dAnl.$$ By construction, we have a canonical inclusion functor $$j_{\overline{\rho}} \colon \Def^\rig_{\overline{\rho}} \to \LocSys(X).$$ By comparing both analytic cotangent complexes, one arrives at the following result:
\[intro:disj\_u\] The morphism of derived stacks $$j_{\overline{\rho}} \colon \Def^\rig_{\overline{\rho}} \to \LocSys(X)$$ exhibits $\Def^\rig_{\overline{\rho}}$ as an admissible open substack of $\LocSys(X)$.
\[intro:disj\_u\] implies, in particular, that $\LocSys(X)$ admits as an admissible analytic substack the disjoing union $\coprod_{\overline{\rho}} \Def^\rig_{\overline{\rho}}$, indexed by the set of contininuous representations $\overline{\rho} \colon \pi_1^\et(X) \to \GLn(\overline{\Q}_\ell).$ Nonetheless, the moduli $\LocSys(X)$ admits more (analytic) points in general than those contained in the disjoint union $\coprod_{\overline{\rho}} \Def^\rig_{\overline{\rho}}$. This situation renders difficult the study of trace formulas on $\LocSys(X)$ which was the first motivation for the study of such moduli. Ideally, one would like to ”glue” the connected components of $\LocSys(X)$ in order to have a better behaved global geometry. More specifically, one would like to exhibit a moduli algebras or analytic stack $\cM_{\ell, n}(X)$ of finite type over $\Q_\ell$ such that the space closed points $\cM_{\ell, n}(X)(\overline{\Q}_\ell) \in
\cS$ would correspond to continuous $\ell$-adic representations of $\pi_1^\et(X)$. Moreover, one should expect such moduli stack to have a natural derived structure which would provided an understanding of deformations of $\ell$-continuous representations $\rho$.
Such principle has been largely successful for instance in the context of continuous $p$-adic representations of a Galois group of a local field of mixed characteristic $(0,p)$. Via $p$-adic Hodge structure and a scheme-image construction provided in [@gee_sch_image], the authors consider the moduli of Kisin modules which they prove to be an ind-algebraic stack admitting strata given by algebraic stacks of Kisin modules of a fixed height. Unfortunately, the methods used in [@gee_sch_image], namely the scheme-image construction, do not directly generalize to the derived setting. Recent unpublished work of M. Porta and V. Melani regarding formal loop stacks might provide an effective answer to this problem, which we pretend to explore in the near future. However, to the best of the author’s knowledge, there is no other successful attempts outside the scope of $p$-adic Hodge theory.
We will also study the existence of a $2-2d$-shifted symplectic form on $\LocSys(X)$, where $d = \dim X$. Even though $\LocSys(X)$ is not an instance of an analytic mapping stack it behaves as such. We need to introduce the moduli stack $\PerfSys(X)$ which corresponds to the moduli of objects associated to the $\rigCat$-valued moduli stack given on objects by the formula $$Z \in \dAfdl \mapsto \Fun_{\cE \Cat} \left( \vert X \vert_\et, \Perf \big( \Gamma(Z ) \big) \right)$$ where $\cE\Cat$ denotes the of (small) $\ind( \pro(\cS))$-enriched . We are then able to prove:
\[intro:shifted\] The derived moduli stack $\PerfSys(X)$ admits a natural shifted symplectic form $\omega$. Explicitly, given $\rho \in \PerfSys(X)$ $\omega$ induces a non-degenerated pairing $$C^*_\emphet \big(X, \Ad(\rho) \big)[1] \otimes C^*_\emphet \big(X, \Ad(\rho ) \big)[1]
\to \Ql [2-2d],$$ which agrees with Poincaré duality.
By transport of strucure, the substack $\LocSys(X) \hookrightarrow \PerfSys(X)$ can be equipped with a natural shifted sympletic structure. By restricting further, we equip the $\abLocSys(X)$ with a shifted symplectic form $\omega_\Gamma$.
Summary
-------
Let us give a brief review of the contents of each section of the text. Both §2.1 and §2.2 are devoted to review the main aspects of ramification theory for local fields and smooth varities in positive characteristic. Our exposition is classical and we do not pretend to prove anything new in this context. In §2.3 we construct the (ordinary) *moduli stack of continuous $\ell$-adic representations*. Our construction follows directly the methods applied in [@me1]. Given $q
\colon \wildpi(X)
\to \Gamma$ a continuous group homomorphism whose target is finite we construct the moduli stack $\abLocSys(X)$ parametrizing $\ell$-adic continuous representations of $\pi_1^\et(X)$ such that $\rho_{\vert \wildpi(X)} $ factors through $\Gamma$. We then show that $\abLocSys$ is representable by a $\Q_\ell$-analytic stack (the analogue of an Artin stack in the context of $\Q_\ell$ analytic geometry).
In §3, we show that both the $\Q_\ell$-analytic stacks $\LocSys(X)$ and $\abLocSys(X)$ can be given natural derived structures and we compute their corresponding cotangent complexes. It follows then by [@porta_rep Theorem 7.1] that $\abLocSys(X)$ is representable by a derived $\Q_\ell$-analytic stack.
§4 is devoted to state and prove certain comparison results. We prove \[intro:disj\_u\] and relate this result to the moduli of pseudo-representations introduced in [@chenevier].
Lastly, in §5 we study the existence of a shifted symplectic form on $\LocSys(X)$. We state and prove \[intro:shifted\] and analysize some of its applications.
Convention and Notations
------------------------
Throught the text we will employ the following notations:
1. $\Afdl$ and $\dAfdl$ denote the of ordinary $\Q_\ell$-affinoid spaces and derived $\Ql$-affinoid spaces, respectively.;
2. $\Anl$ and $\dAnl$ denote the of analytic $\Ql$-spaces and derived $\Ql$-analytic spaces, respectively;
3. We shall denote $\cS$ the of spaces and $\ind(\pro(\cS)) \coloneqq \ind \big( \pro \big(\cS \big)
\big)$ the of ind-pro-objects on $\cS$.
4. $\Cat$ denotes the of small and $\cE \Cat$ the of $\ind(\pro(\cS))$-enriched .
5. Given a continuous representation $\rho$, we shall denote $\Ad ( \rho) \coloneqq
\rho \otimes \rho^\vee$ the corresponding adjoint representation;
6. Given $Z \in \Afdl$ we sometimes denote $\Gamma(Z) \coloneqq \Gamma(Z)$ the derived $\Ql$-algebra of global sections of $Z$.
Acknowledgements
----------------
I am grateful to Jean-Baptiste Tessier and Bertrand Toën for many useful discussions and suggestions on the contents of the present text. I would also like to acknowledge le *Séminaire Groupes Réductifs et formes automorphes* for the invitation to expose many of my ideas about the subject.
Setting the stage
=================
Recall on the monodromy of (local) inertia
------------------------------------------
In this subsection we recall some well known facts on the monodromy of the local inertia, our exposition follows closely [@fontaine_ouyang §1.3].
Let $K$ be a local field, $\cO_K$ its ring of integers and $k$ the residue field which we assume to be of characteristic $p>0$ different from $\ell$. Fix $\overline{K}$ an algebraic closure of $K$ and denote by $\Gk \coloneqq
\Gal \left( \overK / K \right)$ its absolute Galois group.
Given a finite Galois extension $L/K$ with Galois group $\Gal \left( L / K \right)$ we define its *inertia group*, denoted $I_{L/K} $, as the subgroup of $\Gal \left( L / K \right)$ spanned by those elements of $\Gal \left( L /K \right)$ which act trivially on $\mathfrak l \coloneqq \cO_L / \fm_L$, where $\O_L $ denotes the ring of integers of $L$ and $ \mathfrak{m}_L$ the corresponding maximal ideal.
We can identify the inertia subgroup $ I_{L/K}$ of $\Gal( L / K )$ with the kernel of the surjective continuous group homomorphism $q \colon \Gal( L / K ) \to \Gal( l/ k)$. We have thus a short exact sequence of profinite groups $$\label{inertia}
1 \to I_{L/K} \to \Gal( L / K ) \to \Gal( l/ k) \to 1.$$ In particular, we deduce that the inertia subgroup $I_{L / K }$ can be identified with a normal subgroup of $\Gal( L / K)$.
Letting the field extension $L/K$ vary, we can assemble together the short exact sequences displayed in thus obtaining a short exact sequence of profinite groups $$\label{absinert}
1 \to I_K \to \Gk \to G_k \to 1,$$ where $G_k \coloneqq \Gal( \overline{k}/ k)$ where $\overline{k}$ denotes the algebraic closure of $k$ determined by $ \overline{K}$.
Define the *(absolute) inertia group of $K$* as the inverse limit $$I_K := \lim_{L/K \text{ finite}} I_{L/ K},$$ which we canonically identify with a subgroup of $\Gk$.
Let $L/ K$ be a field extension as above. We let $P_{L/K}$ denote the subgroup of $I_{L/K}$ which consists of those elements of $I_{L/K}$ acting trivially on $\cO_L/ \fm^2_L$. We refer to $P_{L/K}$ as the *wild inertia group* associated to $L/K$.
We define the absolute wild inertia group of $K$ as: $$P_K : = \lim_{L \text{ finite}} P_{L/K}.$$
We can identify the absolute wild inertia group $P_K $ with a normal subgroup of $I_K$.
Consider the exact sequence $$\label{wild_tame}
1 \to P_K \to I_K \to I_K / P_K \to 1.$$ Thanks to [@stacks Lemma 53.13.6] it follows that the wild inertia group $P_K$ is a *pro-$p$* group. When $K = \Q_p$ a theorem of Iwasawa implies that $P_K$ is not topologically of finite generation, even though $G_K$ is so. Nonetheless, the quotient $I_K / P_K$ is much more amenable:
[[@bommel Corollary 13]]{} \[tame\_mon\] Let $p \coloneqq \mathrm{char}(k)$ denote the residual characteristic of $K$. The quotient $I_K / P_K$ is canonically isomorphic to $\hbZ'(1)$, where the latter denotes the profinite group $\prod_{q \neq p} \bZ_q(1)$. In particular, the quotient profinite group $I_K / P_K$ is topologically of finite generation.
Define $P_{K, \ell} $ to be the inverse image of $\prod_{q \neq \ell, p } \bZ_q$ in $I_K$. We have then a short exact sequence of profinite groups $$1 \to P_K \to P_{K, \ell} \to \prod_{q \neq \ell, p } \bZ_q \to 1.$$ Define similarly $G_{K, \ell} \coloneqq G_K / P_{K, \ell}$ the quotient of $G_K$ by $P_{K, \ell}$. We have a short exact sequence of profinite groups $$\label{e1}
1 \to P_{K, \ell} \to \Gk \to G_{K, \ell} \to 1.$$ Assembling together and \[tame\_mon\] we obtain a short exact sequence $$\label{e2}
1 \to \bZ_\ell(1) \to G_{K, \ell} \to G_k \to 1.$$
As a consequence of both and the quotient $G_{K, \ell}$ is topologically of finite type.
Suppose we are now given a continuous representation $$\rho \colon \Gk \to \GLn (E_\ell),$$ where $E_\ell$ denotes a finite field extension of $\Ql$. Up to conjugation, we might assume that $\rho$ preserves a lattice of $E_\ell$. More explicitly, up to conjugation we have a commutative diagram of the form $$\begin{tikzcd}
G_K \ar{r}{\widetilde{\rho}} \ar{dr}[swap]{\rho} & \GLn(\bZ_\ell) \ar{d} \\
& \GLn(\Q_\ell)
\end{tikzcd}.$$
Therefore $\widetilde{\rho} \left( G_K \right) $ is a closed subgroup of $\GLn(\bZ_\ell)$. Consider the short exact sequence $$1 \to N_1 \to \GLn(\bZ_\ell) \to \GLn(\bF_\ell) \to 1,$$ where $N_1$ denotes the group of $\GLn(\bZ_p)$ formed by congruent to $\mathrm{Id}$ mod $\ell$ matrices. In particular, $N_1$ is a profinite pro-$\ell$ group. By construction, every finite quotient of $P_{K, \ell}$ is of order prime to $\ell$. One then has necessarily $$\rho \left( P_{K, \ell} \right) \cap N_1 = \{1 \}.$$ As a consequence, the group $\rho( P_{K, \ell})$ injects into the finite group $\GLn(\bF_\ell)$ under $\rho$. Which in turn implies that the (absolute) wild inertia group $P_K$ itself acts on $\GLn(\Q_\ell)$ via a finite quotient.
Geometric étale fundamental groups
----------------------------------
Let $X$ be a geometrically connected smooth scheme over an algebraically closed field $k$ of positive characteristic. Fix once and for all a geometric point $\iota_x \colon \overline{x} \to X$ and consider the corresponding étale fundamental group $\pi_1^{\et}(X) \coloneqq \pi_1^{\et}(X, \overline{x})$, a profinite group. If we assume that $X$ is moreover proper one has the following classical result:
[[@grothendieckSGA1 Exposé 10, Thm 2.9]]{} \[proper\_case\] Let $X$ be a smooth and proper scheme over an algebraically closed field. Then its étale fundamental group $\pi^\emph{\et}_1 \left( \overline{X} \right)$ is topologically of finite type.
Unfortunately, the statement of \[proper\_case\] does not hold in the non-proper case as the following proposition illustrates:
Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic. Then the étale fundamental group of the affine line $\pi_1^\emph{\et}(\mathbb A^1_k)$ is not topologically finitely generated.
For each integer $n \geq 1$, one can exhibit Galois covers of $\mathbb A^1_k$ whose corresponding automorphism group is isomorphic to $\left( \mathbb Z / p \mathbb Z \right)^n$. This statement readily implies that $\pi_1^{\et}(\mathbb A^1_k)$ does not admit a finite number of topological generators. In order to construct such coverings, we consider the following endomorphism of the affine line $$\phi_n \colon \mathbb A^1_k \to \mathbb A^1_k,$$ defined via the formula $$\phi_n \colon x \mapsto x^{p^n} - x.$$ The endormophism $\phi_n$ respects the additive group structure on $\mathbb A^1_k$. Moreover, the differential of $\phi_n$ equals $-1$. For this reason, $\phi_n$ induces an isomorphism on cotangent spaces and, in particular, it is an étale morphism. As $k$ is algebraically closed, $\phi_n$ is surjective and it is finite, thus a finite étale covering. The automorphism group of $\phi_n$ is naturally identified with its kernel, which is isomorphic to $\mathbb F_{p^n}$. The statement of the proposition now follows.
Let $G$ be a profinite group and $p$ a prime numbger, we say that $G$ is *quasi-$p$* if $G$ equals the subgroup generated by all $p$-Sylow subgroups of $G$.
Examples of quasi-$2$ finite groups include the symmetric groups $S_n$, for $n \geq 2$. Moreover, for each prime $p$, the group $\mathrm{SL}_n(\mathbb F_p)$ is quasi-$p$. Let $X = \mathbb A^1_k$ be the affine line over an algebraically closed field $k$ of characteristic $p>0$. We have the following result proved by Raynaud which was originally a conjecture of Abhyankar:
[[@Clark Conjecture 10]]{} Every finite quasi-$p$ group can be realized as a quotient of $\pi_1^{\emph{\et}} \left(X \right)$.
In the example of the affine line the infinite nature of $\pi_1(\mathbb A^1_k )$ arises as a phenomenon of the existence of étale coverings whose ramification at infinity can be as large as we desire. This phenomenon is special to the positive characteristic setting. Neverthless, we can prove that $\pi_1^{\et}(X)$ admits a topologically finitely generated quotient which corresponds to the group of automorphisms of tamely ramified coverings. On the other hand, in the proper case every finite étale covering of $X$ is everywhere unramified.
Let $X \hookrightarrow \overline{X}$ be a normal compactification of $X$, whose existence is guaranteed by [@nagata]. Let $f \colon Y \to X$ be a finite étale cover with connected source. We say that $f$ is *tamely ramified along* the divisor $D : = \overline{X} \backslash X$ if every codimension-$1$ point $x \in D$ is tamely ramified in the corresponding extension field extension $k(Y) / k(X)$.
Tamely ramified extensions along $D \coloneqq \overline{X} \backslash X$ of $X$ are classified by a quotient $\pi_1^{\emph{\et}}(X) \to \tamepi(X, D)$, referred to as the *tame fundamental group of $X$ along $D$*.
Let $\overline{X}$ denote a smooth compactification of $X$ and $D \coloneqq \overline{X} \backslash X.$ We denote by $\wildpi(X, D)$, the *wild fundamental group of $X$ along $D$*, the kernel of the continuous morphism $ \pi_1^{\et}(X) \to \tamepi(X)$.
\[\] Assume $X$ is a normal connected scheme over $k$.
1. Let $f \colon Y \to X$ be an étale covering. We say that $f$ is *divisor-tame* if for every normal compactification $X \hookrightarrow \overline{X}$, $f$ is tamely ramified along $D = \overline{X} \backslash X$.
2. Let $f \colon Y \to X$ be an étale covering. We shall refer to $f$ as *curve-tame* if for every smooth curve $C$ over $k$ and morphism $g \colon C \to X$, the base change $Y \times_{X} C \to C$ is a tame covering of the curve $C$.
In \[\] $X$ is assumed to be a normal connected scheme over a field of positive characteristic. Currently, we lack a resolution of singularities theorem in this setting. Therefore, a priori, one cannot expect that both divisor-tame and curve-tame notions agree in general. Indeed, one can expect many regular normal crossing compactifications of $X$ to exist, or none.
Neverthless, one has the following result:
[[@kerz_tame Theorem 1.1]]{} Let $X$ be a smooth scheme over $k$ and let $f \colon Y \to X$ be an étale covering. Then $f$ is divisor-tame if and only if it is curve-tame.
The *tame fundamental group* $\tamepi(X)$ is defined as the quotient of $\pi_1^\et(X)$ by the normal closure of opens subgroup of $\pi_1^\et(X)$ generated by the wild fundamental groups $\pi_1^w(X, D)$ along $D$, for each normal compactification $X \hookrightarrow \overline{X}$.
The notion of tameness is stable under arbitrary base changes between smooth schemes. In particular, given a morphism $f \colon Y \to X$ between smooth schemes over $k$, one has a functorial well defined morphism $\tamepi (Y) \to \tamepi(X)$ fitting in a commutative diagram of profinite groups $$\begin{tikzcd}
\pi_1^\et(Y) \ar{r} \ar{d} & \pi_1^\et(X) \ar{d} \\
\tamepi(Y) \ar{r} & \tamepi(X).
\end{tikzcd}$$ Moreover, the profinite group $\tamepi(X)$ classifies tamely ramified étale coverings of $X$.
The tame fundamental group $\tamepi(X)$ classifies finite étale coverings $f \colon X \to Y$ which are tamely ramified along any divisor at infinity.
We define the *wild fundamental group* of $X$, denoted $\pi_1^w(X)$, as the kernel of the surjection $\pi_1^{\et}(X) \to
\tamepi(X)$. It is an open normal subgroup of $\pi_1^{\et}(X)$.
[[@Clark]]{} Let $C$ be a geometrically connected smooth curve over $k$. Then the wild fundamental group $\pi_1^w(C)$ is a pro-$p$-group.
[[@cadoret Appendix 1, Theorem 1]]{} \[cadoret\] Let $X$ be a smooth and geometrically connected scheme over $k$. There exists a smooth, geometrically connected curve $C/ k$ together with a morphism $f \colon C \to X$ of varieties such that the corresponding morphism at the level of fundamental groups $\pi_1^{\emph{\et}}(C) \to \pi_1^{\emph{\et}}(X) \to \tamepi(X)$ is surjective and it factors by a well defined morphism $\pi_1^{\mathrm{t}}(C) \to \tamepi(X)$. In particular, $\tamepi(X)$ is topologically finitely generated.
\[cadoret\] implies that $\tamepi (\mathbb A^1_k)$ admits a finite number of topological generators. In fact, the group $\tamepi(\mathbb A^1_k)$ is trivial.
Moduli of continuous $\ell$-adic representations {#section 2.3}
------------------------------------------------
In this §, $X$ denotes a smooth scheme over an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic $p > 0$. Nevertheless, our arguments apply when $X$ is the spectrum of a local field of mixed characteristic.
Let $A \in \Afd$ be $\Q_{\ell}$-affinoid algebra $A \in \Afd$. It admits a natural topology induced from a choice of a norm on $A$, compatible with the usual $\ell$-adic valuation on $\Q_\ell$. Given $\mathbf G$ an analytic $\Q_\ell$-group space we can consider the corresponding group of $A$-points on $\mathbf G$, $\mathbf G(A)$. The group $\mathbf G (A)$ admits a natural topology induced from the non-archimedean topology on $A$. In the current text we will be interested in studying the moduli functor parametrizing continuous representations $$\rho \colon \pi_1^\et(X) \to \anGLn(A).$$ Nevertheless, our arguments can be directly applied when we instead consider the moduli of continuous representations $$\pi_1^\et(X) \to \mathbf G^\an (A),$$ where $\mathbf G$ denotes a reductive group scheme.
Let $G$ be a profinite group. Denote by $$\LocSysfr(G) \colon \Afdl \to \mathrm{Set},$$ the *functor of rank $n$ continuous $\ell$-adic group homomorphisms of $G$*. It is given on objects by the formula $$\label{e21}
A \in \Afd^{\op} \mapsto \Hom_{\mathrm{cont}} \left( G, \GLn( A) \right) \in \mathrm{Set},$$ where the right hand side of denotes the set of continuous group homomorphisms $G_K \to \GLn(A)$.
Whenever $G = \pi_1^\et(X)$ we denote $\LocSys(X) \coloneqq \LocSys(\pi_1^\et(X))$.
[[@me1 Corollary 2.2.16]]{} \[me1\] Suppose $G$ is a topologically finitely generated profinite group. Then the functor $\LocSysfr(G)$ is representable by a $\Q_{\ell}$-analytic space.
By the results of the previous §, the étale fundamental group $\pi_1^\et(X)$ is almost never topologically finitely generated in the non-proper case. For this reason, we cannot expect the functor $\LocSysfr(G_X) $ to be representable by an object in the category $\An_{\Q_\ell}$ of $\Q_\ell$-analytic spaces. Nevertheless, we can prove an analogue of \[me1\] if we consider instead certain subfunctors of $\LocSysfr$. More specifically, given a finite quotient $q \colon \wildpi(X) \to \Gamma$ we can consider the moduli parametrizing continuous $\ell$-adic representations of $\pi_1^\et(X)$ whose restriction to $\wildpi(X)$ factors through $\Gamma$:
\[const1\] Let $q \colon \mathrm \wildpi(X) \to \Gamma$ denote a surjective continuous group homomorphism, whose target is a finite group (equipped with the discrete topology). We define the functor of *continuous group homomorphisms $\pi_1^\et(X)$ to $\GLn(-)$ with $\Gamma$-bounded ramification at infinity*, as the fiber product $$\label{eq_def}
\abLocSys^{\mathrm{framed}}(\pi_1^\et(X)): = \LocSys^{\mathrm{framed}}(\pi_1^\et(X))\times_{
\LocSys^{\mathrm{framed}}(\mathrm \wildpi(X)) } \LocSys^{\mathrm{frame}}(\Gamma),$$ computed in the category $\Fun \left( \Afd^{\op}, \mathrm{Set} \right)$.
The moduli functor $\abLocSysfr(X)$ introduced in \[const1\] depends on the choice of the continuous surjective homomorphism $q \colon
\mathrm P_X \to \Gamma$. However, for notational convenience we drop the subscript $q$.
We have the following result:
\[hom\_loc\] The functor $\abLocSysfr(X)$ is representable by a $\Q_{\ell}$-analytic stack.
Let $r$ be a positive integer and denote $\mathrm F^{[r]}$ a free profinite group on $r$ topological generators. The finite group $\Gamma$ and the quotient $G_X / \mathrm P_X $ are topologically of finite generation. Therefore, it is possible to choose a continuous group homomorphism $$p \colon \mathrm F^{[r]} \to \pi_1^\et(X),$$ such that the images $p(e_i)$, for $i = 1, \dots, r$, form a set of generators for $\Gamma$, seen as a quotient of $\wildpi(X)$, and for $\tamepi(X) \cong \pi_1^\et(X) / \wildpi(X)$. Restriction under $\varphi$ induces a closed immersion of functors $$\abLocSysfr(G_X) \hookrightarrow \LocSysfr(\mathrm F^{[r]}).$$ Thanks to [@me1 Theorem 2.2.15.], the latter is representable by a rigid $\Q_\ell$-analytic space, denoted $X^{[r]}$. It follows that $\abLocSysfr(G_X)$ is representable by a closed subspace of $X^{[r]}$, which proves the statement.
\[const\_1\] Let $\Psh \left( \Afdl
\right) \coloneqq \Fun \big( \Afdl^\op, \cS \big)$ denote the of $\cS$-valued preasheaves on $\Afdl$. Consider the étale site $( \Afd, \tau_{\et})$. We define the of *higher stacks* on $(\Afd, \tau_{\et})$, $\St \left( \Afd, \tau_{\et} \right),
$ as the full subcategory of $\Psh \left( \Afd \right)$ spanned by those pre-sheaves which satisfying étale hyper-descent, [@lurieHTT §7].
The inclusion functor $ \St \left( \Afdl, \tau_{\et} \right) \subseteq \Psh \left( \Afd \right)$ admits a left adjoint, which is a left localization functor. For this reason, the $\St \left( \Afdl, \tau_{\et} \right)$ is a presentable . One can actually prove that $\St \big( \Afdl, \tau_\et \big)$ is the hypercompletion of the $\infty$-topos of étale sheaves on $\Afdl$, $\Shv_\et \big( \Afd \big)$.
Consider the geometric context $(\dAfd, \tau_{\et}, \mathrm P_{\sm} )$, [@me1 Definition 2.3.1]. Let $\St \left( \Afdl, \tau_{\et}, \mathrm \rmP_\sm \right)$ denote the full subcategory of $\St( \Afd, \tau_{\et})$ spanned by geometric stacks, [@me1 Definition 2.3.2]. We will refer to an object $\cF \in \St \left( \Afdl, \tau_{\et}, \mathrm \rmP_\sm \right)$ as the a $\Q_\ell$-analytic stack and we refer to $\St \big( \Afdl, \tau_\et \big)$ as the of *$\Q_\ell$-analytic stacks*.
Let $\mathbf G$ be a group object in the $\infty$-category $\St \left( \Afd, \tau_{\et}, \mathrm P_{\sm} \right)$. Given a $\mathbf G$-equivariant object $\cF \in \St \left( \Afd, \tau_{\et}, P_{\sm} \right)^{\mathbf G}$ we denote $[\cF / \mathbf G ]$ the geometric realization of the simplicial object $$\begin{tikzcd}
\cdots \arrow[r, shift left=0.5] \arrow[r, shift right=1.5]
\arrow[r, shift left=1.5]
\arrow[r, shift right=0.5]
& \mathbf G^2 \times \cF \arrow[r, shift left] \arrow[r]
\arrow[r, shift right]
& \mathbf G \times \cF \arrow[r, shift left=0.5] \arrow[r, shift right=0.5]
& \cF \end{tikzcd}$$ computed in the $\infty$-category $\St \big( \Afdl, \tau_{\et} \big)$. We refer to $[\cF / \mathbf G ]$ as the *quotient stack objec*t of $\cF$ by $\mathbf G$.
[[@me1 §2.3].]{} Suppose $ \mathbf G \in \St \left( \Afd, \tau_{\et}, P_{\sm} \right) $ is a smooth group object and $\cF $ is representable by a $\Q_{\ell}$-analytic space. Then the quotient stack object $[\cF/ \mathbf G]$ is representable by a geometric stack.
The smooth group $\mathbf{GL}^\an_n \in \Anl$ acts by conjugation on the moduli functor $\LocSysfr$.
Let $\LocSys(X) \coloneqq [\LocSysfr(X) / \mathbf \GLn^{\an}]$ denote the *moduli stack of rank $n$ $\ell$-adic pro-étale local systems on $X$*. Given a continuous surjective group homomorphism $q \colon \mathrm \wildpi(X) \to \Gamma$ whose target is a finite group we define the substack of $\LocSys(X)$ spanned by rank $n$ $\ell$-adic pro-étale local systems on $X$ *ramified at infinity by level $\Gamma$* as the fiber product $$\abLocSys \coloneqq \LocSys(X) \times_{\LocSys ( \wildpi(X)} \LocSys(\Gamma)$$
\[main1\] The moduli stack $\abLocSys(X)$ is representable by a $\Q_{\ell}$-analytic stack.
We have a canonical map $ \abLocSys^{\mathrm{framed}}(G_X)\to \abLocSys(X)$, which exhibits the former as a smooth atlas of the latter. The result now follows formally, as explained in [@me1 §2.3].
One can prove that there is an equivalence between the space of continuous representations $$\rho \colon \pi_1^\et(X) \to \anGLn(A), \quad A \in \Afdl$$ and the space of rank $n$ pro-étale $A$-local systems on $X$. We thus have the following statement:
[[@me1 Corollary 3.2.5]]{} The functor $\LocSys(X)$ parametrizes pro-étale local systems of rank $n$ on $X$.
The same proof of [@me1 Corollary 3.2.5] applies.
Derived structure
=================
Let $X$ be a smooth scheme over an algebraically closed field $k$ and fix a finite quotient $q \colon \wildpi(X) \to \Gamma$. In this §we will study at full the deformation theory of both the $\Q_\ell$-analytic moduli stacks $\LocSys(X)$ and $\abLocSys(X)$. Our goal is to show that $\LocSys(X)$ and $\abLocSys(X)$ can be naturally promoted to *derived $ \Q_{\ell}$-stacks*, denoted $\dLocSys(X)$ and $\abdLocSys(X)$, respectively. Therefore the corresponding $0$-truncations $\trun_{\leq 0} \dLocSys(X)$ and $\trun_{\leq 0} \abdLocSys(X)$ are equivalent to $\LocSys(X)$ and $\abLocSys(X)$, respectively. We will prove moreover that both $\abdLocSys(X)$ and $\LocSys(X)$ admit tangent complexes and give a precise formula for these. Moreover, we show that the substack $\abdLocSys(X)$ is geometric with respect to the geometric context $\big( \dAfdl, \tau_\et, \rmP_\sm \big)$. In particular, $\abdLocSys(X)$ admits a cotangent complex which we can understand at full.
We compute the corresponding cotangent complexes and analyze some consequences of the existence of derived structures on theses objects. We will use extensively the language of derived $\Q_{\ell}$-analytic geometry as developed in [@porta_der; @porta_rep].
Derived enhancement of $\LocSys(X)$
-----------------------------------
Recall the of derived $\Ql$-affinoid spaces $\dAfdl$ introduced in [@porta_der]. Given a derived $\Ql$-affinoid space $Z : = (\cZ, \cO_Z) \in \dAfdl$, we denote $$\Gamma(Z) \coloneqq \Gamma \left( \cO_Z^{\alg} \right) \in \CAlg_{\Q_{\ell}}$$ the corresponding derived ring of *global sections on $Z$*, see [@porta_hom Theorem 3.1] for more details. [@me2 Theorem 4.4.10] implies that $\Gamma(Z)$ always admits a formal model, i.e., a $\ell$-complete derived $\mathbb Z_{\ell}$-algebra $A_0 \in \CAlg_{\mathbb Z_\ell}$ such that $\left( \Spf A_0 \right)^{\mathrm{rig}} \simeq X$. Here $(-)^{\mathrm{rig}}$ denotes the rigidification functor from derived formal $\mathbb Z_\ell$-schemes to derived $\Q_\ell$-analytic spaces, introduced in [@me2 §4]. This allow us to prove:
[[@me1 Proposition 4.3.6]]{} \[prop:enr\] The of perfect complexes on $A$, $\mathrm{Perf}(A)$, admits a natural structure of $\ind \big( \pro \big( \cS \big) \big)$-enriched , i.e., it can be naturally upgraded to an object in the $\cE \Cat .$
Let $Y \in \ind \big( \pro \big( \cS \big) \big)$. We define its *materialization* by the formula $$\mathrm{Mat} \left(\cX \right) := \Map_{\ind(\pro(\cS))} \left( *, \cX \right) \in \cS ,$$ where $* \in \ind(\pro(\cS))$ denotes the terminal object. This formula is functorial. For this reason, we have a well defined, up to contractible indeterminacy functor, *materialization functor* $\Mat \colon \ind(\pro(\cS)) \to \cS $.
As a consequence of \[prop:enr\], there exists an object $\rmB \cEnd (Z) \in \ind \big( \pro \big( \cS \big) \big)$, functorial in $ Z \in \dAfdl$, such that its *materalization* is equivalent to $$\label{eq:BGLn}
\mathrm{Mat} \left( \cEnd (Z) \right) \simeq \mathrm \rmB \End(\Gamma(Z)^n) \in \cS .$$ The right hand side of denotes the usual Bar-construction applied to $\mathbb E_1$-monoid object $\End(\Gamma(Z)) \in \cS$. Moreover, given $Y \in \ind \big( \pro (\cS ) \big) $ every continuous morphism $$Y \to \rmB \cEnd (Z), \text{in } \ind \big( \pro \big( \cS \big) \big)$$ is such that its materialization factors as $$\Mat \left( Y \right) \to \rmB \GLn(\Gamma(Z)) \hookrightarrow \rmB \End(\Gamma(Z))$$ in the $\cS$. See [@me1 §4.3 and 4.4] for more details.
[[@lurieDAGXIII Notation 3.6.1]]{} We shall denote $\Sh^{\et}(X)$ the *étale shape of $X$* defined as the fundamental groupoid associated to the $\infty$-topos $\Shv_{\text{\'et}} \left( X \right)^\wedge$, of hyper-complete étale sheaves on $X$.
Let $X$ be as above. We define the *derived moduli stack of $\ell$-adic pro-étale local systems of rank $n$ on $X$* as the functor $$\dLocSys(X) \colon \mathrm{dAfd}_{\mathbb{Q}_\ell}^{\op} \to \cS,$$ given informally on objects by the formula $$Z \in \mathrm{dAfd}_{\mathbb{Q}_\ell}^{\op} \mapsto \lim_{n \geq 0 } \Map_{\mathrm{Mon}_{\mathbb E_1}(\mathcal{C})} \left( \mathrm{Sh}^{\et}(X), \rmB \cEnd \left( \trun_{\leq n} (Z) \right) \right),$$ where $\trun_{\leq n} (Z)$ denotes the $n$-th truncation functor on derived $\Q_\ell$-affinoid spaces.
Given $Z \in \dAfdl$ we sometimes prefer to employ the notation $$\dLocSys(X)(\Gamma(Z)) \coloneqq \dLocSys(X)(Z).$$ Let $\rho \in \dLocSys(X)(\Gamma(Z))$, we refer to it as a *continuous representation of* $\Sh^{\et}(X)$ *with coefficients in $\Gamma(Z)$*.
Let $Y := \lim_m Y_m \in \pro \left( \cS \right)$. Given an integer $n \geq 0$, we define the *$n$-truncation of $Y$* as $$\tau_{\leq n} \left( Y \right) \coloneqq \lim_m \tau_{\leq n } ( Y_m) \in \pro( \cS_{\leq n} ),$$ i.e. we apply pointwise the truncation functor $\tau_{\leq n} \colon \cS \to \cS$ to the diagram defining $Y = \lim_m Y_m \in \pro ( \cS)$.
$\ind(\pro(\cS))$
Let $\iota \colon \Afd \to \dAfdl$ denote the canonical inclusion functor. Denote by $$\mathrm t_{\leq 0} \left( \dLocSys(X) \right) := \dLocSys(X) \circ \iota,$$ the restriction of $\dLocSys(X)$ to $\Afdl$.
Given $Z \in \Afd^{\op}$, the object $\rmB \cEnd(Z) \in \ind \big( \pro \big( \cS \big) \big) $ is $1$-truncated. As a consequence, we have an equivalence of mapping spaces: $$\Map_{\ind(\pro(\cS))} \big( \Sh^{\et} (X), \rmB \cEnd(Z) \big) \simeq \Map_{\ind(\pro(\cS))} \left( \tau_{\leq 1} \Sh^{\et} (X), \rmB \cEnd(Z)\right).$$ We have moreover an equivalence of profinite spaces $\tau_{\leq 1} \Sh^\et(X) \simeq \mathrm B \pi_1^\et(X)$. Given a continuous group homomorphism $\rho \colon \pi_1^\et(X) \to \GLn(A)$ we can associate, via the cobar construction performed in the $\cT \op_{\mathrm{na}}$, a well defined morphism $$\rmB \rho \colon \rmB \pi_1^\et(X) \to \rmB \cEnd(A),$$ in the $\ind(\pro(\cS))$. This construction provide us with a well defined, up to contractible indeterminacy, $$p_A \colon \LocSysfr (X)(A) \to \Map_{\ind(\pro(\cS)) } \left(\rmB \pi_1^\et(X), \rmB \cEnd(Z) \right).$$ On the other hand, the morphisms $p_A$ assemble to provide a morphism of stacks $$p \colon \LocSysfr(X) \to \trun_{\leq 0} \dLocSys(X) .$$
\[123\] The canonical morphism $$p \colon \LocSysfr(X) \to \mathrm t_{\leq 0} \dLocSys(X) ,$$ in the $\St \big( \Afdl, \tau_{\et} \big)$ which induces an equivalence of stacks $$\LocSys(X) \simeq \trun_{\leq 0} \dLocSys(X).$$
The proof of [@me1 Theorem 4.5.8] applies.
Let $Z \coloneqq (\cZ, \cO_Z) \in \dAn$ denote a derived $\Ql$-analytic space and $M \in \Mod_{\cO_Z}$. In [@porta_rep §5] it was introduced the analytic square zero extension of $Z$ by $M$ as the derived $\Ql$-analytic space $Z[M] \coloneqq
(\cZ, \cO_Z \oplus M) \in \dAn$, where $\cO_Z \oplus M \coloneqq \Omega^\infty_\an \in \AnRing(\cZ)_{/ \cO_Z}$ denotes the trivial square zero extension of $\cO_Z$ by $M$. In this case, we have a natural composite $$\label{an:triv_ext}
\cO_Z \to \cO_Z \oplus M \to \cO_Z$$ in the $\AnRing(\cZ)_{/ \cO_Z}$ which is naturally equivalent to the identity on $\cO_Z$. We denote $p_{Z, M} \colon \cO_Z \oplus M \to \cO_Z$ the natural projection displayed in
\[tangent\] Let $Z \in \dAfdl^{\op}$ be a derived $\Q_\ell$-affinoid space. Let $\rho \in \dLocSys(X)(\cO_Z)$ be a continuous representation with values in $\cO_Z$. The *tangent complex* of $\dLocSys(X)$ at $\rho$ is defined as the fiber $$\mathbb T_{\dLocSys(X), \rho} \coloneqq \fib_{\rho} \left( p_{\cO_Z} \right)$$ where $$p_{\cO_Z} \colon \dLocSys(X) ( \cO_Z \oplus^{\an} \cO_Z) \to \dLocSys(\cO_Z),$$ is the morphism of stacks induced from the canonical projection map $p_{\cO_Z, \cO_Z} \colon \cO_Z \oplus \cO_Z \to \cO_Z$.
The derived stack $ \dLocSys$ is not, in general, representable as derived $\Q_\ell$-analytic stack, as this would entail the representability of its $0$-truncation. Nevertheless we can compute its tangent complex explicitly:
[[@me1 Proposition 4.4.9.]]{} Let $\rho \in \dLocSys(X)(\cO_Z)$. We have a natural morphism $$\mathbb{T}_{ \dLocSys(X), \rho} \to C^*_{\emph{\et}}\left(X, \mathrm{Ad} \left( \rho \right) \right)[1] ,$$ which is an equivalence in the derived $\Mod_{\Gamma(Z)}$.
The proof of [@me1 Proposition 4.4.9] applies.
The bounded ramification case
-----------------------------
In this §we are going to define a natural derived enhancement of $\abLocSys(X)$ and prove its representability by a derived $\Ql$-analytic stack. Let $X$ be a smooth scheme over an algebraically closed field $k$ of positive characteristic $p \neq \ell$.
Consider the sub-site $X^{\tame}_{ \et}$ of the small étale site $X_{\et}$ spanned by those étale coverings $Y \to X$ satisfying condition (2) in \[\]. We can form the $\infty$-topos $\Shv^{\tame}(X) \coloneqq \Shv \left( X^{\tame}_{\et} \right)$ of *tamely ramified* étale sheaves on the Grothendieck site $X^{\tame}_{\et}$.
Consider the inclusion of sites $ \iota \colon X^\tame_\et \hookrightarrow X_\et$, it induces a geometric morphism of $\infty$-topoi $$\label{geo_m}
g_* \colon \Shv_\et(X) \to \Shv^\tame_\et(X)$$ which is a right adjoint functor to the functor induced by precomposition with $\iota$.
The geometric morphism of $\infty$-topoi $g_* \colon \Shv^\tame_{\emph{\et}}(X) \to \Shv_{\emph{\et}}(X)$ introduced in is fully faithful.
As the Grothendieck topology on $X_\et^\tame$ is induced by the inclusion functor $\iota \colon X_\et^\tame \to X_\et$, it suffices to prove the corresponding statement for the of presheaves. More specifically, the statement of the lemma is a consequence of the assertion that the left adjoint $$\iota^* \colon \Psh \left( X_{\et} \right) \to \Psh \left( X^{\tame}_{\et} \right),$$ given by precomposition along $\iota$, admits a fully faithful right adjoint. The existence of a right adjoint for $\iota^*$, denoted $\iota_{*}$, follows by the Adjoint functor theorem. The required right adjoint is moreover computed by means of a right Kan extension along $
\iota$. Let $Y \in X_{\et}^{\tame}$, we can consider $Y \in X_\et$ by means of the inclusion functor $\iota \colon X_\tame^\et \to X_\et$. The comma $\big( X^\tame_\et \big)_{Y/}$ admits an initial object, namely $Y$ itself. Let $\cC_Y \coloneqq \big( X_\et^\tame \big)_{Y / }.$ Given $\cF \in
\Psh \big( X_\et^\tame \big)$ one can compute $$\begin{aligned}
\iota^* \iota_* \cF( Y) & \simeq \\
& \simeq \iota_* \cF(Y) \\
& \simeq \iota^* \lim_{V \in \cC_Y} \cF(V) \\
& \simeq \cF(Y)
\end{aligned}$$ In particular, the counit of the adjunction $\theta \colon \iota^* \circ \iota_* \to \mathrm{Id}$ is an equivalence. Reasoning formally we deduce that $\iota_*$ is fully faithful and therefore so it is $g_*$.
Let $\Sh^{\tame}(X) \in \pro \left( \cS \right)$ denote the fundamental $\infty$-groupoid associated to the $\infty$-topos $\Shv(X_{\et}^{\tame} )$, which we refer to as the *tame étale homotopy type of* $X$.
\[tame\_vs\_et\] The fact that the geometric morphism $g_* \colon \Shv(X_{\et}^{\tame} ) \to \Shv(X_{\et})$ is fully faithful implies that the canonical morphism $$\Sh^{\tame} (X) \to \Sh^{\et}(X)$$ induces an equivalence of profinite abelian groups $\pi_i \left( \Sh^{\tame} (X) \right) \simeq \pi_i \left( \Sh^{\et}(X) \right)$ for each $i>1.$ As a consequence one has a fiber sequence $$\mathrm B \pi_1^w(X) \to \Sh^{\et}(X) \to \Sh^{\tame}(X),$$ in the $\pro(\cS^\fc)$ of profinite spaces.
The derived moduli stack of *wild (pro)-étale rank $n$ $\ell$-local systems on $X$* is defined as the functor $\dLocSys^w(X) \colon \dAfd^{\op} \to \cS$ given informally by the association $$Z \in \dAfdl^{\op} \mapsto \lim_{n \geq 0} \Map_{\ind(\pro(\cS))} \left( \mathrm B \pi_1^w(X), \mathbf{ \mathrm B \GLn} \left( \tau_{\leq n}\big( \Gamma(Z) \big) \right) \right) \in \cS.$$
The functor $ \dLocSys^w(X)$ satisfies descent with respect to the étale site $( \dAfd, \tau_{\et})$, thus we can naturally consider $ \dLocSys^w(X)$ as an object of the $\infty$-category of *derived stacks* $\dSt \left( \dAfd , \tau_{\et}, \right)$.
Suppose now we have a surjective continuous group homomorphism $q \colon \wildpi(X) \to \Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is a finite group. Such morphism induces a well defined morphism (up to contractible indeterminacy) $$\mathrm B q \colon \mathrm B \pi_1^w ( X) \to \mathrm B \Gamma.$$ Precomposition along $\mathrm B q$ induces a morphism of derived moduli stacks $\mathrm B q^* \colon \dLocSys(\Gamma) \to \dLocSys^w(X)$. Where $\dLocSys(\Gamma) \colon \dAfdl \to \cS$ is the functor informally defined by the association $$Z \in \dAfdl \mapsto \Map_{\ind(\pro(\cS))} \left( \mathrm B \Gamma, \mathrm B \cEnd(Z)\right) .$$
As $\mathrm B \Gamma \in \cS^{\fc} \subseteq \pro \left( \cS^{\fc} \right)$ it follows that, for each $Z \in d \Afdl$, one has a natural equivalence of mapping spaces $$\Map_{\ind(\pro(\cS))} \left( \mathrm B \Gamma,\rmB \cEnd(Z) \right) \simeq \Map_{\cS} \left( \mathrm B \Gamma, \mathrm B \GLn(\cO_Z) \right).$$ Therefore the moduli stack $\dLocSys \left(\mathrm B \Gamma \right) $ is always representable by a derived $\Q_\ell$-analytic stack which is moreover equivalent to the analytification of the usual (algebraic) *mapping stack* $\underline{\mathbf{\mathrm{Map}} }\left( \mathrm B \Gamma, \mathrm B \GLn(-) \right) $. The latter is representable by an Artin stack, see [@lurieSAG Proposition 19.2.3.3.].
We can now give a reasonable definition of the moduli of local systems with bounded ramification at infinity:
The derived moduli stack of derived étale local systems on $X$ wtih *$\Gamma$-bounded ramification at infinity* is defined as the fiber product $$\abdLocSys (X) : = \dLocSys(X) \times_{ \dLocSys^w (X) } \dLocSys( \mathrm B \Gamma )$$
Let $q \colon \pi_1^w(X) \to \Gamma$ be a surjective continuous group homomorphism whose target is finite. Then the $0$-truncation of $\abdLocSys(X) $ is naturally equivalent to $\abLocSys(X) $. In particular, the former is representable by a $\Q_{\ell}$-analytic stack.
It suffices to prove the statement for the corresponding moduli associated to $\Sh^{\et}(X)$, $\mathrm B \pi_1^w(X)$ and $\mathrm B \Gamma$. Each of these three cases can be dealt as in \[123\].
Similarly to the derived moduli stack $\dLocSys(X)$ we can compute the tangent complex of $\abdLocSys(X)$ explicitly. In order to do so, we will first need some preparations:
\[const:mod\] Let $Y \in \pro \left( \cS_{\geq 1}^{\fc} \right)$ be a *$1$-connective* profinite space. Fix moreover a morphism $$c \colon * \to \cX,$$ in the $\pro \left( \cS^{\fc} \right)$. Notice that such choice is canonical up to contractible indeterminacy due to connectedness of $X$.
Let $\Perf \left( \Q_{\ell} \right)$ the of perfect $\Q_{\ell}$-modules. One can canonically enhance $\Perf(\Q_{\ell})$ to an object in the $\cE \Cat$ of $\ind(\pro(\cS))$-enriched . Consider the full subcategory $$\Perf_{\ell} \left( Y \right) \coloneqq \Fun_{\cont} \left( Y, \Perf(\Q_{\ell} ) \right)$$ of $\Fun \left( \Mat \left( Y \right) , \Perf( \Q_{\ell} ) \right)$ spanned by those functors $F \colon Y \to \Perf( \Q_{\ell})$ with $M \coloneqq F(*)$ such that the induced morphism $$\label{eq:cont}
\Omega \Mat \left( \cX \right) \to \End \left( M \right)$$ is equivalent to the materialization of a continuous morphism $$\Omega \cX \to \cEnd \left( M \right)$$ in the $\ind(\pro(\cS))$. Thanks to [@me1 Corollary 4.3.23] the $\Perf_\ell(\cX)$ is an idempotent complete stable $\Q_{\ell}$-linear which admits a symmetric monoidal structure given by point-wise tensor product.
Consider the *ind-completion* $\Mod_{\Q_{\ell}}(\cX) \coloneqq \ind \left(\Perf_\ell(\cX) \right)$, which is a presentable stable symmetric monoidal $\Q_\ell$-linear , [@me1 Corollary 4.3.25]. We have a canonical functor $p_{\ell} ( \cX ) \colon \Mod_{\Q_\ell} (\cX) \to \Mod_{\Q_\ell}$ given informally by the formula $$\colim_i F_\in \Mod_{\Q_\ell} \left( Y \right) \mapsto \colim_i \left( F_i(*) \right) \in \Mod_{\Q_\ell}.$$ Given $Z \coloneqq (\cZ, \cO_Z) \in \dAfdl$ a derived $\Q_{\ell}$-affinoid space, we denote $\Gamma(Z) := \Gamma \left( Z \right)$ the corresponding derived ring of global sections. Consider the extension of scalars $$\Mod_{\Gamma(Z)} \left( Y \right) := \Mod_{\Q_{\ell}} \left( Y \right) \otimes_{\Q_\ell} \Gamma(Z),$$ which is a presentable stable symmetric monoidal $\Gamma(Z)$-linear , [@me1 Corollary 4.3.25]. We can base change $p_\ell (Y)$ to a well defined (up to contractible indeterminacy) functor $ p_{\Gamma(Z)} \left( Y \right) \colon \Mod_{\Gamma(Z)} \left( Y \right) \to \Mod_{\Gamma(Z)}$ given informally by the association $$\left( \colim_i F_i \right) \otimes_{\Q_{\ell}} \Gamma(Z) \in \Mod_{\Gamma(Z)} \left( \cX \right) \mapsto \colim_i \left( F_i(*) \otimes_{\Q_\ell} \Gamma(Z) \right) \in \Mod_{\Gamma(Z)}.$$
\[tang\_comp\] Let $Z \in \dAfd$ be a derived $\Ql$-affinoid space and $\rho \in \abdLocSys( X)(\cO_Z)$. The inclusion morphism of stacks $$\abdLocSys(X) \hookrightarrow \dLocSys(X)$$ induces a natural morphism at the corresponding tangent complexes at $\rho$ $$\mathbb T_{\abdLocSys, \rho} \to \mathbb T_{\dLocSys, \rho}$$ is an equivalence in the $\Mod_{\Gamma(Z)}$. In particular, we have an equivalence of $\Gamma(Z)$-modules $$\mathbb T_{\abdLocSys, \ \rho} \simeq C^*_{\emph{\et}} \left( X , \Ad \left( \rho \right) \right) [1] \in \Mod_{\Gamma(Z)}.$$
Let $\Pi \coloneqq \mathrm{B} q \colon \mathrm B \wildpi ( X) \to \mathrm B \Gamma$ denote the morphism of profinite homotopy types induced from a continuous surjective group homomorphism $q \colon \wildpi(X) \to \Gamma$ whose target is finite. We can form a fiber sequence $$\label{fib}
\cY \to \mathrm B \wildpi(X) \to \mathrm B \Gamma$$ in the $\infty$-category $\pro \left( \cS^{\mathrm{fc}}_{\geq 1} \right)_{*/}$ of pointed $1$-connective profinite spaces. Let $A \coloneqq \Gamma(Z)$ and consider the $\Mod_A \left( \Sh^w( X) \right)$ and $\Mod_A \left( \mathrm B \Gamma \right)$ introduced in \[const:mod\]. Let $\cC_{A, n} \left( \mathrm B \pi_1^w(X) \right)$ and $\cC_{A, n} \left( \mathrm B \Gamma \right)$ denote the full subcategories of $\Mod_A \left( \mathrm B \pi_1^w( X) \right)$ and $\Mod_A \left( \mathrm B \Gamma \right)$, respectively, spanned by modules rank $n$ free $A$-modules. It is a direct consequence of the definitions that one has an equivalence of spaces $$\dLocSys \left( \mathrm B \pi_1^w(X) \right) \simeq \cC_{A, n} \left( \mathrm B \pi_1^w(X) \right)^{\simeq} \text{ and } \dLocSys \left( \mathrm B \Gamma \right) \simeq \cC_{A, n } \left( \mathrm B \Gamma \right)^{\simeq}$$ where $(-)^{\simeq}$ denotes the underlying $\infty$-groupoid functor. The fiber sequence displayed in induces an equivalence of $\infty$-categories $$\label{eq:cats}
\Mod_A \left( \mathrm B \Gamma \right) \simeq \Mod_A \left( \mathrm B \pi_1^w(X) \right)^\cY$$ where the right hand side of denotes the $\infty$-category of $\cY$-equivariant continuous representations of $\mathrm B \pi_1^w(X)$ with $A$-coefficients. Thanks to [@me1 Proposition 4.4.9.] we have an equivalence of $A$-modules $$\label{eq:tangSw}
\mathbb T_{\dLocSys \left( \mathrm B \pi_1^w(X) \right), \ \rho_{|_{\mathrm B \pi_1^w(X)}}} \simeq \Map_{\Mod_{\Gamma(Z)} \left(\mathrm B \pi_1^w(X)\right) } \left( 1 , \rho_{|_{\mathrm B \pi_1^w(X)} } \otimes \rho_{|_{\mathrm B \pi_1^w(X)}}^{\vee} \right) [1]$$ and similarly, $$\mathbb T_{\dLocSys \left( \mathrm B \Gamma \right), \ \rho_{\Gamma}} \simeq \Map_{\Mod_{\Gamma(Z)} \left(\mathrm B \Gamma \right) } \left( 1 , \rho_{\Gamma} \otimes \rho_{\Gamma}^{\vee} \right) [1]$$ By definition of $\rho$, we have an equivalence $\rho^\cY \simeq \rho$, where $(-)^\cY$ denotes (homotopy) fixed points with respect to the morphism $\cY \to \mathrm B \pi_1^w(X)$. Thus we obtain a natural equivalence of $A$-modules: $$\label{fixed}
\Map_{\Mod_{\Gamma(Z)} \left(\mathrm B \pi_1^w(X)\right) } \left( 1 , \rho \otimes \rho^{\vee} \right) [1] \simeq \Map_{\Mod_{\Gamma(Z)} \left(\mathrm B \pi_1^w(X) \right) } \left( 1 , ( \rho_{\Gamma} \otimes \rho_{\Gamma}^{\vee} )^\cY \right) [1].$$ Homotopy $\cY$-fixed points are computed by $\cY$-indexed limits. As the $\cY$-indexed limit computing the right hand side of has identity transition morphisms we conclude that the right hand side of is naturally equivalent to the mapping space $$\Map_{\Mod_A \left(\mathrm B \pi_1^w(X) \right) } \left( 1 , ( \rho \otimes \rho^{\vee} )^\cY \right) [1] \simeq \Map_{\Mod_A \left(\mathrm B \Gamma \right) } \left( 1 , \Pi_*( \rho \otimes \rho^{\vee} ) \right) [1]$$ where $\Pi_* \colon \Mod_A \left(\mathrm B \pi_1^w(X)\right) \to \Mod_A \left( \mathrm B \Gamma \right) $ denotes a right adjoint to the forgetful $\Pi^* \colon \Mod_A \left( \mathrm B \Gamma \right) \to \Mod_A \left( \mathrm B \pi_1^w(X) \right)$. As a consequence we have an equivalence $$\Map_{\Mod_A \left(\mathrm B \pi_1^w(X)\right) } \left(1 , \rho \otimes \rho^{\vee} \right) [1] \simeq \Map_{ \Mod_A \left(\mathrm B \Gamma \right) } \left( 1 , \Pi_*( \rho \otimes \rho^{\vee} ) \right) [1]$$ in the $\cS$. Notice that, by construction $$\label{eq:gamma}
\rho_{\Gamma} \otimes \rho_{\Gamma}^{\vee} \simeq \left( \rho \otimes \rho^{\vee} \right)_{\Gamma}$$ in the $\Mod_A \left( \mathrm B \Gamma \right)$. One has moreover equivalences $$\label{eq:comp}
\Pi_* \left( \rho \otimes \rho^\vee \right)
\simeq \left( \rho \otimes \rho^\vee \right)_{\Gamma},$$ as the restriction of $\rho \otimes \rho^\vee$ to $\cY$ is trivial. Thanks to through we conclude that the canonical morphism $\LocSys \left( \mathrm B \Gamma \right) \to \LocSys \left( \mathrm B \pi_1^w(X) \right)$ induces an equivalence on tangent spaces, as desired.
\[const:imp\] Fix a continuous surjective group homomorphism $q \colon \wildpi(X) \to \Gamma$, whose target is finite. Denote by $H$ the kernel of $q$. The profinite group $H$ is an open subgroup of $\wildpi(X)$. For this reason, there exists an open subgroup $U \leq \pi_1^\et(X)$ such that $U \cap \wildpi(X) = H$. In particular, the subgroup $U$ has finite index in $\pi_1^\et(X)$. As finite étale coverings of $X$ are completely determined by finite continuous representations of $\pi_1^\et(X)$, there exists a finite étale covering $$f_U \colon Y_U \to X$$ such that $\pi_1^\et(X)$ acts on it canonically. Moreover, one has an isomorphism of profinite groups $$\pi_1^\et(Y) \cong U$$ As a consequence, it follows that $\wildpi(Y_U) \cong H$. Given $Z \in \Afdl$ and $\rho \in \abdLocSys(X) (\cO_Z)$ it follows by the construction of $f_U \colon
Y_U \to X$ that the restriction $$\rho_{
\vert \Sh^\et(Y)}$$ factors through $\Sh^\tame(Y)$. The morphism $f_U \colon Y_U \to X$ induces a morphism of profinite spaces $$\Sh^\et(Y) \to \Sh^\et(X),$$ which on the other hand induces a morphism of stacks $\dLocSys(X) \to \dLocSys(Y_U)$. Moreover, by the above considerations the composite $$\abdLocSys(X) \to \dLocSys(X) \to \dLocSys(Y),$$ factors through the substack of tamely ramified local systems $\dLocSys \big(\Sh^\tame(Y_U) \big) \hookrightarrow \dLocSys(Y_U)$.
\[lem:imp\] The canonical restriction morphism of \[const:imp\] $$\abdLocSys(X) \to \mathbf{RLocSys}_{\ell, n } (Y_U)$$ induces an equivalence $$\abdLocSys(X) \simeq \mathbf{RLocSys}_{\ell, n } \big(\Sh^\emphet(Y_U) \big)^{\rmB \Gamma'}$$ of stacks.
By Galois descent, the restriction morphism along $f_U \colon Y_U \to X$ induces an equivalence of stacks $$\dLocSys(X) \simeq \dLocSys(Y_U)^{\rmB \Gamma'}.$$ Moreover, the considerations of \[const:imp\] imply that we have a pullback square $$\label{pull}
\begin{tikzcd}
\abdLocSys(X) \ar{r} \ar{d} & \dLocSys(X) \ar{d} \\
\dLocSys \big( \Sh^\tame(Y_U) \big) \ar{r} & \dLocSys(Y_U)
\end{tikzcd}$$ in the $\dSt \big( \dAfdl, \tau_\et \big)$. The result now follows since we can identify with $$\begin{tikzcd}
\dLocSys \big( \Sh^\tame(Y_U) \big)^{\rmB \Gamma'} \ar{r} \ar{d} & \dLocSys(Y_U)^{\rmB \Gamma'} \ar{d} \\
\dLocSys \big( \Sh^\tame(Y_U ) \big) \ar{r} & \dLocSys(Y_U)
\end{tikzcd}$$ in the $\dSt \big( \dAfdl, \tau_\et \big)$.
The (derived) moduli stack $\abdLocSys(X)$ is representable by a derived $\Q_{\ell}$-analytic stack.
Thanks to [@porta_rep Theorem 7.1] we need to check that the functor $\abdLocSys(X)$ has representable $0$-truncation, it admits a (global) cotangent complex and it is compatible with Postnikov towers. The representability of $t_0(\abdLocSys(X) ) \simeq
\abLocSys(X)$ follows from \[main1\]. \[tang\_comp\] implies that $\abdLocSys(X)$ admits a global tangent complex. Moreover, by finiteness of $\ell$-adic cohomology for smooth varieties in characteristic $p \neq \ell$, [@milne_et Theorem 19.1] together with [@me1 Proposition 3.1.7] for each $\rho \in \abdLocSys(X)(Z)$, the tangent complex at $\rho$ $$\bT_{\abdLocSys(X), \rho} \simeq C^*_{\et} \big( X, \Ad (\rho) \big) [1] \in \Mod_{\Gamma(Z)}$$ is a dualizable object of the derived $\Mod_{\Gamma(Z)}$. Thanks to \[lem:imp\] we deduce that the existence of a cotangent complex is equivalent to the existence of a global cotangent complex for the derived moduli stack $$\dLocSys \big( \Sh^\tame(Y_U) \big) \in \dSt \big( \Afdl, \tau_\et \big).$$ We are thus reduced to show that $\Sh^\tame (Y) \in \pro ( \cS^\fc)$ is cohomologically perfect and cohomologically compact, see [@me1 Definition 4.2.7] and [@me1 Definition 4.3.17] for the definitions of these notions. As $Y_U$ is a smooth scheme over a field of characteristic $p \neq \ell$, cohomologically perfectness of $\Sh^\tame(Y_U)$ follows by finiteness of étale cohomology with $\ell$-adic coefficients, [@milne_et Theorem 19.1] together with [@me1 Proposition 3.1.7]. To show that $\Sh^\tame(Y)$ is cohomologically compact we pick a torsion $\bZ_\ell$-module $N$ which can be written as a filtered colimit $N \simeq \colim_{\alpha} N_{\alpha}$ of perfect $\bZ_\ell$-modules. As the tame fundamental group is topologically of finite type and for each $i > 0 $, the stable homotopy groups $\pi_i \big( \Sh^\tame(Y_U) \big)^{\st}$ are finitely presented the result follows. For these reasons, the derived moduli stack $\dLocSys \big( \Sh^\tame(Y_U) \big)$ admits a glocal cotangent complex. \[lem:imp\] implies now that the same is true for $\abdLocSys(X)$. Compatibility with Postnikov towers of $\abdLocSys(X)$ follows from the fact that the latter moduli is defined as a pullback of stacks compatible with Postnikov towers.
Comparison statements
=====================
Comparison with Mazur’s deformation functor
-------------------------------------------
Let $L$ be a finite extension of $\Q_{\ell}$, $\cO_L$ its ring of integers and $\mathfrak l := \O_L / \mathfrak{m}_L$ its residue field. We denote $\CAlg_{/ \mathfrak l}^{\sm}$ the $\infty$-category of *derived small $k$-algebras* augmented over $
\mathfrak l$.
Let $G$ be a profinite group and $\rho \colon G \to \GLn(L)$ a continuous $\ell$-adic representation of $G$. Up to conjugation, $\rho$ factors through $\GLn(\O_L ) \subseteq \GLn(L)$ and we can consider its corresponding residual continuous $\mathfrak l$-representation $$\overline{\rho} \colon G \to \GLn(\fl).$$ The representation $\rho$ can the be obtained as the inverse limit of $\{ \overline{\rho}_n \colon G \to \GLn(\cO_L / \mathfrak{m}_L^{n+1}) \}_n$, where each $\overline{\rho}_n \simeq \rho \ \mathrm{mod } \ \mathfrak{m}^{n+1}$. For each $n \geq 0$, $\overline{\rho}_n $ is a deformation of the residual representation $\overline{\rho}$ to the ring $\cO_L / \mathfrak m_L^{n+1}$. Therefore, in order to understand continuous representations $\rho \colon G \to \GLn(L)$ one might hope to understand residual representations $\overline{\rho} \colon G \to \GLn(\fl)$ together with their corresponding deformation theory. For this reason, it is reasonable to consider the corresponding *derived formal moduli problem*, see [@lurieSAG Definition 12.1.3.1], associated to $\overline{\rho}$: $$\Def_{\overline{\rho}} \colon \CAlg^{\sm}_{/ \fl} \to \cS,$$ given informally via the formula $$\label{deform}
A \in \CAlg^{\sm}_{/ \fl} \mapsto \Map_{\ind(\pro(\cS))} \left( \mathrm B G, \rmB \cEnd(A) \right) \times_{ \Map_{\ind(\pro(\cS))} \left( \mathrm B G,
\rmB \cEnd(A) \right) } \{ \overline{\rho} \} \in \cS
.$$
[@me1 Proposition 4.2.6] and its proof imply that one has an equivalence between the tangent complex of $\Def_{\overline{\rho}}$ and the complex of continuous cochains of $\Ad ( \overline \rho)$ $$\label{cont_coh}
\mathbb T_{\Def_{\overline{\rho}}} \simeq C^*_{\mathrm{cont}} \left( G, \Ad( \rho ) \right)[1]$$ in the $\infty$-category $\Mod_\fl$. Replacing $\mathrm B G$ in by étale homotopy type of $X$, $\Sh^{\et}(X)$, and $C^*_{\cont}$ by $C^*_{\et}$ in it follows by [@milne_et Theorem 19.1] together with [@lurieDAGXII Theorem 6.2.5] that $
\Def_{\overline{\rho}}$ is *pro-representable* by a local Noetherian derived ring $A_{\overline{\rho}} \in \CAlg_{/ \fl}$ whose residue field is equivalent to $\fl$. Moreover, $A_{\overline{\rho}}$ is complete with respect to the augmentation ideal $\mathfrak{m}_{A_{\overline{\rho}}}$ (defined as the kernel of the homomorphism $\pi_0 \left( A_{\overline{\rho}} \right) \to k$ of ordinary rings). It follows that $A_{\overline{\rho}}$ admits a natural structure of a derived $W(\fl)$-algebra, where $W(\fl)$ denotes the ring of Witt vector of $\fl$. As $\overline{\rho}$ admits deformations to $\cO_L$, for e.g. $\rho$ itself, we have that $\ell \neq 0 $ in $\pi_0(A_{\overline{\rho}})$.
Denote by $L^\unr \coloneqq \Frac \left( W(\fl) \right)$ the field of fractions of $W(\fl)$. It corresponds to the maximal unramified extension of $\Q_\ell$ contained in $L$.
Let $\mathrm t_{\leq 0} \left( \Def_{\overline{\rho}} \right)$ denote the $0$-truncation of the derived formal moduli problem $\Def_{\overline{\rho}}$, i.e. the restriction of $\Def_{\overline{\rho}}$ to the full subcategory of ordinary Artinian rings augmented over $\fl$, $\CAlg_{/ \fl }^{\mathrm{sm},\heartsuit} \subseteq \CAlg_{/ \fl}^{\sm}$. Then $\mathrm t_{\leq 0} \left( \Def_{\overline{\rho}} \right)$ is equivalent to Mazur’s deformation functor introduced in [@mazurDG Section 1.2] and $\pi_0(A_{\overline{\rho}})$ is equivalent to Mazur’s universal deformation ring.
Given $R \in \CAlg_{/ \fl}^{\sm, \heartsuit} \subseteq \CAlg_{/ \fl }^{\sm}$ an ordinary (Artinian) local $\fl$-algebra, the object $\rmB \cEnd(R) \in \ind(\pro(\cS))$ is *$1$-truncated*. Therefore one has a natural equivalence of spaces $$\label{eq:0}
\mathrm{t_0} \left( \Def_{\overline{\rho}} \right) (R) \simeq \Map_{\ind(\pro(\cS)) } \left( \mathrm B \pi_1^{\et}(X), \rmB \cEnd(A) \right) \times_{\Def_{\overline{\rho}}(k)} \{ \overline{\rho} \}.$$ By construction, the ordinary $W(\fl)$-algebra $\pi_0(A_{\overline{\rho}})$ pro-represents the functor $\mathrm t_0 \left( \Def_{\overline{\rho}} \right) \colon \CAlg_{/\fl}^{\sm, \heartsuit} \to \cS
$. As a consequence, the mapping space on the right hand side of is $0$-truncated and the set of $R$-points corresponds to deformations of $\overline{\rho}$ valued in $R$. This is precisely Mazur’s deformation functor, as introduced in [@mazurDG Section 1.2], concluding the proof.
Comparison with S. Galatius, A. Venkatesh derived deformation ring
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case where $X $ corresponds to the spectrum of a maximal unramified extension, outside a finite set $S $ of primes, of a number field $L$ and $\rho \colon G_X \to \GLn(K)$ is a continuous representation, the corresponding derived $W(k)$-algebra was first introduced and extensively studied in [@galatius_dg].
Comparison with G. Chenevier moduli of pseudo-representations
-------------------------------------------------------------
In this section we will compare our derived moduli stack $\dLocSys(X)$ with the construction of the moduli of *pseudo-representations* introduced in [@chenevier]. We prove that $\dLocSys(X)$ admits an admissible analytic substack which is a disjoint union of the various $\Def_{\overline{\rho}}$. Such disjoint union of deformation functors admits a canonical map to the moduli of pseudo-representations of introduced in [@chenevier]. Such morphism of derived stacks is obtained as the composite of the $0$-truncation functor followed by the morphism which associates to a continuous representation $\rho $ its corresponding pseudo-representation, see [@chenevier Definition 1.5]. Nevertheless, the derived moduli stack $\dLocSys(X)$ has more points in general, and we will provide a typical example in order to illustrate this phenomena.
\[moc\] Let $\overline{\rho} \colon \pi_1^{\emph{\et}}(X) \to \GLn(\overline{\mathbb F}_\ell)$ be a continuous residual $\ell$-adic representation. To $\overline{\rho}$ we can attach a derived $\Q_\ell$-analytic space $\Def_{\overline{ \rho}}^{\rig } \in \dAn_{\Q_\ell}$ for which every closed point $\rho \colon \Sp L \to \Def_{\overline{\rho}}^\rig$ is equivalent to a continuous deformation of $\overline{\rho}$ over $L$.
Denote by $\dfSch_{W(\fl)}$ the of *derived formal schemes* over $W(\fl)$, introduced in [@lurieSAG section 2.8]. The local Noetherian derived $W(\fl)$-algebra $A_{\overline{\rho}}$ is complete with respect to its maximal ideal $\mathfrak m_{A_{\overline{\rho}}}$. For this reason, we can consider its associated derived formal scheme $\Spf A_{\overline{\rho}} \in
\dfSch_{W(\fl)}$.
Let $A \in \CAlg^{}_{W(\fl)}$ denote an admissible derived $W(\fl)$-algebra, see [@me2 Definition 3.1.1]. We have an equivalence of mapping spaces $$\Map_{\dfSch_{W(\fl)}} \left( \Spf A, \Spf A_{\overline{\rho}} \right) \simeq \Map_{\CAlg_{W(\fl)}^{\ad}} \left( A_{\overline{\rho}}, A \right).$$ Notice that as $A$ is a $\ell$-complete topological almost of finite type over $W(k)$, the image of each $t \in \mathfrak m_{A_{\overline{\rho}}}$ is necessarily a topological nilpotent element of the ordinary commutative ring $\pi_0(A)$. Let $\mathfrak m \subseteq \pi_0(A)$ denote a maximal ideal of $\pi_0(A)$ and let $\left( A\right)^{\wedge}_{\mathfrak{m}}$ denote the $\mathfrak m$-completion of $A$. There exists a faithfully flat morphism of derived adic $W(k)$-algebra $$A \to A' \coloneqq \prod_{\mathfrak m \subseteq \pi_0(A)} \left( A \right)^\wedge_{\mathfrak{m}}$$ where the product is labeled by the set of maximal ideals of $\pi_0(A)$. By fppf descent we have an equivalence of mapping spaces $$\label{ffdes}
\Map_{\CAlg^{\ad}_{W(k)}} \left( A_{\overline{\rho}}, A \right) \simeq \lim_{[n] \in \mathbf \Delta^{\op}} \Map_{\CAlg_{W(k)}^{\ad}} \left( A_{\overline{\rho}}, A'_{[n]} \right)$$ where $A'_{[n]} \coloneqq A' \widehat{\otimes}_A \dots \widehat{\otimes}_A A'$ denotes the $n+1$-tensor fold of $A'$ with itself over $A$ computed in the of derived adic $W(k)$-algebras $\CAlg_{W(k)}^\ad$. For a fixed $[n] \in \mathbf \Delta^{\op}$ we an equivalence of spaces $$\Map_{\CAlg^{\ad}_{W(k)} } \left( A_{\overline{\rho}}, A'_{[n]} \right) \simeq
\Def_{\overline{\rho}} \left( A'_{[n]} \right).$$ For each $[n] \in \mathbf \Delta^{\op}$ we obtain thus a natural inclusion morphism $\theta_{[n]} \colon \Map_{\CAlg^{\ad}_{W(k)}} \left( A_{\overline{\rho}}, A'_{[n]} \right) \to \dLocSys(X)(A'_{[n]})$. The $\theta_{[n]}$ assemble together and by fppf descent induce a morphism $\theta \colon \Map_{\CAlg^{\ad}_{W(k)}} \left( A_{\overline{\rho}}, A \right) \to \dLocSys(X) (A)$. By construction, $\theta$ induces a natural map of mapping spaces $$\Map_{\CAlg^{\ad}_{W(k)}} \left( A_{\overline{\rho}}, A \right) \to \prod_{\mathfrak m \subseteq \pi_0(A)} \bigg( \dLocSys(X)(A) \times_{\Def_{\overline{\rho}} \left( A^\wedge_{\mathfrak m} \right)} \dLocSys(X)(A^\wedge_{\mathfrak m})
\bigg)$$ which is equivalence of spaces. In order words $\Spf A_{\overline{\rho}}$ represents the moduli functor which assigns to each affine derived formal scheme $\Spf A$, over $W(\fl)$, the space of continuous representations $ \rho \colon \Sh^\et(X) \to \mathrm B \GLn(A)$ such that for each maximal ideal $\mathfrak m \subseteq \pi_0(A)$ the induced representation $$\left( \rho \right)^\wedge_{\mathfrak{m}} \colon \Sh^\et(X) \to \mathrm B \GLn \left( \left( A^\wedge_{\mathfrak{m}} \right) \right)$$ is a deformation of $\overline{\rho} \colon \Sh^{\et}(X) \to \mathrm B \GLn(k)$. The formal spectrum $\Spf A_{\overline{\rho}}$ is locally admissible, see [@me2 Definition 3.1.1]. We can thus consider its rigidificiation introduced in [@me2 Proposition 3.1.2] which we denote by $\Def^{\rig}_{\overline{\rho}}
\coloneqq \left( \Spf A_{\overline{\rho}} \right)^\rig \in \dAnl$. Notice that $\Def^{\rig}_{\overline{\rho}}$ is not necessarily derived affinoid.
Let $Z \in \dAfdl$, [@me2 Corollary 4.4.13] implies that any given morphism $ f \colon Z \to \left( \Spf A_{\overline{\rho}} \right)^{\rig}$ in $\dAnl$ admits necessarily a formal model, i.e., it is equivalent to the rigidification of a morphism $$\mathfrak f \colon \Spf A \to \Spf A_{\overline{\rho}},$$ where $A \in \CAlg_{W(k)}^{\ad}$ is a suitable admissible derived $W(\fl)$-algebra. The proof now follows from our previous discussion.
The proof of \[moc\] provides us with a canonical morphism of derived moduli stacks $\Def^{\rig}_{\overline{\rho}} \to \LocSys(X)$. Therefore, passing to the colimit over all continuous representations $$\overline{\rho} \colon \pi_1^{\et}(X) \to \GLn(\mathbb F_\ell)$$ provides us with a morphism $$\label{Psi}
\theta \colon
\coprod_{\overline{\rho} } \Def_{\overline{\rho} }^\rig
\to
\dLocSys(X)$$ in the $\infty$-category $\dSt(\dAfdl, \tau_{\et})$.
\[open\_im\] The morphism of derived $\Q_\ell$-analytic stacks $$\theta \colon \coprod_{\rho \colon \pi_1^\emphet(X) \to \GLn(\bar{\Q}_{\ell}) } \Def_{\rho}^\rig \to \LocSys(G)$$ displayed in exhibits the left hand side as an analytic subdomain of the right hand side.
Let $\overline{\rho} \colon \pi_1^\et(X) \to \GLn( \bF_\ell)$ be a continuous representation. The induced morphism $$\theta_{\overline{\rho}} \colon \Def^\rig_{\overline{\rho}} \to \dLocSys(X)$$ is an étale morphism of derived stacks, which follows by noticing that $\theta_{\overline{\rho}}$ induces an equivalence at the level of tangent complexes. Moreover, \[moc\] implies that $ \theta_{\overline{\rho}} \colon \Def^\rig_{\overline{\rho}} \to \dLocSys(X)$ exhibits the former as a substack of the latter. It then follows that the morphism is locally an admissible subdomain inclusion. The result now follows.
\[open\_im\] implies that $\dLocSys(X)$ admits as an analytic subdomain the disjoint union of those derived $\Q_{\ell}$-analytic spaces $\Def_{\overline{\rho}}^{\rig}$. One could then ask if $\theta$ is itself an epimorphism of stacks and thus an equivalence of such. However, this is not the case in general as the following example illustrates:
\[ex\_surj\] Let $G = \mathbb Z_{\ell}$ with its additive structure and let $A = \Q_{\ell} \langle T \rangle$ be the (classical) Tate $\Q_{\ell}$-algebra on one generator. Consider the following continuous representation $$\rho \colon G \to \GL_2 (\Q_{\ell} \langle T \rangle),$$ given by $$1 \mapsto
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & T \\
0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}.$$ It follows that $\rho$ is a $\Q_{\ell} \langle T \rangle$-point of $\LocSys( \bZ_{\ell})$ but it does not belongs to the image of the disjoint union $\Def^{\rig}_{\overline{\rho}}$ as $\rho$ cannot be factored as a point belonging to the interior of the closed unit disk $\mathrm{Sp} \left( \Q_{\ell} \langle T \rangle \right)$.
As \[ex\_surj\] suggests, when $n =2$ the derived moduli stack $\dLocSys(X)$ does admit more points than those that come from deformations of its closed points. However, we do not know if $\dLocSys$ can be written as a disjoint union of the closures of $\Def^{\rig}_{\overline{\rho}}$ in $\LocSys(X)$. However, when $n = 1$ the analytic subdomain morphism $\theta$ is an equivalence in the $\dSt \big( \dAfdl,
\tau_\et \big)$.
Shifted symplectic structure on $\dLocSys(X)$
=============================================
Let $X$ be a smooth and proper scheme over an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic $p>0$. Poincaré duality provide us with a canonical map $$\varphi \colon C^*_{\et} \left( X , \Q_\ell \right) \otimes_{\Q_\ell} C^*_{\et} \left( X , \Q_\ell \right) \to \Q_\ell[- 2 d]$$ in the derived $\Mod_{\Q_\ell}$ is non-degenerate, i.e., it induces an equivalence of *derived* $\Q_\ell$-modules $$\label{pd}
C^*_{\et} \left( X , \Q_\ell \right) \to C^*_{\et} \left( X , \Q_\ell \right) ^\vee [-2d],$$ in $\Mod_{\Q_\ell}$. As we have seen in the previous section, we can identify the left hand side of with a (shit) of the tangent space of $\dLocSys(X)$ at the trivial representation. Moreover, the equivalence \[pd\] holds if we consider étale (co)chains with more general coefficients. The case that interest us is taking étale cohomology with $\Ad( \rho)$-coefficients for a continuous representation $\rho \colon \pi_1^{\et}(X) \to \GLn(A)$, with $A \in \Afdl$. Let $\rho \in \dLocSys(X)(Z)$, we can regard $\rho$ as a dualizable object of the symmetric monoidal $\Perf^{\ad}_\ell(X) \coloneqq \Fun_{\cE \Cat} \big( \Sh^\et(X), \Perf( A ) \big)$. Let $\rho^\vee$ denote a dual for $\rho $. By definition of dualizable objects, we have a canonical trace map $$\tr_\rho \colon \rho \otimes \rho^\vee \to 1_{\Perf^{\ad}_\ell(X)}$$ in the $\Perf^{\ad}_\ell(X)$ and $1_{\Perf^{\ad}_\ell(X)}$ denotes the unit object of the latter . Therefore, passing to mapping spaces, we obtain a natural composite $$\begin{aligned}
\Map_{\Perf^{\ad}_\ell(X)} \left( 1, \Ad(\rho) \right) \otimes \Map_{\Perf^{\ad}_\ell(X)} \left( 1, \Ad(\rho) \right) & \xrightarrow[]{\mathrm{mult}}
\Map_{\Perf^{\ad}_\ell(X)} \left( 1, \Ad(\rho) \right) \\
& \xrightarrow[]{\tr_\rho} \Map_{\Perf^{\ad}_\ell(X)} \left( 1, 1 \right)
\end{aligned}$$ in the $\Mod_{\Gamma(Z)}$. By identifying the above with étale cohomology coefficients with coefficients we obtain a non-degenerate bilinear form $$\label{PDet}
C^*_\et \big( X, \Ad(\rho) \big)[1] \otimes C_\et^*(X, \Ad(\rho) \big)[1] \to C_\et^* \big( X, \Ad(\rho ) \big)[2] \xrightarrow{\tr_\rho} C^*_\et \big(X, \Gamma(Z) \big) [2 -2d]$$ in the $\Mod_{\Gamma(Z)}$. Moreover, this non-degenerate bilinear form can be interpreted as a Poincaré duality statement with $\Ad(\rho)$-coefficients.
Our goal in this §is to construct a shifted symplectic form $\omega$ on $\dLocSys(X)$ in such a way that its underlying bilinear form coincides precisely with the composite . We will also analyze some of its consequences. Before continuing our treatment we will state a $\Ql$-analytic version of the derived HKR theorem, first proved in the context of derived algebraica geometry in [@toen_s1].
\[analytic\_HKR\] Let $k$ denote either the field of complex numbers or a non-archimedean field of characteristic $0$ with a non-trivial valuation. Let $X \in \dAn_k$ be a derived $k$-analytic space. Then there is an equivalence of derived analytic spaces $$X \times_{X \times X } X \simeq \rmT X[-1],$$ compatible with the projection to $X$.
The proof of \[analytic\_HKR\] is a work in progress together with F. Petit and M. Porta, which the author hopes to include in his PhD thesis.
Shifted symplectic structures
-----------------------------
In this §we fix $X$ a smooth scheme over an algebraically closed field $k$ of positive characteristic $p $.
In [@toen_ss] the author proved the existence of shifted symplectic structures on certain derived algebraic stacks which cannot be presented as certain mapping stacks. As $\dLocSys(X)$ cannot be presented as usual analytic mapping stack, we will need to apply the results of [@toen_ss] to construct the desired shifted sympletic structure on $\dLocSys(X)$.
Consider the canonical inclusion functor $\iota \colon \dSt \left( \dAfdl, \tau_{\et}, P_{\sm} \right) \subseteq \Fun \left( \dAfdl, \cS \right)$. The functor $\iota$ admits a left adjoint which we refer to as *the stackification functor* $\left(- \right)^{\mathrm{st}} \colon
\Fun \left( \dAfdl, \cS \right)
\to \dSt \left( \dAfdl, \tau_{\et}, P_{\sm} \right)$.
Consider the functor $ \PerfSys^f \colon \dAfdl \to \cS$ which is defined via the assignment $$Z \in \dAfdl^{\op} \mapsto \Map_{\cE \Cat} \left( \Sh^{\et}(X), \Perf \big( \Gamma(Z) \big) \right) \in \cS$$ where we designate $\Perf \big(\Gamma(Z) \big)
$ to be the $\ind(\pro(\cS))$-enriched of perfect $\Gamma(Z)$-modules, which is equivalent to the subcategory of dualizable objects in the of Tate modules on $\Gamma(Z)$, $\Mod^{\mathrm{Tate}}_{\Gamma(Z)}$, [@need; @reference; @here]. We define the moduli stack $\PerfSys \in \dSt \left( \dAfdl, \tau_{\et}, \right)$ as the stackyfication of $\PerfSys^f$.
This is an example of a moduli stack which cannot be presented as a usual mapping stack, instead one should think of it as an example of a *continuous mapping stack*.
We will denote $\Cat^{\otimes}$ the of (small) symmetric monoidal .
Let $\cC \in \Cat^\otimes$ be a symmetric monoidal . We say that $\cC$ is a rigid symmetric monoidal if every object $C \in \cC$ is dualizable.
\[rigCat\] We denote by $\rigCat$ the of small rigid symmetric monoidal .
Consider the usual inclusion of $\cS \hookrightarrow \Cat$, it admits a right adjoint, denoted $$(-)^{\simeq} \colon \Cat \to \cS$$ which we refer as the *underlying $\infty$-groupoid functor*. Given $\cC \in \Cat$ its underlying $\infty$-groupoid $\cC^{\simeq} \in \cS$ consists of the maximal subgroupoid of $\cC$, i.e., the subcategory spanned by equivalences in $\cC$.
\[lem:rigidity\] There exists a valued $\Cat^{\st, \omega, \otimes}$-valued pre-sheaf $$\Perf^\ad_\ell(X) \colon \dAfdl \to \Cat$$ given on objects by the formula $$Z \in \dAfdl \mapsto \Fun_{\cE \Cat} \left( X, \Perf \big( \Gamma(Z) \big) \right).$$ Moreover, the underlying derived stack $(-)^{\simeq} \circ \Perf^\ad_\ell(X) \in \dSt \big( \Afdl, \tau_\et \big)$ is naturally equivalent to derived stack $\PerfSys \in \dSt \left( \dAfdl, \tau_{\emphet}\right)$.
The construction of $\Perf^\ad_\ell(X)$ is already provided in [@me1 Definition 4.3.11]. Moreover, it follows directly from the definitions that $ \big( \Perf^\ad_\ell(X) \big)^\simeq \simeq \PerfSys(X)$.
\[lem:rigidity\] is useful because it place us in the situation of [@toen_ss §3]. Therefore, we can run the main argument presented in [@toen_ss §3]. Before doing so, we will need to introduce some more ingredients:
Let $H \left( \Perf^\ad_\ell(X) \right) \colon \dAfdl^{\op} \to \cS$ denotes the sheaf defined on objects via the formula $$Z \in \dAfdl^{\op} \mapsto \Map_{\Perf^\ad_\ell(X) \big( \Gamma(Z) \big)} \left( 1, 1 \right) \in \cS,$$ where $\mathbf 1 \in \Perf^\ad_\ell(X) (\Gamma(Z))$ denotes the unit of the corresponding symmetric monoidal structure on $\Perf^\ad_\ell(\Gamma(Z))$.
Let $\cO \colon \dAfdl^{\op} \to \CAlg_{\Q_\ell}$ denote the sheaf on $(\Afdl, \tau_\et)$ given on objects by the formula $$Z \in \dAfdl^{\op} \mapsto \Gamma \left( Z \right) \in \CAlg_{\Q_\ell}.$$
\[const:pair\] One is able to define a *pre-orientation*, in the sense of [@toen_ss Definition 3.3], on the $\rigCat$-value stack $\Perf^\ad_\ell(X)$ $$\theta \colon H \left( \Perf^\ad_{\ell}(X)\right) \to \cO[-2d],$$ as follows: let $Z \in \dAfdl$ be a derived $\Q_\ell$-affinoid space. We have a canonical equivalence in the $\Mod_{\Gamma(Z)}$ $$\label{eq:ii}
\beta_{\Gamma(Z)} \colon \Map_{\Perf^\ad_\ell(X)(\Gamma(Z))} \left( 1, 1 \right) \simeq C^*_{\text{\et}} \left( X, \Gamma(Z) \right),$$ by the very construction of $\Perf^\ad_\ell \big( \Gamma(Z) \big)$. Moreover, the projection formula for étale cohomology produces a canonical equivalence $$C^*_{\text{et}} \left( X, \Gamma(Z) \right) \simeq C^*_{\text{et}} \left( X, \Q_\ell \right) \otimes_{\Q_\ell} \Gamma(Z)$$ in the $\Mod_{\Q_\ell}$. As $X$ is a connected smooth scheme of dimension $d$ over an algebraically closed field we have a canonical map on cohomology groups $$\alpha \colon \Q_\ell \simeq H^0 \left( X_{\et}, \Q_\ell \right) \otimes H^{2d} \left( X_{\et}, \Q_\ell \right) \to \Q_\ell$$ which is induced by Poincaré duality. Consequently, the morphism $\alpha$ induces, up to contractible indeterminacy, a canonical morphism $$\label{eq:iii}
C^*_{\et}(X, \Q_\ell) \to \Q_\ell [-2d].$$ in the $\Mod_{\Ql}$. together with base change of along the morphism $\Q_\ell \to \Gamma(Z) $ provides us with a natural morphism $$\Map_{\Perf^\ad_\ell(X) (\Gamma(Z)) } \left( 1, 1 \right) \to \Gamma(Z) [-2d].$$ By naturality of the previous constructions, we obtain a morphism pre-orientation $$\theta \colon H \left( \Perf^\ad_\ell(X) \right) \to \cO[-2d],$$ which corresponds to the desired orientation.
Given $Z \in \dAfdl$, the $\Perf^\ad_\ell \big( \Gamma(Z) \big)$ is rigid. Thus for a given object $\rho \in \Perf^\ad_\ell \big( \Gamma(Z) \big)$ we have a canonical trace map $$\mathrm{tr}_{\rho} \colon \Ad \left( \rho \right) \to 1_{ } .$$ which together with the symmetric monoidal structure provide us with a composite of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\Map_{\Perf^\ad_\ell(X)(\Gamma(Z))} \left( 1 , \Ad(\rho) \right) \otimes \Map_{\Perf^\ad_\ell(X)(\Gamma(Z))} \left( 1, \Ad( \rho) \right) \to & \Map_{\Perf^\ad_\ell(X)(\Gamma(Z))} \left( 1 , \Ad(\rho) \otimes \Ad (\rho)
\right) \\
\to \Map_{\Perf^\ad_\ell(X)(\Gamma(Z))} \left( 1, \Ad(\rho) \right) \to & \Map_{\Perf^\ad_\ell(X)(\Gamma(Z)} \left( 1, 1 \right) \to \Gamma(Z)[-2d] &
\end{aligned}$$ which we can right equivalently as a morphism $$C^*_{\et} \left( X, \Ad(\rho) \right) \otimes C^*_{\et} \left( X, \Ad(\rho) \right) \to \Gamma(Z)[2-2d],$$ which by our construction coincides with the base change along $\Q_\ell \to \Gamma(Z)$ of the usual *pairing* given by *Poincaré Duality*.
Let $Z \in \dAfdl$ be a derived $\Ql$-affinoid space. The pairing of \[const:pair\] $$\Map_{\Perf^\ad_\ell(X)(\Gamma(Z)} \left( 1, \Ad (\rho) \right) \otimes \Map_{\Perf^\ad_\ell(X)(\Gamma(Z))} \left( 1, \Ad(\rho) \right) \to \Gamma(Z) [-2d]$$ is non-degenerate. In particular, the pre-orientation $\theta \colon H \left( \Perf^\ad_\ell(X) \right) \to \cO[-2d]$ is an orientation, see [@toen_ss Definition 3.4] for the latter notion.
Let $\rho \in \PerfSys(X) ( \cO_Z)$ be an arbitrary continuous representation with $\cO_Z$-coefficients. We wish to prove that the natural mapping $$\Map_{\Perf^\ad_\ell(X)(\Gamma(Z)} \left( 1, \Ad (\rho) \right) \otimes \Map_{\Perf^\ad_\ell(X)(\Gamma(Z))} \left( 1, \Ad(\rho) \right) \to \Gamma(Z) [-2d]$$ is non-degenerate. As $Z $ lives over $\Ql$ and $p \neq \ell$ it follows that $\rho \in \mathbf{PerfSys}_{\ell, \Gamma}(X)$ for a sufficiently large finite quotient $q \colon \wildpi(X) \to \Gamma$. It then follows by [@me1 Proposition 4.3.19] together with \[lem:imp\] that $\rho$ can be realized as the $\rmB \Gamma$-fixed points of a given $\widetilde{\rho} \colon \Sh^\tame(Y) \to \rmB \GLn(A_0)$, where $Y \to X$ is a suitable étale covering and $A_0 \in \adCAlg$ is an admissible derived $\bZ_\ell$-algebra such that $$\big( \Spf A_0 \big)^\rig \simeq Z,$$ in the $\dAfdl$. We notice that it suffices then to show the statement for the residual representation $\rho_0 \colon \Sh^\tame (Y) \to \rmB \GLn(A_0 / \ell)$, where $A_0 / \ell$ denotes the pushout $$\begin{tikzcd}
A_0[t] \ar{r}{t \mapsto \ell} \ar{d}{t \mapsto 0} & A_0 \ar{d} \\
A_0 \ar{r} & A_0 / \ell
\end{tikzcd}$$ computed in the $\adCAlg$. We can write $A_0 / \ell$ as a filtered colimit of free $\bF_\ell$-algebras $\bF_\ell[T_0, \dots, T_m]$, where the $T_i $ sit in homological degree $0$. As $\Sh^\tame(Y)$ is cohomological compact we reduce ourselves to prove the statement by replacing $\rho_0$ with a continuous representation with values in some polynomial algebra $\bF_\ell[T_0, \dots, T_m]$. The latter is a flat module over $\bF_\ell$. Therefore, thanks to Lazard’s theorem [@lurieHA Theorem 8.2.2.15] we can further reduce ourselves to the case where $\rho_0$ is valued in a finite $\bF_\ell$-module. The result now follows by the \[const:pair\] together with the projection formula for étale cohomology and Poincaré duality for étale cohomology.
As a corollary of [@toen_ss Theorem 3.7] one obtains the following important result:
The derived moduli stack $\PerfSys(X) \in \dSt \left( \dAfdl, \tau_{\et} \right)$ admits a canonical shifted symplectic structure $\omega \in \rmH \rmC \big(\PerfSys(X) \big)$, where the latter denotes cyclic homology of the derived moduli stack $\PerfSys(X)$. Moreover, given $Z \in \dAfdl$ and $\rho \in \PerfSys \big( \Gamma(Z) \big)$, the shifted symplectic structure $\omega$ on $\PerfSys(X)$ is induced by *étale Poincaré duality* $$C^*_{\emph{\et}}\left(X, \Ad(\rho) \right) [1] \otimes C^*_{\emph{\et}} \left( X, \Ad(\rho) \right) [1] \to \Gamma(Z)[2-2d].$$
This is a direct consequence of our previous discussion together with the argument used in [@toen_ss Theorem 3.7].
Applications
------------
Consider the canonical inclusion $\iota \colon \dLocSys(X) \hookrightarrow \PerfSys(X)$. Pullback along the morphism $\iota$ on cyclic homology induces a well defined, up to contractible indeterminacy, morphism $$\iota^* \colon \rmH \rmC \big( \PerfSys(X) \big) \to \rmH \rmC \big( \dLocSys(X) \big).$$ We then obtain a canonical closed form $\iota^* (\omega ) \in \rmH \rmC \big( \dLocSys(X) \big)$. Moreover, as $\iota$ induces an equivalence on tangent complexes, the closed form $\iota^* (\omega ) \in \rmH \rmC \big( \dLocSys(X) \big)$ is non-degenerate, thus a $2-2d$-shifted symplectic form. Similarly, given a finite quotient $q \colon \wildpi(X) \to \Gamma$, we obtain a $2-2d$-shifted symplectic form on the derived $\Ql$-analytic stack $\abdLocSys(X)$. The existence of the sifted symplectic form entails the following interesting result:
Let $\bL_{\dLocSys(X)}$ denote the cotangent complex of the derived moduli stack $\dLocSys(X)$. We will denote by $$C^*_{\dR} \big( \dLocSys(X) \big) \coloneqq \Sym^* \big( \bL_{\dLocSys(X)} \big) \in \Coh \big( \dLocSys(X) \big)$$
Notice that $C^*_{\dR} \big( \dLocSys(X) \big)$ admits, by construction, a natural mixed algebra structure. However, we will be mainly interested in the corresponding ”plain module” and $\bE_\infty$-algebra structures underlying the given mixed algebra structure on $C^*_{\dR} \big( \dLocSys(X) \big)$.
Let $X$ be a proper and smooth scheme over an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic $p> 0$. We then have a well defined canonical morphism $$C^*_\dR \big( \rmB \anGLn \big) \otimes C^*_\emphet \big(X, \Ql \big)^\vee \to C^*_\dR \big( \dLocSys(X) \big)$$
Let $\rho \in \PerfSys(X)$ be a continuous representation. We have a canonical morphism $$\rmB \End(\rho) \to \rmB \End \big( \rho(*) \big)$$ in the $ \cS$, where $\rho(*)$ denotes the module underlying $\rho$. This association induces a well defined, up to contractible indeterminacy, morphism $$\PerfSys(X) \to \Perf^\an,$$ where $\Perf^\an \in \dSt \big( \dAfdl, \tau_\et \big)$ denotes the analytification of the algebraic stack of perfect complexes, $\Perf$. Therefore, we obtain a canonical morphism $$\label{map:imp}
f^* \colon \rmH \rmC \big( \Perf^\an \big) \otimes \rmH \big( \Perf^\an \big) \to \rmH \rmC \big( \PerfSys(X) \big) \otimes \rmH \big( \PerfSys(X) \big)$$ in the $\Mod_{\Ql}$, where $\rmH \big( \Perf^\an \big) \coloneqq \Map_{\Perf(\Ql)} \big( \Ql , \Ql \big) \simeq \Ql$ and $ \rmH \big( \PerfSys(X) \big) \simeq C^*_\et(X, \Ql)$. Thus we can rewrite simply as $$\label{imp:map2}
f^* \colon \rmH \rmC \big( \Perf^\an \big) \to \rmH \rmC \big( \PerfSys(X) \big) \otimes C^*_\et(X, \Ql).$$ As étale cohomology $C^*_\et(X, \Ql) \in \Mod_{\Ql}$ is a perfect module we can dualize to obtain a canonical morphism $$f^* \colon \rmH \rmC \big( \Perf^\an \big) \otimes C^*_\et(X, \Ql ) \to \rmH \rmC \big( \PerfSys(X) \big).$$ in the $\Mod_{\Ql}$. Consider now the commutative diagram $$\begin{tikzcd}
\dLocSys(X) \ar{r} \ar{d}{j} & \rmB \anGLn \ar{d} \\
\PerfSys(X) \ar{r} & \Perf^\an
\end{tikzcd}$$ in the $\dSt \big( \dAfdl, \tau_\et \big)$. Then we have a commutative diagram at the level of loop stacks $$\begin{tikzcd}
\Map \left( S^1, \dLocSys(X) \right) \ar{r}{i} \ar{d}{j} & \Map \left( S^1, \rmB \anGLn \right) \ar{d} \\
\Map \left( S^1, \PerfSys(X) \right) \ar{r} & \Map \left( S^1, \Perf^\an \right).
\end{tikzcd}$$ By taking global sections in the above diagram we conclude that the composite $$f^* \circ i_! \cH \cH \big( \cO_{ \rmB \anGLn} \big) \simeq f^* \circ i_! \cO_{\Map \left( S^1, \rmB \anGLn \right)}$$ has support in $\Map \left( S^1, \dLocSys(X) \right) \hookrightarrow \Map \left( S^1, \PerfSys(X) \right)$. Therefore, we can factor the composite $$\rmH \rmH \big( \rmB \anGLn \big) \otimes C^*_\et(X, \Ql)^\vee \to \rmH \rmH \big( \Perf^\an \big) \otimes C^*_\et(X, \Ql)^\vee \to \rmH \rmH \big( \PerfSys(X) \big)$$ as a morphism $$\rmH \rmH \big( \rmB \anGLn \big) \otimes C^*_\et(X, \Ql)^\vee \to \rmH \rmH \big( \dLocSys(X) \big)$$ in the $\Mod_{\Ql}$. The analytic HKR theorem then provide us with the desired morphism $$C^*_\dR \big( \rmB \anGLn \big) \otimes C^*_\et \big(X, \Ql \big)^\vee \to C^*_\dR \big( \dLocSys(X) \big)$$ in the $\Mod_{\Ql}$.
A type GAGA theorem for reductive groups together with a theorem of B. Totaro, see [@totaro Theorem 10.2], that the de Rham cohomology of the classifying stack $\anGLn$ coincides with $\ell$-adic cohomology $$C^*_\dR \big( \rmB \anGLn \big) \simeq C^*_\dR \big( \rmB \GLn^{\mathrm{top}} \big)$$ in the $\Mod_{\Ql}$, where $\rmB \GLn^{\mathrm{top}}$ denotes the topological classifying stack associated to the general linear group $\GLn$. In particular, we obtain a morphism $$C^*_\et \big(\rmB \GLn, \Ql \big) \otimes C^*_{\et} \big(X, \Ql \big) \to C^*_\dR \big( \dLocSys(X) \big).$$ in the $\Mod_{\Ql}$. As $C^*_\dR \big( \dLocSys(X) \big)$ admits a natural $\bE_\infty$-algebra structure we obtain, by the universal property of the Sym construction, a well defined morphism $$\label{mor:sp}
\Sym \left( C^*_\et \big(\rmB \GLn, \Ql \big) \otimes C^*_{\et} \big(X, \Ql \big) \right) \to C^*_\dR \big( \dLocSys(X) \big).$$ in the $\CAlg_{\Ql}$. Assuming further that $X$ is a proper and smooth curve over an algebraically closed field, an $\ell$-adic version of Atiyah-Bott theorem proved in [@tamagawa] implies that we can identify the left hand side of with a morphism $$C^*_\et \left( \mathrm{Bun}_{\GLn} (X), \Ql \right) \to C^*_\dR \big( \dLocSys(X) \big)$$ in the $\CAlg_{\Ql}$.
As a corollary we obtain:
Let $X$ be a smooth scheme over an algebraically closed field of positive characteristic $p > 0$. We have a canonical morphism $$\varphi \colon C^*_{\et} \big( \rmB \GLn, \Ql \big) \otimes C^*_\et \big( X, \Ql \big)^\vee \to C^*_{\dR} \big( \dLocSys(X) \big)$$ in the $\CAlg_{\Ql}$. Moreover, assuming further that $X$ is also a proper curve we obtain a canonical morphism $$C^*_\emphet \left( \mathrm{Bun}_{\GLn} \big(X \big), \Ql \right) \to C^*_{\dR} \big( \dLocSys(X) \big)$$ in the $\CAlg_{\Ql}$.
By forgetting the mixed $k$-algebra structure on $C^*_{\dR} \big( \dLocSys(X) \big)$ one can prove that the moprhism $\varphi$ sends the product of the canonical classes on $ C^*_{\et} \big( \rmB \GLn, \Ql \big)
\otimes C^*_\et(X, \Ql)^\vee$ to the underlying cohomology class of the shifted symplectic form $\omega $ on $\dLocSys(X)$.
[10]{} António, Jorge. “Moduli of $ p $-adic representations of a profinite group.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.04275 (2017).
António, Jorge. “$ p $-adic derived formal geometry and derived Raynaud localization Theorem.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.03302 (2018).
Bhatt, Bhargav, and Peter Scholze. “The pro-étale topology for schemes.” arXiv preprint arXiv:1309.1198 (2013).
Bommel, R. van. “The Grothendieck monodromy theorem.” Notes for the local Galois representation seminar in Leiden, The Netherlands, on Tuesday 28 April
Cadoret, Anna. “The fundamental theorem of Weil II for curves with ultraproduct coefficients.” Preprint (available under preliminary version on https://webusers. imj-prg. fr/anna. cadoret/Travaux. html).
Chenevier, G. (2014). The p-adic analytic space of pseudocharacters of a profinite group, and pseudorepresentations over arbitrary rings. Automorphic forms and Galois representations, 1, 221-285.
Clark, Pete L. “Fundamental Groups in Characteristic p”. Unpublished notes.
Emerton, M., and Gee, T. (2015). “ Scheme-theoretic images” of morphisms of stacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.06146.
Fontaine, Jean-Marc, and Yi Ouyang. “Theory of p-adic Galois representations.” preprint (2008).
Galatius, S., and Venkatesh, A. (2018). Derived Galois deformation rings. Advances in Mathematics, 327, 470-623.
Gouvêa, Fernando Q. “Deformations of Galois representations.” Arithmetic algebraic geometry (Park City, UT, 1999) 9 (1999): 233-406.
Grothendieck, Alexandre. “Revêtement étales et groupe fondamental (SGA1).” Lecture Note in Math. 224 (1971).
De Jong, Aise Johan. “Étale fundamental groups.” Lecture notes taken by Pak-Hin Lee, available at .
De Jong, Aise Johan. “Étale fundamental groups of non-Archimedean analytic spaces.” Compositio mathematica 97.1-2 (1995): 89-118.
Gaitsgory, D., and Lurie, J. (2017). Weil’s conjecture for function fields (2014).
Emerton, M., and Gee, T. (2015). “ Scheme-theoretic images” of morphisms of stacks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.06146.
Kerz, M., and Schmidt, A. (2010). On different notions of tameness in arithmetic geometry. Mathematische Annalen, 346(3), 641.
Lurie, Jacob. Higher algebra. (2012): 80.
Lurie, Jacob. Higher Topos Theory (AM-170). Vol. 189. Princeton University Press, 2009.
Lurie, J. (2011). Formal moduli problems. Prépublication accessible sur la page de l’auteur: http://www. math. harvard. edu/lurie.
Lurie, J. DAG XII: Proper morphisms, completions, and the Grothendieck existence theorem. 2011.
Lurie, Jacob. “DAG XIII: Rational and p-adic homotopy theory. 2011.”
Lurie, Jacob. “Spectral algebraic geometry.” Preprint, available at www. math. harvard. edu/ lurie/papers/SAG-rootfile. pdf (2016).
Mazur, Barry. “Deforming galois representations.” Galois Groups over ?. Springer, New York, NY, 1989. 385-437.
Milne, J. S. (1998). Lectures on étale cohomology. Available on-line at http://www. jmilne. org/math/CourseNotes/LEC. pdf.
Nagata, M. (1962). Imbedding of an abstract variety in a complete variety. Journal of Mathematics of Kyoto University, 2(1), 1-10.
Porta, M., and Yu, T. Y. (2018). Derived Hom spaces in rigid analytic geometry. arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.07730.
Porta, M., and Yu, T. Y. (2018). Derived non-archimedean analytic spaces. Selecta Mathematica, 24(2), 609-665.
Porta, M. and Yu, T. Y. (2017). Representability theorem in derived analytic geometry. arXiv preprint arXiv:1704.01683.
Pries, Rachel J. “Wildly ramified covers with large genus.” Journal of Number Theory 119.2 (2006): 194-209.
Toën, B., and Vezzosi, G. (2011). Algebres simpliciales S 1-équivariantes, théorie de de Rham et théoremes HKR multiplicatifs. Compositio Mathematica, 147(6), 1979-2000.
Toën, B. (2018). Structures symplectiques et de Poisson sur les champs en catégories. arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.10444.
Totaro, B. (2018). Hodge theory of classifying stacks. Duke Mathematical Journal, 167(8), 1573-1621.
Pantev, T., Toën, B., Vaquié, M., and Vezzosi, G. (2013). Shifted symplectic structures. Publications mathématiques de l’IHÉS, 117(1), 271-328.
de Jong, A. J. Stacks Project. URL: http://stacks. math. columbia. edu/(visited on 04/01/2016).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Synchronization is an ubiquitous phenomenon occurring in social, biological and technological systems when the internal rhythms of a large number of units evolve coupled. This natural tendency towards dynamical consensus has spurred a large body of theoretical and experimental research during the last decades. The Kuramoto model constitutes the most studied and paradigmatic framework to study synchronization. In particular, it shows how synchronization shows up as a phase transition from a dynamically disordered state at some critical value for the coupling strength between the interacting units. The critical properties of the synchronization transition of this model have been widely studied and many variants of its formulations has been considered to address different physical realizations. However, the Kuramoto model has been only studied within the domain of classical dynamics, thus neglecting its applications for the study of quantum synchronization phenomena. Based on a system-bath approach and within the Feynman path-integral formalism, we derive the equations for the Kuramoto model by taking into account the first quantum fluctuations. We also analyze its critical properties being the main result the derivation of the value for the synchronization onset. This critical coupling turns up to increase its value as quantumness increases, as a consequence of the possibility of tunnelling that quantum fluctuations provide.'
author:
- Ignacio Hermoso de Mendoza
- 'Leonardo A. Pachón'
- 'Jesús Gómez-Gardeñes'
- David Zueco
title: Synchronization in a semiclassical Kuramoto model
---
Introduction
============
Synchronization is perhaps the most cross-disciplinary concept of emergence of collective behavior [@Strogatz2004] as it is manifested across many branches of natural and social sciences. Ensembles of neurons, fireflies or humans are prone to synchronize their internal rhythms when they become coupled enough, producing a macroscopic dynamically coherent state. In all these seemingly unrelated situations, no matter the precise nature of the coupled units, interaction drives system’s components to behave homogeneously. Thus, the study about the microscopic rules that drive ensembles towards synchrony has a long and fruitful history since the seminal observations made by Christiaan Huygens [@Pikovsky2003; @Manrubia2004; @Boccaletti2008].
The mathematical formulation of the first models showing synchronization phenomena dates back to the $70$’s when, after some preliminary works by Peskin and Winfree [@Strogatz2000], Kuramoto [@Kuramoto75] formalized his celebrated model. The Kuramoto model incorporates the minimum dynamical ingredients aimed at capturing a variety of physical phenomena related with the onset of synchronization. In particular, the Kuramoto model links physical concepts such as self-organization, emergence, order in time and phase transitions, thus revealing as the most paradigmatic framework to study synchronization [@Strogatz2000; @Nadis2003; @Bonilla2005].
{width="90.00000%"}
Despite the large body of literature devoted to the Kuramoto model and its variants, its study has always been restricted to the classical domain. At first sight, given the usual nature (scale) of the systems in which synchronization is typically observed, it seems superflous thinking of a quantum theory for the Kuramoto model. However, there is not doubt about the fundamental importance of studying quantum fluctuations within the emergence of synchronized states [@Goychuk2006; @Zhirov2008; @Mari2013; @Liu2013; @Giorgi2012; @Manzano2013; @Lee2013; @Lee2014]. Moreover, the Kuramoto model has been implemented on circuits and micro and nanomechanical structures , systems which have already met the quantum domain [@LaHaye2004; @OConnell2010]. At the quantum level, synchronization, understood as the emergence of a coherent behaviour from an incoherent situation in the absence of external fields, is reminiscent of the phenomena such as condensation of Bose-Einsten and has been observed in interacting condensates of quasiparticles . Additionally, synchronization has been suggested to occur in ensamble of atoms and enhance the coherence time next generation of lasers Thus, moved by its fundamental and applied importance, in this work we provide the semiclassical version of the Kuramoto model in an attempt for understanding the influence that quantumness has on the emergence of synchronized states.
Our work in this paper consists, as stated by Caldeira and Leggett [@Caldeira1983], on finding consistent equations that in the classical limit matches the Kuramoto model. Our derivation relies on the quantization of open systems in the framework of Feynman’s path-integral formalism. We compute the first quantum corrections to the [*classical*]{} Kuramoto model. We also analyze its critical properties by deriving the critical point from which synchronization shows up and determine how quantum fluctuations affect this synchronization transition.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In the next section \[sec:classical\] we review the main features of the classical model. Section \[sec:q-K\], constitutes the main part of our work, there we present the semiclassical equations and draw our numerical results on the sync dynamics. In section \[sec:K\] we derive the critical value for the synchronization transition. We write our conclusions on \[sec:conc\], sending most of the technical steps for the semiclassical calculations and the critical value to the Appendices.
The classical Kuramoto model. {#sec:classical}
=============================
The original Kuramoto model [@Kuramoto75] considers a collection of $N$ phase-oscillators, [*i.e.*]{}, it assumes that the characteristic time scale of their amplitudes is much faster than that for the phases. Thus, the dynamical state of the $i$-th unit is described by an angular variable $\theta_i\in(0,2\pi]$ whose time evolution is given by: $$\label{K0}
\dot \theta_i = \omega_i + \frac{K}{N} \sum_{j=1}^N \sin (\theta_i - \theta_j)\; .$$ The above equation thus describes a set of weakly coupled phase-oscillators whose internal (natural) frequencies $\{\omega_i\}$ are, in principle, different as they are assigned following a frequency distribution $g(\omega)$ that is assumed to be uni-modal and even around the mean frequency $\Omega$ of the population, $g(\Omega+\omega)=g(\Omega-\omega)$.
In the uncoupled limit ($K=0$) each element $i$ describes limit-cycle oscillations with characteristic frequency $\omega_i$. Kuramoto showed that, by increasing the coupling $K$ the system experiences a transition towards complete synchronization, [*i.e.*]{}, a dynamical state in which $\theta_i(t)=
\theta_j(t)$ $\forall i, j$ and $\forall t$. This transition shows up when the coupling strength exceeds a critical value whose exact value is: $$\label{crit-clas}
K_{\mathrm c}=\frac{2}{\pi g(\Omega)}\;.$$
To monitor the transition towards synchronization, Kuramoto introduce a complex order parameter: $$\label{Kuraparam}
r(t){\mbox e}^{{\mbox i}\Psi(t)}=\frac{1}{N}\sum_{j=1}^N {\mbox
e}^{{\mbox i}\theta_j(t)} \;.$$ The modulus of the above order parameter, $r(t)\in[0,1]$, measures the coherence of the collective motion, reaching the value $r=1$ when the system is fully synchronized, while $r=0$ for the incoherent solution. On the other hand, the value of $\Psi(t)$ accounts for the average phase of the collective dynamics of the system.
In Figure \[fig:1\] we have illustrated the synchronization in the Kuramoto model. The panels in the top show, for different values of the coupling $K$, how the oscillators concentrate as $K$ increases. Below we have shown the usual synchronization diagram $ r(K)$ for which the exact value of $r$ for each $K$ is the result of a time average of $r(t)$ over a large enough time window. In this diagram we can observe that $K_{\mathrm c}=1$ as a result of using the distribution $g(\omega)$ shown in the right.
Let us note that the all-to-all coupling considered originally by Kuramoto can be trivially generalized to any connectivity structure by introducing the coupling matrix $A_{ij}$ inside the sum in Eq. (\[K0\]) so that each term $j$ accounting for the interaction between oscillator $i$ and $j$ is assigned a different weight. The latter allows for the study of the synchronization properties of a variety of real-world systems for which interactions between constituents are better described as a complex network [@Boccaletti2006]. The formalism developed in this work is fully general and valid for any form of $K_{ij}$ thus making possible the extension of the large number of studies about the Kuramoto model in any topology [@PRsync] to the semiclassical domain. However, the numerical part of our work will deal with the all-to-all coupling for the sake of comparison with the original Kuramoto work.
Quantization of the Kuramoto model. {#sec:q-K}
===================================
The most important problem when facing the quantization of the Kuramoto model is its non-Hamiltonian character since, as introduced above, equation (\[K0\]) assumes the steady-state for the dynamical state of the amplitude of the oscillators. Thus, a question arises, how do we introduce quantum fluctuations in the Kuramoto model? One possible choice is to resort to the original microscopic dynamics of amplitude and phases and then identify the underlying Hamiltonian dynamics. However, many different dynamical setups can have the Kuramoto model as their corresponding limiting case of fast amplitude dynamics. Thus, in order to keep the flavor of generality of the Kuramoto model, it is desirable not to resort to any specific situation (Hamiltonian) and introduce quantum fluctuations directly.
A similar problem was faced by Caldeira and Leggett in the eighties [@Caldeira1983] when they studied the influence of dissipation in quantum tunneling. In their case, the corresponding classical dynamics dates back to the studies on activation theory by Kramers [@Hanggi1990]. Classically, a particle in a potential experience an energy barrier to surmount, that is typically acquired from thermal fluctuations. On the other hand, a quantum particle finds in tunnelling an alternative way to bypass an energy barrier. Caldeira and Leggett were thus interested in quantifying the catalytic effect of tunnelling in (effectively) lowering the energy barriers. However, as in the Kuramoto model, Kramers activation theory is based in Langevin equations, [*i.e.*]{} stochastic equations that are not directly obtained from any Lagrangian. Furthermore, most of reaction rate equations were phenomenological. Therefore, they searched for a consistent way for introducing quantum fluctuations regardless of the microscopic origin of the [*effective*]{} classical evolution. As a byproduct their work opened the field of quantum Brownian motion in the most general way.
We take here the same route followed by Caldeira and Leggett to introduce quantum fluctuations in the Kuramoto model. In order to accomodate our dynamical system (\[K0\]) to the framework provided in [@Caldeira1983] we start by writting its corresponding Langevin equation: $$\label{langevin}
\dot \theta_i = - \frac{\partial V}{\partial \theta_i} + \xi_i\;,$$ with $$\label{eff-pot}
V (\theta_1, ..., \theta_N) \equiv - \sum_i \omega_i \theta_i + \frac{K}{N}\sum _{i,j} \cos (\theta_i - \theta_j)\;.$$ As usual, $\xi_i$ is a Markovian stochastic fluctuating force with $\langle \xi_i (t) \rangle = 0$ and $\langle \xi_i (t) \xi_j (t^\prime) \rangle = 2 \delta_{ij} D\delta (t - t^{\prime})$. In the limit $D \to 0$, equation (\[langevin\]) reduces to the Kuramoto model in equation (\[K0\]).
Equation (\[langevin\]) is nothing but a Langevin equation in the overdamped limit. It is first rather than second order in time as the inertia term is neglected. Consequently, the Kuramoto model can be viewed as a set of phases evolving in the overdamped limit. The absence of fluctuations in the limit $D\to 0$ means that the system of phases is at zero temperature, $D \sim T$. Such identification with a Langevin equation has been already used for generalizations of the original Kuramoto model taking into account noise and/or inertial effects [@Bonilla2005]. In particular, in [@Sakaguchi1988] it is shown that the critical value $K_{\mathrm c}$ reads: $$\label{KCS}
K_{\mathrm c} = \frac{2}{\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} {\rm d} \omega \frac{D }{D^2+\omega^2 } \, g(\omega) }\;,$$ which, in the limit $D\to 0$, recovers the Kuramoto critical coupling (\[crit-clas\]).
The key point of deriving the Langevin equation (\[langevin\]) corresponding to the Kuramoto model is that it can be obtained from a fully Hamiltonian framework by coupling the system, in our case the coupled phases $\theta_i$, to a macroscopic bath or reservoir [@Hanggi1990]. In this way, both the damping and fluctuations are seen to be caused by the coupling of the system of phases to the bath. The Hamiltonian description is properly casted in the system-bath approach: $$\label{Ht}
H_{\rm tot} = H_{\rm sys} + H_{\rm bath} + H_{\rm int}\;,$$ where the bath is an infinite collection of harmonic oscillators with frequencies $\{\omega_{\alpha}\}$ (note that greek subindexes will denote the oscillators in the bath). In the case we are dealing with the [*total*]{} Hamiltonian reads: $$\label{K-Ht}
H_{\rm tot}=\sum_i \frac{ \pi_i^2}{2}+V (\theta_1, ..., \theta_N)
+\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i, \alpha} P_{i, \alpha}^2 + \omega_\alpha^2 (Q_{i,\alpha} - \lambda_\alpha \theta_i)^2\;,$$ where $\{(\theta_i, \pi_i)\}$ and $\{(Q_{i, \alpha} , P_{i, \alpha})\}$ denote the system and bath canonical coordinates, respectively, while $\lambda_{\alpha}$ stands for the coupling constant between bath and system coordinates.
Under well defined conditions, the equations of motion for the system coordinates derived from the Hamiltonian (\[K-Ht\]) lead to the the afore-derived overdamped Langevin equation (\[langevin\]). In particular, one needs to assume: [*(i)*]{} thermalized initial conditions for the bath: $$\begin{aligned}
\langle Q_{i, \alpha} Q_{i^\prime, \alpha^\prime} \rangle &=&\delta_{i, i^\prime} \delta_{\alpha, \alpha^{\prime}} \; k_{\rm B}
T / \omega_ \alpha^2\;,
\\
\langle P_{i, \alpha} P_{i^\prime, \alpha^\prime} \rangle &=&\delta_{i, i^\prime} \delta_{\alpha, \alpha^{\prime}} \; k_{\rm B}
T\;,\end{aligned}$$ [*(ii)*]{} the frequency spectrum of the bath oscillators is flat (this assumption leads to the widely used Ohmic dissipation), and finally [*(iii)*]{} the changes in time of the velocity (acceleration) induced by the energy potentials are far slower than the energy loss induced by the coupling between the system and the bath (this is the situation when the system and the bath are strongly coupled) so that we could neglect the inertial term.
The semiclassical equation
--------------------------
Once we have a Hamiltonian description for the Kuramoto equation (\[K0\]), we are ready to perform its quantization. First, we associate the phases and their associated momenta together with the positions and momenta for the bath by providing them with the canonical commutation rules. The hardest work is to find an effective quantum evolution depending only on phase operators, [*i.e.*]{} the so-called quantum Langevin equation. It turns out that such operators equation is a non-local in time differential equation, which makes it extremely difficult to manipulate in general. However, the quantum version of equation (\[langevin\]) in the overdamped limit is a $c$-number local differential equation [@Ankerhold2001; @Ankerhold2005; @Maier2010; @Machura2004; @uczka2005; @Machura2006]. The full derivation for the quantum Langevin equation is based on the Path Integral formulation. It is lengthy and rather technical. Let us first present the final result (below), then a sketch of the deriviation. Further details can be found in Appendix \[app:q-K\].
The resulting quantum evolution in the Ito representation reads as follows: $$\label{q-l}
\dot \theta_i
= -\frac{V'_i}{F_i}
+\frac{\Lambda}{F_i}\sum_j\left(\beta V^\prime_j V^{\prime
\prime}_{ij}-V^{\prime \prime \prime}_{jji}\right)
-\frac{\Lambda}{2F_i} V^{\prime \prime \prime}_{iii} + \sqrt {
\frac{1}{F_i}}
\cdot\xi_i\;,$$ where we have used the compact notation $V_{i, ..., k}^{\prime
... \prime} \equiv \partial_{\theta_i, ..., \theta_k} V$, $\xi_i$ is an stochastic force with the same statistics as in (\[langevin\]), $$F_i = {\rm e}^{-\frac{\Lambda}{D} V^{\prime \prime}_{i i} }\;$$ and $\Lambda$ is the *quantumness* parameter: $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda = &\frac{2}{ m \beta} \sum_n \frac{1}{\nu_n^2 + \gamma \nu_n}
\\ \nonumber
=&
\frac{\hbar}{m \pi \gamma}
\left ( \Psi \left [
\frac{\hbar \beta \gamma}{2 \pi}
\right]
-\mathrm{C} + \frac{2 \pi}{\hbar \beta \gamma} \right ),\end{aligned}$$ being $\mathrm{C}= 0.577...$ the Euler-Mascheroni constant and $\Psi$ the Digamma function. Note that in the limit $\hbar \beta \gamma \to 0$ $\Lambda \to 0$. Making $\Lambda \to 0$ the quantum Langevin reduces to the classical . This is a remarkable property. Our result is perturbative in $ \beta \Lambda$, giving the first quantum corrections containing, as a limit, the Kuramoto model. We notice that, being perturbative, $\beta \Lambda$ must be *small*, wich means that our equation is valid at high temperatures and damping. As a drawback of the perturbative character, the model can not be pushed to the zero temperature limit. Compared to its classical counterpart \[$\beta \Lambda \to 0$, Eq. (\[langevin\])\], Eq. (\[q-l\]) has a renormalized effective potential (\[eff-pot\]) (third term in the r.h.s). Besides, both the diffusion and consequently its noise terms are also modified by the quantum fluctuations (second and last terms in the r.h.s respectively).
The noise, because of the $\sqrt {1 /
F_i}$ is now multiplicative. In the limit $ \beta \Lambda \rightarrow 0$, $F \to 1 $. Hence, in the classical limit the multiplicative noise switches into additive noise. This immediately suggests that the multiplicative nature is related to the underlying quantum stochastic process. Quantum noise depends, undoubtedly, on the state of the system, the dynamics of observables depend on the state the system is and therefore, quantum noise in a Langevin equation must depend upon the dynamics of the system itself. This explains the multiplicative character of the noise in Eq. at the single variable level. This result is consistent with previous works along this line (see, e.g., Ref. [@Machura2004; @uczka2005; @Ankerhold2005; @Machura2006]).
### Sketch for the derivation of Eq. {#sect:sketch}
Any Langevin equation, classical or quantum, is an effective evolution for the system of interest degrees of freedom. If we start with the total Hamiltonian, the bath degrees of freedom need to be integrated out. In the quantum regime, this means taking the partial trace over the bath Hilbert space. We follow here the program explained in Refs . The steps are as follows. *i)* The equilibrium reduced density matrix [@Weiss]: $$\label{P}
\varrho_\beta ( {\bf \theta ; \theta^\prime})
=
\int {\rm d Q}^n
\;
W_\beta ( {\bf Q, \theta ; Q^\prime, \theta^\prime })$$ is obtained in the overdamped limit. Both ${\bf Q}$ and ${\bf
\theta}$ are a shorthand notation for denote the bath ($Q_1,
...$) and system ($\theta_1, ..., \theta_N$) coordinates. In such a regime the damping is sufficiently strong to suppress the non-diagonal elements, *coherences*, of the reduced density matrix, i.e., a regime where $\langle \theta_1, ..., \theta_N | \varrho_\beta | \theta_1^\prime,
..., \theta_N^\prime \rangle \sim \prod \delta (\theta_i - \theta_i^\prime)$. We define $$\label{P-def}
P_\beta ({\bf \theta}) := \varrho_\beta ( {\bf \theta ;
\theta})
\, .$$ As detailed in Appendix \[app:q-K\], the reduced density matrix in the overdamped limit can be written as: $$\label{rho-eq}
P_\beta (\theta)
=
\mathcal{Z}^{-1}
{\rm e} ^{ -\beta \Lambda \sum_i
V_{i,i}^{\prime \prime}
}
\,
{\rm e}^{-\beta V +
\frac{1}{2}
\beta^2 \Lambda \sum_i (
V_i^\prime
)^2 }
\, .$$
Once the equilibrium density matrix is obtained, *ii)* the master equation for the probability distribution $P (q , t)$ \[Cf. Eq. \] is proposed. Taking into account the results for the harmonic oscillator [@Maier2010] and the single particle case [@Ankerhold2001; @Machura2004], the master equation can be formally written as: $$\label{qme-formal}
\partial_t P (\theta ; t) = \partial_\theta L \, P (\theta; t).$$ The *iii)* actual master equation takes a Fokker Planck form. It is by obtained imposing that the equilibrium density distribution $P_\beta$ given by Eq. is stationary under , $L \,
P_\beta (q ) = 0$. The final result is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{qme-final}
\nonumber
\partial_tP
= \sum_i\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{\theta}_i}
\Big\lbrace
\Big[
&
\frac{V'_i}{{\Gamma}F_i}-\frac{\beta}{{\Gamma}F_i}{\Lambda}
{\sum_j}
V_j^\prime \, V_{i, j}^{\prime \prime}
+\frac{\Lambda}{{\Gamma}F_i}
\sum_{j\neq{i}}V^{\prime\prime\prime}_{jji}\Big]
\\ & + \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{\theta}_i}\left[
\frac{D}{\gamma^2F_i}\right] \Big\rbrace P.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, *iv)* the Langevin equation is obtained via the equivalence of Fokker-Planck equations, as Eq. and Langevin-type equations [@Garcia-Palacios2007].
The transition to synchronization in the semiclassical model. {#sec:K}
=============================================================
![(color online) [**Classical [*vs.*]{} Semiclassical synchronization transitions**]{}. Panel (a) shows the synchronization diagrams $r(K)$ for the classical ($\Lambda=0$) and the quantum ($\Lambda=0.1$) Kuramoto models. In both cases the thermal noise is chosen such that $D=1$. The number of oscillators is $N=10^3$ and the distribution of natural frequencies is given in Eq. (\[equ:Lorentzian\]) centered in $\omega_0 = 0$ and $\alpha = 0.5$. It is clear that the synchronization onset is delayed as soon as quantumness enters into play. In panels (b) and (c) we show the probability $P(\theta)$ of finding an oscillator at a given phase $\theta$ as a function of $K$. Note that for each value of $K$, the phases has been equally shifted so that the mean phase is located at $\theta=\pi$. A thick grey line indicates the critical values $K_{\mathrm c}$ and $K_{\mathrm c}^{\mathrm q}$ for classical and quantum dynamics, respectively. []{data-label="fig:2"}](newfig2.eps){width="0.95\columnwidth"}
Once we derived the semiclassical version of the Kuramoto equation, it is natural to unveil the effects that quantum fluctuations induce in the transition to synchronization. As introduced previously, to study the synchronization transition one resorts to the order parameter $r$ \[introduced in equation (\[q-l\])\] that reveals the synchronized state of the system. We solve both the classical Kuramoto model ($\Lambda = 0$) and the quantum one ($\Lambda > 0$) numerically, extracting from the dynamics the stationary value of $r$. Through this work, the numerical calculations are performed with $N=10^3$ oscillators and the distribution of natural frequencies is Lorentzian: $$\label{equ:Lorentzian}
g(\omega ; \omega_0, \alpha) = \frac{1}{\pi} \frac{\alpha}{(\omega - \omega_0)^2 + \alpha^2}\;,$$ with $\alpha = 0.5$ and centered around $\omega_0 = 0$.
{width="85.00000%"}
Figure \[fig:2\].a shows the typical synchronization diagram, namely, the value of $r$ as a function of the coupling strength $K$. The comparison of the semiclassical (for $\Lambda=0.1$) and classical curves $r(K)$ evinces that quantum fluctuations delay the onset of synchronization, [*i.e.*]{}, the critical point $K_{\mathrm c}$ is seen to move to larger values with $\Lambda$. We have also considered the evolution for the distribution of the phases as a function of $K$ to monitor the microscopic fingerprint of the synchronization transition. The evolution of the classical and quantum Kuramoto models is shown in figures \[fig:2\].b and \[fig:2\].c, respectively.
To explain the delay in the synchronization onset introduced by quantum fluctuations we resort to the simplest situation: two coupled Kuramoto oscillators. In this case the Kuramoto model (\[langevin\]) consists of just two coupled equations for the evolution of $\theta_1$ and $\theta_2$. By taking the difference of those two equations and introducing as a new variable the phase difference, $\varphi := \theta_1 - \theta_2$, we obtain for its evolution the following equation: $$\dot \varphi = \Delta \omega - K \sin \varphi
+
2 D \xi
\label{particle}$$ The latter equation describes the evolution of an overdamped particle in a washboard potential (see Figure \[fig:mechanical\]). With this image in mind, we map the synchronous movement of the two oscillators (defined as a state in which the frequencies of the oscillators are locked: $\dot \theta_1 = \dot \theta_2$) with the resting state of the overdamped particle inside a local minimum of the potential energy ($\dot \varphi = 0$). On the other hand, when the two oscillators are not synchronized the particle drifts across the potential ($\dot \varphi \neq 0$). Both situations are shown in Fig. \[fig:mechanical\].
The quantum version for the diffusion of an overdamped particle in a periodic potential has been previously studied in Ref. [@uczka2005]. The main result is that the scape rate of the particle, and thus its unlocking mechanism, is enhanced through quantum fluctuations. This effect can be seen as a consequence of the enhancement of the transition probability for energies below the height of the barrier which is nothing but the well-known tunnel effect [@Garcia-Palacios2004]. In Fig. \[fig:mechanical\] we show, for both the classical and semiclassical ($\Lambda=0.1$) systems of two coupled Kuramoto oscillators, the value of $\dot \varphi = 0$ as a function of the ratio between the difference of the natural frequencies of the two oscillators $|\Delta\omega|$ and the coupling $K$. It is clear that, as stated above, quantum tunnelling facilitates the drift or, equivalently, delays the transition to the synchronous state.
Analytical expression for the synchronization onset {#sec:K}
===================================================
Coming back to the original model of $N$ interacting oscillators, we now make an analytical estimation of the value for critical coupling at which the synchronization transition occurs. The procedure is a generalization of the one presented in Ref. [@Sakaguchi1988] and takes advantage of the mean field description of the Kuramoto model. The derivation (detailed in Appendix \[app:Kc\]) yields a rather simple equation for the critical coupling: $$\label{kqkcl}
K^{\rm q}_{\mathrm c}= (1+ \Lambda)K_{\mathrm c}\;,$$ being $K_{\mathrm c}$ the classical critical value shown in Eq. (\[KCS\]).
The above result states that quantum fluctuations act by effectively decreasing the coupling strength with the degree of quantumness $\Lambda$. Coming back to the physical image of a particle in a washboard potential, we can consider the effect of the quantum correction by considering the first and third terms in the right hand side of equation (\[q-l\]). In this way, quantum corrections can be casted in the form of an effective potential: $$V_{\rm eff} = V + \Lambda V^{\prime \prime},$$ that in the particular case of the washboard potential reads: $$V_{\rm eff} = -\Delta \omega \;\varphi - (K - \Lambda) \cos \varphi\;.$$ The above equation makes clear that tunnelling is formally reflected by an effective barrier reduction that yields the observed shift to higher values for the critical coupling.
Our analytical estimation for $K_{\mathrm c}^{\mathrm q}(\Lambda)$ is plotted in figure \[fig:2\] and \[fig:4\] (vertical arrows) confirming its validity. To corroborate further the correctness of equation (\[kqkcl\]), we explore the synchronization transition for different values of $\Lambda$ in figure \[fig:4\].a. As expected the onset of synchronization shifts to higher values as the degree of quantumness increases. Again, the predicted value for $K_{\mathrm{c}}^{\mathrm{q}}$ is plotted (vertical arrows) corroborating the validity of equation (\[kqkcl\]).
To complete our study, we show in \[fig:4\].b the dependence of the synchronization diagram with the [*thermal fluctuations*]{}, $D$, both for the classical and quantum ($\Lambda=0.1$) cases. In all the curves explored the coupling $K$ is rescaled by the corresponding critical coupling $K_{\mathrm c}$ in the classical regime. In this way we show both for the classical and quantum cases, the robustness of the critical value (\[kqkcl\]) against temperature changes.
{width="98.00000%"}
Discussion {#sec:conc}
==========
The search for quantum corrections to classical phenomena has been pervasive in physics. Some examples related to our work are the generalization to the quantum domain of chaos [@Ott], dissipation [@Weiss], random walks [@SanchezBurillo2012], etc. Each of these examples finds its own difficulties when incorporating quantum fluctuations and unveiling their role. Some of these obstacles are the quantum linearity versus the typical non-linearity of classical systems and the quantization of non-Hamiltonian system or phenomenological equations. Overcoming these obstacles provides with a consistent quantum description that opens the quantum door to a variety of classical problems and their associated physical phenomena.
Among the most studied phenomena in (classical) complex systems is synchronization. This emergent phenomena is as intriguing as beautiful, since it covers from the description of the [*sympathy*]{} of clocks to the neuronal functioning in our brain, thus overcoming the disparately diversity in the spatial and time scales associated to the bunch of systems in which synchronization is observed. However, the concept of synchronization was usually associated to the classical domain as the typical examples of clocks, fireflies or humans are too macroscopic to think about the need of introducing quantum fluctuations in the description of the associated dynamical models.
Recently, some experimental works have shown that synchronization can be observed in the lab within Josepshon Junction arrays [@Wiesenfeld1998], nanomechanical [@Matheny2013] or optomechanical systems [@Heinrich2011]. All of these systems share one prominent property: they behave quantum mechanically at sufficiently low temperatures. Therefore, adapting the concept of synchronization among coupled entities within the quantum theory is, apart from an interesting theoretical issue, a must imposed by the rapid experimental advances.
A first step consists in taking the most widely used framework for studying synchronization phenomena, the Kuramoto model, and adapting it to the quatum domain. Being a paradigmatic theoretical setup, the quantization of the Kuramoto model opens the door to the theoretical study of quantum synchronization in the widest possible manner. To this end, and to overcome the non-Hamiltonian character of the Kuramoto equations, we have mapped the model to an overdamped Langevin equation which has a Hamiltonian description by embedding the system in a bath of oscillators. In this way, the quantization of the Kuramoto model is straightforward and it includes its classical counterpart as a limiting case: the quantum version incorporates quantum fluctuations for the phases while the strength of these quantum corrections are encoded in a single parameter.
The route chosen here must be understood as complementary to the study of particular models of coupled quantum systems. The reason is twofold. First, we aim to be as general as possible. The essence of an emergent phenomena is its ability of describe very different situations with different microscopic dynamics. This is the goal of the Kuramoto model, as it explains the synchronization without resorting to the specific dynamics. Second, a force brute study of many body quantum entities is a very difficult task that usually implies the reduction of the system to a few coupled systems. However, the observation of a true synchronization transition demands hundreds or thousands of interacting dynamical systems.
Being general, the results obtained allow to make general statements about the impact that quantumness has on the synchronization of coupled dynamical units. The most important one is that quantum fluctuations delay the appearance of a synchronized state. The explanation of this effect relies on the fact that in the quantum domain the phases not only have a different natural frequency but also the fluctuations around the classical trajectories are different depending on those internal rhythms. To illustrate this interpretation we recall the simple case of two coupled Kuramoto oscillators. In this case quantum fluctuations are nothing but thermal assisted tunneling favoring the phase unlocking. Therefore, the coupling needed to synchronize the two oscillators is higher in the quantum limit.
Finally, we want to point out that in a recent publication the question about synchronization in quantum evolutions was also discussed [@Mari2013]. Under rather general conditions they find bounds for the degree of synchronization based on the Heisenberg uncertainty principle: the phases, derived as averages of non-conmuting operators, cannot take values infinitely close. Instead, in our case, focused on the quantum version of the Kuramoto model, we have discussed, not the maximum degree of synchronization but the critical onset for the appearance of partially synchronized states. In this case quantumness also limits the emergence of a synchronous state. Therefore, pretty much like in what happens in quantum chaos, synchronization seems to be a quasi-classical phenomena [@Liu2013].
This work has been partially supported by the Spanish MINECO under projects FIS2011-14539-E (EXPLORA program) FIS2011-25167 and FIS2012-38266-C02-01, by the Comunidad de Aragón (Grupo FENOL). J.G.G. is supported by MINECO through the Ramón y Cajal program. LAP was supported by CODI of Universidad de Antioquia under contract number E01651 and under the *Estrategia de Sostenibilidad 2013-2014* and by COLCIENCIAS of Colombia under the grant number 111556934912.
The semiclassical Kuramoto model: technical details {#app:q-K}
===================================================
In this appendix we provide some technical details for obtaining the semiclassical Kuramato model in Eq. . As sketeched in the main text, See \[sect:sketch\], we need: the equilibrium density matrix, calculate some coefficients in a Fokker-Planck equation and transform the latter to a Langevin type equation.
Equilibrium Density Matrix: Path Integral Formalism {#app:eq-pi}
---------------------------------------------------
Let us compute the equilibrium density matrix. In particular we are interested in the reduced density matrix (at equilibrium): $$\varrho_\beta = {\rm Tr_{bath}} \{
W_\beta
\},$$ where $W_\beta$ is the total equilibrium density operator, $W_\beta
\sim {\rm e} ^{-\beta (H_{\rm sys}
+
H_{\rm bath}
+
H_{\rm int} ) }$. The equilibrium reduced density matrix can be expressed as [@Ingold2002] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{equ:EffAct}
\varrho_\beta
({\boldsymbol \theta}, {\boldsymbol \theta}^{\prime})
=
\frac{1}{\mathcal{Z}}
\int_{\theta_1}^{\theta_1^\prime}
{\mathcal D} \theta_1
\cdot \cdot \cdot
\int_{\theta_N}^{\theta_N^\prime}
{\mathcal D} \theta_N
\;
{\rm e}^{- \frac{1}{\hbar} S^E_{\rm eff} [{\boldsymbol \theta}]},\end{aligned}$$ with the effective action $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
S^E_{\rm eff} [{\boldsymbol x}]
= &
\int^{\hbar \beta}_0 {\rm d} \tau
\, \Big (
\sum_j \frac{1}{2} m \dot \theta_j^2
+
V(\theta_1, ..., \theta_N)
\, \Big )
\\
&+
\frac{1}{2} \sum_j \int^{\hbar \beta}_0 {\rm d} \tau
\int^{\hbar \beta}_0 {\rm d} \sigma
K(\tau - \sigma) \theta_j (\tau) \theta_j(\sigma),\end{aligned}$$ which contains the kernel $$K (\tau) =
\frac{m}{\hbar \beta}
\sum_n
| \nu_n |
\hat \gamma
( | \nu_n | )
{\rm e}^{i \nu_n \tau},$$ being $\nu_n$ the Matsubara frequencies, $$\nu_n = \frac{ 2 \pi n}{\hbar \beta}.$$ and the Laplace transform of the damping kernel is given by: $$\hat \gamma (z) = \frac{2}{m}
\int_0^\infty
\frac{{\rm d} \omega}{\pi}
\frac{J(\omega)}{\omega}
\frac{z}{z^2 + \omega^2}.$$
Overdamped Equilibrium
----------------------
Based on previous works [@Ankerhold2005; @Maier2010] for the single particle case, we compute the equilibrium distribution in the overdamped limit. the overdamped dynamics refer to a regime in the parameter space where damping is sufficiently strong to suppress the non-diagonal elements, *coherences*, of the reduced density matrix, i.e., a regime where $\langle \theta_1, ..., \theta_N | \varrho_\beta | \theta_1^\prime,
..., \theta_N^\prime \rangle \sim \prod \delta (\theta_i - \theta_i^\prime)$. These [*semiclassical*]{} diagonal contributions can be computed perturbatively on the quantum fluctuations.
### Minimal path
Let us denote the minimal action (ma) path as $x^{\rm ma}_i \equiv \bar \theta_i$. Besides, since we are interested in the diagonal contributions in the imaginary-time path integral in equation (\[equ:EffAct\]), this means for us to take the trajectories with $$\label{per-diag}
\bar \theta_i (0) = \bar \theta_i (\hbar \beta)
\equiv \theta_i,$$ [*i.e.*]{}, periodic trajectories with frequencies $\nu_n$. The minimal action path satisfies the generalized Lagrange equations [@Grabert1988] $$\label{min-path}
m \ddot {\bar \theta}_i
- \frac{\partial V}{ \partial \bar \theta_i}
-
\int_0^{\hbar \beta} {\rm d} \sigma
k(\tau - \sigma) \bar \theta_i (\sigma)
= 0.$$ The periodic condition in equation (\[per-diag\]) suggests to Fourier expand ${\bar \theta}_i(\tau)$, such that $$\bar \theta_i(\tau) = \sum_n \theta_{n, i} {\rm e}^{i \nu_n \tau},$$ where the Fourier components satisfy $$- \nu_n ^2 \theta_{n,i} + \gamma (\nu_n ) \theta_{n,i}
+
v_{n,i} = b_i,$$ with $$v_{n,i} =
\int_0 ^{\hbar \beta}
{\rm d} \tau
\frac {\partial V}{\partial \theta_i} {\rm e}^{-i \nu_n \tau}$$ and the inhomogenous term $$b_i= \dot {\bar \theta}_i (\hbar \beta) - \dot {\bar \theta}_i (0),$$ comes from the jumps and cups singularities arising from fact that the Fourier series expansion for $ {\bar \theta}_i(\tau)$ periodically continues the path outside the interval $0\le \tau\le \hbar \beta$ [@Grabert1988]. Note that terms like $a_i= {\bar \theta}_i (\hbar \beta) - {\bar \theta}_i (0)$ are, in general, expected. However, since we are interested in the diagonal contributions, they do not contribute to the present case.
At this point, we first notice that by making $n=0$ for $b_i$ we obtain $$\label{bi}
b_i = \frac{\hbar \beta}{m} \frac {\partial V}{\partial \theta_i}.$$ Besides, the components $\theta_{n,i}$ with $n \neq 0$, $$\label{thetani}
\theta_{n,i} = \frac{-b_i}{\nu_n^2 + \gamma (\nu_n )},$$ are suppressed by dissipation. Hence $$\label{theta0i-rel}
\theta_{0,i} \cong \bar {\theta}_i (0) + \frac{b_i}{\hbar} \Lambda,$$ where $\Lambda$ measures the quantumness: $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda = &\frac{2}{ m \beta} \sum_n \frac{1}{\nu_n^2 + \gamma \nu_n}
\\ \nonumber
=&
\frac{\hbar}{m \pi \gamma}
\left ( \Psi \left [
\frac{\hbar \beta \gamma}{2 \pi}
\right]
-\mathrm{C} + \frac{2 \pi}{\hbar \beta \gamma} \right ),\end{aligned}$$ being $\mathrm{C}= 0.577...$ the Euler-Mascheroni constant. Note that in the limit $\hbar \to 0$, $\Lambda \to 0$, as it must be. Thus, recovering the classical result.
The contribution of the minimal action can be further simplified by considering that $$\label{equ:auxparint}
\frac{1}{2} \int {\rm d} \tau\, \dot {\bar \theta}_i ^2 = \frac{1}{2} \left
[
\theta_i (\dot {\bar \theta}_i (\hbar \beta)
-
\dot {\bar \theta}_i (0) )- \int {\rm d} \tau\, \theta_i \ddot {\bar \theta}_i
\right ]$$ together with (\[per-diag\]) and replacing equation (\[min-path\]) in the second term at the r.h.s of equation (\[equ:auxparint\]), such that $$S =
\frac{1}{2}
\sum_i
\theta_i b_i + \int_0^{\hbar \beta} {\rm d} \tau
\;
\big ( V
- \frac{1}{2} \sum_i \bar {\theta}_i \partial_{\theta_i} V
\big ) \, .$$ By using the relation (\[bi\]) and by noticing that $\bar {\theta}_{i} \cong \theta_{0,i}$ \[$\theta_{n,i}$ are suppressed, see equation (\[thetani\])\], we have that $\bar {\theta}_{i} - \theta_i = b_i \Lambda /\hbar$ \[Cf. equation (\[theta0i-rel\])\]. Hence, $$S_{\rm ma}
=
\hbar \beta
V
-
\frac{1}{2}
\sum_i \hbar \beta^2 \Lambda (\partial_{\theta_i} V)^2.$$
### Fluctuations around the minimal action path
We study now the fluctuation around the minimal path $$\theta_i = \bar {\theta}_i + y_i,$$ subjected to the boundary conditions: $$\label{bc-y}
y_i(0)= y_i (\hbar \beta) = 0.$$ Consequently, the correction to the path integral reads, $$F(q) =
\int {\mathcal D} y_1
\cdot \cdot \cdot
\int {\mathcal D} y_N
{\rm e}^{-1/\hbar \int _0 ^{\hbar \beta} {\rm d} \tau
\langle y | \mathsf{L} | y \rangle},$$ where we have used an economical notation, [*[à]{} la Dirac*]{}, for the quadratic form $\langle y | \mathsf{L} | y \rangle = \sum L_{ij} y_i
y_j$, being $\mathsf{L} = \{\{L_{ij}\}\}$ defined as $$\mathsf{L} = - \mathsf{I}
\left ( m \frac{d^2}{d \tau^2}
+
\int_0^{\hbar \beta} {\rm d} \sigma\, k(\tau - \sigma)
\right )
+
\mathsf{V}^{\prime \prime},$$ where $\mathsf{I}$ is the identity matrix and the second-derivative-potential-matrix $\mathsf{V}^{\prime \prime} = \{\{V_{ij}^{\prime \prime} \}\}$ is defined as, $$V^{\prime \prime} _{ij} :=
\frac {\partial V}{\partial \theta_i \partial \theta_j}.$$
We proceed as above and Fourier expand the fluctuations around the minimal path \[Cf. equation (\[bc-y\])\], $$y_i = \frac{1}{\hbar \beta} \sum_n y_{n,i} {\rm e}^{i \nu_n \tau},$$ which allows us to effectively replace the boundary condition $y_i(0)=0$ in terms of a product of Dirac’s delta functions, $\prod_i \delta [y_i(0)]=\prod_i \delta
[1/\hbar \beta \sum _n y_{n,i}]$, in the integral expressions above, i.e., by changing $$\prod_i \delta
[y_{n,i}]
\sim \int
\prod_i {\rm d} \mu_i
{\rm e}^{i/\hbar \beta \langle \mu | y_n \rangle}$$ where $\langle \mu | y_n \rangle = \sum_i \mu_i y_{n,i}$. Therefore, $$F(q) \sim \int \prod_i {\rm d} \mu_i
\prod_n \prod_j
{\rm d} y_{n,j}
{\rm e}^{i/\hbar \beta \langle \mu | y_n \rangle}
{\rm e}^{-1/\hbar \beta \langle y_n | \mathsf{A}_n | y_n\rangle},$$ with, $$\label{An}
\mathsf{A}_n = \mathsf{I} \lambda_n + \mathsf{V}^{\prime \prime}
\;
\quad \mathrm{and}\quad
\lambda_n = \nu_n^2 + |\nu_n | \gamma.$$
This is a Gaussian integral that can be performed by resorting twice to the formula $$\int
\prod_j {\rm d} \theta_j
{\rm e} ^{- \langle x | \mathsf{A}| x \rangle + \langle b | x \rangle }
= \sqrt { \frac {\pi^N} {{\rm det} \, \mathsf{A}} }
\;
{\rm e} ^{- \langle b | \mathsf{A}^{-1} | b \rangle}.$$ So that $$F(q)
\sim
\sqrt { \frac{ \prod_n {\rm det} \, \mathsf{A}_n^{-1}}{\sum _n {\rm det} \, \mathsf{A}_n^{-1} }}.$$ Up to first order in $1/\gamma$, we get \[Cf. equation (\[An\]\]: $$\mathsf{A}_n^{-1}
\cong
\frac{1}{\lambda_n}
\mathsf{I}-
\frac{1}{\lambda_n^2}
\mathsf{V}^{\prime \prime}.$$ To be consistent, we also need to compute the determinants at first order in $1/\gamma$ [@detapprox] $${\rm det} \, \mathsf{A}_n ^{-1}
\cong
\frac{1}{\lambda_n^N}
{\rm e}^{-{\rm Tr}[ \mathsf{V}^{\prime \prime}]/\lambda_n}.$$ Based on all the consideration above, in the next appendix we explicitly present the thermal equilibrium state with first order corrections in the fluctuations along the semiclassical minimal path results and derive the associated Smoluchowski equation.
Based on the result obtained in section \[app:eq-pi\], the equilibrium density matrix in the overdamped limit reads, see also Eq. (\[rho-eq\]): $$\label{rho-eq-app}
P_\beta (\theta)
=
\frac{1}{\mathcal Z}
{\rm e} ^{ -\beta \Lambda \sum_i
V_{i,i}^{\prime \prime}
}
\,
{\rm e}^{-\beta V +
\frac{1}{2}
\beta^2 \Lambda \sum_i (
V_i^\prime
)^2 }
\, .$$ where we have introduced the notation $P_\beta (\theta)$. In the overdamped limit only the diagonal elements $\varrho_\beta (\theta,\theta) $ matter \[Cf. Eq. (\[P-def\])\]. We have also introduced the compact notation \[see the main text, below Eq. \]: $V_{i, ..., k}^{\prime
... \prime} \equiv \partial_{\theta_i, ..., \theta_k} V$.
The Quantum Master Equation for the Kuramoto Model: q-K
-------------------------------------------------------
We proceed here as Ankerhold et al. in Refs. [@Ankerhold2005; @Maier2010]:
### One-Particle Master Equation
As a warm up, let us consider the one-particle model. In the classical case, the Fokker-Planck equation can be expressed as $$\label{eq:s01}
\partial_tP=\partial_{\theta}LP$$ where $$\label{eq:s02}
L=D_1({\theta})+\partial_{\theta}D_2$$ with, $$D_1=V'=\partial_{\theta}V$$ and $$D_2=\frac{D}{\gamma^2}=\frac{k_{\beta}T}{m\gamma}=\frac{1}{m\gamma\beta}=\frac{1}{\Gamma\beta},$$ here $\Gamma := m\gamma$.
Let us switch into the quantum regime. The reduced density matrix for the single particle case, \[See (\[rho-eq\])\] reads: $$\label{eq:s03}
P_{\beta}=\frac{1}{Z}e^{-{\beta}{\Lambda}V''}
e^{(-{\beta}V+\frac{\beta^2\Lambda}{2}V'^2)},$$ where $Z$ is the partition function and $$S=-{\beta}V+\frac{\beta^2\Lambda}{2}V'^2.$$ Up to leading order in $\Lambda$, $$\label{equ:OpPbeta}
P_{\beta}=\frac{1}{Z}\left(1-{\beta}{\Lambda}V''\right)
e^{-{\beta}V}\left(1+\frac{\beta^2\Lambda}{2}V'^2\right).$$
Imposing the consistency condition $\mathcal L \varrho_\beta = 0$ together with the election for $D_2$: $$D_2=\frac{D}{\gamma^2}(1+{\beta}{\Lambda}V'')=\frac{D}{\gamma^2F},$$ where $F=1-{\beta}{\Lambda}V''$, we find
$$D_1=\frac{D}{\gamma^2}\beta{V'}=\frac{1}{m\gamma}V'.$$
This yields the QME for the single case in the overdamped limit: $$\label{single}
\partial_tP=\partial_{x} \left\{ \frac{1}{m\gamma}V'
+\partial_{x}\left[ \left(\frac{D}{\gamma^2}(1+{\beta}{\Lambda}V''\right)\right] \right\} P.$$ $\bigskip$
### $N$-Particles Master Equation
The generalization for (\[eq:s01\]) and(\[eq:s02\]) for the multivariate case reads: $$L=D_{1,i}({\theta})+\partial_{{\theta},i}D_{2,i},$$ whereas the stationary solution $P_{\beta}$ in equation (\[rho-eq\]) can be rewritten as, $$\label{StSl:nP}
P_{\beta}=\frac{1}{Z}e^{-{\beta}{\Lambda}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathsf{V}^{\prime\prime})}
e^{-{\beta}V+\frac{\beta^2\Lambda}{2}\mathbf{V}^{\prime}\cdot\mathbf{V}^{\prime}},$$ where $\mathrm{Tr}(\mathsf{V}^{\prime\prime})$ denotes trace of the matrix $\mathsf{V}^{\prime\prime}$. The stationary solution can be always be written as $$\label{Pformal}
P_\beta (\theta) \equiv
\frac{1}{Z}F({\theta})e^S.$$ With the experience gained in the single particle case, our election for $F$ and ${\rm e}^S$ will determine the values for $D_{1,i}$ and $D_{2,i}$. If we choose $F=1$ we do not recover the overdamped equation for a quantum harmonic oscillator in the one-particle limit, wich is an exact result [@Maier2010]. On the other hand we can set, by analogy with the single site case, $F=
e^{-{\beta}{\Lambda}\mathrm{Tr}(\mathsf{V}'')}$. For recovering the uncoupled case, $F$ can be rewritten as $F = \prod_i F_i$. The actual value for $F_i$ must recover the master equation for the harmonic oscillator.
We choose $$\label{D2-app}
D_{2,i}=\frac{D}{\gamma^2F_i}$$ and impose $P_{\beta}$, Eq. , to be the stationary solution:
$$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
D_{1,i}P_{\beta}+\partial_{{\theta}_i}D_{2,i}P_{\beta} &=
\\ \nonumber D_{1,i}\prod_jF_je^S
+\frac{D}{\gamma^2}\partial_{{\theta}_i}\left(\prod_{j\neq{i}}F_j\right) e^S&=
\\ \nonumber
{\rm e}^S
\left [D_{1,i}\prod_jF_j+\frac{D}{\gamma^2}\left(\prod_{j\neq{i}}F_j\right)\partial_{{\theta}_i}S
+\frac{D}{\gamma^2}\sum_{j\neq{i}}\left(F'_{j,i}\prod_{k\neq{j}\neq{i}}F_k\right)
\right ]
&=0 \;.\end{aligned}$$
Thus, $$\label{D1-app}
D_{1,i}=-\frac{D}{\gamma^2F_i}\partial_{{\theta}_i}S
-\sum_{j\neq{i}}\frac{D}{\gamma^2F_i}\frac{F'_{j,i}}{F_j}.$$ We have already justified the form for $F$, giving $$\label{Fapp}
F=\prod_i{F_i}=\prod_i{e^{-{\beta}{\Lambda}V^{\prime\prime}_{ii}}}.$$ Collecting , and the final form for the master equation is obtained describing a system of $N$ particles in the Smoluchowski regime: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:s04}
\partial_tP
= \sum_i\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{\theta}_i}
\Big\lbrace
\Big[
\frac{V'_i}{{\Gamma}F_i}-\frac{\beta}{{\Gamma}F_i}{\Lambda}
{\sum_j}
\frac{{\partial}V}{{\partial}{\theta}_j}
\frac{\partial^2V}{{\partial}{\theta}_i{\partial}{\theta}_j}
+\frac{\Lambda}{{\Gamma}F_i}
\sum_{j\neq{i}}V^{\prime\prime\prime}_{jji}\Big]
+ \frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{\theta}_i}\left[
\frac{D}{\gamma^2F_i}\right] \Big\rbrace P.\end{aligned}$$ It is easy to check that making $N=1$ above the single particle master equation is recovered.
### The Langevin Equation
Once we have derived the master equation, we can easily find the associated Langevin equation, in the form $$\frac{{\partial}{\theta}_i}{{\partial}t} = A_i(\boldsymbol{\theta},t)
+\sum_kB_{ik}(\boldsymbol{\theta},t)\xi_k(t),$$ following the guidelines explained in Ref. [@Garcia-Palacios2007] and Chap. 3 in Ref. [@Risken1989]. Here $\xi_k$ is Gaussian $\delta$-correlated white noise with zero mean and variance $2D$. Following Ref. [@Garcia-Palacios2007] the Langevin equation is equivalent to the Fokker-Planck type equation for the probability distribution: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{FPAB}
\partial_tP = &-\sum_i\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}{\theta}_i}\left\lbrace
\left[
A_i+D\sum_{jk}B_{jk}\frac{{\partial}B_{ik}}{{\partial}{\theta}_j}\right]
P \right\rbrace
\\ \nonumber
&+
D\sum_{ij}\frac{\partial^2}{{\partial}{\theta}_i{\partial}{\theta}_j}
\left\lbrace \left[ \sum_k B_{ik}B_{jk} \right] P\right\rbrace.\end{aligned}$$ Comparing and the coefficients $A_i$ and $B_{ij}$ can be identified. For the concrete case of the [ *Kuramoto Potential*]{} we finally endup in the semiclassical Kuramoto model in Eq. .
Critical coupling value {#app:Kc}
=======================
We generalize here the work presented in Ref. [@Sakaguchi1988] to the quantum domain.
Periodicity and self-consistency of the master equation
-------------------------------------------------------
The order parameter $r$ is given by: $$re^{i(\omega_0t+\phi_0)}=\frac{1}{N}\sum^N_{j=1}{e^{i\phi_j}}.$$ The Kuramoto potential $V$ (\[eff-pot\]) in a mean-field approximation reads: $$\label{Vofpsi}
V = -\omega\psi-Kr\cos{\psi} \, .$$ Nor $V$, neither the stationary solution (\[rho-eq\]) are $2 \pi$-periodic. We have to find a *periodic* stationary solution. Following a similar procedure as the one performed by Risken (see pgs. 98 and 287-288 in Ref. [@Risken1989]), we derive the following periodic stationary solution $$\begin{aligned}
\label{StSl:P}
P(\psi;\omega)=&{\mathrm e}^{-\beta{V_{\mathrm{eff}}}}P(0;\omega)
\left[1+\frac{({\mathrm e}^{-2\beta\pi\omega}-1)
\int^\psi_0 \mathrm{d}\phi\, {\mathrm e}^{\beta{V_{\mathrm{eff}}}}}{\int^{2\pi}_0 \mathrm{d}\phi\,
{\mathrm e}^{\beta{V_{\mathrm{eff}}}}} \right],\end{aligned}$$ with $V_{\mathrm{eff}}=V-\frac{1}{2} \beta\Lambda V'^2 + \Lambda V''$. In the classical limit $\Lambda \rightarrow 0$, $V_{\mathrm{eff}} \rightarrow V$, recovering the classical periodic stationary solution derived by Sakaguchi [@Sakaguchi1988]. It is not hard to check that the $2 \pi$-periodic distribution (\[StSl:P\]) is also a stationary solution for (\[eq:s04\]).
Critical value
--------------
We follow Sakaguchi [@Sakaguchi1988] for finding the critical coupling strength $K_{\mathrm c}^{\mathrm q}$. The order parameter $r$ can be expressed in terms of $\psi$ as: $$\label{autocon1}
r=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\mathrm{d}\omega\, g(\omega) \int_0^{2\pi} \mathrm{d}\psi\, n(\psi;\omega)\mathrm{exp}(\mathrm{i}\psi).$$ Replacing (\[StSl:P\]) above, we have a self-consistent equation for $r$. In the right hand of (\[autocon1\]), the imaginary part is always zero, because $g(\omega)$ is symmetric around $\omega=0$. The real part is expanded in powers of $Kr/D$,
$$r=Kr\left[ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\mathrm{d}\omega\, g(\omega)
\frac{\pi\omega / D [1+\Lambda(\omega^2 / D^2-1)]
[1+\coth(\pi\omega/D)]}{(\omega^2/D^2+1)} \right]
+\mathcal{O}\left[\left( Kr/D\right)^2\right].$$
Assuming a peaked $g(\omega)$-distribution, we also expand around $\omega = 0$, obtaining: $$\label{autocon2}
r=Kr\left[ \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\mathrm{d}\omega\,g(\omega) \frac{(1-\Lambda)(1+\pi\omega/D)}{(\omega^2/D^2+1)} \right] +
\mathcal{O}\left[\left( Kr / D \right)^2\right].$$ Being $g(\omega)$ an even function, the linear term $\pi \omega /D$ does not contribute to the integral. Finally, the critical coupling strength, as a function of the temperature, is obtained from (\[autocon2\]), $$K_{\mathrm c}^{\mathrm q}(\beta)=\frac{2}{(1-\Lambda)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\mathrm{d}\omega\,g(\omega)\frac{D^2}{(\omega^2+D^2)}}.$$ As $K$ increases, a non-trivial solution branches off the trivial solution $r=0$ at $K=K_{\mathrm c}$. This solution reduces to the classical one [@Strogatz2000; @Sakaguchi1988] when $\Lambda=0$ at the classical critical coupling strength $K^{\mathrm c}_{\mathrm c}$. A simple relation between the classical and the quantum critical values can be obtained $$K_{\mathrm c}^{\mathrm q}(K^{\mathrm c}_{\mathrm c};\Lambda)=\frac{K^{\mathrm c}_{\mathrm c} }{(1-\Lambda)}.$$
[99]{}
S. H. Strogatz, [*Sync*]{} (Penguin Books, 2004).
A. Pikovsky, [*Synchronization: A Universal Concept in Nonlinear Sciences*]{} (Cambridge University Press, 2003).
S. C. Manrubia, A. S. Mikhailov, and D.H. Zanette [*Emergence of Dynamical Order*]{} (World Scientific, 2004).
S. Boccaletti, [*The Synchronized Dynamics of Complex Systems*]{} (Elsevier, 2008).
Y. Kuramoto, [*Lecture Notes in Physics*]{} [**39**]{}, 420–422 (1975).
S.H. Strogatz, [*Physica D*]{} [**143**]{}, 1 (2000).
S. Nadis, [*Nature*]{} [**421**]{}, 780–782 (2003).
L.L. Bonilla, C.J.P. Vicente, and F. Ritort, [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**77**]{}, 137 (2005).
I. Goychuk, J. Casado-Pascual, M. Morillo, J. Lehmann, and P. Hänggi, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**97**]{}, 210601 (2006)
O.V. Zhirov and D.L. Shepelyansky, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**100**]{}, 014101 (2008).
A. Mari, A. Farace, N. Didier, V. Giovannetti and R. Fazio, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**111** ]{}, 103605 (2013)
Y. Liu, P. Piechon and Fuchs, arXiv:1303.5564.
G.L. Giorgi, F. Galve, G. Manzano, P. Colet, and R. Zambrini, [*Phys. Rev. A*]{} [**85** ]{}, 052101 (2012).
G. Manzano, F. Galve, G.L. Giorgi, E. Hernández-García, R. Zambrini , [*Scientific Reports*]{} [**3**]{}, 1439 (2013)
Tony E. Lee and H. R. Sadeghpour, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**111**]{}, 234101 (2013)
Tony E. Lee, Ching-Kit Chan and Shenshen Wang , [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**89**]{}, 022913 (2014)
M.H. Matheny, M. Grau, L.G. Villanueva, R.B. Karabalin, M.C. Cross and M.L. Roukes , arXiv:1305.0815.
K.L. Turner, S.A. Miller, G.P. Hartwell, N.C. MacDonald, S.H. Strogatz, and S. Adams, [*Nature*]{} [**396**]{}, 149 (1998).
M.D. LaHaye, O. Buu, B. Camarota, and K.C. Schwab, [*Science*]{} [**304**]{}, 74 (2004).
A. D. O’Connell, M. Hofheinz, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, J. M. Martinis and A. N. Cleland, [*Nature*]{} [**464**]{}, 697 (2010).
A. Baas, K. G. Lagoudakis, M. Richard, R. André, Le Si Dang and B. Deveaud-Plédran, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**100**]{}, 170401 (2008).
P. Cristofolini, A. Dreismann, G. Christmann, G. Franchetti, N. G. Berloff, P. Tsotsis, Z. Hatzopoulos, P. G. Savvidis and J. J. Baumberg, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**110**]{}, 186403 (2013).
M. [Xu]{}, D. A. [Tieri]{}, E. C. [Fine]{}, and J. K. [Thompson]{}, and M. J. [Holland]{}, arXiv.1307.5891 (2013).
A.O. Caldeira and A.J. Leggett, [*Annals of Physics*]{} [**149**]{}, 374 (1983).
S. Boccaletti, V. Latora, Y. Moreno, M. Chavez and D.U. Hwang, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**424**]{}, 175 (2006).
A. Arenas, A. Díaz-Guilera, J. Kurths, Y. Moreno and C. Zhou, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**469**]{}, 93 (2008).
Hänggi, P., Talkner, P. & Borkovec, M. Reaction-rate theory: fifty years after Kramers. [*Rev. Mod. Phys.*]{} [**62**]{}, 251 (1990).
J.L. Garcia-Palacios, Introduction to the theory of stochastic processes and Brownian motion problems. arXiv:cond-mat/0701242
J. Ankerhold, P. Pechukas and H. Grabert, [*Physical Review Letters*]{} [**87**]{}, 086802 (2001).
J. Ankerhold, H. Grabert and P. Pechukas, [*CHAOS*]{} [**15**]{}, 26106 (2005).
S.A. Maier and J. Ankerhold, [*Physical Review E*]{} [**81**]{}, 086802 (2010).
L. Machura, M. Kostur, P. Hänggi, P. Talkner and J. Luczka, [*Physical Review E*]{} [**70**]{} 031107 (2004).
J. Luczka, R. Rudnicki and P. Hänggi, [*Physica A*]{} [**351**]{}, 60–68 (2005).
L. Machura, M. Kostur, P. Talkner, J. Luczka and P. Hänggi, [*Physical Review E*]{} [**73**]{} 031105 (2006).
J.L. Garcia-Palacios and D. Zueco, [*J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.*]{} [**37**]{}, 10735 (2004).
H. Sakaguchi, [*Progress of Theoretical Physics*]{} [**79**]{} 39 (1988).
E. Ott, [*Cambridge 2nd*]{} (1994)
U. Weiss, [*World Scientific 2nd*]{} (1999)
E. Sánchez-Burillo, J. Duch, J. Gómez-Gardeñes, D. Zueco, [*Scientific Reports*]{} 2, 605 (2012)
K. Wiesenfeld, P. Colet and S.H. Strogatz, [*Phys. Rev. E*]{} [**57**]{}, 1563 (1998).
G. Heinrich, M. Ludwig, J. Qian, B. Kubala and F. Marquardt, [*Phys. Rev. Lett.*]{} [**107**]{}, 043603 (2011).
Risken, H. [*Springer Berlin Heidelberg*]{}, (1989).
H. Grabert, P. Schramm and G.L Ingold, [*Phys. Rep.*]{} [**168**]{}, 115 (1988).
Ingold,G.L. [*Lecture Notes in Physics*]{}, [**611**]{}, 153 (2002).
J. Ankerhold, H. Grabert, and P. Pechukas, [*CHAOS*]{} [**15**]{}, 26106 (2005).
Here we have made use of the results derived in Ref. [@Ipsen2011]. In particular, let us define $ \mathsf{M} = \mathsf{D} + \mathsf{O}$, which can be re-expressed as $ \mathsf{M} = {\mathsf D}({\mathsf I} + \mathsf{A} ) $ with $\mathsf{A} = \mathsf{D}^{-1} \mathsf{O}$. The determinant of $\mathsf{M}$ reads $ {\rm det} \, \mathsf{M} = \det \, \mathsf{D} \; {\rm e}^{{\rm Tr} [ \log ( \mathsf{I}+ \mathsf{A}) ]}$, with $\log ( \mathsf{I}+ \mathsf{A} ) = \mathsf{A} - \frac{1}{2} \mathsf{A}^2 + \frac{1}{3} \mathsf{A}^3 -
\cdot \cdot \cdot \; {\rm if}\, \rho( \mathsf{A}) < 1$.
I.C.F. Ipsen and D. J. Lee, arXiv:1105.0437.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We associate intrinsic energy equal to $h\nu/2$ with the spin angular momentum of photon and propose a topological model based on orbifold in space and tifold in time as topological obstructions. The model is substantiated using vector wavefield disclinations. The physical photon is suggested to be a particle like topological photon and a propagating wave such that the energy $h\nu$ of photon is equally divided between spin energy and translational energy corresponding to linear momentum of $h\nu/c$. The enigma of wave-particle duality finds natural resolution and the proposed model gives new insights into the phenomena of interference and emission of radiation.'
author:
- |
S. C. Tiwari\
Institute of Natural Philosophy\
c/o 1 Kusum Kutir Mahamanapuri,Varanasi 221005, India
title: Topological Photon
---
Introduction:-The emergence of quantum information science in recent years [@1] has led to a paradigm shift on the foundations of quantum mechanics: now counter-intuitive features of quantum theory are treated as powerful resources for the quantum information revolution. Technology to produce single photons on demand [@2] make quantum optics as one of the important avenues to realize this goal. In particular, angular momentum (AM) both spin (SAM) and orbital (OAM) of photons has received a great deal of attention [@3]. In the process fundamental questions have also arisen on the nature of AM of photon. What is the meaning of ’intrinsic spin’ of photon? Is OAM of photon intrinsic? Could one convert SAM to OAM? While these questions have been discussed in the literature it is baffling that the problem of energy associated with spin has escaped attention [@4]. Note that spin energy also remains obscure in classical electromagnetism.
It is well known that Einstein introduced the directed linear momentum of ${h\nu}/c$ to the Planck’s quantum oscillator of energy $h\nu$. Measurement of the spin of photon by Beth in 1935 should have led to the modification in the (quantum) harmonic oscillator picture of radiation; however even today photon in quantum optics [@5] retains essentially the same representation: ’The discrete excitations or quanta of the electromagnetic field, corresponding to the occupation numbers $\{n\}$, are usually known as photons’. Here $\{n\}$ denotes the Fock state of the radiation field. Is it possible to go beyond the undecidability [@6] of the physical reality of photon? Can one refute the extreme anti-photon view [@7] advocated by Lamb ? In this paper we present a definite model of photon recognizing that unlike energy and momentum, the spin of photon has a kind of topological invariance. The main hypothesis of topological photon is enunciated and elucidated. The idea of disclination in vector fields is shown to support novel topological construction. Finally it is pointed out that our model not only nicely resolves the age-old problem of wave-particle duality but also offers possible new photon physics.
Topological photon:- Past efforts to develop photon models have adopted the reductionist approach: from macroscopic electromagnetic fields to microscopic field quantum. In a comprehensive work [@8] we have argued that this approach has serious limitations, and instead of this it would be more fruitful and logical to develop a photon fluid theory for electromagnetic fields from first principles based on photons. It is imperative that for such a programme to succeed there must exist a viable photon model. In our approach geometry and topology of space and time are endowed physical reality [@8] and photon is visualized as extended space-time structure. A vortex model of photon was investigated recently articulating topological interpretation for spin in analogy with the quantized superfluid vortex [@9]. This model does not take into account the internal time periodicity and the postulated spin energy for the photon. A novel idea introduced here accomplishes this objective; we state it in the form of a hypothesis.
Hypothesis: Photon is a propagating topological defect in space and time characterized by the indices 1 and $1/2$ respectively.
To substantiate the hypothesis we explain the nature of topological obstructions. Note that 4-dimensional space-time continuum having the metric with signature $(+, +, +, -)$ implies an asymmetry between space and time coordinates. In nature there also exist irreversible physical phenomena, therefore, we are led to a (3+1)-dimensional space and time. Without taking any recourse to field description the vortex of [@9] is now proposed to be a topological obstruction in space and identified as orbifold (orbital manifold) of Wilson-Sommerfeld (W-S) quantization. Photon spin is a topological invariant with index 1 given by a de Rham period integral (to be explained shortly) of 1-form in 3-dimension $$\oint {a}=1$$
Internal time and associated energy is a subtle issue. In our model internal time periodicity is in harmony with the time period of space-translation of the object, therefore, both unidirectional and periodic time enter the picture. Internal time would imply closed time loops on 1-dimensional directed line of time identified as topological obstruction in time with the integral $$\oint {a_0} =1/2$$ Plausible argument for index 1/2 can be given considering a 1-dimensional directed line such that the origin O is removed, and the transformation from left to right is a jump of twice the interval. Eq.(2) embodies discreteness of time or ’a hole’ in time continuum. Note the existence of kinks as point defects in 1-dimensional Ising model in condensed matter physics [@10] which bear resemblance with the proposed defects in time; let us call them tifolds. Thus a topological photon (TP) is orbifold+tifold.
To understand the significance of de Rham’s theorem we refer to an ingenious approach due to Post [@11] termed as quantum cohomology. He points out that Einstein in 1917 anticipated de Rham’s theorem in his analysis of W-S condition $$\oint{{p_i} {dq^i}} =n h$$ Since momentum ${\bf p}$ is a gradient of Hamilton’s scalar function the integral (3) would vanish for a Bohr’s circular orbit. Einstein replaces the circular orbit by a torus and the momentum vector is made single valued with the integration loop comprising two sheets to obtain (3). The interior of torus is a topological obstruction in space (orbifold) in Einstein’s analysis. In the language of differential forms the 1-form ${p_i}{dq^i}$ is closed but not exact, and the W-S integral is a de Rham period integral.
Differential forms and topology are familiar in quantum optics literature since the discovery of geometric phases, therefore, a brief overview of the essentials would suffice and we refer to [@12] for details. In a simple intuitive way a scalar function is a 0-form and its exterior derivative (d) gives a 1-form A (similar to gradient in 3-dimension) and dA is a 2-form (like curl of a vector). Stokes theorem in vector calculus relates line integral with a surface integral. Notice that line is a boundary of surface. Generalize it to forms: integration is carried out over chains; for a (p+1)-chain $C^{p+1}$ there is defined a boundary operator ${C^p} = \partial{C^{p+1}}$. Homology and cohomology refer to the sets of chains and forms on a manifold respectively. A form $\omega$ is closed if $d\omega = 0$, and exact if $\omega =d\alpha$. Since ${d^2}=0$, $\omega=d\alpha$ implies $d\omega=0$ but $d\omega=0$ does not imply $\omega=d\alpha$. Similarly a chain C is called a cycle if $\partial C=0$, and boundary if $C=\partial B$. The integral $\oint\omega$ of a closed form over a cycle C is called a period integral of this form. In a given manifold the quotient space $H_p$ of the spaces of cycles ($Z_p$) and boundaries ($B_p$) of dimension p is defined the p-homology space. The cohomology space $H^p$ dual to $H_p$ is $Z^p/{B^p}$ where $Z^p(B^p)$ denotes the space of closed (exact) forms. Usually the groups $H_p$ and $H^p$ are said to be isomorphic however Post has drawn attention to the important but little known fact that isomorphism holds if topological torsion does not exist. Using Alexander duality [@13] he shows that torsion can exist only in dimension 4 or more; on the other hand Kiehn’s definition [@14] based on a 3-form. $A\wedge F = A\wedge dA$ admits torsion in 3-dimension . We prefer Post’s definition and ask if tifold could be viewed as torsion. Post links torsion with time as an asymmetry between homology and cohomology groups in 4-dimensional space-time. It would seem that this suggestion implies that torsion in time is contingent on the space periodicity; hence it cannot be tifold but would correspond to the time periodicity in the translation of TP in the external space. If a defect or obstruction in time is fundamental then tifold is a real topological object. To relate topological invariants with the physical property of photon using Planck’s cpnstant h in Eq. (1) we get spin from orbifold and ‘internal’ energy from tifold i.e. Eq. (2) $$E_i = h\nu/2$$
Here $\nu = \frac{1}{\tau}$, $\tau$ being a descrete time interval. If the time period of translational motion of TP is in harmony with $\tau$ then the total energy of photon is given by $$E=E_i +E_l =h\nu$$
In vacuum, photon energy is equally divided into internal energy and translational energy of the propagating defect; recall that a propagating defect is a wave [@15]. TP has a particle attribute and propagating discontinuity has wave attributes of wave vector and frequency; photon is wave plus particle. Note that topological invariance embodied in Eqs. (1) and (2) supersedes relativisitic invariance.
Field theory:-Singularities in fields obeying partial differential equations (usually of second order) are quite often indicative of topological defects. Heuristic analogy with the dislocation and disclination in crystals and singular vector wave fields has proved very useful to understand light phenomena. We seek a field theoretic description of the topological model adopting- 1) a conservative approach. No new field quantities are proposed and none of the electromagnetic potentials is superfluous; the question that intrigued Dirac in his failed attempt to give a new electron theory [@16], and 2) a radical departure postulating electric $(\bf{E})$ and magnetic $(\bf{B})$ fields to be zero for single photon, and interpreting the Lorentz gauge condition as energy conservation law. Electromagnetic potentials (pure gauge) are proposed to represent the energy-momentum of the space-time fluid [@8]; it is easy to verify that electronic charge unit e can be factored out from the Maxwell field equations rendering the fields in geometrical units, and multiplication by Planck’s constant gives the dimension of energy-momentum to the potentials. Thus the vector potential is redefined as $\hbar\bf{A}/e$. We have the following definitions $$\bf{E}=-\nabla\Phi -\frac{\partial\bf{A}}{c\partial t}$$ $$\bf{B}=\nabla\times\bf{A}$$ and the Lorentz gauge condition is $$\nabla .\bf{A}+\frac{\partial\Phi}{c\partial t}=0$$
Setting $\bf{E} = \bf{B} = 0$ Eqs. (6)-(8) can be combined to show that $(\bf{A},\Phi)$ satisfy the wave equation. In our earlier work [@9] fluid approach was used to construct vortex photon model; here new insight is gained based on pure disclination solution given by Nye [@17]. Disclination in a vector wave is a generalization of a dislocation in scalar wave [@18]. Let us consider monochromatic complex scalar wave field $\rho (r) exp[i\phi (r) - i\omega t]$ then dislocation is defined to be a phase singularity where $\rho = 0$ and $\phi (r)$ is indeterminate. Screw dislocation is a point defect with integer topological index (or an integral multiple of $2\pi$ phase) and helical wave front [@18; @19]. We take a different perspective and ask whether phase singularity in 1-dimensional time for the phase $\omega t$ could be envisaged. A remarkable result is obtained in the following validating our tifold hypothesis in terms of the pure screw disclination in vector wave field.
Instead of electric field vector and divergence equation for it in the work of Nye [@17] here we conider the vector $\bf {A}$ and Eq. (8). Much of the mathematical analysis is same as given by Nye: define z-axis as the direction of propagation and the transverse field $\bf{A}_t$ to lie in the xy-plane. Disclination is the locus of points where $A_x=A_y=0$. The direction of $\bf{A}_t$ on the moving line (disclination) is indeterminate, and a pure screw disclination using cylindrical coordinates $(r,\theta,z)$ is given by $$A_x =k r e^{i\chi}$$ $$A_y = i k r e^{i\chi}$$ Note that for a typical scalar field such a solution could be imagined as a vortex around z-axis with uniform flow along it. Substitution of $A_x$ and $A_y$ in Eq. (8) gives $$\frac {\partial A_z}{\partial z} +\frac{\partial\Phi}{c\partial t} =0$$
Here we have defined $\chi =\theta + kz -\omega t$. Eq. (11) admits nonzero $A_z$ unlike $E_z = 0$ in Nye’s analysis due to divergence equation for $\bf{E}$ used by him. Obviously $A_z$will give linear momentum and the relation $\omega = kc$ for a propagating wave. Nye considers the azimuth of transverse field in the xy plane $$\beta=-\chi +2 n \pi$$ and interprets the case with $z=0$ as a rigid rotation of the whole pattern with angular velocity $\frac{\omega}{2}$. For fixed t the pattern twists about z-axis by $\pi$ in one wavelength. Let us re-examine $z=0$ case for which $$\beta - \theta = -2(\theta - \frac {\omega t}{2}) +2 n \pi$$ Endowing topological defect in time itself, the phase condition (13) is equivalent to the tifold with index $\frac {1}{2}$ for the term $\frac {\omega t}{2}$. New perspective on screw disclination for vector field $\bf{A}$ gives field theoretic demonstration of the topological hypothesis: transverse field $\bf{A}_t$ defines spin (dislocation or vortex), screw disclination of phase change $\pi$ is a tifold, and Eq. (11) gives the propagation law for the defects i.e. the topological photon.
Discussion and conclusion:-The first important result of our investigation is an elegant resolution of the age-old problem of wave-particle duality: TP has particle-attribute and propagating discontinuity is a wave. This picture is nearer in spirit to de Broglie’s original idea of wave and particle (also favored by Einstein) [@20] but discarding the description based on point particle and instantaneous time; finite discrete time and spatial extension of TP distinguish our model radically. Not only this the linear momentum is intrinsic to wave, therefore, in the phenomena like interference and diffraction the core particulate aspect i.e. TP does not play any role until its detection. There is a vast literature on the interference phenomena, however an important experiment reported in 1993 [@21] appears to support our interpretation. In this Young’s double slit experiment using trapped ions as slits the scattered light is made to interfere. Authors argue that the observed pattern could be explained without invoking the position-momentum uncertainty relation. More important in the present context is the polarization-sensitive detection. Mercury ion used in the experiment has doubly degenerate excited state corresponding to magnetic quantum number $m_J$. Linearly polarized light scattered with $\Delta m_J=0$ is $\pi$-polarized and ion’s state remains same while with $|\Delta m_J|=1$ the scattered light is $\sigma$-polarized and the ion’s internal state undergoes a change. Interference exists for the former case while it disappears for the $\sigma$-polarized light. To quote from [@21] :“In this context, the existence of interference fringes indicates wavelike behavior, while the absence of fringes, consistent with a single photon trajectory, which begins at the source, intersects one of the atoms, and continues to the detector, indicates a particle like behavior”. Note that in our model emission and absorption processes necessarily involve TP. Experimentally photon’s momentum could show varied features independent of photon spin; recent experiments on recoil momentum with ultracold atoms do indicate interesting questions [@22].
The second result is on the zero-point energy: Eq. (1) implies topological origin of this energy. There are many experiments, e.g. Lamb shift, Casimir force etc. which demonstrate the effect of enigmatic quantum vacuum energy. There also exists Planck’s 1912 ensemble based derivation of this energy, see [@11]. Topological zero-point energy proposed here is associated with each photon’s spin, and unlike mysterious quantum vacuum physical photons always possess this energy. Its implication on the black-body radiation is that the Planck’s formula represents the gas of photo-molecules i.e. the spin correlated photon pairs with AM zero [@4]. In the light of the importance of Planck’s radiation law from quantum physics to cosmology (microwave background radiation) [@23] the present interpretation assumes significance as a testable consequence of our model. Moreover the quantum vacuum of quantum field theories would be a kind of frozen solid phase of photons with zero momenta i.e. only topological photons. Besides these speculations, on a more practical side this approach offers the possibility of developing photon-fluid theory for the macroscopic electromagnetic fields and Maxwell equations.
In conclusion, a novel topological photon model is proposed and its field theoretic validity is demonstrated based on vector wave disclinations.
I am grateful to Prof. E. J. Post who made me realize that I had been dwelling deep into the world of topology without being aware of it, and educating me on cohomology. Useful correspondence on topological torsion with Professors R. M. Kiehn and E. Scholz is gratefully acknowledged. Library facility at Banaras Hindu University is acknowledged.
[99]{} J. I. Cirac and P. Zoller, Phys. Today (March 2004) pp. 38-44; R. Zambrini and S.M. Barnett, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 113901(2006) M. Oxborrow and A. G. Sinclair, Contemp. Phys. 46, 173 (2005); Focus on single photon on demand, New J. Phys. 6 (2004) L. Allen, M.J. Padgett, and M. Babiker, Prog. Opt. 39, 291 (1999); M. Padgett, J. Courtial, and L. Allen, Phys. Today (May 2004) pp. 35-40; L. Allen, S.M. Barnett, and M.J. Padgett, Optical Angular Momentum (IOP, Bristol 2003). S.C. Tiwari, e-prints: quant-ph/0609015, and quant-ph/0606031 L. Mandel and E. Wolf, Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics (C.U.P., 1995) M.O. Scully and M. Suhail Zubairy, Quantum Optics (C.U.P., 1997) W.E. Lamb, The Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (Rinton, 2001) S.C. Tiwari, Rebirth of the Electron: Electromagnetism – An unorthodox new approach to fundamental problems in physics (http://www.lulu.com/content/439658, 2006) J.Mod. Opt. 46, 1721 (1999) S.C. Tiwari, J. Opt. B.: Quant. Semiclass. Opt. 4, S39 (2002) P.M. Chaikin and T.C.Lubensky, Principles of Condensed Matter Physics (C.U.P., 1998) E.J. Post, Quantum Reprogramming (Kluwer, 1995) H. Flanders, Differential Forms (Academic, 1963); Y. Choquet-Bruhat and C. Dewitt-Morette, Analysis, Manifolds and Physics (North-Holland, 1982) P. Alexandroff and H. Hopf, Topologie (Berlin, 1935) R.M. Kiehn, J. Math. Phys. 18, 614 (1977); Private Communication,June 2006. J. Hadamard, Lectures on Cauchy’s Problem in Linear Partial Differential Equations (Dover, 1952) P.A.M. Dirac, Proc. R. Soc. (London) A209, 291 (1951) J.F. Nye, Proc. R. Soc. (London) A387, 105 (1983) J.F. Nye and M.V.Berry, Proc. R. Soc. (London) A336, 165 (1974) I.V. Basistiy, M.S. Soskin, and M.V. Vasnetsov, Opt. Commun. 119, 604 (1995) M. Jammer, Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics (Wiley, 1974) U. Eichmann et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70,2359 (1993) P. Clade et al, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 033001 (2006); K. Gibble, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 073002 (2006) E.J. Angstmann, V.A. Dzuba, and V.V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 040802 (2006); K. Beloy, U.I. Safronova and D. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 040801 (2006)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We prove an analog of Janson’s strong hypercontractivity inequality in a class of non-commutative “holomorphic" algebras. Our setting is the $q$-Gaussian algebras $\Gamm_q$ associated to the $q$-Fock spaces of Bozejko, Kümmerer and Speicher, for $q\in[-1,1]$. We construct subalgebras $\H_q\subset\Gamm_q$, a $q$-Segal-Bargmann transform, and prove Janson’s strong hypercontractivity $L^2(\H_q)\to L^r(\H_q)$ for $r$ an even integer.'
address: |
Cornell University\
Malott Hall, Ithaca, NY\
14583-4201
author:
- Todd Kemp
title: 'Hypercontractivity in non-commutative holomorphic spaces'
---
Introduction
============
As part of the work in the 1960s and 1970s to construct a mathematically consistent theory of interacting quantum fields, Nelson proved his famous hypercontractivity inequality in its initial form [@Nelson; @1]; by 1973 it evolved into the following statement, which may be found in [@Nelson; @2].
\[Nelson hyp thm\] Let $A_\gamma$ be the Dirichlet form operator for Gauss measure $d\gamma(x) = (2\pi)^{-n/2}e^{-|x|^2/2}dx$ on $\R^n$. For $1< p\le r < \infty$ and $f\in L^p(\R^n,\gamma)$, $$\label{Nelson hyp}
\| e^{-tA_\gamma} f\|_r \le \|f\|_p,\quad\text{for}\quad t\ge t_N(p,r) = \frac{1}{2}\log\frac{r-1}{p-1}.$$ For $t < t_N(p,r)$, $e^{-tA_\gamma}$ is not bounded from $L^p$ to $L^r$.
(If $p<2$, one must first extend $e^{-tA_\gamma}$ to $L^p$; this can be done, uniquely, and Theorem \[Nelson hyp thm\] should be interpreted as such in this case. The same comment applies to all of the following.) It is worth noting that $t_N$, the least time to contraction, does not depend on the dimension $n$ of the underlying space $\R^n$.
The initial purpose of such hypercontractive inequalities was to prove the semiboundedness of Hamiltonians in the theory of Boson quantum fields. (See, for example, [@Glimm], [@Nelson; @1], and [@Segal; @2].) In [@Gross; @1], Gross used this inequality (through an appropriate cut-off approximation) to show that the Boson energy operator in a model of 2-dimensional Euclidean quantum field theory has a unique ground state. In that paper he also showed that if one represents the Fock space for Fermions as the $L^2$-space of a Clifford algebra (as in [@Segal; @1]), then inequalities similar to \[Nelson hyp\] also hold. He developed this further in [@Gross; @3].
Over the subsequent three decades, Nelson’s hypercontractivity inequality (and its equivalent form, the logarithmic Sobolev inequality, invented by Gross in [@Gross; @2]) found myriad applications in analysis, probability theory, differential geometry, statistical mechanics, and other areas of mathematics and physics. See, for example, the recent survey [@Gross; @5].
The Fermion hypercontractivity inequality in [@Gross; @3] remained unproven in its sharp form until the early 1990s. Lindsay [@Lindsay] and Meyer [@Lindsay; @Meyer] proved that it holds $L^2\to L^r$ for $r=2,4,6,\ldots$ (and in the dual cases $L^{r'}\to L^2$ as well). Soon after, Carlen and Lieb [@Carlen; @Lieb] were able to complete Gross’ original argument with some clever non-commutative integration inequalities, thus proving the full result. (Precisely: they showed that the Clifford algebra analogs of the inequalities \[Nelson hyp\] hold with exactly the same constants.)
Then, in 1997, Biane [@Biane; @1] extended Carlen and Lieb’s work beyond the Fermionic (Clifford algebra) setting to the $q$-Gaussian von Neumann algebras $\Gamm_q$ of Bozejko, Kümmerer, and Speicher [@BKS]. His theorem may be stated as follows.
\[Free hyp thm\] Let $-1<q<1$, let $N_q$ denote the number operator associated to $\Gamm_q$, and let $\|\cdot\|_p$ be the non-commutative $L^p$-norm associated to the vacuum expectation state $\tau_q$ on $\Gamm_q$. Then for $1<p\le r <\infty$, $$\| e^{-tN_q}f \|_r \le \|f\|_p\text{ for all }f\in L^p(\Gamm_q,\tau_q) \quad \text{iff} \quad t \ge t_N(p,r).$$
Of particular interest is the case $q=0$ which corresponds to free probabiliy. Biane proved the full result (for $-1<q<1$) by first extending Carlen and Lieb’s work to the case of a system of mixed spins (in a von Neumann algebra generated by elements which satisfy some commutation and some anti-commutation relations), and then applying a central limit theorem due to Speicher [@Speicher]. The case $q=-1$ is Carlen and Lieb’s adaptation of Gross’ work, while the $q=1$ case is Nelson’s original hypercontractive estimate (Theorem \[Nelson hyp thm\]).
Concurrent to the work on non-commutative hypercontractivity, a different sort of extension of Nelson’s theorem was being developed. In 1983 Janson, [@Janson], discovered that if one restricts the semigroup $e^{-tA_\gamma}$ in Theorem \[Nelson hyp thm\] to holomorphic functions on $\R^{2n} \cong \C^n$ then the contractivity of Equation \[Nelson hyp\] is attained in a shorter time than $t_N$. Writing $\H L^p = L^p(\R^{2n},\gamma)\cap\text{Hol}(\C^n)$, Janson’s [*strong hypercontractivity*]{} may be stated thus.
\[Janson hyp thm\] Let $0< p \le r < \infty$, and let $f \in \H L^p$. Then $$\label{Janson hyp}
\| e^{-tA_\gamma} f \|_r \le \|f\|_p,\quad\text{for}\quad t\ge t_J(p,r)=\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{r}{p}.$$ For $t < t_J(p,r)$, $e^{-tA_\gamma}$ is not bounded from $\H L^p$ to $\H L^r$.
Note that the least time $t_J$ to contraction is shorter than the time $t_N$ (if $1 < p < r < \infty$). Moreover, Janson’s result holds as $p\to 0$, in a regime where the semigroup $e^{-tA_\gamma}$ is not even well-defined in the full $L^p$-space. These results have been further generalized by Gross in [@Gross; @4] to the case of complex manifolds.
In this paper, non-commutative algebras $\H_q$ will be introduced, which are $q$-deformations of the algebra of holomorphic functions. The special cases $q=\pm 1$ and $q=0$ are already known; $\H_{-1}$ is defined in [@BSZ], while $\H_0$ is isomorphic to the free Segal-Bargmann space of [@Biane; @2]. We will construct a unitary isomorphism ${\mathscr S}_q$ from $L^2(\Gamm_q)$ to $L^2(\H_q)$, which is a $q$-analog of the Segal-Bargmann transform. $\H_q$ itself will be constructed as a subalgebra of $\Gamm_q$, and so inherits its $p$-norms as well as its number operator $N_q$. In the context of these $q$-deformed Segal Bargmann spaces, the following theorem is our main result.
\[Main Theorem\] For $-1 \le q < 1$ and $r$ an even integer, $$\| e^{-tN_q}f \|_r \le \|f\|_2\text{ for all }f\in L^2(\H_q,\tau_q) \quad \text{iff} \quad t \ge t_J(2,r).$$
It is interesting that the least time to contraction, $t_J$, is independent of both the dimension of the underlying space and the parameter $q$. We fully expect the same results to hold $L^p(\H_q)\to L^r(\H_q)$ for $2 \le p \le r < \infty$, but standard interpolation techniques fail to work in the holomorphic algebras we consider. (In particular, the dual results that Lindsay and Meyer achieved in the full Clifford algebra do not follow in this holomorphic setting.)
This paper is organized as follows. We begin with a summary of the $q$-Fock spaces $\F_q$ and the von Neumann algebras $\Gamm_q$ associated to them. We will also define the holomorphic subalgebras $\H_q$ and construct a $q$-Segal-Bargmann transform. In the subsequent section, we prove the appropriate strong hypercontractivity estimates for algebras with arbitrary mixed spins (mixed commutation and anti-commuations relations), much in the spirit of Biane’s approach [@Biane; @1]. We then proceed to review Speicher’s central limit theorem, and apply it to prove Theorem \[Main Theorem\].
The $q$-Fock space and associated algebras {#q-Algebras}
==========================================
We begin by briefly reviewing the $q$-Fock spaces of Bozejko, Kümmerer and Speicher, relevant aspects of the von Neumann algebras $\Gamm_q$ (which are related to the creation and annihilation operators on $\F_q$), and the number operators on them. We then proceed to define the Banach algebra $\H_q$ which corresponds to the classical Segal-Bargmann space, and exhibit a $\ast$-isomorphism between $\H_0$ and the free Segal-Bargmann space ${\mathscr C}_{hol}$ defined in [@Biane; @2]. We finally construct a generalized $q$-Segal-Bargmann transform, which is a unitary isomorphism $L^2(\Gamm_q)\to L^2(\H_q)$ that respects the action of the number operator.
The $q$-Fock space $\F_q$ and the algebra $\Gamm_q$ {#q-Fock}
---------------------------------------------------
Our development closely follows that found in [@Biane; @1]; the details may be found in [@BKS]. Let $\HH$ be a [*real*]{} Hilbert space with complexification $\Hc$. Let $\vac$ be a unit vector in a $1$-dimensional complex Hilbert space (disjoint from $\Hc$). We refer to $\vac$ as *the vacuum*, and by convention define $\Hc^{\tensor 0} \equiv \C\vac$. The *algebraic Fock space* $\F(\HH)$ is defined as $$\F(\HH) \equiv \bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty \Hc^{\tensor n},$$ where the direct sum and tensor product are algebraic. For any $q\in[-1,1]$, we then define a Hermitian form $(\cdot,\cdot)_q$ to be the conjugate-linear extension of $$\begin{aligned}
(\vac,\vac)_q & = & 1 \\
(f_1\tensor\cdots\tensor f_j,g_1\tensor\cdots\tensor g_k)_q & = & \delta_{jk}\sum_{\pi\in\mathcal{S}_k}q^{\iota(\pi)}(f_1,g_{\pi 1})\cdots(f_k,g_{\pi k}),\end{aligned}$$ for $f_i,g_i\in\Hc$, where $\mathcal{S}_k$ is the symmetric group on $k$ symbols, and $\iota(\pi)$ counts the number of inversions in $\pi$; that is $$\iota(\pi) = \#\{(i,j)\,;\,1\le i < j \le k, \pi i > \pi j\}.$$ The reader may readily verify that $(-1)^{\iota(\pi)} = \text{parity}(\pi)$ for any permutation $\pi$. Hence, the form $(\cdot,\cdot)_{-1}$ reduces to the standard Hermitian form associated to the Fermion Fock space. Similarly, the form $(\cdot,\cdot)_{1}$ yields the standard Hermitian form on the Boson Fock space. In each of these cases the form is degenerate, thus requiring that we take a quotient of $\F(\HH)$ before completing to form the Fermion or Boson Fock space. It is somewhat remarkable that, for $-1<q<1$, the form $(\cdot,\cdot)_q$ is already non-degenerate on $\F(\HH)$.
\[q-form is nondegenerate\] The Hermitian form $(\cdot,\cdot)_q$ is positive semi-definite on $\F(\HH)$. Moreover, it is an inner product on $\F(\HH)$ for $-1<q<1$.
For $-1<q<1$, the *$q$-Fock space* $\F_q(\HH)$ is defined as the completion of $\F(\HH)$ with respect to the inner-product $(\cdot,\cdot)_q$. (It should be noted that, in the case $q=0$, the definition of the form $(\cdot,\cdot)_0$ requires the convention that $0^0 = 1$. It follows that $\F_0(\HH)$ is just $\bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty\Hc^{\tensor n}$ with the Hilbert space tensor product and direct sum.) These spaces interpolate between the classical Boson and Fermion Fock spaces $\F_{\pm 1}(\HH)$, which are constructed by first taking the quotient of $\F(\HH)$ by the kernel of $(\cdot,\cdot)_{\pm 1}$ and then completing.
As in the classical theory, the spaces $\F_q$ come equipped with creation and annihilation operators. For any vector $f\in\HH\subset\Hc$, define the *creation operator* $c_q(f)$ on $\F_q(\HH)$ to extend $$\begin{aligned}
c_q(f)\vac & = & f \\
c_q(f)f_1\tensor\cdots\tensor f_k & = & f\tensor f_1\tensor\cdots\tensor f_k.\end{aligned}$$ The *annihilation operator* $c_q^\ast(f)$ is its adjoint, which the reader may compute satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
c_q^\ast(f)\vac & = & 0 \\
c_q^\ast(f)f_1\tensor\cdots\tensor f_k & = & \sum_{j=1}^k q^{j-1}(f_j,f)f_1\tensor\cdots\tensor f_{j-1}\tensor f_{j+1}\tensor\cdots\tensor f_k.\end{aligned}$$ These are similar to the definitions of the creation and annihilation operators in the Fermion and Boson cases, where appropriate (anti)symmetrization must also be applied. One notable difference is that, in the Boson ($q=1$) case, the operators are unbounded. For $q<1$, the creation and annihilation operators are always bounded, and hence we may discuss the von Neumann algebra they generate without difficulties.
The operators $c_q,c_q^\ast$ satisfy the *$q$-commutation relations*, which interpolate between the canonical commutation relations (CCR) and canonical anticommutation relations (CAR) usually associated to the Boson and Fermion Fock spaces. Over the $q$-Fock space, we have $$\label{q-commutation relations}
c_q^\ast(g)c_q(f) - qc_q(f)c_q^\ast(g) = (f,g)\text{id}_{\F_q(\HH)}\;\;\text{for}\;\; f,g\in\HH.$$ It is worth pausing at this point to note one significant difference between the $q=\pm 1$ cases and the $-1<q<1$ cases. For both Bosons and Fermions, the operators $c,c^\ast$ also satisfy additional (anti)commutation relations. In the Boson case, for example, $c(f)$ and $c(g)$ commute for any choices of $f$ and $g$. It is a fact, however, that if $q\ne\pm 1$ there are [*no relations*]{} between $c_q(f)$ and $c_q(g)$ if $(f,g)=0$.
It is a well-known theorem that the creation and annihilation operators in the Boson and Fermion cases are irreducible; that is, they have no non-trivial invariant subspaces. That theorem is also true for the operators $c_q$ for $-1<q<1$, although a published proof does not seem to exist. We prove it here for completeness. The $q=0$ case will be used in Proposition \[\* isom\] below.
\[irreducible\] For $-1<q<1$, the von Neumann algebra generated by $\{c_q(h)\,;\,h\in\HH\}$ is $\B(\F_q(\HH))$.
Denote by ${\mathscr W}_q$ the von Neumann algebra generated by the $c_q$’s. We consider the $q=0$ case first. Let $\{e_1,e_2,\ldots\}$ be an orthonormal basis for $\HH$, and consider the operator $$P = \sum_{j=1}^\infty c(e_j)\,c^\ast(e_j)$$ (where $c(h) = c_0(h)$), which is in ${\mathscr W}_0$ since ${\mathscr W}_0$ is weakly closed. It is easy to calculate that $P(e_{i_1}\tensor\cdots\tensor e_{i_n}) = e_{i_1}\tensor\cdots\tensor e_{i_n}$, while $P\vac = 0$. Thus, $P$ is the projection onto the orthogonal complement of the vacuum. So ${\mathscr W}_0\ni 1-P = P_\vac$, the projection onto the vacuum. Therefore ${\mathscr W}_0$ contains the operator $$c(e_{i_1})\cdots c(e_{i_n})P_{\vac}c^\ast(e_{j_1})\cdots c^\ast(e_{j_m}),$$ which is the rank-$1$ operator with image spanned by $e_{i_1}\tensor\cdots\tensor e_{i_n}$ and kernel orthogonal to $e_{j_1}\tensor\cdots\tensor e_{j_m}$. It follows that ${\mathscr W}_0$ contains all finite rank operators, and hence is the full algebra $\B(\F_0(\HH))$.
For $q\ne 0$, it is proved in [@DN] that there is a unitary map $U_q\colon\F_0\to\F_q$, which preserves the vacuum and satisfies $$U_q {\mathscr C}_0 U_q^\ast \subseteq {\mathscr C}_q,$$ where ${\mathscr C}_q$ is the $C^\ast$-algebra generated by $\{c_q(h)\,;\,h\in\HH\}$. As ${\mathscr W}_q$ is the weak closure of ${\mathscr C}_q$, it follows easily that $\B(\F_q(\HH))=U_q\B(\F_0(\HH))U_q^\ast = U_q{\mathscr W}_0 U_q^\ast \subseteq {\mathscr W}_q$ as well, and this completes the proof.
For $q<1$ and for each $f\in\HH$, define the self-adjoint operator $X_q(f)$ on $\F_q(\HH)$ by $X_q(f) = c_q(f) + c_q^\ast(f)$. These operators are in ${\mathscr W}_q = \B(\F_q(\HH))$, but they do not generate it. The von Neumann algebra they do generate is defined to be $\Gamm_q(\HH)$, the *$q$-Gaussian algebra* over $\HH$. (In the $q=1$ case, $\Gamm_1(\HH)$ is the von Neumann algebra generated by the operators $\varphi(X(f))$ for $\varphi\in L^\infty(\R)$.) The notation $\Gamm_q$ is chosen to be consistent with the [*second quantization functor*]{} from constructive quantum field theory (see [@BSZ]), which assigns to each real Hilbert space $\HH$ a von Neumann algebra $\Gamm(\HH)$ and to each contraction $T\colon\HH\to\mathscr K$ a unital positivity-preserving map $\Gamm(T)\colon\Gamm(\HH)\to\Gamm(\mathscr K)$. Indeed, $\Gamm_q$ can be construed as such a functor as well.
The isomorphism classes of the von Neumann algebras $\Gamm_q(\HH)$ for $q\notin\{\pm 1, 0\}$ are not yet understood. (For some partial results, however, see [@Ricard] and [@Sniady].) The $\pm 1$ cases have been understood since antiquity: $\Gamm_1(\HH) = L^\infty(M,\gamma)$ for a certain measure space $M$ with a Gaussian measure $\gamma$ , while $\Gamm_{-1}(\HH)$ is a Clifford algebra modeled on $\HH$. These facts rely upon the additional commutation relations between $c(f)$ and $c(g)$ that hold in those cases. (Indeed, in the Boson case $X(f)$ and $X(g)$ commute, resulting in a commutative von Neumann algebra $\Gamm(\HH)$. It is primarily for this reason that it is customary to begin with a real Hilbert space and complexify – if $c(f)$ were defined for all $f\in\Hc$, then $c(f)$ and $c(g)$ would no longer commute even in the Boson case. While there are no commutation relations between $c_q(f)$ and $c_q(g)$, it is still advantageous for us to have the real subspace $\HH\subset\Hc$ in order to define the holomorphic subalgebra in section \[q-holomorphic\].) $\Gamm_0(\HH)$ was shown (in [@Voiculescu]) to be isomorphic to the group von Neumann algebra of a free group with countably many generators.
One known fact about the algebras $\Gamm_q(\HH)$ for $-1<q<1$ is that they are all type $II_1$ factors. This is a consequence (in the $\dim\HH = \infty$ case) of the following theorem, which was proved in [@BSp].
\[trace prop\] Let $-1<q<1$. The vacuum expectation state $\tau_q(A) = (A\vac,\vac)_q$ on $\B(\F_q(\HH))$ restricts to a faithful, normal, finite trace on $\Gamm_q(\HH)$.
The reader may wish to verify that $\tau_q(c_q^\ast c_q) = 1$, while $\tau_q(c_qc_q^\ast)=0$; hence, $\tau_q$ is certainly not a trace on all of $\B(\F_q(\HH))$.
The algebra $\Gamm_q$ can actually be included as a dense subspace of $\F_q$. The map $A\mapsto A\vac$ is one-to-one from $\Gamm_q$ into $\F_q$. The precise action of this map will be important to us, and so it bears mentioning. The *$q$-Hermite polynomials* $H^q_n$ are one-variable real polynomials defined so that $H^q_0(x) = 1$, $H^q_1(x) = x$, and satisfying the following recurrence relation: $$\label{q-Hermite}
xH^q_n(x) = H^q_{n+1}(x) +\frac{q^n-1}{q-1}H^q_{n-1}(x),$$ where $(q^n-1)/(q-1)$ is to be interpreted as $n$ when $q=1$. In this case, the generated polynomials $H^1_n$ are precisely the Hermite polynomials that play an important role in the Boson theory. When $q=0$, the polynomials $H^0_n$ are the Tchebyshev polynomials, and play an analogous role in the theory of semi-circular systems (see [@Voiculescu]). We can express the action of the above map $A\mapsto A\vac$ succinctly in terms of the polynomials $H^q_n$. The following proposition is proved in [@BKS].
\[Wick ordering 1\] The map $A\mapsto A\vac$ from $\Gamm_q$ to $\F_q$ is one-to-one, and extends to a unitary isomorphism $L^2(\Gamm_q,\tau_q)\to\F_q$. If $\{e_j\}$ are orthonormal vectors in $\HH$ and $j_{\ell} \ne j_{\ell+1}$ for $1 \le \ell \le k-1$, then $$\label{q-Hermite mapping}
H^q_{n_1}(X_q(e_{j_1}))\cdots H^q_{n_k}(X_q(e_{j_k}))\vac = e_{j_1}^{\tensor n_1}\tensor\cdots\tensor e_{j_k}^{\tensor n_k}.$$
The algebraic Fock space $\F(\HH)$ carries a number operator $N$, whose action is given by $$\begin{aligned}
N\vac & = & 0 \\
N(f_1\tensor\cdots\tensor f_n) & = & nf_1\tensor\cdots\tensor f_n.\end{aligned}$$ This operator extends to a densely-defined, essentially self-adjoint operator $N_q$ on $\F_q(\HH)$. The algebra $\Gamm_q$ then inherits the action of $N_q$, via the map in Proposition \[Wick ordering 1\]. The reader may readily check that if $\{e_j\}$ are orthonormal vectors in $\HH$ and $j_{\ell} \ne j_{\ell+1}$ for $1 \le \ell \le k-1$, then the element $$H^q_{n_1}(X_q(e_{j_1}))\cdots H^q_{n_k}(X_q(e_{j_k}))$$ is an eigenvector of $N_q$ with eigenvalue $n_1+\cdots+n_k$. In the case $\HH=\R^d$, this is a precise analogy to the action of the number operator for Bosons. The algebra $\Gamm_1(\R^d)$ is isomorphic to $L^\infty(\R^d,\gamma)$, and the operators $X_1(e_j)$ (for the standard basis vectors $e_j$) are multiplication by the coordinate functions $x_j$. The Boson number operator $A_\gamma$ has $H^1_{n_1}(x_1)\cdots H^1_{n_k}(x_k)$ as an eigenvector, with eigenvalue $n_1+\cdots+n_k$.
The number operator generates a contraction semigroup $e^{-tN_q}$ on $L^2(\Gamm_q,\tau_q)$, which is known to restrict for $p >2$, and extend for $1\le p <2$, to a contraction semigroup on $L^p(\Gamm_q,\tau_q)$. Biane’s hypercontractivity theorem, Theorem \[Free hyp thm\], is an extension of these results.
the holomorphic algebra, and the $q$-Segal-Bargmann transform {#q-holomorphic}
-------------------------------------------------------------
Let $q<1$. We wish to define a Banach algebra of “holomorphic" elements in $\B(\F_q)$. To that end, we follow a similar procedure to the formal construction of holomorphic polynomials. We begin by doubling the number of variables, and so we consider the algebra $\Gamm_q(\HH\oplus\HH)$. This algebra contains two independent copies of the variable $X(h)\in\Gamm_q(\HH)$: $X(h,0)$ and $X(0,h)$. (Here, $(h,0)$ denotes a pair in $\HH\oplus\HH$, not the inner product of $h$ with $0$. Whenever this ambiguity in notation may be confusing, we will clarify by denoting the inner product as $(\cdot,\cdot)_{\mathscr K}$ for the appropriate Hilbert space $\mathscr K$.) We then introduce a new variable $Z(h)$, $$\label{Z}
Z(h) = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(X(h,0) + iX(0,h)).$$ In the case $\HH=\R$ and $q=1$, this precisely corresponds to the holomorphic variable $z = (x+iy)/\sqrt{2}$, the normalization chosen so that $z$ is a unit vector in $\H L^2(\gamma)$. We define the [**$q$-holomorphic algebra**]{} $\H_q(\Hc)$ as the Banach algebra generated by $\{Z(h)\,;\,h\in\HH\}$.
In [@Biane; @2], Biane introduced a Banach algebra ${\mathscr C}_{hol}$ in the $q=0$ case which is also an analog of the algebra of holomorphic functions. His algebra is not contained in $\Gamm_0(\HH\oplus\HH)$, so it is less natural to consider an action of $N_0$ on it. We introduce it here (with slightly changed notation to avoid inconsistencies) to show that it is isomorphic to $\H_0$, and so the work presented here indeed generalizes Biane’s results. Consider the von Neumann algebra $\B(\F_0(\HH\oplus\HH))$; it contains all the operators $c_0(h,g)$ and their adjoints, for $h,g\in\HH$. Define the operator $$B(h) = c_0(h,0) + c_0^\ast(0,h).$$ Let ${\mathscr C}(\Hc)$ be the von Neumann algebra generated by $\{B(h)\,;\,h\in\HH\}$, and ${\mathscr C}_{hol}(\Hc)$ the Banach algebra so generated. The vacuum expectation state $\tau_0(A) = (A\vac,\vac)$ restricts to a faithful, normal, finite trace on ${\mathscr C}(\Hc)$, and the map $h\mapsto B(h)$ is a circular system with respect to $\tau_0$ (see [@Voiculescu]).
Although Biane’s algebra ${\mathscr C}_{hol}(\Hc)$ is not contained in $\Gamm_0(\HH\oplus\HH)$, it is in fact isomorphic to our algebra $\H_0(\Hc)$, in the following strong sense.
\[\* isom\] There is a $\ast$-automorphism of $\B(\F_0(\HH\oplus\HH))$ which maps $\Gamm_0(\HH\oplus\HH)$ onto ${\mathscr C}(\Hc)$. In particular, it maps $Z(h)$ to $B(h)$, and so sends $\H_0(\Hc)$ to ${\mathscr C}_{hol}(\Hc)$.
By Theorem \[irreducible\], we can define an endomorphism of $\B(\F_0(\HH\oplus\HH))$ on the generators $c_0(h,g)$ by $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha(c_0(h,g)) & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c_0(h,h) + ic_0(-g,g)) \\
\alpha(c_0^\ast(h,g)) & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c_0^\ast(h,h) - i c_0^\ast(-g,g)).\end{aligned}$$ A straightforward computation verifies that the operators $\alpha(c_0(h,g))$ satisfy the $0$-commutation relations of Equation \[q-commutation relations\]. Hence, $\alpha$ extends to a $\ast$-homomorphism. It can also easily be checked that $\alpha$ has an inverse of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\alpha^{-1}(c_0(h,g)) & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c_0(h+g,0)+ic_0(0,h-g)) \\
\alpha^{-1}(c_0^\ast(h,g)) & = & \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(c_0^\ast(h+g,0)-ic_0^\ast(0,h-g)),\end{aligned}$$ which also extends to a $\ast$-homomorphism. Hence, $\alpha$ is a $\ast$-automorphism. Finally, one can calculate that $\alpha(Z(h)) = B(h)$. Whence, $\alpha$ maps $\H_0$ onto ${\mathscr C}_{hol}$, and so maps $W^\ast(\H_0(\Hc)) = \Gamm_0(\HH\oplus\HH)$ onto ${\mathscr C}(\Hc)$.
It should be noted that Proposition \[\* isom\] generalizes automatically to $q\ne 0$; however, we are only concerned with the $q=0$ case for ${\mathscr C}_{hol}$.
\[p-norms same\] The map $\alpha$ from $\Gamm_0(\HH\oplus\HH)$ to ${\mathscr C}(\Hc)$ extends to an isometric isomorphism $L^p(\Gamm_0,\tau_0)\to L^p({\mathscr C},\tau_0)$ for $0 < p \le \infty$.
Since $\alpha$ is a $\ast$-automorphism of the full von Neumann algebra $\B(\F_0)$, by Wigner’s theorem it is induced (through conjugation) by either a unitary or an anti-unitary on $\F_0$. Suppose it is a unitary, $U$, so that $\alpha(A) = U^\ast A U$ for each $A\in\B(\F_0)$. Recall that $\tau_0$ is known to restrict to a tracial state on both $W^\ast(\H_0)$ and $\mathscr C$. Hence, for $A\in\H_0$ and $p>0$, $$\|\alpha(A)\|_p^p = \tau_0(|\alpha(A)|^p) = \tau_0(\alpha(|A|^p)) = \tau_0(U^\ast|A|^pU) = \tau_0(|A|^p) = \|A\|_p^p.$$ It follows that $\alpha$ extends to an isometric isomorphism from $L^p(\H_0,\tau_0)$ onto $L^p({\mathscr C}_{hol},\tau_0)$. The anti-unitary case is similar.
Hence, the algebraic map which sends $Z(h)$ to $B(h)$ preserves all $L^p$ topology (even for $p<1$), and so the analyses of the spaces $\H_0$ and ${\mathscr C}_{hol}$ are very much the same.
In the commutative context, one of the most powerful tools in this area is the *Segal-Bargmann transform* $\mathscr S$, which is a unitary isomorphism $${\mathscr S}\colon L^2(\R^d,\gamma)\to\H L^2(\C^d,\gamma').$$ Here, $\gamma'$ denotes the measure whose density with respect to Lebesgue measure is (a constant multiple of) the complex Gaussian $\exp(-|z|^2)$, rather than $\exp(-|x|^2/2)$ as in $\gamma$. The Hermite polynomials $H^1_{n_1}(x_1)\cdots H^1_{n_d}(x_d)$, appropriately normalized, form an orthonormal basis of $L^2(\R^d,\gamma)$, and the action of $\mathscr S$ on this basis is simple: $$\label{action of S}
{\mathscr S} \colon H^1_{n_1}(x_1)\cdots H^1_{n_d}(x_d) \mapsto z_1^{n_1}\cdots z_d^{n_d}.$$ So $\mathscr S$ maps the Hermite polynomials to the holomorphic monomials.
(A note on normalization. Instead of changing the measure $\gamma\to\gamma'$, we could redefine ${\mathscr S}'\colon L^2(\R^d,\gamma)\to\H L^2(\C^d,\gamma)$ by setting ${\mathscr S}'f(z) = {\mathscr S}f(z/\sqrt{2})$. This map is, of course, a unitary isomorphism. It is this point of view that we take while generalizing the Segal-Bargmann transform. After all, we have already built the factor $1/\sqrt{2}$ in to the variable $Z(h)$.)
In [@Biane; @2], a free Segal-Bargmann transform is introduced, which is a unitary isomorphism $L^2(\Gamma_0,\tau_0)\to L^2({\mathscr C}_{hol},\tau_0)$. We will modify this transform and extend it to all $q\in[-1,1]$, and further show that besides generalizing the classical transform $\mathscr S$ it respects the action of the number operator. First, we will need to understand the embedding of $\H_q(\Hc)$ in $\F_q(\HH\oplus\HH)$ (it is injected via the map $A\mapsto A\vac$, which is one-to-one on all of $\Gamm_q(\HH\oplus\HH)$ by Proposition \[Wick ordering 1\]). Consider the diagonal mapping $\delta\colon\Hc\to\Hc\oplus\Hc$ defined $\delta(h) = 2^{-1/2}(h,ih)$. Since $\delta$ is isometric, it extends to an isometric embedding $\delta_q\colon\F_q(\HH)\hookrightarrow\F_q(\HH\oplus\HH)$ (that is, $\delta_q(h_1\tensor h_2\tensor\cdots) = \delta(h_1)\tensor\delta(h_2)\tensor\cdots$).
\[Wick ordering 2\] The map $A\mapsto A\vac$ injecting $\H_q(\Hc)\hookrightarrow\F_q(\HH\oplus\HH)$ extends to a unitary isomorphism $L^2(\H_q(\Hc),\tau_q)\to\delta_q\F_q(\HH)$. If $\{e_j\}$ are orthonormal vectors in $\HH$, then $$\label{monomial mapping}
Z_q(e_{j_1})^{n_1}\cdots Z_q(e_{j_k})^{n_k}\vac = \delta_q(e_{j_1}^{\tensor n_1}\tensor\cdots\tensor e_{j_k}^{\tensor n_k}).$$
Let $\phi = h_1\tensor\cdots\tensor h_n\in\F(\HH)$, and consider $Z_q(h)\delta(\phi)$. We may compute $$\begin{aligned}
X_q(h,0)\delta(\phi) & = & (c_q(h,0)+c_q^\ast(h,0))\delta(\phi) \\
& = & (h,0)\tensor\delta(\phi) + \sum_{j=1}^n q^{j-1}\left(2^{-1/2}(h_j,ih_j),(h,0)\right)_{\HH\oplus\HH}\delta(\hat\phi_j) \\
& = & (h,0)\tensor\delta(\phi) + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sum_{j=1}^n q^{j-1}(h_j,h)_{\HH}\delta(\hat\phi_j), \end{aligned}$$ where $\hat\phi_j = h_1\tensor\cdots\tensor h_{j-1}\tensor h_{j+1}\tensor\cdots\tensor h_n$. A similar calculation shows that $$X_q(0,h)\delta(\phi) = (0,h)\tensor\delta(\phi) + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\sum_{j=1}^n q^{j-1}(ih_j,h)_{\HH}\delta(\hat\phi_j),$$ and so in the sum $X_q(h,0)+iX_q(0,h)$ the $c_q^\ast$ terms cancel. (Note, we have assumed as is standard that the complexified inner product $(h,g)$ is linear in $h$ and conjugate-linear in $g$.) Thus, we have $Z_q(h)\delta(\phi) = 2^{-1/2}(h,ih)\tensor\delta(\phi) = \delta(h\tensor\phi)$. Equation \[monomial mapping\] now follows by induction, and the theorem follows since such vectors are dense in $\delta_q\F_q(\HH)$.
We may now define the [**$q$-Segal-Bargmann transform**]{} as follows. Propositions \[Wick ordering 1\] and \[Wick ordering 2\] give (up to the map $\delta_q$) unitary equivalences between the Fock space $\F_q(\HH)$ and both $L^2(\Gamm_q(\HH),\tau_q)$ and $L^2(\H_q(\Hc),\tau_q)$. The $q$-Segal-Bargmann transform ${\mathscr S}_q$ is the composition of these unitary isomorphisms. That is, ${\mathscr S}_q$ is the unitary map which makes the following diagram commute. $$\xymatrix{
\F_q(\HH) \ar@{^{(}->}[r]^{\delta_q} & \F_q(\HH\oplus\HH) \\
L^2(\Gamm_q(\HH),\tau_q) \ar[u]^{A\mapsto A\vac} \ar[r]_{{\mathscr S}_q} & L^2(\H_q(\Hc),\tau_q) \ar[u]_{A\mapsto A\vac}
}$$ By Equations \[q-Hermite mapping\] and \[monomial mapping\], the action of ${\mathscr S}_q$ can be expressed in terms of the $q$-Hermite polynomials. If $\{e_j\}$ are orthonormal vectors in $\HH$ and $j_{\ell} \ne j_{\ell+1}$ for $1 \le \ell \le k-1$, then $$\label{action of Sq}
{\mathscr S}_q\colon H^q_{n_1}(X_q(e_{j_1}))\cdots H^q_{n_k}(X_q(e_{j_k}))\mapsto Z_q(e_{j_1})^{n_1}\cdots Z_q(e_{j_k})^{n_k}.$$ Comparing Equations \[action of S\] and \[action of Sq\], we see that ${\mathscr S}_q$ is a natural extension of the classical Segal-Bargmann transform.
Since $\H_q(\Hc)$ is contained in $\Gamm_q(\HH\oplus\HH)$, it inherits the number operator $N_q$ from it, induced by the inclusion of $\Gamm_q(\HH\oplus\HH)$ into $\F_q(\HH\oplus\HH)$ via the map $A\mapsto A\vac$. From Equation \[monomial mapping\], we see then that $Z_q(e_1)^{n_1}\cdots Z_q(e_k)^{n_k}$ is an eigenvector of $N_q$ with eigenvalue $n_1+\cdots+n_k$. This is precisely matches the conjugated action ${\mathscr S}_qN_q{\mathscr S}_q^{\ast}$ of the number operator $N_q$ on $\Gamm_q(\HH)$, as can be seen from Proposition \[Wick ordering 1\]. Hence, we have ${\mathscr S}_qN_q = N_q{\mathscr S}_q$, just as in the commutative case.
Finally, we define $L^p(\H_q(\Hc),\tau_q)$ to be the completion of $\H_q(\Hc)$ in the $L^p(\Gamm_q(\HH\oplus\HH),\tau_q)$-norm. For $p\ge 2$ (the case of interest for our main theorem), it is equal to the intersection of $L^2(\H_q(\Hc),\tau_q)$ with $L^p(\Gamm_q(\HH\oplus\HH),\tau_q)$. The class of Banach spaces $L^p(\H_q,\tau_q)$ is a non-commutative generalization of the spaces $\H L^p(\C^d,\gamma')$ that occur in Janson’s Theorem \[Janson hyp thm\]. Since the algebra $\H_q$ is not a von Neumann algebra, this family is [*not known*]{} to be complex interpolation scale. For example, in the $q=1$ case, the family is not complex interpolation scale when $\HH$ is infinite-dimensional (this is almost proven in [@JPR]). Hence, once we have proved Theorem \[Main Theorem\], it is not an easy matter to generalize to the case $p> 2$, $r\ne 2,4,6,\ldots$
Mixed Spin and Strong Hypercontractivity {#spin alg}
========================================
We will consider the mixed-spin algebras $\CC(I,\eps)$ introduced in [@Biane; @1] which represent systems with some commutation and some anti-commutation relations. Such systems may be viewed as approximations to the $q$-commutation relations, in a manner which will be made precise in Section \[Speicher\]. We introduce a holomorphic subalgebra $\H(I,\eps)$, and give a combinatorial proof of a strong hypercontractivity theorem like Theorem \[Main Theorem\] for it.
The mixed-spin algebra $\CC(I,\eps)$
------------------------------------
Let $I$ be a finite totally ordered set (with cardinality denoted by $|I|$), and let $\eps$ be a function $I\times I\to\{-1,1\}$ which is symmetric, $\eps(i,j) = \eps(j,i)$, and constantly $-1$ on the diagonal, $\eps(i,i) = -1$. Let $\CC(I,\eps)$ denote the unital $\C$-algebra with generators $\{x_i\,;\,i\in I\}$ and relations $$\label{eps relations}
x_i x_j - \eps(i,j) x_j x_i = 2\delta_{ij} \quad\text{for}\quad i,j\in I.$$ (The requirement $\eps(i,i) = -1$ forces $x_i^2 = 1$, and guarantees that $\CC(I,\eps)$ is finite-dimensional.) In the special case $\eps\equiv -1$, this is precisely the complex Clifford algebra $\CC_{|I|}$, hence our choice of notation. In the case $\eps(i,j) = 1$ for $i\ne j$ (i.e. when different generators commute), the generators of $\CC(I,\eps)$ may be modeled by $|I|$ i.i.d. Bernoulli random variables, and so we reproduce the toy Fock space considered in [@Meyer]. In the general case, $\CC(I,\eps)$ has, as a vector space, a basis consisting of all $x_A$ with $A = (i_1,\ldots,i_k)$ increasing multi-indices in $I^k$, where $x_A = x_{i_1}\ldots x_{i_k}$, and $x_{\emptyset}$ denotes the identity $1\in\CC(I,\eps)$. Thus, $\dim\CC(I,\eps) = 2^{|I|}$. Moreover, $\CC(I,\eps)$ has a natural decomposition $$\CC(I,\eps) = \bigoplus_{n=0}^{|I|} \CC_n(I,\eps),$$ where $\CC_n = \text{span}\{x_A\,;\,|A| = n\}$ is the “$n$-particle space." Of some importance to us will be the natural grading of the algebra, $$\CC(I,\eps) = \CC_+(I,\eps)\oplus\CC_-(I,\eps),$$ where $\CC_+ = \bigoplus\{\CC_n\,;\,n\text{ is even}\}$, and $\CC_-$ is the corresponding odd subspace. The reader may readily verify that this decomposition is a grading – i.e. $\CC_\alpha\cdot\CC_\beta\subseteq\CC_{\alpha\beta}$, where $\alpha,\beta\in\{+,-\}$ and their product is to be interpretted in the obvious fashion.
We equip $\CC(I,\eps)$ with an involution $\ast$, which is defined to be the conjugate-linear extension of the map $x_A^\ast = x_{A^\ast}$, where $(i_1,\ldots,i_k)^\ast$ is the reversed multi-index $(i_k,\ldots,i_1)$. In particular, the generators $x_i = x_i^\ast$ are self-adjoint, and in general $x_A^\ast = \pm x_A$. We also define a tracial state $\te$ by $\te(x_A) = \delta_{A\emptyset}$; that is, $\te(1) = 1$ while $\te(x_A) = 0$ for all other basis elements. It is easy to check that $\te(ab) = \te(ba)$. This allows us to define an inner product on $\CC(I,\eps)$ by $$(a,b)_\eps = \te(b^\ast a).$$ The basis $\{x_A\}$ is orthonormal with respect to $(\cdot,\cdot)_\eps$. Following the GNS construction, the action of $\CC(I,\eps)$ on the Hilbert space $(\CC(I,\eps),(\cdot,\cdot)_\eps)$ by left-multiplication is continuous, and yields an injection of $\CC(I,\eps)$ into the von Neumann algebra of bounded operators on the Hilbert space. In this way, $\CC(I,\eps)$ gains a von Neumann algebra structure. We denote by $L^p(\CC(I,\eps),\te)$ the non-commutative $L^p$ space of this von Neumann algebra with its trace $\te$. (So, in particular, $L^2(\CC(I,\eps),\te)$ is naturally isomorphic to the Hilbert space $(\CC(I,\eps),(\cdot,\cdot)_\eps)$.) The $L^p(\CC(I,\eps),\te)$-norm is, in fact, just the (normalized) Schatten $L^p$-norm on the matrix algebra. This can be seen from the following Proposition.
\[trace\] Let $tr$ denote the normalized trace on the finite-dimensional algebra $\B(L^2(\CC(I,\eps),\te))$. Then for any $x\in\CC(I,\eps)$, $$\te(x) = tr(x).$$
Using the orthonormal basis $\{x_A\}$ for $L^2(\CC(I,\eps),\te)$, we compute that $$tr(x_A) = 2^{-|I|}\sum_B (x_Ax_B,x_B)_\eps = \begin{cases} 0,&\text{ if }A\ne\emptyset \\ 2^{-|I|}\sum_B(x_B,x_B)_\eps = 1,&\text{ if }A=\emptyset \end{cases}$$ where the sums are taken over all increasing multi-indices $B$. So $tr(x_A) = \delta_{A\emptyset} = \te(x_A)$.
Note that the trace $\te$ may be expressed in terms of the inner product as the pure state $\te(x) = (x1,1)_\eps$. This formula extends to all of $\B(L^2(\CC(I,\eps),\te))$, giving the pure state $\beta\mapsto(\beta 1,1)_\eps$. However, this state does [*not*]{} equal $tr$ for all bounded operators $\beta$. We will see examples in Section \[Speicher\] showing that it is not tracial in general.
The algebra $\CC(I,\eps)$ comes equipped with a number operator $N_\eps$ which has $\CC_n(I,\eps)$ as an eigenspace with eigenvalue $n$. That is, $$N_\eps x_A = |A|x_A.$$ This is a generalization of the action of the operator $N_{-1}$ on the Clifford algebra $\CC_{|I|}=\Gamm_{-1}(\R^{|I|})$. $N_\eps$ is a positive semi-definite operator on $L^2(\CC(I,\eps),\te)$, and so generates a contraction semigroup $e^{-tN_\eps}$. It is to the study of this semigroup, restricted to a holomorphic subspace, that we devote the remainder of this section.
The mixed-spin holomorphic algebra $\H(I,\eps)$ {#holomorphic algebra}
-----------------------------------------------
Following our construction of $\H_q$, we will begin by doubling the number of variables. We extend $\eps$ to the set $I\times\{0,1\}$ by setting $$\eps((i,\zeta),(j,\zeta')) = \eps(i,j),$$ and then consider the algebra $\CC(I\times\{0,1\},\eps)$. If we relabel $x_{(i,0)}\to x_i$ and $x_{(i,1)}\to y_i$, then this is tantamount to constructing the unital $\C$-algebra with relations $$\label{eps relations 2} \left.\begin{matrix} x_i x_j - \eps(i,j) x_j x_i & = & 2\delta_{ij} \\
y_i y_j - \eps(i,j) y_j y_i & = & 2\delta_{ij} \\
x_i y_j - \eps(i,j) y_j x_i & = & 0 \end{matrix}\right\}\quad \text{for} \quad i,j\in I.$$ Note, $\CC(I,\eps)$ is $\ast$-isomorphically embedded in $\CC(I\times\{0,1\},\eps)$ via the inclusion $x_i\mapsto x_{(i,0)}$. Hence, this relabeling should not be confusing.
We define elements $z_j\in\CC(I\times\{0,1\},\eps)$ by $$\label{z eps}
z_j = 2^{-1/2}(x_j + iy_j) = 2^{-1/2}(x_{(j,0)} + ix_{(j,1)}),\quad \text{for} \quad j\in I.$$ (To avoid confusion, we point out that in Equation \[z eps\], $i$ refers to $\sqrt{-1}\in\C$.) The operator $z_j$ is an analog of the operators $Z_q(e_j)$ in $\H_q$. The normalization is again chosen so that $z_j$ is a unit vector in $L^2(\CC,\te)$. For the calculations in the foregoing, however, it will be convenient to have the variables normalized in $L^\infty(\CC,\te)$. Therefore, we also introduce $$\z_j = 2^{-1/2} z_j = \frac{1}{2}(x_j + i y_j)\quad \text{for} \quad j\in I.$$ The reader may readily verify that $|\z_j|^2 = \z_j^\ast\z_j$ is a nonzero idempotent, and hence $\|\z_j\|_\infty = 1$. Define the [**mixed spin holomorphic algebra**]{} $\H(I,\eps)$ as the $\C$-algebra generated by $\{z_1,\ldots,z_{|I|}\}$. This is just the polynomial algebra in the variables $z_1,\ldots,z_{|I|}$ — the adjoints are not included. Indeed, $2\z_j^\ast = x_j - iy_j$, so $x_j = \z_j + \z_j^\ast$ and $y_j = i(\z_j^\ast - \z_j)$. Thus, the $\ast$-algebra generated by $z_1,\ldots,z_{|I|}$ is all of $\CC(I\times\{0,1\},\eps)$.
Observe that $2z_j^2 = x_j^2 - y_j^2 + i(x_j y_j + y_j x_j) = 0$ since $\eps(j,j) = -1$. In general, we may compute that $$\label{z commute}
z_i z_j - \eps(i,j) z_j z_i = 0,$$ and the same relations (of course) hold for the $\z_j$. The operators $\z_j,\z_j^\ast$ also satisfy the joint relations $$\label{eps ast relations}
\z_i^\ast \z_j - \eps(i,j) \z_j \z_i^\ast = \delta_{ij} \quad \text{for} \quad i,j\in I.$$ Equation \[eps ast relations\] looks much like the $q$-commutation relations of Equation \[q-commutation relations\]. It is, in fact, possible to think of $\z_j,\z_j^\ast$ as creation and annihilation operators. That is, there is a faithful representation of $\z_j,\z_j^\ast$ [*in*]{} $\B(L^2(\CC(I,\eps),\te))$, which sends $\z_j$ and $\z_j^\ast$ to the creation and annihilation operators $\beta_j,\beta_j^\ast$ on $L^2(\CC(I,\eps),\te)$ discussed in Section \[Speicher\]. (By our definition, the operators $\z_j,\z_j^\ast$ are a priori in the [*doubled*]{} space $\B(L^2(\CC(I\times\{0,1\},\eps),\te)$.) This representation, the [*spin-chain representation*]{}, is discussed in [@Carlen; @Lieb] in detail in the case $\eps\equiv -1$, and is generalized in [@Biane; @1]. The problem with this point of view is that the pure state $\beta\mapsto(\beta1,1)_\eps$ on $\B(L^2(\CC(I,\eps),\te))$ does [*not*]{} correspond to the trace $\te$ under the representation. So, we prefer not to think of $\z_j,\z_j^\ast$ as creation and annihilation operators.
A simple calculation shows that if $|A| = n$ then $z_A \in \CC_n(I\times\{0,1\},\eps)$, and so $N_\eps z_A = |A|z_A$. Thus, $\H(I,\eps)$ is a reducing subspace for the (self-adjoint) operator $N_\eps$ on $L^2(\Cd,\te)$. Note also that the action of $N_\eps$ on $z_A$ mirrors that of $N_\eps$ on $x_A$. In fact, this can be stated in terms of a [**$\eps$-Segal-Bargmann transform**]{}: the map ${\mathscr S}_\eps\colon x_A\mapsto z_A$ is a unitary isomorphism of $L^2(\Cs,\te)$ onto $L^2(\H(I,\eps),\te)$, and ${\mathscr S}_\eps N_\eps = N_\eps{\mathscr S}_\eps$.
The main part of the proof of Theorem \[Main Theorem\] is the following strong hypercontractivity result regarding the semigroup $e^{-tN_\eps}$ acting on $\H(I,\eps)$.
\[eps strong hyp\] For $p=2$ and $r$ an even integer, $$\|e^{-tN_\eps} a\|_r \le \|a\|_p\text{ for all }a\in\H(I,\eps) \quad \text{iff} \quad t\ge t_J(p,r) = \frac{1}{2}\log\frac{r}{p}.$$
We expect the theorem holds for $2\le p \le r < \infty$. (The case $p<2$ may be somewhat different from the commutative case; in a communication from L. Gross, a calculation showed that in $1$-dimension the least time to contraction seems to be larger than the Janson time for some $p,r<2$.) If $I\ne\emptyset$, it is easy to see that the Janson time cannot be improved for [*any $p,r>0$*]{}, again by calculation in the $1$-dimensional case.
Let $a(\e) = 1+\e \z\in \H(I,\eps)$ where $\z = \z_j$ for some $j\in I$. Then $|a(\e)|^2 = (1+\e\z^\ast)(1+\e\z) = 1 + \e(\z + \z^\ast) + \e^2|\z|^2 = 1 + \e x + \e^2|\z|^2$, where $x = x_j$. Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
|a(\e)|^{2p} & = & (1+\e(x + \e|\z|^2))^p \\
& = & 1 + p\e(x + \e|\z|^2) + \frac{p(p-1)}{2}\e^2(x+\e|\z|^2)^2 + o(\e^2) \\
& = & 1 + \e(px) + \e^2\left(p|\z|^2 + \frac{p(p-1)}{2}x^2\right) + o(\e^2).\end{aligned}$$ Now, $|\z|^2 = (1/2)(1+ixy)$ where $y=y_j$, and so $\te|\z|^2 = 1/2$. Also $x^2 = 1$, and $\te x = 0$. Therefore, $$\begin{aligned}
\|a(\e)\|_{2p} \;\; = \;\; \left(\te(|a(\e)|^{2p})\right)^{1/2p} & = & \left(1 + \left(p\cdot\frac{1}{2} + \frac{p(p-1)}{2}\right)\e^2 + o(\e^2)\right)^{1/2p} \\
& = & 1 + \frac{p}{4}\e^2 + o(\e^2).\end{aligned}$$ So $\|a(\e)\|_p = 1 + (p/8)\e^2 + o(\e^2)$. Now, $e^{-tN_\eps}a(\e) = 1 + \e e^{-t}\z = a(e^{-t}\e)$. Thus, in order for $\|e^{-tN_\eps}a(\e)\|_r \le \|a(\e)\|_p$, we must have $$1+ \frac{1}{8}e^{-2t}r\e^2 + o(\e^2) \le 1 + \frac{1}{8}p\e^2 + o(\e^2),$$ and so as $\e\to 0$, it follows that $e^{-2t}\le p/r$ — or $t \ge t_J(p,r)$.
Hence, the necessity condition holds for all $r\ge p > 0$. For the sufficiency, however, the tools available to us are extremely limited (due to the fact that $\H(I,\eps)$ is not a $\ast$-algebra). We are forced to give a combinatorial proof, which cannot reach beyond the cases when $p=2$ and $r$ is even. The remainder of the ‘if’ direction of Theorem \[eps strong hyp\] is the main subject of Section \[H strong hyp\].
Strong hypercontractivity for $\H(I,\eps)$ {#H strong hyp}
------------------------------------------
We will prove Theorem \[eps strong hyp\] by induction on $|I|$. Note, in the case $|I|=0$, the algebra $\H(I,\eps)$ is just $\C$. Since the action of $e^{-tN_\eps}$ on $\C$ is trivial, and since all $\|\cdot\|_p$ norms are equal to the complex modulus $|\cdot|$, the sufficiency condition follows automatically in this case. Now, suppose the strong hypercontractivity result of Theorem \[eps strong hyp\] holds for the algebras $\H(I',\eps')$ with $|I'|\le d$. Let $I$ be a set of size $d+1$, and $\eps$ a spin-assignment on $I$. Select any fixed element $i\in I$. Any element $a\in\H(I,\eps)$ can be uniquely decomposed as $$\label{decomp}
a = b + \z_ic, \quad b,c\in\H(I-\{i\},\left.\eps\right|_{I-\{i\}}).$$ For convenience, throughout we will refer to $I-\{i\}$ as $J$, and to $\z_i$ as $\z$, $x_i$ as $x$, and so forth. Since $|J| = d$, the inductive hypothesis is that $\H(J,\left.\eps\right|_J)$ satisfies the strong hypercontractivity estimate of Theorem \[eps strong hyp\].
The quantity $|\z|^2$ will often come up in calculations, and so we give it a name: $\xi = |\z|^2 = \z^\ast\z$. We will also encounter $\z\z^\ast$, but by Equation \[eps ast relations\], $\z\z^\ast = 1-\xi$. The following lemma records some of the important properties of the operators $\xi$, $\z$, and $\z^\ast$. All of the statements may be verified by trivial calculation.
\[calc\] The following properties hold for $\xi$, $\z$, and $\z^\ast$.
1. $\xi^p = \xi$ for $p > 0$.
2. $\xi$ is independent of $\CC(J\times\{0,1\},\left.\eps\right|_J)$ — that is, for each $u\in\CC(J\times\{0,1\},\left.\eps\right|_J)$, $\xi u = u\xi$ and $\te(\xi u) = \te(\xi)\te(u) = \frac{1}{2}\te(u)$.\[independence\]
3. Let $u\in\CC(J\times\{0,1\},\left.\eps\right|_J)$, let $h\in\{\z,\z^\ast,\xi,1-\xi\}$, and let $p>0$. Then $\|hu\|_p = 2^{-1/p}\|u\|_p$.\[product norms\]
4. $\xi\z = \z^\ast\xi = 0$, $\z\xi = \z$, and $\xi\z^\ast = \z^\ast$\[products\].
The commutativity in item \[independence\] above follows in large part from the fact that $\xi = \frac{1}{2}(1 + ixy) \in \CC_+(I\times\{0,1\},\eps)$. The grading plays an important role in the combinatorics to follow. In fact, the grading of $\CC(\{i\}\times\{0,1\},\left.\eps\right|_{\{i\}})$ induces a grading on the full algebra $\CC(I\times\{0,1\},\eps)$. We refer to this grading by $$\CC = \CC_+^i\oplus\CC_-^i, \qquad \CC_\alpha^i\cdot\CC_\beta^i \subseteq \CC_{\alpha\beta}^i.$$ So, for example, the element $y_j\xi$ ($i\ne j$) is in $\CC_+^i(I\times\{0,1\},\eps)$, even though it is in $\CC_-(I\times\{0,1\},\eps)$. Note that $$\CC^i_-(I\times\{0,1\},\eps) = \left\{\z u + \z^\ast v\,;\, u,v\in \CC(J\times\{0,1\},\left.\eps\right|_J)\right\}.$$ For any such $u$, $\te(\z u) = (\z,u^\ast)_\eps = 0$, and similarly $\te(\z^\ast u) = 0$. It follows that $\te|_{\CC_-^i} = 0$. Using the graded structure, this leads to the following important lemma, which aids in the calculation of moments.
\[even\] Let $v^0\in \CC^i_+(I\times\{0,1\},\eps)$ and $v^1\in \CC^i_-(I\times\{0,1\},\eps)$. Let $\eta$ be $\{0,1\}$-sequence of length $n$, and denote by $|\eta|$ the sum $\eta_1+\cdots+\eta_n$ of its entries (i.e. the number of $1$s). Then the element $v^\eta = v^{\eta_1}\cdots v^{\eta_n}$ has $\te(v^\eta) = 0$ if $|\eta|$ is odd.
Now, we proceed to expand the moments of $|a|^2$. Using the decomposition in \[decomp\], we have $|a|^2 = (b+\z c)^\ast(b+\z c) = |b|^2 + b^\ast \z c + c^\ast\z^\ast b + c^\ast|\z|^2c$. That is, $$\label{a^2}
|a|^2 = (|b|^2 + \xi |c|^2) + (b^\ast \z c + c^\ast \z^\ast b) = v^0 + v^1.$$ Equation \[a\^2\] decomposes $|a|^2$ into its $\CC^i_+$ and $\CC^i_-$ parts, $v^0 = |b|^2 + \xi |c|^2$ and $v^1 = b^\ast \z c + c^\ast \z^\ast b$. It follows immediately that $$\label{a 2 norm}
\|a\|_2^2 = \te(v^0) = \te(|b|^2 + \xi |c|^2) = \|b\|_2^2 + \frac{1}{2}\|c\|_2^2.$$ The factor of $1/2$ (unusual in Pythagoras’ formula) is due to our choice to normalize $\z$ in $L^\infty$ and not in $L^2$. More generally, for the $n$th moment of $|a|^2$, $$\|a\|_{2n}^{2n} = \te(|a|^{2n}) = \te[(v^0 + v^1)^n] = \sum_{\eta\in 2^n} \te(v^\eta),$$ where $2^n$ denotes the set of all $\{0,1\}$-sequences of length $n$. Using Lemma \[even\], we have $$\|a\|_{2n}^{2n} = \sum_{\stackrel{|\eta|\text{ even}}{\eta\in 2^n}} \te(v^\eta) = \sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor} \sum_{|\eta|=2k} \te(v^\eta).$$ Now, the term $v^\eta$ is a product of $n$ terms, each of which is either $|b|^2 + \xi |c|^2$ or $b^\ast \z c + c^\ast \z^\ast b$. Define $$\begin{aligned}
v^{00} &= |b|^2 \qquad &v^{01} &= \xi |c|^2 \\
v^{10} &= b^\ast \z c \qquad &v^{11} &= c^\ast \z^\ast b.
\end{aligned}$$ Then we may write $v^\eta$ as $$v^\eta = \sum_{\nu\in 2^n} v^{\eta\nu} = \sum_{\nu\in 2^n} v^{\eta_1\nu_1}\cdots v^{\eta_n\nu_n}.$$
It should be noted that many of the terms in this sum are in fact $0$. For example, consider $(v^{10})^2 = b^\ast \z c b^\ast \z c$. In general, for any $u\in\CC(J\times\{0,1\},\left.\eps\right|_J)$, there is a $\tilde{u}\in\CC(J\times\{0,1\},\left.\eps\right|_J)$ such that $\z u = \tilde{u}\z$. Hence the term $(v^{10})^2$ contains $\z^2 = 0$, and so is $0$. More generally, a term like $v^{10} v^{01} v^{10}$ is also $0$: the $\z$ in $v^{10}$ can be commuted past all terms except $\xi$, at which point the product is either $0$ or $\z$ (by Lemma \[calc\]), so the term is $0$. On the other hand, the term $v^{11}v^{01}v^{10}$ is nonzero, since (once commuting past the $\CC(J\times\{0,1\},\left.\eps\right|_J)$-terms) we have $\z^\ast\xi\z = (\z^\ast \z)^2 = \xi \ne 0$.
Let $\eta,\nu\in 2^n$. Denote by $\1(\eta)\subseteq\{1,\ldots,n\}$ the set of $j$ such that $\eta_j = 1$. Then say that $\nu$ is [**$\eta$-alternating**]{}, $\nu\in A(\eta)$, if the subsequence $\{(\nu_j)\,;\,j\in\1(\eta)\}$ is alternating. For example, let $\eta = (1,1,0,1)$. Then the sequences $(0,1,0,0)$ and $(0,1,1,0)$ are both in $A(\eta)$, while the sequence $(0,0,0,0)$ is not. Note that $v^{10}$ and $v^{11}$ are the terms containing $\z$ and $\z^\ast$. Hence, the $v^{\eta\nu}$ with $\nu\in A(\eta)$ are precisely those terms in which $\z$ and $\z^\ast$ alternate when they occur. By the considerations in the preceeding paragraph, these are the only nonzero terms in the expansion of $v^\eta$. Thus, $$v^\eta = \sum_{\nu\in A(\eta)} v^{\eta\nu}.$$ In any term in the above sum, let $|\eta|=2k$ and let $|\nu|=m$. Since $\1(\eta)$ is a set of $2k$ indices, and since $\nu\in A(\eta)$, $\nu_j=0$ for $k$ of these indices $j$, and $\nu_j=1$ for the other $k$. Thus $\nu$ contains at least $k$ $1$s and at least $k$ $0$s, and so $k \le m \le n - k$. It follows that the full expansion for the $n$th moment is $$\|a\|_{2n}^{2n} = \sum_{k=0}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}\sum_{m=k}^{n-k} \sum_{|\eta|=2k} \sum_{\stackrel{\nu\in A(\eta)}{|\nu|=m}} \te(v^{\eta\nu}).$$ It will be useful to consider the cases $k=0$ and $m=0$ separately, and so we rewrite this moment as $$\label{moment}
\|a\|_{2n}^{2n} = \te[(v^{00})^n] + \sum_{m=1}^n \sum_{|\nu|=m} \te(v^{0\nu}) + \sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}\sum_{m=k}^{n-k} \sum_{|\eta|=2k} \sum_{\stackrel{\nu\in A(\eta)}{|\nu|=m}} \te(v^{\eta\nu}).$$ (Note, if $\eta\equiv 0$ then the condition $\nu\in A(\eta)$ is vacuously satisfied for all $\nu\in 2^n$.) Each of the $v^{\eta\nu}$ in Equation \[moment\] is a product of terms, each of which contains some elements of $\CC(J\times\{0,1\},\left.\eps\right|_J)$ and some factors of $\z$, $\z^\ast$, or $\xi$. (Observe the only term which has no factors from $\CC(\{i\}\times\{0,1\},\left.\eps\right|_{\{i\}})$ is the first one $(v^{00})^n$.) To estimate such terms, we introduce the following tool.
\[estimate\] Let $u_1,\ldots,u_s \in \CC(J\times\{0,1\},\left.\eps\right|_J)$. Let $U$ be a product including all of the elements $u_1,\ldots,u_n$ together with some non-zero number of terms from $\{\z,\z^\ast,\xi\}$. Then $$\label{estimate eqn}
\te(U) \le \frac{1}{2}\|u_1\|_s\cdots\|u_s\|_s.$$
First note that $\te(U)$ is invariant under cyclic permutations of $U$. $U$ may then be written in the form $h_1U_1h_2U_2\cdots h_\ell U_\ell$, where each $U_j$ is a product of some of the $u_1,\ldots,u_s$, and each $h_j$ is a product of the terms $\z$,$\z^\ast$, and $\xi$. Let $s_j$ be the number of terms in $U_j$; then $s_1+\cdots + s_\ell = s$. So $s_1/s + \cdots + s_\ell/s = 1$, and when we apply Hölder’s inequality, we find $$\label{Holder 1}
\te(U) \le \|h_1 U_1\|_{s/s_1}\cdots \|h_\ell U_\ell\|_{s/s_\ell}.$$ By Lemma \[calc\] part \[products\], any product of terms in $\{\z,\z^\ast,\xi\}$ is either $\z$, $\z^\ast$, $\xi$, $1-\xi$, or $0$. Thus, using Lemma \[calc\] part \[product norms\], we have $$\label{Holder 2}
\|h_j U_j\|_{s/s_j} \le 2^{-s_j/s}\|U_j\|_{s/s_j}.$$ Now, since $U_j$ is a product of $s_j$ terms, say $u_{k_1},\ldots,u_{k_{s_j}}$, applying Hölder’s inequality again (using $1/s_j + \cdots + 1/s_j = 1/(s/s_j)$) we have $\|U_j\|_{s/s_j} \le \|u_{k_1}\|_s\cdots\|u_{k_{s_j}}\|_s$. Combining this with Equations \[Holder 1\] and \[Holder 2\], we get $$\te(U) \le 2^{-s_1/s}\cdots 2^{-s_\ell/s} \|u_1\|_s \cdots \|u_s\|_s,$$ and since $s_1+\cdots+s_\ell = s$, this reduces to Equation \[estimate eqn\].
We now apply Lemma \[estimate\] to estimate the three terms in Equation \[moment\]. The first term is merely $\te(|b|^{2n}) = \|b\|_{2n}^{2n}$. In the first sum $$\sum_{m=1}^n \sum_{|\nu|=m} \te(v^{0\nu}),$$ the term $v^{0\nu}$, with $|\nu| = m$, is a product containing $m$ factors of $v^{01} = \xi c^\ast c$ and $n-m$ factors of $v^{00} = b^\ast b$. So there are a total of $2n$ factors from the set $\{b,b^\ast,c,c^\ast\}\subset\CC(J\times\{0,1\},\left.\eps\right|_J)$. since $\|u\|_{2n} = \|u^\ast\|_{2n}$ for each $u\in\CC(J\times\{0,1\},\left.\eps\right|_J)$, Lemma \[estimate\] then implies that $$\te(v^{0\nu}) \le \frac{1}{2}(\|b\|_{2n})^{2(n-m)}(\|c\|_{2n})^{2m}.$$ Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{m=1}^n \sum_{|\nu|=m} \te(v^{0\nu}) & \le & \frac{1}{2}\sum_{m=1}^n \sum_{|\nu|=m}(\|b\|_{2n}^2)^{n-m}(\|c\|_{2n}^2)^m \nonumber\\
& = & \frac{1}{2}\sum_{m=1}^n\binom{n}{m} (\|b\|_{2n}^2)^{n-m}(\|c\|_{2n}^2)^m. \label{sum 1}\end{aligned}$$ Now we consider the second sum $$\sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}\sum_{m=k}^{n-k} \sum_{|\eta|=2k} \sum_{\stackrel{\nu\in A(\eta)}{|\nu|=m}} \te(v^{\eta\nu}).$$ In each term $v^{\eta\nu}$, since $|\eta|=2k$ and $\nu\in A(\eta)$, we know that $k$ of the terms are $v^{10}$ and $k$ of the terms are $v^{11}$. So $k$ of the $1$s in $\nu$ have been accounted for with the $v^{11}$ terms, and since $|\nu|=m$ precisely $m-k$ terms must be $v^{01}$. As the total number of terms must be $n$, this means the remaining $v^{00}$ terms are $n-(2k+m-k) = n-m-k$ in number. So, there are
- $k$ factors of $v^{10} = b^\ast \z c$, so $k$ factors each of $b^\ast$ and $c$,
- $k$ factors of $v^{11}= c^\ast \z b$, so $k$ factors each of $b$ and $c^\ast$,
- $m-k$ factors of $v^{01} = \xi c^\ast c$, so $m-k$ factors each of $c$ and $c^\ast$, and
- $n-m-k$ factors of $v^{00} = b^\ast b$, so $n-m-k$ factors each of $b$ and $b^\ast$.
In total, then, $v^{\eta\nu}$ contains $2k + 2(n-m-k) = 2(n-m)$ factors of $b$ or $b^\ast$, and $2k + 2(m-k) = 2m$ factors of $c$ or $c^\ast$. Applying Lemma \[estimate\] again, $$\sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}\sum_{m=k}^{n-k} \sum_{|\eta|=2k} \sum_{\stackrel{\nu\in A(\eta)}{|\nu|=m}} \te(v^{\eta\nu})
\le \frac{1}{2}\sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}\sum_{m=k}^{n-k} \sum_{|\eta|=2k} \sum_{\stackrel{\nu\in A(\eta)}{|\nu|=m}} (\|b\|_{2n})^{2(n-m)}(\|c\|_{2n})^{2m}.$$ We must now count the number of pairs $(\eta,\nu)$ with $|\eta|=2k$, $\nu\in A(\eta)$ and $|\nu|=m$. There are $\binom{n}{2k}$ such $\eta$. We know that $\nu$ is alternating on $\1(\eta)$, and so the corresponding subsequence must be either $0101\ldots01$ or $1010\ldots10$, giving two choices, and exhausting $k$ of the $m$ $1$s in $\nu$. Finally, since $|\1(\eta)| = 2k$, there are $n-2k$ $0$s in $\eta$, and $\nu$ is unconstrained there; hence, there are $\binom{n-2k}{m-k}$ choices. Whence, the number of pairs $(\eta,\nu)$ in the sum is $$2\binom{n}{2k}\binom{n-2k}{m-k}.$$ This gives the estimate $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}\sum_{m=k}^{n-k} \sum_{|\eta|=2k} \sum_{\stackrel{\nu\in A(\eta)}{|\nu|=m}} \te(v^{\eta\nu}) \nonumber \\
& \le & \sum_{k=1}^{\lfloor n/2 \rfloor}\sum_{m=k}^{n-k} \binom{n}{2k}\binom{n-2k}{m-k} (\|b\|_{2n}^2)^{n-m}(\|c\|_{2n}^2)^m \label{sum 2}\end{aligned}$$ for the final sum in Equation \[moment\]. It will be convenient to reorder the terms in Equation \[sum 2\] so that $m$ occurs first. Since the sum (for each $k$) ranges from $m=k$ to $m=n-k$, the pairs $(k,m)$ in the sum are those with $1\le k\le\lfloor n/2\rfloor$ and $k\le m\le n-k$. The second condition gives two inequalities: $k\le m$ and $k\le n-m$. Note, if both of these are satisfied then, summing, $2k\le n$ – the first condition is automatically satisfied. The sum can therefore be rewritten as $$\label{sum 3}
\sum_{m=1}^n\sum_{k=1}^{m\wedge(n-m)}\binom{n}{2k}\binom{n-2k}{m-k}(\|b\|_{2n}^2)^{n-m}(\|c\|_{2n}^2)^m.$$ So, combining Equations \[moment\], \[sum 1\], and \[sum 3\], we have the estimate $$\label{moment estimate}
\|a\|_{2n}^{2n} \le \|b\|_{2n}^{2n} + \sum_{m=1}^n \chi_m (\|b\|_{2n}^2)^{n-m}(\|c\|_{2n}^2)^m,$$ where the coefficient $\chi_m$ is given by $$\chi_m = \frac{1}{2}\binom{n}{m} + \sum_{k=1}^{m\wedge(n-m)}\binom{n}{2k}\binom{n-2k}{m-k}.$$ The following proposition shows that $\chi_m$ is optimally bounded to yield the necessary strong hypercontractive estimate. We state it without proof; the reader may do the necessary calculations.
\[combinatorics\] The coefficients $\chi_m$ satisfy $$\chi_m \le \binom{n}{m}\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)^m.$$ This inequality is an equality in the case $m=1$.
Applying Proposition \[combinatorics\] to Equation \[moment estimate\], we have $$\label{moment estimate 2}
\|a\|_{2n}^{2n} \le \|b\|_{2n}^{2n} + \sum_{m=1}^n \binom{n}{m}\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)^m (\|b\|_{2n}^2)^{n-m}(\|c\|_{2n}^2)^m.$$ We now complete the proof of Theorem \[eps strong hyp\].
For $a = b + \z c$, we have $a_t = b_t + e^{-t}\z c_t$, where $a_t = e^{-tN_\eps}a$ and so forth. Using the estimate in Equation \[moment estimate 2\], we have $$\|a_t\|_{2n}^{2n} \le \|b_t\|_{2n}^{2n} + \sum_{m=1}^n \binom{n}{m}\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)^m e^{-2mt} (\|b_t\|_{2n}^2)^{n-m}(\|c_t\|_{2n}^2)^m.$$ Now, suppose $t\ge t_J(2,2n) = \frac{1}{2}\log n$. Then $e^{-2mt} \le n^{-m}$. Since $b,c\in\H(J,\left.\eps\right|_J)$ it follows from the inductive hypothesis that $\|b_t\|_{2n}\le\|b\|_2$ and $\|c_t\|_{2n}\le\|c\|_2$. Thus, $$\begin{aligned}
\|a_t\|_{2n}^{2n} & \le & \|b\|_2^{2n} + \sum_{m=1}^n \binom{n}{m}\left(\frac{n}{2}\right)^m n^{-m} (\|b\|_2^2)^{n-m}(\|c\|_2^2)^m \\
& = & \left(\|b\|_2^2 + \frac{1}{2}\|c\|_2^2\right)^n,\end{aligned}$$ and from Equation \[a 2 norm\], this equals $\|a\|_2^{2n}$. This proves the theorem.
Speicher’s Stochastic Interpolation {#Speicher}
===================================
In this final section, we consider creation and annihilation operators $\beta_j$, $\beta_j^\ast$ on $L^2(\CC,\te)$ which bear the same relation to the generators $x_j$ in $\CC$ as the creation and annihilation operators $c_q$, $c_q^\ast$ bear to the $q$-Gaussian variables $X_q\in\Gamm_q$. We use these operators, together with a non-commutative central limit theorem of Speicher, to approximate the $L^p(\H_q,\tau_q)$-norm by the norm on $L^p(\H,\te)$, and thus transfer Theorem \[eps strong hyp\] from the context of the mixed spin holomorphic algebras to the arena of the $q$-holomorphic algebras, proving Theorem \[Main Theorem\]. All of the techniques in this section are analogs of Biane’s ideas in [@Biane; @1].
Creation and Annihilation operators on $L^2(\CC,\te)$
-----------------------------------------------------
Define operators $\beta_j$ on $L^2(\CC(I,\eps),\te)$ by $$\beta_j(x_A) = \begin{cases} x_jx_A,&\text{ if }j\notin A \\
0,&\text{ if }j\in A
\end{cases}.$$ One may readily verify that the adjoint of $\beta_j$ is given by $$\beta_j^\ast(x_A) = \begin{cases} 0,&\text{ if }j\notin A \\
x_jx_A,&\text{ if }j\in A \\
\end{cases}.$$ In the case $\eps(i,j) = 1$ for $i\ne j$, these are the *Bébé Fock* operators on the toy Fock space of [@Meyer]. In general, $\beta_j$ and $\beta_j^\ast$ mimic the creation and annihilation operators. It is easy to see from dimension considerations that the $\ast$-algebra they generate is all of $\B(L^2(\CC(I,\eps),\te))$. We also have $$\label{beta + beta* = x}
\beta_j+\beta_j^\ast = x_j,$$ as a left-multiplication operator on $\CC(I,\eps)$. One can readily compute that these operators $\eps$-commute – i.e. $\beta_i \beta_j = \sigma(i,j) \beta_j \beta_j$ if $i\ne j$. They also satisfy the $\eps$-relations $$\beta_i^\ast \beta_j -\eps(i,j)\beta_j\beta_i^\ast = \delta_{ij},$$ just like the operators $\z_j\in\CC(I\times\{0,1\},\eps)$. In fact, the map $\z_j\mapsto\beta_j$ induces a $\ast$-isomorphism from $\CC(I\times\{0,1\},\eps)$ onto $\B(L^2(\CC(I,\eps)))$. (In the case $\eps\equiv-1$, this reduces to the well known isomorphism from the complex Clifford algebra $\CC_{2n}$ onto the full matrix algebra $M_{2^n}(\C)$.) Beware, however: this isomorphism does not send $\te$ to the normalized trace $tr$ on $\B(L^2(\CC(I,\eps)))$, as pointed out in Section \[holomorphic algebra\].
The operators $\beta_j$, $\beta_j^\ast$ demonstrate concretely that the pure state $\beta\mapsto (\beta 1,1)_\eps$, the extension of $\te$ to $L^2(\CC(I,\eps),\te)$, is [*not*]{} tracial. Indeed, it is easy to calculate that $(\beta_j\beta_j^\ast1,1)_\eps = 0$ while $(\beta_j^\ast\beta_j1,1)_\eps = 1$. These are, however, the same covariance relations that the operators $c_q$ and $c_q^\ast$ satisfy with respect to the pure state $A\mapsto(A\vac,\vac)_q$ on $\B(\F_q)$. It is additionally true that $(\beta_j1,1)_\eps = (\beta_j^\ast1,1)_\eps=0$, also in line with the operators $c_q$ and $c_q^\ast$.
The following lemma shows that the state $(\cdot1,1)_\eps$ factors over naturally ordered products of the operators $\beta_j$ and $\beta_j^\ast$. It is proved in [@Biane; @1].
\[factorize\] For each $j\in I$, let $\alpha_j$ be in the $\ast$-algebra generated by $\beta_j$. Let $j_1,\ldots,j_s$ be $s$ distinct elements in $I$. then $$(\alpha_{j_1}\cdots\alpha_{j_s}1,1)_\eps = (\alpha_{j_1}1,1)_\eps\cdots(\alpha_{j_s}1,1)_\eps.$$
Speicher’s central limit theorem {#clt}
--------------------------------
Fix $q\in[-1,1]$. We consider the family of random matrices ${\mathfrak S}_q$, consisting of all those infinite symmetric random matrices $\eps\colon\N^\ast\times\N^\ast\to\{-1,1\}$ constantly $-1$ on the diagonal, for which $\{\eps(i,j)\,;\,i < j\}$ are i.i.d. with $\P(\eps = 1) = (1+q)/2$. Note, then, $\P(\eps=-1) = (1-q)/2$, and so $$\E(\sigma(i,j)) = \frac{1+q}{2}\cdot1 + \frac{1-q}{2}\cdot-1 = q.$$ This family of random matrices features prominently in the main theorem of [@Speicher], which we will use to prove Theorem \[Main Theorem\].
Let $I_n$ denote the set $\{1,\ldots,n\}$, and let $\sigma\in{\mathfrak S}_q$. For convenience, we denote the algebra $\CC(I_n\times\{0,1\},\left.\eps\right|_{I_n})$ as $\CC(n,\eps)$. The creation operators on $\CC(n,\eps)$ are labeled by pairs $(j,\zeta)$ where $j\in I_n$ and $\zeta\in\{0,1\}$; to avoid confusion, we also index them as $\beta_{j,\zeta}^\eps$ to keep track of the dependence on $\eps$. Let $d$ be a positive integer, and define new variables $\beta_{1,\zeta}^{\eps,n},\ldots,\beta_{d,\zeta}^{\eps,n}$, which act on $\CC(nd,\eps)$, by $$\beta^{\eps,n}_{k+1,\zeta} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{\ell = nk+1}^{n(k+1)} \beta_{\ell,\zeta}^\eps,\quad 0\le k \le d-1.$$ These operators are constructed to approximate the operators $c_q$. The intuition is: due to the expectation of the matrix $\eps\in{\mathfrak S}_q$, for large $n$ the $\beta^{\eps,n}_{j,\zeta}$ satisfy commutation relations close to the $q$-commutation relations of Equation \[q-commutation relations\]. Speicher’s central limit theorem (Theorem 2 in [@Speicher]) makes this statement precise, but requires that the matrix of spins for the different variables have independent (upper triangular) entries. In our case, since for each pair $i,j$ the entries $\eps((i,\zeta),(j,\zeta'))$ are the same for all choices of $\zeta,\zeta'\in\{0,1\}$, the matrix is only [*block-independent*]{} (with blocks of size $2\times 2$). Nevertheless, as with the classical central limit theorem, a straighforward modification of Speicher’s proof generalizes the theorem to this case. We thus have the following theorem.
\[stochastic\] Let $e_1,\ldots,e_d$ be an orthonormal basis for $\R^d$. Among the operators $c_q(e_j,e_k)$ on $\F_q(\R^d\oplus\R^d)$, denote $c_q(e_j,0)$ as $c^q_{j,0}$, and denote $c_q(0,e_j)$ as $c^q_{j,1}$. Let $Q$ be a polynomial in $4d$ non-commuting variables. For almost every $\eps\in{\mathfrak S}_q$, $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{n\to\infty} (&Q(\beta_{1,0}^{\eps,n},\ldots,\beta_{d,1}^{\eps,n},(\beta_{1,0}^{\eps,n})^\ast,\ldots,(\beta_{d,1}^{\eps,n})^\ast)1,1)_\eps \\
&= (Q(c^q_{1,0},\ldots,c^q_{d,1},(c^q_{1,0})^\ast,\ldots,(c^q_{d,1})^\ast)\vac,\vac)_q.
\end{aligned}$$
This follows from Speicher’s central limit theorem. The required covariance conditions for the operators $\beta^{\eps}_{j,\zeta}$ were verified above, and the factorization of naturally-ordered products is the content of Lemma \[factorize\].
An immediate corollary is that the moments of elements in $\H_q(\C^d)$ can be approximated by the corresponding elements in $\CC(nd,\eps)$. To be precise: let $x^{\eps,n}_j = \beta^{\eps,n}_{j,0} + (\beta^{\eps,n}_{j,0})^\ast$ and let $y^{\eps,n}_j = \beta^{\eps,n}_{j,1} + (\beta^{\eps,n}_{j,1})^\ast$. By Equation \[beta + beta\* = x\], $$x^{\eps,n}_{j+1} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{\ell = nj+1}^{n(j+1)} x^\eps_\ell, \quad y^{\eps,n}_{j+1} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{n}}\sum_{\ell = nj+1}^{n(j+1)} y^\eps_\ell.$$ Let $z^{\eps,n}_j = 2^{-1/2}(x^{\eps,n}_j + iy^{\eps,n}_j)$, which is in $\H(I_{nd},\left.\eps\right|_{I_{nd}})$.
\[stochastic 2\] Denote $Z_q(e_j)$ as $Z_j^q$. Let $r$ be an even integer, and let $P$ be a polynomial in $d$ non-commuting variables. For almost every $\eps\in{\mathfrak S}_q$, $$\lim_{n\to\infty}\|P(z^{\eps,n}_1,\ldots,z^{\eps,n}_d)\|_{L^r(\H,\te)} = \|P(Z^q_1,\ldots,Z^q_d)\|_{L^r(\H_q,\tau_q)}.$$
Let $Q$ be the polynomial in $4d$ non-commuting variables defined by $$Q(\beta_{1,0}^{\eps,n},\ldots,\beta_{d,1}^{\eps,n},(\beta_{1,0}^{\eps,n})^\ast,\ldots,(\beta_{d,1}^{\eps,n})^\ast)
= P(z^{\eps,n}_1,\ldots,z^{\eps,n}_d)^\ast P(z^{\eps,n}_1,\ldots,z^{\eps,n}_d).$$ Such a polynomial exists because the variable $z^{\eps,n}_j$ is a (linear) polynomial in $\beta_{j,0}^{\eps,n}$, $\beta_{j,1}^{\eps,n}$, and their adjoints. By definition, the same polynomial yields $$Q(c^q_{1,0},\ldots,c^q_{d,1},(c^q_{1,0})^\ast,\ldots,(c^q_{d,1})^\ast) = P(Z^q_1,\ldots,Z^q_d)^\ast P(Z^q_1,\ldots,Z^q_d).$$ Applying Theorem \[stochastic\] to the polynomial $Q^m$, we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \te|P(z^{\eps,n}_1,\ldots,z^{\eps,n}_d)|^{2m}
= \tau_q|P(Z^q_1,\ldots,Z^q_d)|^{2m} \quad a.s.[\eps]$$ where we have used the fact that $(\cdot 1,1)_\eps$ reduces to $\te$ when applied to elements of $\CC(nd,\eps)$.
We will also need to know that the semigroup $e^{-tN_\eps}$ approximates $e^{-tN_q}$.
\[approx 2\] Let $r$ be an even integer, and let $P$ be a polynomial in $d$ non-commuting variables. For $t > 0$, and for almost every $\eps\in{\mathfrak S}_q$, $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \|e^{-tN_\eps}P(z^{n,\eps}_1,\ldots,z^{n,\eps}_d)\|_r = \|e^{-tN_q}P(Z^q_1,\ldots,Z^q_d)\|_r.$$
We can expand $P(Z^q_1,\ldots,Z^q_d)$ as a linear combination of monomials $Z^q_{i_1}\cdots Z^q_{i_\ell}$. Each such monomial is an eigenvector of $e^{-tN_q}$ with eigenvalue $e^{-\ell t}$. So it is easy to see that there is a unique polynomial $P_t$ such that $$P_t(Z^q_1,\ldots,Z^q_d) = e^{-tN_q}P(Z^q_1,\ldots,Z^q_d).$$ Now, consider the polynomials $z^{\eps,n}_{i_1}\cdots z^{\eps,n}_{i_\ell}$. Since $z^{\eps,n}_i$ is a linear combination of $z^\eps_1,\ldots,z^\eps_{nd}$, this polynomial may be expanded as a linear combination of monomials $z^\eps_{j_1}\cdots z^\eps_{j_\ell}$ with $1\le j_1,\ldots,j_\ell \le nd$. From Equation \[z commute\], if any two indices are equal, then $z^\eps_{j_1}\cdots z^\eps_{j_\ell}=0$; otherwise, it is of degree $\ell$. Hence $$e^{-tN_\eps}(z^\eps_{j_1}\cdots z^\eps_{j_\ell}) = e^{-\ell t}(z^\eps_{j_1}\cdots z^\eps_{j_\ell}).$$ It follows that $e^{-tN_\eps}(z^{\eps,n}_{i_1}\cdots z^{\eps,n}_{i_\ell}) = e^{-\ell t}(z^\eps_{j_1}\cdots z^\eps_{j_\ell})$. Thus, we see that $$P_t(z^{\eps,n}_1,\ldots,z^{\eps,n}_d) = e^{-tN_\eps}P(z^{\eps,n}_1,\ldots,z^{\eps,n}_d).$$ The theorem now follows by applying Proposition \[stochastic 2\] to the polynomial $P_t$.
It should be noted that this elementary argument [*fails*]{} in the full algebra $\CC(nd,\eps)$; for example, $(x^\eps_1)^2 = 1$ is of degree $0$, while $X_q(e_1)^2$ is of degree $2$ if $q>-1$. The relevant statement is still true in that case, but a much more delicate argument (which can be found in [@Biane; @1]) is necessary to prove it.
We now conclude with the end of the proof of Theorem \[Main Theorem\].
First note that the sharpness of the Janson time $t_J(p,r)$ for any $p,r>0$ can be confirmed by an argument identical to the one in the proof of Theorem \[eps strong hyp\]. For sufficiency, by standard arguments it is enough to prove the theorem for the finite dimensional Hilbert space $\HH = \R^d$, and moreover it suffices to prove it for elements $f\in L^2(\H_q,\tau_q)$ that are polynomials $f = P(Z^q_1,\ldots,Z^q_d)$ of the generators. Let $r$ be an even integer, and let $t\ge t_J(2,r)$. By Proposition \[approx 2\], $$\|e^{-tN_q}f\|_r = \lim_{n\to\infty} \|e^{-tN_\eps}P(z^{\eps,n}_1,\ldots,z^{\eps,n}_d)\|_r \quad a.s.[\eps].$$ By Theorem \[eps strong hyp\] applied to the algebra $\H(I_{nd},\left.\eps\right|_{I_{nd}})$, $$\|e^{-tN_\eps}P(z^{\eps,n}_1,\ldots,z^{\eps,n}_d)\|_r \le \|P(z^{\eps,n}_1,\ldots,z^{\eps,n}_d)\|_2.$$ Finally, applying Proposition \[stochastic 2\], we have $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \|P(z^{\eps,n}_1,\ldots,z^{\eps,n}_d)\|_2 = \| f \|_2 \quad a.s.[\eps].$$ This completes the proof.
[**Acknowledgement.**]{} I would like to thank Len Gross for much insight, and for suggesting a thesis problem which led to this work. I would also like to thank Philippe Biane, Claus Koestler, and Roland Speicher for useful conversations.
[99]{}
Biane, P.: *Free hypercontractivity.* Commun. Math. Phys. [**184**]{}, 457-474 (1997)
Biane, P.: *Segal-Bargmann transform, functional calculus on matrix spaces and the theory of semi-circular and circular systems.* J. Funct. Anal. [**144**]{}, 232-286 (1997)
Baez, Segal, Zhou.: *Introduction to algebraic and constructive quantum field theory.* Princeton Series in Physics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992.
Bozejko, M., Speicher, R.: *An example of a generalized Brownian motion.* Comm. Math. Phys. [**137**]{}, 519–531 (1991)
Bozejko, M., Kümmerer, B., Speicher, R.: *q-Gaussian processes: non-commutative and classical aspects.* Commun. Math. Phys. [**185**]{}, 129-154 (1997)
Carlen, E., Lieb, E.: *Optimal hypercontractivity for Fermi fields and related non-commutative integration inequalities.* Commun. Math. Phys. [**155**]{}, 26-46 (1993)
Dykema, K.; Nica, A.: *On the Fock representation of the $q$-commutation relations.* J. Reine Angew. Math. [**440**]{}, 201-212 (1993)
Gross, L.: *Existence and uniqueness of physical ground states.* J. Funct. Anal. [**10**]{}, 52-109 (1972)
Gross, L.: *Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities.* Amer. J. Math. [**97**]{}, 1061-1083 (1975)
Gross, L.: *Hypercontractivity and logarithmic Sobolev inequalities for the Clifford-Dirichlet form.* Duke Math. J. [**42**]{}, 383-396 (1975)
Gross, L.: *Hypercontractivity over complex manifolds.* Acta. Math. [**182**]{}, 159-206 (1999)
Gross, L.: *Hypercontractivity, logarithmic Sobolev inequalities and applications: a survey of surveys.* To appear.
Glimm, J.: *Boson fields with nonlinear self-interaction in two dimensions.* Commun. Math. Phys. [**8**]{}, 12-25 (1968)
Janson, S.: *On hypercontractivity for multipliers on orthogonal polynomials.* Ark. Math. [**21**]{}, 97-110 (1983)
Janson, S.; Peetre, J.; Rochberg, R.: *Hankel forms and the Fock space.* Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana [**3**]{} no. 1, 61–138 (1987)
Krolak, I.: *Contractivity properties of the Ornsetein-Uhlenbeck semigroup for general commutation realtions.* To appear in Mathematische Zeitschrift.
Lindsay, J.M.: *Gaussian hypercontractivity revisited.* J. Funct. Anal. [**92**]{}, 313-324 (1990)
Lindsay, J.M., Meyer, P.A.: *Fermionic hypercontractivity.* In: *Quantum probability VII,* Singapore: Wold Scientific, 1992, pp. 211-220
Meyer, P.A.: *Quantum Probability for Probabilists.* Second edition, *Lecture Notes in Mathematics* Vol. [**1538**]{}, Berlin–Heidelberg–New York: Springer, 1995
Nelson, E.: *A quartic interaction in two dimensions.* In: *Mathematical Theory of Elementary Particles,* M.I.T. Press, 1965, pp. 69-73
Nelson, E.: *The free Markov field.* J. Funct. Anal. [**12**]{}, 211-227 (1973)
Pisier, G., Xu, Q.: *Non-commutative $L^p$-spaces.* In: *Handbook of the geometry of Banach spaces, Vol. 2,* North-Holland, Amsterdam, 2003, pp. 1459-1517
Ricard, E.: *Factoriality of $q$-Gaussian von Neumann algebras.* To appear in Commun. Math. Phys.
Speicher, R.: *A non-commutative central limit theorem.* Math Zeit. [**209**]{}, 55-66 (1992)
Segal, I.: *Tensor algebras over Hilbert spaces, II.* Ann. of Math. [**63**]{}, 160-175 (1956)
Segal, I.: *Construction of non-linear local quantum processes, I.* Ann. of Math. [**92**]{}, 462-481 (1970)
Śniady, P.: *Gaussian random matrix models for $q$-deformed Gaussian variables.* Commun. Math. Phys., [**216**]{}, 515-537 (2001)
Voiculescu, D.V.: *Symmetries of some reduced free product $C^\ast$ algebras.* In: *Operator Algebras and their Connection with Topology and Ergodic Theory, Lecture Notes in Mathematics,* Vol. [**1132**]{}, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer, 1985, pp. 566-588
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We compute corrections of relative order $v^4$ to the rates for the decays of ${}^1S_0$ heavy quarkonium into two photons and into light hadrons and for the decays of ${}^3S_1$ heavy quarkonium into a lepton pair and into light hadrons. In particular, we compute the coefficients of the decay operators that have the same quantum numbers as the heavy quarkonium. We also confirm previous calculations of the order-$v^2$ corrections to these rates. We find that the $v$ expansion converges well for the decays of ${}^1S_0$ heavy quarkonium and for the decay of ${}^3S_1$ heavy quarkonium into a lepton pair. Large higher-order-in-$v$ corrections appear in the decay of ${}^3S_1$ heavy quarkonium into light hadrons. However, we find that the series of coefficients of operators with ${}^3S_1$ quantum numbers, which yields a large correction in order $v^2$, yields a smaller correction in order $v^4$.'
author:
- 'Geoffrey T. Bodwin'
- Andrea Petrelli
date: 'May, 2002'
title: 'Order-$\bm{v^4}$ Corrections to $\bm{S}$-wave Quarkonium Decay'
---
Introduction
============
A formalism for the first-principles calculation of heavy-quarkonium decay rates in quantum chromodynamics (QCD) has been given in Ref. [@bbl]. This formalism is based on the effective field theory nonrelativistic quantum chromodynamics (NRQCD). In it, one can write the decay rate of a quarkonium state $H$ as $$\Gamma(H)=\sum_n{F_n\over m^{d_n-4}}
\langle H|{\cal O}|H\rangle,$$ where $F_n$ is a perturbatively calculable short-distance coefficient, $m$ is the heavy-quark mass, the ${\cal O}_n$ are four-fermion NRQCD operators, and $d_n$ is the mass dimension of ${\cal
O}_n$. The terms in the sum over $n$ may be classified according to their orders in $v$ (Ref. [@bbl]), where $v$ is the heavy-quark–antiquark relative velocity. For charmonium, $v^2\approx
0.3$; for bottomonium, $v^2\approx 0.1$.
We concern ourselves in this paper with the decay of ${}^1S_0$ quarkonium into light hadrons and the decays of ${}^3S_1$ quarkonium into lepton pairs and into light hadrons. The coefficients of the operators of leading order in $v$ and of relative order $v^2$ have been computed previously [@bbl; @Barbieri:1979be; @Hagiwara:1980nv; @Mackenzie:1981sf; @Keung:jb; @harris-brown; @Barbieri:1975ki; @Celmaster:1978yz; @Beneke:1997jm]. Some of the coefficients of the order-$v^2$ operators are sufficiently large as to cast doubt on the convergence of the $v$ expansion for charmonium and bottomonium. In particular, the order-$v^2$ correction to the rate for the decay of ${}^3S_1$ quarkonium into light hadrons is $-5.32 \langle v^2 \rangle$, where $\langle v^2 \rangle$ is the ratio of the expectation values of the order-$v^2$ and order-$v^0$ operators in the quarkonium state. Hence, in the case of charmonium, the order-$v^2$ correction is more than 100%.
In this paper, we compute the short-distance coefficients of the decay operators, through order $v^4$, that have the same quantum numbers as the quarkonium. Our calculations confirm previous results for the short-distance coefficients of the order-$v^2$ operators. We find that the $v$ expansion is well behaved for the decays of ${}^1S_0$ quarkonium and for the decay of ${}^3S_1$ quarkonium into lepton pairs. In the case of the decay of ${}^3S_1$ quarkonium into light hadrons, large coefficients are associated with some of the operators of higher order in $v$. For the operators with ${}^3S_1$ quantum numbers, a large correction to the decay rate appears in order $v^2$, but the correction in order $v^4$ is considerably smaller. This suggests that the $v$ expansion for operators with a given quantum number may converge well once one goes beyond the first nontrivial order.
NRQCD Decay rates
=================
In this section, we present the NRQCD factorization expressions for the rates of ${}^1S_0$ quarkonium ([*e.g.*]{} $\eta_c$ or $\eta_b$) decay to light hadrons (LH), ${}^3S_1$ quarkonium ([*e.g.*]{} $J/\psi$ or $\Upsilon$) decay to light hadrons, ${}^1S_0$ quarkonium decay to two photons, and ${}^3S_1$ quarkonium decay to $e^+e^-$.
Through relative order $v^4$, the rate for the decay of a ${}^1S_0$ state into light hadrons is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma({}^1S_0 \to {\rm LH})
&=& {F_1({}^1S_0) \over m^2}
\langle {}^1S_0| {\cal O}_1({}^1S_0) |{}^1S_0\rangle
+{G_1({}^1S_0) \over m^4}
\langle {}^1S_0| {\cal P}_1({}^1S_0) |{}^1S_0\rangle\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}+{F_8({}^3S_1) \over m^2}
\langle {}^1S_0| {\cal O}_8({}^3S_1) |{}^1S_0\rangle
+{F_8({}^1S_0) \over m^2}
\langle {}^1S_0| {\cal O}_8({}^1S_0) |{}^1S_0\rangle\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}+{F_8({}^1P_1) \over m^4}
\langle {}^1S_0| {\cal O}_8({}^1P_1) |{}^1S_0\rangle
+{H_1^1({}^1S_0) \over m^6}
\langle {}^1S_0| {\cal Q}_1^1({}^1S_0) |{}^1S_0\rangle\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}+{H_1^2({}^1S_0) \over m^6}
\langle {}^1S_0| {\cal Q}_1^2({}^1S_0) |{}^1S_0\rangle.
\label{eta-decay}\end{aligned}$$ The operators appearing in Eq. (\[eta-decay\]) are defined by
\[1s0-ops\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal O}_1({}^1S_0)&=&\psi^\dagger\chi\chi^\dagger\psi,\\
{\cal P}_1({}^1S_0)&=&{1\over 2}\left[\psi^\dagger\chi\chi^\dagger
(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2\psi+\psi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2
\chi\chi^\dagger\psi\right],\\
{\cal O}_8({}^3S_1)&=&\psi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}T_a\chi\cdot
\chi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}T_a\psi,
\label{o83s1}\\
{\cal O}_8({}^1S_0)&=&\psi^\dagger T_a\chi\chi^\dagger
T_a\psi,\label{o81s0}\\
{\cal O}_8({}^1P_1)&=&\psi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})T_a
\chi\cdot\chi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})T_a\psi,\\
{\cal Q}_1^1({}^1S_0)&=&\psi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2\chi
\chi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2\psi,\\
{\cal Q}_1^2({}^1S_0)&=&{1\over 2}\left[\psi^\dagger\chi
\chi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^4\psi
+\psi^\dagger
(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^4\chi
\chi^\dagger\psi\right],\\
{\cal Q}_1^3({}^1S_0)&=&{1\over 2}\left[\psi^\dagger\chi\chi^\dagger
(\tensor{\bf D}\cdot g{\bf E}+g{\bf E}\cdot \tensor{\bf D})\psi
-\psi^\dagger(\tensor{\bf D}\cdot g{\bf E}+g{\bf E}\cdot\tensor{\bf D})\chi
\chi^\dagger\psi\right],\end{aligned}$$
where the subscript $1$ or $8$ indicates that the operator is a color singlet or a color octet, the superscript labels the three dimension-10 operators, $\psi$ is the Pauli-spinor field that annihilates a heavy quark, $\chi^\dagger$ is the Pauli-spinor field that annihilates a heavy antiquark, $D^\mu=\partial^\mu+igA^\mu$ is the gauge-covariant derivative, $A$ is the ${\rm SU}(3)$-matrix-valued gauge field, $g$ is the QCD coupling constant, $E^i=G^{0i}$, where $G^{\mu\nu}=\partial ^\mu
A^\nu-\partial^\nu A^\mu +ig[A^\mu,A^\nu]$ is the gluon field strength, and the $\sigma^i$ are Pauli matrices. The operator $\tensor{\bf D}$ is defined by $\chi^\dagger\tensor{\bf D}\psi=\chi^\dagger({\bf
D}\psi)-({\bf D}\chi)^\dagger\psi$. The relative signs of the terms in each of these operators (and, in particular, ${\cal Q}_1^3$) are fixed by the requirements of hermiticity and charge-conjugation invariance.
The matrix element of ${\cal Q}_1^3$ does not appear in Eq. (\[eta-decay\]) because, as we show in Appendix \[app:relation\], it can be eliminated in favor of ${\cal
Q}_1^1$ and ${\cal Q}_1^2$ through the use of the equations of motion. From the velocity scaling rules in Ref. [@bbl], we find that, in the ${}^1S_0$ state, the operator ${\cal O}_1({}^1S_0)$ has a matrix element of relative order $v^0$, the operator ${\cal P}_1({}^1S_0)$ has a matrix element of relative order $v^2$, the operator ${\cal
O}_8({}^3S_1)$ has a matrix element of relative order $v^3$, and the operators ${\cal O}_8({}^1S_0)$, ${\cal O}_8({}^1P_1)$, ${\cal
Q}_1^1({}^1S_0)$, ${\cal Q}_1^2({}^1S_0)$, and ${\cal Q}_1^3({}^1S_0)$ have matrix elements of relative order $v^4$.
The contributions of order $\alpha_s^2$ and order $\alpha_s^3$ to the short-distance coefficient $F_1({}^1S_0)$ have been computed in Refs. [@Barbieri:1979be; @Hagiwara:1980nv] and are given in Ref. [@bbl]: $$F_1({}^1S_0)=
{\pi C_F \over N_c} \alpha_s^2(2m)
\Bigg\{ 1 + \left[ \left( {\pi^2 \over 4} - 5 \right) C_F
+ \left( {199 \over 18} - {13 \pi^2 \over 24} \right) C_A
- {8 \over 9} n_f \right] {\alpha_s \over \pi} \Bigg\},
\label{fetaNLO}$$ where $N_c=3$ is the number of colors, $C_F=(N_c^2-1)/(2N_c)=4/3$, and $C_A=N_c$. The contribution of order $\alpha_s^2$ to $G_1({}^1S_0)$ has been computed in Refs. [@Keung:jb; @bbl].[^1] It is $$G_1({}^1S_0)=-{4\pi C_F\over 3N_c}\alpha_s^2.$$ We note that, to leading order in $\alpha_s$, $[G_1({}^1S_0)]
/[F_1({}^1S_0)]=-4/3$. Hence, the first relativistic correction is sizable in the case of the $\eta_c$. The contributions of order $\alpha_s^2$ and order $\alpha_s^3$ to $F_8({}^3S_1)$ and $F_8({}^1S_0)$ have been computed by Petrelli [*et al.*]{} [@Petrelli:1998ge]:
$$\begin{aligned}
F_8({}^3S_1)&=&{\pi n_f\over 3}\alpha_s^2(\mu)
\bigg\{1+{\alpha_s\over\pi}\bigg[-{13\over 4}C_F+
\bigg({133\over 18}+{2\over 3}\log 2-{\pi^2\over 4}\bigg)C_A-{10\over
9}n_fT_F\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\hbox{}+2b_0\log{\mu\over 2m}\bigg]\bigg\}
+5\alpha_s^3\bigg(-{73\over 4}+{67\over 36}\pi^2\bigg),\label{f83s1}\\
F_8({}^1S_0)&=&2\pi B_F\alpha_s^2(\mu)
\bigg\{1+{\alpha_s\over\pi}\bigg[\bigg(-5+{\pi^2\over 4}\bigg)C_F+
\bigg({122\over 9}-{17\over 24}\pi^2\bigg)C_A-{16\over
9}n_fT_F\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\hbox{}+2b_0\log{\mu\over 2m}\bigg]\bigg\},
\label{f81s0}\end{aligned}$$
where $\mu$ is the QCD renormalization scale, $n_f$ is the number of light-quark flavors, $B_F=(N_c^2-4)/(4N_c)=5/12$, $T_F=1/2$, and $b_0=(11/6)C_A-(2/3)T_Fn_f$. The contribution of order $\alpha_s^2$ to $F_8({}^1P_1)$ can be deduced from the results in Appendix A 2 of Ref. [@bbl]: $$F_8({}^1P_1)={\pi N_c\over 6}\alpha_s^2.$$
Owing to energy conservation, the operators associated with the short-distance coefficients $H_1^1({}^1S_0)$ and $H_1^2({}^1S_0)$ cannot be distinguished from each other in the Born-level decay of on-shell quarks. Consequently, if one uses on-shell matching between NRQCD and full QCD to compute the short-distance coefficients in Born-level decay processes, one can compute only $H_1^1({}^1S_0)+H_1^2({}^1S_0)$, not the individual coefficients. It is the quantity $H_1^1({}^1S_0)+H_1^2({}^1S_0)$ that we compute in this paper.
Through relative order $v^4$, the decay rate for a ${}^3S_1$ state into light hadrons is $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma({}^3S_1 \to {\rm LH})
&=& {F_1({}^3S_1) \over m^2} \,
\langle {}^3S_1| {\cal O}_1({}^3S_1) |{}^3S_1\rangle
+{G_1({}^3S_1) \over m^4}
\langle {}^3S_1| {\cal P}_1({}^3S_1) |{}^3S_1\rangle\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}+{F_8({}^1S_0) \over m^2}
\langle {}^3S_1| {\cal O}_8({}^1S_0) |{}^3S_1\rangle
+{F_8({}^3S_1) \over m^2}
\langle {}^3S_1| {\cal O}_8({}^3S_1) |{}^3S_1\rangle\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}+\sum_{J=0,1,2} {F_8({}^3P_J) \over m^4}
\langle {}^3S_1| {\cal O}_8({}^3P_J) |{}^3S_1\rangle
+{H_1^1({}^3S_1) \over m^6}
\langle {}^3S_1| {\cal Q}_1^1({}^3S_1) |{}^3S_1\rangle\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}+{H_1^2({}^3S_1) \over m^6}
\langle {}^3S_1| {\cal Q}_1^2({}^3S_1) |{}^3S_1\rangle.
\label{Gpsilh}\end{aligned}$$ The operator ${\cal O}_8({}^1S_0)$ is defined in Eq. (\[o81s0\]), and the operator ${\cal O}_8({}^3S_1)$ is defined in Eq. (\[o83s1\]). The remaining operators in Eq. (\[Gpsilh\]) are defined by
\[3s1-ops\] $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal O}_1({}^3S_1)&=&\psi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}\chi\cdot
\chi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}\psi,\\
{\cal P}_1({}^3S_1)&=&{1\over 2}\left[\psi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}\chi\cdot
\chi^\dagger \bm{\sigma}(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2\psi+
\psi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2\chi\cdot
\chi^\dagger \bm{\sigma}\psi
\right],\\
{\cal O}_8({}^3P_0)&=&{1\over 3}\psi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D}
\cdot\bm{\sigma})T_a
\chi\chi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D}\cdot\bm{\sigma})T_a\psi,\\
{\cal O}_8({}^3P_1)&=&{1\over 2}\psi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D}
\times\bm{\sigma})T_a\chi\cdot
\chi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D}\times \bm{\sigma})T_a\psi,\\
{\cal O}_8({}^3P_2)&=&\psi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor D^{(i}\sigma^{j)})T_a\chi
\chi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor D^{(i}\sigma^{j)})T_a \psi,\\
{\cal Q}_1^1({}^3S_1)&=&\psi^\dagger
\bm{\sigma}(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2\chi\cdot
\chi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2\psi,\\
{\cal Q}_1^2({}^3S_1)&=&{1\over 2}\left[\psi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}\chi\cdot
\chi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^4\psi
+\psi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^4\chi\cdot
\chi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}\psi\right],\\
{\cal Q}_1^3({}^3S_1)&=&{1\over 2}\left[\psi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}\chi
\chi^\dagger\cdot\bm{\sigma}(\tensor{\bf D}\cdot g{\bf E}+g{\bf E}\cdot
\tensor{\bf D})\psi
-\psi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}(\tensor{\bf D}\cdot g{\bf E}+g{\bf E}\cdot
\tensor{\bf D})\chi\cdot
\chi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}\psi\right].\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
The operator ${\cal Q}_1^3({}^3S_1)$ does not appear in Eq. (\[Gpsilh\]) because, as we show in Appendix \[app:relation\], it can be eliminated in favor of ${\cal Q}_1^1({}^3S_1)$ and ${\cal
Q}_1^2({}^3S_1)$ through the use of the equations of motion. From the velocity-scaling rules in Ref. [@bbl], we find that, in the ${}^3S_1$ state, the operator ${\cal O}_1({}^3S_1)$ has a matrix element of relative order $v^0$, the operator ${\cal P}_1({}^3S_1)$ has a matrix element of relative order $v^2$, the operator ${\cal
O}_8({}^1S_0)$ has a matrix element of relative order $v^3$, and the operators ${\cal O}_8({}^3S_1)$, ${\cal O}_8({}^3P_0)$, ${\cal
O}_8({}^3P_1)$, ${\cal O}_8({}^3P_2)$, ${\cal Q}_1^1({}^3S_1)$, ${\cal
Q}_1^2({}^3S_1)$, and ${\cal Q}_1^3({}^3S_1)$ have matrix elements of relative order $v^4$.
The order-$\alpha_s^3$ and order-$\alpha_s^4$ contributions to the short-distance coefficient $F_1({}^3S_1)$ were computed by Mackenzie and Lepage [@Mackenzie:1981sf] and can be found in Ref. [@bbl], as can the order-$\alpha^2$ contribution: $$\begin{aligned}
F_1({}^3S_1)&=&
{(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2 - 4)\over N_c^3}{(\pi^2-9)\over 18}\alpha_s^3(m)
\bigg\{ 1 +[- 9.46(2) C_F + 4.13(17) C_A\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}- 1.161(2) n_f] {\alpha_s \over \pi} \bigg\}
+2\pi Q^2 \left( \sum_{i=1}^{n_f} Q_i^2 \right) \alpha^2
\bigg[ 1 - {13 \over 4} C_F {\alpha_s \over \pi} \bigg],
\label{fpsiNLO}\end{aligned}$$ where $Q$ is the electric charge of the heavy quark, and the $Q_i$ are the electric charges of the light quarks. The order-$\alpha_s^3$ contribution to the short-distance coefficient $G_1({}^3S_1)$ is computed in Ref. [@Keung:jb]: $$G_1({}^3S_1)=-{5(19\pi^2-132)\over 729}\alpha_s^3.$$ To leading order in $\alpha_s^2$, $G_1({}^3S_1)/[m^2F_1({}^3S_1)]=-(19\pi^2-132)/[12(\pi^2-9)]\approx
-5.32$. Hence, the relativistic correction to $J/\psi$ decay is greater in magnitude than the leading contribution. This situation casts some doubt on the validity of the $v$ expansion. We investigate this issue further in this paper by calculating corrections of relative order $v^4$. The order-$\alpha_s^2$ and order-$\alpha_s^3$ contributions to the short-distance coefficients $F_8({}^1S_0)$ and $F_8({}^3S_1)$ are given in Eqs. (\[f81s0\]) and (\[f83s1\]), respectively. The order-$\alpha_s^2$ and order-$\alpha_s^3$ contributions to the short-distance coefficients $F_8({}^3P_J)$ have been computed by Petrelli [*et al.*]{} [@Petrelli:1998ge]:
$$\begin{aligned}
F_8({}^3P_0)&=&6B_F\pi \alpha_s^2(\mu)
\bigg\{1+{\alpha_s\over\pi}\bigg[\bigg(-{7\over 3}
+{\pi^2\over 4}\bigg)C_F\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\hbox{}+\bigg({463\over 81}+{35\over 27}
\log 2-{17\over 216}\pi^2\bigg)C_A
+2b_0\log{\mu\over 2m}\bigg]\bigg\}\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\hbox{}+{8\over 9}n_fB_F\alpha_s^3
\bigg(-{29\over 6}+\log{2m\over \mu_\Lambda}
\bigg),\\
F_8({}^3P_1)&=&C_AB_F\alpha_s^3\bigg({1369\over 54}-{23\over 9}
\pi^2\bigg)
+{8\over 9}n_fB_F\alpha_s^3
\bigg(-{4\over 3}+\log{2m\over \mu_\Lambda}\bigg),\\
F_8({}^3P_2)&=&{8B_F\pi\over 5} \alpha_s^2(\mu)
\bigg\{1+{\alpha_s\over\pi}\bigg[-4C_F+
\bigg({4955\over 431}+{7\over 9}\log 2-{43\over 72}\pi^2\bigg)C_A
\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\qquad\qquad\hbox{}+2b_0\log{\mu\over 2m}\bigg]\bigg\}
+{8\over 9}n_fB_F\alpha_s^3\bigg(-{29\over 15}+\log{2m\over\mu_\Lambda}
\bigg),\end{aligned}$$
where $\mu_\Lambda$ is the NRQCD renormalization scale. The contribution to $F_8({}^1P_1)$ of order $\alpha_s^2$ vanishes because Yang’s theorem [@yang] forbids the decay of a spin-one particle into two equivalent massless vector particles (gluons). The contributions from decay into a light quark-antiquark pair vanish because the ${}^3P_J$ states are even under charge conjugation. Again, the individual quantities $H_1^1({}^3S_1)$ and $H_1^2({}^3S_1)$ cannot be distinguished in processes in which the heavy quark and antiquark decay on shell. We compute the quantity $H_1^1({}^3S_1)+H_1^2({}^3S_1)$ in this paper.
Through relative-order $v^4$, the decay of a ${}^1S_0$ state into two photons is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma({}^1S_0 \to \gamma \gamma)
&=&{F_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0) \over m^2}
\Big| \langle 0|\chi^\dagger \psi |{}^1S_0\rangle \Big|^2 \nonumber\\
&&\hbox{} +{G_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0) \over m^4}
{\rm \, Re \,}\left[ \langle{}^1S_0| \psi^\dagger \chi |0\rangle
\langle 0| \chi^\dagger (-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2 \psi
|{}^1S_0\rangle \right]\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{} +{H_{\gamma\gamma}^1({}^1S_0) \over m^6}
\langle{}^1S_0| \psi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2
\chi |0\rangle
\langle 0| \chi^\dagger (-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2 \psi
|{}^1S_0\rangle\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{} +{H_{\gamma\gamma}^2({}^1S_0) \over m^6}
{\rm \, Re \,}\left[ \langle{}^1S_0| \psi^\dagger \chi |0\rangle
\langle 0| \chi^\dagger (-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^4 \psi
|{}^1S_0\rangle \right].
\label{Getagg}\end{aligned}$$ The product of matrix elements ${\rm \, Re \,}\left[ \langle{}^1S_0|
\psi^\dagger \chi |0\rangle \langle 0| \chi^\dagger (\tensor{\bf D}\cdot
g{\bf E}+g{\bf E}\cdot \tensor{\bf D}) \psi |{}^1S_0\rangle \right]$, which is of relative order $v^4$, does not appear in Eq. (\[Getagg\]) because, as we show in Appendix \[app:relation\], it can be eliminated in favor of the products of matrix elements in the last two terms of Eq. (\[Getagg\]) through the use of the equations of motion. From the velocity-scaling rules in Ref. [@bbl], we find that, in Eq. (\[Getagg\]), the product of matrix elements in the first line is of relative order $v^0$, the product of matrix elements in the second line is of relative order $v^2$, and the products of matrix elements in the third and fourth lines are of relative order $v^4$.
The order-$\alpha^2$ and order-$\alpha^2\alpha_s$ contributions to the short-distance coefficient $F_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)$ are calculated in Refs. [@harris-brown; @Barbieri:1979be; @Hagiwara:1980nv] and are given in Ref. [@bbl]: $$F_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)=2\pi Q^4\alpha^2\left[1+\left({\pi^2\over
4}-5\right)C_F{\alpha_s\over\pi}\right].$$ The order-$\alpha^2$ contribution to $G_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)$ is computed in Refs. [@Keung:jb; @bbl]: $$G_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)=-{8\pi Q^4\over 3}\alpha^2.$$ To leading order in $\alpha_s$, $G_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)/[m^2
F_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)]=-4/3$. Hence, the first relativistic correction to this process is substantial for the $\eta_c$. In this paper, we compute the combination of short-distance coefficients $H_{\gamma\gamma}^1({}^1S_0)+H_{\gamma\gamma}^2({}^1S_0)$.
Through relative order $v^4$, the rate for a ${}^3S_1$ state to decay into an $e^+e^-$ pair is $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma({}^3S_1 \to e^+ e^-)
&=& {F_{ee}({}^3S_1) \over m^2}
\Big| \langle 0| \chi^\dagger \bm{\sigma} \psi |{}^3S_1\rangle
\Big|^2 \nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}+{G_{ee}({}^3S_1) \over m^4}
{\rm \, Re \,}\left[ \langle{}^3S_1| \psi^\dagger \bm{\sigma} \chi
|0\rangle \cdot
\langle 0| \chi^\dagger \bm{\sigma} (-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2
\psi |{}^3S_1\rangle \right]\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}+{H_{ee}^1({}^3S_1) \over m^6}
\langle{}^3S_1| \psi^\dagger \bm{\sigma}
(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2 \chi
|0\rangle \cdot
\langle 0| \chi^\dagger \bm{\sigma} (-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2
\psi |{}^3S_1\rangle\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}+{H_{ee}^2({}^3S_1) \over m^6}
{\rm \, Re \,}\left[ \langle{}^3S_1| \psi^\dagger \bm{\sigma} \chi
|0\rangle \cdot
\langle 0| \chi^\dagger \bm{\sigma} (-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^4
\psi |{}^3S_1\rangle \right].
\label{Gpsiee}\end{aligned}$$
The product of matrix elements ${\rm \, Re \,}\left[ \langle{}^3S_1|
\psi^\dagger \bm{\sigma}\chi|0\rangle \cdot \langle 0| \chi^\dagger
\bm{\sigma}( \tensor{\bf D}\cdot g{\bf E}+g{\bf E}\cdot \tensor {\bf D})
\psi |{}^3S_1\rangle \right]$, which is of relative order $v^4$, does not appear in Eq. (\[Gpsiee\]) because, as we show in Appendix \[app:relation\], it can be eliminated in favor of the products of matrix element in the last two terms of Eq. (\[Gpsiee\]) through the use of the equations of motion. In Eq. (\[Gpsiee\]), the product of matrix elements in the first line is of relative order $v^0$, the product of matrix elements in the second line is of relative order $v^2$, and the products of matrix elements in the third and fourth lines are of relative order $v^4$.
The order-$\alpha^2$ and order-$\alpha^2\alpha_s$ contributions to the short-distance coefficient $F_{ee}({}^3S_1)$ are calculated in Refs. [@Barbieri:1975ki; @Celmaster:1978yz] and are given in Ref. [@bbl]. The order-$\alpha^2\alpha_s^2$ contribution is calculated in Ref. [@Beneke:1997jm]. Altogether, these contributions give $$F_{ee}({}^3S_1)={2\pi Q^2\alpha^2\over 3}\left\{1-4C_F
{\alpha_s(m)\over\pi}
+\left[-117.46+0.82n_f+{140\pi^2\over 27}
\ln\left({2m\over\mu_\Lambda}\right)\right]
\left({\alpha_s\over\pi}\right)^2\right\}.$$ The order-$\alpha^2$ contribution to $G_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)$ is computed in Refs. [@Keung:jb; @bbl]: $$G_{ee}({}^3S_1)=-{8\pi Q^2\over 9}\alpha^2.$$ To leading order in $\alpha_s$, $G_{ee}({}^3S_1)/[m^2 F_{\rm
ee}({}^3S_1)]=-4/3$. Hence, the first relativistic correction to this process is substantial for the $J/\psi$. In this paper, we compute the combination of short-distance coefficients $H_{ee}^1({}^3S_1)+H_{ee}^1({}^3S_1)$.
Spin projectors
===============
In computing the quarkonium decay rates, we use the covariant spin-projector method [@Kuhn:1979bb; @Guberina:1980dc] to identify spin-singlet and spin-triplet amplitudes. For purposes of the computations in this paper, we need projection operators accurate at least through relative order $v^4$. In this section, we compute the required projectors to all orders in $v$.
The Dirac spinors, with the standard nonrelativistic normalization, may be written as
\[spinors\] $$\begin{aligned}
u({\bf p}) &=& \sqrt{E+m \over 2E}
\left( \begin{array}{c} \xi \\
{{\bf p} \cdot \bm{\sigma} \over E+m} \xi \end{array} \right) ,
\label{uspinor}\\
v(-{\bf p}) &=& \sqrt{E+m \over 2E}
\left( \begin{array}{c} {(-{\bf p}) \cdot \bm{\sigma} \over E+m} \eta \\
\eta \end{array} \right) ,
\label{vspinor}\end{aligned}$$
where $\xi$ and $\eta$ are two-component Pauli spinors, and $E(p)=\sqrt{m^2+{\bf p}^2}$. We take the heavy quark and antiquark momenta to be
\[momenta\] $$\begin{aligned}
p_Q&=&(1/2)P+p,\\
p_{\bar Q}&=&(1/2)P-p,\end{aligned}$$
respectively, where in the quarkonium rest frame,
\[rest-frame\] $$\begin{aligned}
P&=&(2E(p),\bm{0}),\\
p&=&(0,{\bf p}).\end{aligned}$$
Using Eq. (\[spinors\]), it is straightforward to express spin-singlet and spin-triplet combinations of spinor bilinears in terms of Dirac matrices and to write them in a covariant form. In the spin-singlet case, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_0(P,p)&=&-\sum_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}u({\bf p},\lambda_1)
\bar v(-{\bf p},\lambda_2)
\langle {\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}}\,\lambda_1\,{\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}}\,\lambda_2|0\,0\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&{1\over \sqrt 2}{E+m\over 2E}
\left(1+{\bm{\alpha}\cdot{\bf p}\over E+m}\right)
{1+\gamma_0\over 2}\gamma_5
\left(1-{\bm{\alpha}\cdot{\bf p}\over E+m}\right)\gamma_0\nonumber\\
&=&{1\over 2\sqrt{2}E(E+m)}\left({\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}}\not\!P+m+\not\!p\right)
{\not\!P+2E\over 4E}\gamma_5
\left({\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}}\not\!P-m-\not\!p\right),
\label{singlet-projector}\end{aligned}$$ where $\alpha_i$ and $\gamma_\mu$ are Dirac matrices in the Dirac representation, $\gamma_5=i\gamma^0\gamma^1\gamma^2\gamma^3$, and we have chosen the normalization so that the projector (\[singlet-projector\]) corresponds in NRQCD to the projector $I/\sqrt
2$, where $I$ is a unit Pauli matrix.[^2] We note that $E(p)$ may be written in a Lorentz invariant fashion as $$E(p)=(1/2)\sqrt{P^2}.$$ In the case of a spin-triplet state with polarization $\epsilon$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_1(P,p,\bm{\epsilon})&=&\sum_{\lambda_1,\lambda_2}
u({\bf p},\lambda_1)\bar v(-{\bf p},\lambda_2)
\langle {\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}}\,\lambda_1\,{\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}}\, \lambda_2
|1\,\epsilon\rangle\nonumber\\
&=&{1\over \sqrt 2}{E+m\over 2E}
\left(1+{\bm{\alpha}\cdot{\bf p}\over E+m}\right)
{1+\gamma_0\over 2}\bm{\alpha}\cdot \bm{\epsilon}
\left(1-{\bm{\alpha}\cdot{\bf p}\over E+m}\right)\gamma_0\nonumber\\
&=&{-1\over 2\sqrt{2}E(E+m)}\left({\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}}\not\!P+m+\not\!p\right)
{\not\!P+2E\over 4E}\not\!\epsilon
\left({\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}}\not\!P-m-\not\!p\right).
\label{triplet-projector}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $|1\,\epsilon\rangle$ is the rotationally invariant linear combination $|1\,\epsilon\rangle=\epsilon^-|1\,1\rangle-\epsilon^+|1\,-1\rangle
-\epsilon_3|1\,0\rangle$, with $\epsilon^\pm=(1/\sqrt 2) (\epsilon_1\pm
i\epsilon_2)$. We have chosen the normalization so that the projector (\[triplet-projector\]) corresponds in NRQCD to the projector $\bm{\sigma}\cdot \bm{\epsilon}/\sqrt{2}$. The expressions (\[singlet-projector\]) and (\[triplet-projector\]) are valid to all orders in $v$.
Relativistic corrections to ${}^1S_0$ decays
============================================
In this section we compute the short-distance coefficients that appear in the corrections through relative order $v^4$ to ${}^1S_0$ quarkonium decays into two photons and into light hadrons (two gluons).
We begin with the case of decay into two photons. We take the definitions of the heavy quark and antiquark momenta given in Eq. (\[momenta\]) and work in the quarkonium rest frame, as defined in Eq. (\[rest-frame\]). We take the outgoing photon momenta to be $k$ and $q$, with polarization indices $\mu$ and $\nu$, respectively. Consider first the diagram in which the quark emits the photon with momentum $k$. The spin-singlet amplitude corresponding to this diagram is $$\begin{aligned}
A_1({\rm sing}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma)&=&-ie^2Q^2{\rm Tr}
\left[\Pi_0(P,p)\gamma^\nu {\not\!p_Q-\not\!k+m\over -2p_Q\cdot k}
\gamma^\mu\right]\nonumber\\
&=&{-ie^2Q^2\over 2\sqrt{2}E(E+m)}{1\over 2p_Q\cdot k}{\rm Tr}
\left[\gamma^\nu \not\!k \gamma^\mu({\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}}\not\!P+m+\not\!p)
{1+\gamma_0\over 2}\gamma_5({\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}$}}\not\!P-m-\not\!p)\right]\nonumber\\
&=&{-ie^2Q^2\over 2\sqrt{2}E(E+m)}{1\over 2p_Q\cdot k}{\rm Tr}
\left[\gamma^\nu \not\!k \gamma^\mu(E+m+\not\!p){1+\gamma_0\over
2}\gamma_5(-E-m-\not\!p)\right],\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ where $e$ is the electromagnetic coupling constant.[^3] In the projector $(1+\gamma_0)/2$ in the last line, the term proportional to $1$ gives a vanishing trace, while the term proportional to $\gamma_0$ gives $$A_1({\rm sing}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma)=-e^2Q^2{m\over \sqrt{2}E}
\epsilon^{\nu\rho\mu 0}k_\rho {1\over p_Q\cdot k}.$$ Similarly, the diagram in which the antiquark emits the photon with momentum $k$ yields an amplitude $$A_2({\rm sing}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma)=e^2Q^2{m\over \sqrt{2}E}
\epsilon^{\mu\rho\nu 0}k_\rho {1\over p_{\bar Q}\cdot k}.$$ Adding $A_1({\rm sing}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma)$ and $A_2({\rm sing}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma)$, we obtain the complete amplitude for ${}^1S_0$ charmonium decay into two photons: $$A({\rm sing}\rightarrow \gamma\gamma)=-e^2Q^2{m\over \sqrt{2}E}
\epsilon^{\nu\rho\mu 0}k_\rho \left({1\over E^2-{\bf p}\cdot {\bf k}}
+{1\over E^2+{\bf p}\cdot {\bf k}}\right).$$ We project out the $S$-wave part of the amplitude by averaging over the angles of ${\bf p}$: $$\begin{aligned}
A({}^1S_0 \rightarrow \gamma\gamma)&=&{1\over 2}\int_{-1}^1
d(\cos\theta)(-e^2Q^2){m\over \sqrt{2}E}
\epsilon^{\nu\rho\mu 0}k_\rho \left({1\over E^2-|{\bf p}|
|{\bf k}|\cos\theta}+{1\over E^2+|{\bf p}||{\bf k}|\cos\theta}
\right)\nonumber\\
&=&-e^2Q^2\epsilon^{\nu\rho\mu 0}k_\rho {m\over \sqrt{2}E^2 |{\bf p}|}
\ln{E+|{\bf p}|\over E-|{\bf p}|},
\label{A-1s0-pp}\end{aligned}$$ where we have used ${\bf k}^2=E^2$. Multiplying the expression (\[A-1s0-pp\]) by its complex conjugate, by the two-body phase space $1/(8\pi)$, and by a factor $1/2!$ for two identical particles in the final state, we obtain the decay width for a ${}^1S_0$ $Q\bar Q$ state into two photons: $$\Gamma({}^1S_0 \rightarrow \gamma\gamma)={\pi m^2Q^4\alpha^2\over
E^2 {\bf p}^2}\ln^2{E+|{\bf p}|\over E-|{\bf p}|}.
\label{gamma-1s0-pp}$$ Here, and in succeeding computations of the decay widths of two-particle states, we suppress a factor of the inverse volume that is associated with the normalization of the initial state.
From Eq. (\[Getagg\]), we find that the decay width for a ${}^1S_0$ $Q\bar Q$ state into two photons in NRQCD in order $\alpha_s^0$ and through relative order $v^4$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\rm NRQCD}({}^1S_0 \rightarrow \gamma\gamma)&=&
2[(1/m^2)F_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)
+({\bf p}^2/m^4) G_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)
+({\bf p}^4/m^6) H^1_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\hbox{}+({\bf p}^4/m^6) H^2_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)],
\label{gamma-nrqcd-1s0-pp}\end{aligned}$$ where the factor two on the right side of Eq. (\[gamma-nrqcd-1s0-pp\]) comes from the spin factor for normalized heavy-quark states.
Comparing powers of ${\bf p}^2/m^2$ in Eqs. (\[gamma-1s0-pp\]) and (\[gamma-nrqcd-1s0-pp\]), we obtain the short-distance coefficients at leading order in $\alpha_s$:
\[1s0-pp-coeffs\] $$\begin{aligned}
F_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)&=&2\pi Q^4\alpha^2,\\
G_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)&=&-{8\pi\over 3} Q^4 \alpha^2,\\
H^1_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)+H^2_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)&=&
{136\pi\over 45}Q^4 \alpha^2.\end{aligned}$$
Our results for $F_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)$ and $G_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)$ confirm those given in Refs. [@bbl; @harris-brown; @Barbieri:1979be; @Hagiwara:1980nv] and [@bbl], respectively. Our result for $H^1_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)+H^2_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)$ is new.
At leading order in $\alpha_s$, the decay of a ${}^1S_0$ $Q\bar Q$ state to light hadrons proceeds through an annihilation into two gluons. Hence, we may obtain the decay width for a ${}^1S_0$ $Q\bar Q$ state into light hadrons by multiplying the width into two photons \[Eq. (\[gamma-1s0-pp\])\] by a color factor $C_F/2$ times $\alpha_s^2/(\alpha^2 Q^4)$: $$\Gamma({}^1S_0 \rightarrow {\rm LH})={\pi C_F m^2\alpha_s^2\over
2E^2 {\bf p}^2}\ln^2{E+|{\bf p}|\over E-|{\bf p}|}.
\label{gamma-1s0-lh}$$ From Eq. (\[eta-decay\]), we find that the decay width for a ${}^1S_0$ $Q\bar Q$ state into two photons in NRQCD in order $\alpha_s^2$ and through relative order $v^4$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\rm NRQCD}({}^1S_0 \rightarrow {\rm LH})&=&
2N_c[(1/m^2)F_1({}^1S_0)
+({\bf p}^2/m^4) G_1({}^1S_0)
+({\bf p}^4/m^6) H^1_1({}^1S_0)\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\hbox{}+({\bf p}^4/m^6) H^2_1({}^1S_0)],
\label{gamma-nrqcd-1s0-lh}\end{aligned}$$ where the factor $2N_c$ on the right side of Eq. (\[gamma-nrqcd-1s0-lh\]) comes from the spin and color factors for normalized heavy-quark states. The matrix elements of the color-octet operators do not contribute to Eq. (\[gamma-nrqcd-1s0-lh\]) in order $\alpha_s^2$. Comparing Eqs. (\[gamma-1s0-lh\]) and (\[gamma-nrqcd-1s0-lh\]), we obtain the short-distance coefficients at leading order in $\alpha_s$:
\[1s0-gg-coeffs\] $$\begin{aligned}
F_1({}^1S_0)&=&{\pi C_F\over N_c}\alpha_s^2,\\
G_1({}^1S_0)&=&-{4\pi C_F\over 3N_c} \alpha_s^2,\\
H_1^1({}^1S_0)+H_1^2({}^1S_0)&=&{68\pi C_F\over 45N_c}\alpha_s^2.\end{aligned}$$
Our result for $F_1({}^1S_0)$ is in agreement with that given in Refs. [@Barbieri:1979be; @Hagiwara:1980nv; @bbl], and our result for $G_1({}^1S_0)$ is in agreement with that given in Ref. [@bbl]. Our result for $H_1^1({}^1S_0)+H_1^2({}^1S_0)$ is new.
Relativistic corrections to ${}^3S_1$ decay to $e^+e^-$
=======================================================
Next we turn to the case of the decay of a ${}^3S_1$ quarkonium state into an $e^+e^-$ pair. Again, we work in the quarkonium rest frame defined in Eq. (\[rest-frame\]). The amplitude for a quark and antiquark in a spin-triplet state with the momenta given in Eq. (\[momenta\]) to decay into a virtual photon with polarization index $\mu$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
A({\rm trip}\rightarrow \gamma^*)&=&ieQ\,{\rm Tr}\,[\Pi_1(P,p,\epsilon)
\gamma_\mu]\nonumber\\
&=&ieQ\sqrt{2}\left[{p_\mu p\cdot\epsilon\over E(E+m)}
+\epsilon_\mu\right].\end{aligned}$$ We can project out the $S$-wave part of the amplitude by averaging over the angles of ${\bf p}$: $$\begin{aligned}
A({}^3S_1\rightarrow \gamma^*)&=&{1\over 2}\int_{-1}^1 d(\cos\theta)\,
ieQ\sqrt{2}\left[{p_\mu p\cdot\epsilon\over E(E+m)}
+\epsilon_\mu\right]\nonumber\\
&=& ieQ\sqrt{2}\left({2\over 3}+{m\over 3E}\right)\epsilon_\mu.
\label{A-3s1-p}\end{aligned}$$ In order to obtain the decay rate into an $e^+e^-$ pair, we multiply the expression (\[A-3s1-p\]) by its complex conjugate with index $\nu$, by a photon-propagator factor $-ig_{\mu\rho}/k^2$, by a complex-conjugated photon-propagator factor $ig_{\nu\sigma}/k^2$, and by twice the imaginary part of the $e^+e^-$-pair contribution to the photon’s vacuum polarization, namely, $(g_{\rho\sigma}k^2-k_\rho k_\sigma)(-2/3)\alpha$. Here $k$ is the virtual photon’s momentum. The result is $$\Gamma({}^3S_1\rightarrow e^+e^-)=
{4\pi Q^2\alpha^2\over 3E^2}\left({2\over 3}+{m\over 3E}\right)^2,
\label{gamma-3s1-ee}$$ where we have used $k\cdot\epsilon=0$, $\epsilon\cdot\epsilon^*=-1$, and $k^2=4E^2$.
From Eq. (\[Gpsiee\]), we see that, in NRQCD through relative order $v^4$, the decay width for a ${}^3S_1$ $Q\bar Q$ state into an $e^+e^-$ pair is $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\rm NRQCD}({}^3S_1 \rightarrow e^+e^-)&=&
2 [(1/m^2)F_{ee}({}^3S_1)
+({\bf p}^2/m^4) G_{ee}({}^3S_1)
+({\bf p}^4/m^6) H^1_{ee}({}^3S_1)\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\hbox{}+({\bf p}^4/m^6) H^2_{ee}({}^3S_1)].
\label{gamma-nrqcd-3s1-ee}\end{aligned}$$ The factor two on the right side of Eq. (\[gamma-nrqcd-3s1-ee\]) comes from the spin factor for normalized heavy-quark states.
Comparing powers of ${\bf p}^2/m^2$ in Eqs. (\[gamma-3s1-ee\]) and (\[gamma-nrqcd-3s1-ee\]), we obtain the short-distance coefficients at leading order in $\alpha_s$:
\[3s1-ee-coeffs\] $$\begin{aligned}
F_{ee}({}^3S_1)&=&{2\pi\over 3}Q^2\alpha^2,\\
G_{ee}({}^3S_1)&=&-{8\pi\over 9}Q^2\alpha^2,\\
H^1_{ee}({}^3S_1)+H^2_{ee}({}^3S_1)&=&
{58\pi\over 54}Q^2\alpha^2.\end{aligned}$$
Our result for $F_{ee}({}^3S_1)$ agrees with that given in Refs. [@bbl; @Barbieri:1975ki; @Celmaster:1978yz], and our result for $G_{ee}({}^3S_1)$ agrees with that given in Refs. [@bbl]. Our result for $H^1_{ee}({}^3S_1)+H^2_{ee}({}^3S_1)$ is new.
Relativistic corrections to ${}^3S_1$ decay to light hadrons
============================================================
In the decay of a heavy-quark-antiquark state, diagrams in which only two of the final-state gluons attach to the heavy-quark line have a common heavy-quark color factor. Hence, (Abelian) charge-conjugation symmetry forbids such diagrams in the decay of a ${}^3S_1$ state. Furthermore, color conservation forbids diagrams in which only one of the final-state gluons attaches to the heavy-quark line. Thus, in leading order in $\alpha_s$, a ${}^3S_1$ heavy-quark-antiquark state decays into three gluons, and the decay proceeds through diagrams in which all three gluons attach to the heavy-quark line. (Since no triple-gluon vertices appear, there are no ghost contributions.)
In this decay process, in contrast with the decay processes that we have analyzed in the preceding sections, the kinematics allow one of the final-state gluons to have zero energy. Hence, the possibility arises that the decay rate contains an infrared (IR) divergence. Simple power counting arguments show that an IR divergence can arise only if the soft gluon attaches to an incoming (on-shell) heavy-quark or heavy-antiquark leg. Therefore, one can use NRQCD to analyze the interaction of this soft gluon with the heavy quark.
One can see from power-counting arguments, that, through relative order $v^4$, in the Coulomb gauge, a gluon that interacts with a quark or an antiquark can yield an IR divergence only if the interactions are of the type $\psi^\dagger {\bf D}\cdot {\bf A}\psi$ or $\chi^\dagger {\bf
D}\cdot {\bf A}\chi$. (The $\psi^\dagger {\bf B}\cdot \bm{\sigma}\psi$ and $\chi^\dagger {\bf B}\cdot \bm{\sigma}\chi$ interactions have the correct dimensions to produce an IR divergence, but the factors of ${\bf
B}$ bring in powers of the gluon momentum that protect against an IR divergence.) The factor of ${\bf D}$ translates into a factor of the incoming quark or antiquark momentum. Factors of the gluon momentum do not appear since they are orthogonal to the gluon propagator in the Coulomb gauge. Therefore, the interactions of the gluon yield two factors of the incoming quark or antiquark momentum in the squared amplitude. Two additional factors of the incoming quark or antiquark momentum are required in order to have a nonzero overlap with an incoming $S$-wave state. Hence, an IR divergence in the decay rate must be associated with at least four factors of the incoming quark or antiquark momentum. That is, an IR divergence can first appear in relative order $v^4$. Because the soft gluon in a ${\bf D}\cdot {\bf A}$ interaction changes the incoming $S$-wave color-singlet quark-antiquark state into a $P$-wave color-octet quark-antiquark state, we expect that the IR divergence will be absorbed into matrix elements of the $P$-wave color-octet operators in Eq. (\[Gpsilh\]).
Now let us turn to the actual computation of the rate for a ${}^3S_1$ $Q\bar Q$ state to decay into three gluons. We present only the outlines of that calculation here. We used the symbolic manipulation program <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">mathematica</span> and the package <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">feyncalc</span> [@Mertig:an] to handle the tedious, but straightforward, details of the algebra.
We regulate the anticipated IR divergence by computing in $D=4-2\epsilon$ dimensions. We work in the quarkonium rest frame, assign the incoming quark and antiquark momenta as in Eqs. (\[momenta\]) and (\[rest-frame\]), and take the outgoing gluon momenta to be $k_1$, $k_2$, and $k_3$. First we compute the sum of the six Feynman diagrams for this process, making use of the projector (\[triplet-projector\]). Although we are working in $D=4-2\epsilon$ dimensions, we can follow the approach of Ref. [@Petrelli:1998ge] and simply use the $D$-dimensional version of the spin-1 projector (\[triplet-projector\]). As explained in Ref. [@Petrelli:1998ge], we need not consider projectors for the higher-spin evanescent NRQCD operators that appear in $D$ dimensions because the contributions that contain an IR pole in one loop do not mix the higher-spin operators with the spin-1 operators.
At this point, we could square the amplitude, integrate over the phase space, and expand in powers of ${\bf p}$ in order to obtain the desired result. However, the amount of algebra would be greatly reduced if we could make the expansion in powers of ${\bf p}$ before carrying out the phase-space integration. Such a strategy is complicated by the fact that the phase space depends on ${\bf p}$ through the total energy of the incoming $Q\bar Q$ state, but we can make that dependence explicit by introducing a rescaling of phase-space integration variables: $$k_i\;\rightarrow\; k_i E(p)/m.
\label{rescaling}$$ Then, the final-state phase space transforms as $$\prod_{i}\left({d^{(D-1)}k_i\over 2(k_i)_0}\right)\delta^D (P-\sum_i k_i)
\;\rightarrow\;
\prod_{i}\left({d^{(D-1)}k_i\over 2(k_i)_0}\right)
\delta^D \left({mP\over E(p)}-\sum_i k_i\right)
f(p),
\label{rescaled-ps}$$ where $$f(p)=\left[{E(p)\over m}\right]^{(D-2)^3/D}=\left[{E(p)\over m}\right]^2
\left[1-{5\over 2}\epsilon\log{E^2(p)\over m^2}\right]+O(\epsilon^2).
\label{factor}$$ All of the dependence on ${\bf p}$ on the right side of Eq. (\[rescaled-ps\]) is contained in the explicit factor $f(p)$. The remaining factors correspond to the phase space evaluated at the $Q\bar
Q$ threshold $p=0$. Therefore, after rescaling the $k_i$ according to Eq. (\[rescaling\]), we can obtain the necessary expansion in powers of ${\bf p}$ by expanding the amplitude, its complex conjugate, and $f(p)$ in powers of ${\bf p}$ [*before*]{} carrying out the phase-space integration. Note that an IR pole in $\epsilon$ first appears in the rate, excluding the factor $f(p)$, only in the relative-order $v^4$. Hence, we can drop the term proportional to $\epsilon$ on the right side of Eq. (\[factor\]), which contributes an additional factor $v^2$.
We expand the amplitude in a power series in ${\bf p}$, through order ${\bf p}^4$. The terms containing no powers of ${\bf p}$ yield a pure $S$-wave contribution. For the terms containing two powers of $p$, we extract the $S$-wave contribution by making the replacement $$p_\mu p_\nu\rightarrow {\bf p}^2T_{\mu\nu}.$$ For the terms containing four powers of $p$, we extract the $S$-wave contribution by making the replacement $$p_\mu p_\nu p_\rho p_\sigma\rightarrow {\bf p}^4T_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}.$$ Here, $$T_{\mu\nu}={1\over D-1}\Pi_{\mu\nu},$$ $$T_{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}={1\over (D-1)(D+1)}
\left[\Pi_{\mu\nu}\Pi_{\rho\sigma}+\Pi_{\mu\rho}\Pi_{\nu\sigma}
+\Pi_{\mu\sigma}\Pi_{\nu\rho}\right],$$ and $$\Pi_{\mu\nu}=-g_{\mu\nu}+{P_\mu P_\nu\over 4E^2(p)}.$$ Next, we multiply the amplitude by its complex conjugate. We evaluate the gluon polarization sums using the Feynman-gauge expression $$\epsilon_\mu \epsilon^*_\nu=-g_{\mu\nu},$$ we evaluate the spin-triplet-state polarization sum using $$\epsilon_\mu \epsilon^*_\nu=\Pi_{\mu\nu},$$ and we divide by $D-1$ to obtain the average over the spin-triplet-state polarizations. Owing to the charge-conjugation invariance of the amplitude, only the part of the color factor that is symmetric in the color indices survives. It is given by $${1\over 16N_c}d^{abc}d^{abc}={(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2-4)\over 16N_c^2}.$$ Multiplying by this color factor and by $f(p)$, we obtain the “squared matrix element” that must be integrated over the $p=0$ three-body phase space to obtain the decay rate. We write the coefficients of ${\bf p}^0$, ${\bf p}^2$, and ${\bf p}^4$ in terms of the invariants
\[stu\] $$\begin{aligned}
s&=&2k_1\cdot k_2,\\
t&=&2k_1\cdot k_3,\\
u&=&2k_2\cdot k_3,\end{aligned}$$
where, since we have set $p=0$ in these coefficients, the energy-momentum conservation relation now reads $$k_1+k_2+k_3=2m.$$ The expressions for these coefficients in four dimensions are given in Appendix \[app:sq-me\].
We re-write the coefficients of ${\bf p}^0$, ${\bf p}^2$, and ${\bf p}^4$ in terms of the invariants $$x_i={2P\cdot k_i\over (2m)^2}\Biggl\vert_{p=0}.$$ It follows that
\[stux\] $$\begin{aligned}
s&=&2m^2(x_1+x_2-x_3),\\
t&=&2m^2(x_1-x_2+x_3),\\
u&=&2m^2(-x_1+x_2+x_3).\end{aligned}$$
The $D$-dimensional three-body phase space for decay of a particle of mass $M$ is [@Petrelli:1998ge] $$d\Phi_{(3)}={M^2\over 2(4\pi)^3}
\left({4\pi\over M^2}\right)^{2\epsilon}{1\over \Gamma(2-2\epsilon)}
\prod_{i=1}^3(1-x_i)^{-\epsilon}dx_i\delta(2-\sum_{i=1}^3 x_i).$$ The phase space at $p=0$ is obtained by making the identification $M=2m$.
It is convenient to make a further change of variables, so that the limits of integration are independent of the integration variables. To this end, we write
$$\begin{aligned}
x_1=x,\\
x_2=1-xy,\\
x_3=1-x(1-y).\end{aligned}$$
This change of variables is particularly useful in analyzing the infrared singularities, since it avoids the difficulty that, at the singular points $x_i=0$, the range of integration in one of the variables $x_j$ ($i\neq j$) vanishes. Now the phase space is $$d\Phi_{(3)}={M^2\over 2(4\pi)^3}
\left({4\pi\over M^2}\right)^{2\epsilon}{1\over \Gamma(2-2\epsilon)}
[x^2(1-x)y(1-y)]^{-\epsilon}x\,dx\,dy,
\label{xy-ps}$$ where $x$ and $y$ range from $0$ to $1$.
In the cases of the terms proportional to ${\bf p}^0$ and ${\bf p}^2$, the integrations over the phase space are IR finite, and we can carry out the integrations with $D=4$. Multiplying by $1/3!$ for three identical particles in the final state, we obtain $$\Gamma^{(0)}={1\over m^2}{(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2-4)\over 9N_c^2}(\pi^2-9)
\alpha_s^3,
\label{3s1-lh-0}$$ $$\Gamma^{(2)}=-{{\bf p}^2\over m^4}{(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2-4)\over 108N_c^2}
(19\pi^2-132)\alpha_s^3.
\label{3s1-lh-2}$$
In the case of the term proportional to ${\bf p}^4$, we must first separate the IR singular parts in the matrix element squared.[^4] These are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{\cal M}}_{\rm IR} &=&{{\bf p}^4\over m^8}
\frac{(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2-4)}{N_c^2} \frac{128
\pi^3 \alpha_s^3 }{(3-2\epsilon)^3}
\left[(3-2\epsilon)(1-\epsilon) -
2(2-\epsilon) y(1-y)\right] \mu^{6\epsilon}\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}\times
\left({1\over x^2}+{1\over (1-xy)^2}+{1\over [1-x(1-y)]^2}\right).
\label{IR-sing}\end{aligned}$$ Integrating ${\tilde{\cal M}}_{\rm IR}$ over the phase space (\[xy-ps\]) and multiplying by $1/3!$ for three identical particles in the final state, we obtain
\[3s1-lh-4-ir\] $$\Gamma_{\rm IR}^{(4)}=-{{\bf p}^4\over m^6}
\frac{(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2-4)}{N_c^2}\alpha_s^3
\frac{1}{\epsilon}\left(\frac{4\pi}{M^2}\right)^{2\epsilon}
\mu^{6\epsilon}
\frac{\Gamma^2(1-\epsilon)}{\Gamma^2(2-2\epsilon)}
{(1-\epsilon)^2(7-4\epsilon)\over (3-2\epsilon)^4}.$$ Neglecting terms of order $\epsilon$, we may write this expression as $$\Gamma_{\rm IR}^{(4)}=-{{\bf p}^4\over m^6}
\frac{(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2-4)}{N_c^2}\alpha_s^3\left[
\frac{7}{81\epsilon}\left(\frac{4\pi}{M^2}\right)^{2\epsilon}
\mu^{6\epsilon}
\frac{(1-\epsilon\gamma_E)\Gamma(1-\epsilon)}{\Gamma(2-2\epsilon)}
+\frac{44}{243}\right],$$
where $\gamma_E$ is Euler’s constant. After subtracting the IR singular terms (\[IR-sing\]) from the integrand, we can carry out the phase-space integration over the remainder with $D=4$. Multiplying by $1/3!$ for three identical particles in the final state, we obtain $$\Gamma_{\rm finite}^{(4)}={{\bf p}^4\over m^6}
\frac{(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2-4)}{N_c^2}\alpha_s^3
\left[-\frac{3563}{2430}+\frac{1609}{6480}\pi^2
\right].
\label{3s1-lh-4-finite}$$ The complete decay width in full QCD of a ${}^3S_1$ $Q\bar Q$ state into light hadrons through order $v^4$ is then $$\Gamma({}^3S_1\rightarrow {\rm LH})=\Gamma^{(0)}+\Gamma^{(2)}+
\Gamma^{(4)}_{\rm IR}+\Gamma^{(4)}_{\rm finite},
\label{3s1-lh-full}$$ where the quantities on the right side are given in Eqs. (\[3s1-lh-0\]), (\[3s1-lh-2\]), (\[3s1-lh-4-ir\]), and (\[3s1-lh-4-finite\]).
To determine the short-distance coefficients, we match these results with the NRQCD expression for the decay width (\[Gpsilh\]), evaluated in the ${}^3S_1$ $Q\bar Q$ state. Since we have computed the full QCD decay rate in order $\alpha_s^3$, we must evaluate each contributing term in Eq. (\[Gpsilh\]) with accuracy $\alpha_s^3$. The coefficients $F_8({}^1S_0)$, $F_8({}^3S_1)$, and $F_8({}^3P_J)$ are of order $\alpha_s^2$. Therefore, we must evaluate the corresponding matrix elements through order $\alpha_s$. We evaluate the matrix elements corresponding to the unknown coefficients $F_1({}^3S_1)$, $G_1({}^3S_1)$, $H_1^1({}^3S_1)$, and $H_1^2({}^3S_1)$ at order $\alpha_s^0$.
The color-octet matrix elements $\langle {}^3S_1| {\cal O}_8({}^1S_0)
|{}^3S_1\rangle$ and $\langle {}^3S_1| {\cal O}_8({}^3S_1)
|{}^3S_1\rangle$ have a vanishing contribution at order $\alpha_s^0$ in the color-singlet $Q\bar Q$ state. The order-$\alpha_s^1$ contribution comes from four diagrams in which a gluon connects an initial-state $Q$ or $\bar Q$ with a final-state $Q$ or $\bar Q$. The interaction of the gluon with the $Q$ or $\bar Q$ cannot be of the ${\bf p}\cdot {\bf A}$ form, since that interaction changes the orbital angular momentum by one unit. Any other NRQCD interaction must involve at least one power of the gluon momentum. Hence, it is easy to see, by simple power counting arguments, that the integration over the gluon momentum is ultraviolet (UV) power divergent. It therefore vanishes in dimensional regularization.
The color-octet matrix elements $\langle {}^3S_1| {\cal O}_8({}^3P_J)
|{}^3S_1\rangle$ also have a vanishing contribution at order $\alpha_s^0$ in the color-singlet $Q\bar Q$ state. Again, the order-$\alpha_s^1$ contribution comes from four diagrams in which a gluon connects an initial-state $Q$ or $\bar Q$ with a final-state $Q$ or $\bar Q$. The contribution at leading order in $v$ arises from ${\bf
p}\cdot {\bf A}$ interactions between the gluon and the $Q$ or $\bar Q$. A straightforward computation yields $$\langle {}^3S_1| {\cal O}_8({}^3P_J)|{}^3S_1\rangle
={{\bf p}^4\over m^2}{8(2J+1)C_F\over 81\pi}
\alpha_s\int_0^\infty {dk\over k}.$$ This integral has logarithmic IR and UV divergences. Since it is scale invariant, it vanishes in dimensional regularization. It can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\langle {}^3S_1| {\cal O}_8({}^3P_J)|{}^3S_1\rangle
&=&{{\bf p}^4\over m^2}{4(2J+1)C_F\over 81\pi}
{\mu^{2\epsilon}\over \mu_\Lambda^{2\epsilon}}\alpha_s\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}\times\bigg\{\bigg[{1\over \epsilon_{\rm UV}}
+\log(4\pi)-\gamma_E\bigg]-\bigg[{1\over \epsilon_{\rm IR}}
+\log(4\pi)-\gamma_E\bigg]\bigg\},
\label{me-dim-reg}\end{aligned}$$ where $\epsilon_{\rm UV}$ and $\epsilon_{\rm IR}$ are $(4-D)/2$, and $\mu_\Lambda$ is the NRQCD renormalization scale. We renormalize the expression (\[me-dim-reg\]) in the modified minimal subtraction ($\overline{\rm MS}$) scheme by subtracting the contribution proportional to $1/ \epsilon_{\rm UV}+\log(4\pi)-\gamma_E$. The renormalized matrix element is $$\langle {}^3S_1| {\cal O}_8({}^3P_J)|{}^3S_1\rangle_{\overline{\rm MS}}
=-{{\bf p}^4\over m^2}{4(2J+1)C_F\over 81\pi}
{\mu^{2\epsilon}\over \mu_\Lambda^{2\epsilon}}\alpha_s
\bigg[{1\over \epsilon}+\log(4\pi)-\gamma_E\bigg],
\label{me-renorm}$$ where we have made the identification $\epsilon_{\rm IR}=\epsilon$.
Making use of these results for the matrix elements, we find that the decay width in NRQCD in order $\alpha_s^3$ is
\[gamma-nrqcd-3s1-ggg\] $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma_{\rm NRQCD}({}^3S_1 \rightarrow {\rm LH})&=&
2N_c[(1/m^2)F_1({}^3S_1)
+({\bf p}^2/m^4) G_1({}^3S_1)
+({\bf p}^4/m^6) H^1_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\hbox{}+({\bf p}^4/m^6) H^2_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)]
+({\bf p}^4/m^6)\sum_{J=0,1,2}c_JF_8({}^3P_J),\end{aligned}$$ where the factor $2N_c$ in front of the square brackets comes from the color and spin factors for normalized heavy-quark states and $$c_J=-{2(N_c^2-1)\over 81\pi N_c}(2J+1)
{\mu^{2\epsilon}\over \mu_\Lambda^{2\epsilon}}\alpha_s
\bigg[{1\over \epsilon}+\log(4\pi)-\gamma_E\bigg].$$
The short-distance coefficients $F_8({}^3P_J)$ have been computed $D=4-2\epsilon$ dimensions in order $\alpha_s^2$ by Petrelli [*et al.*]{} [@Petrelli:1998ge]:
\[f8-3pj-d\] $$\begin{aligned}
F_8({}^3P_0)&=&18\pi B_F\alpha_s^2
\bigg({4\pi\over M^2}\bigg)^\epsilon \mu^{4\epsilon}
{\Gamma(1-\epsilon)\over \Gamma(2-2\epsilon)}
{1-\epsilon\over 3-2\epsilon},\\
F_8({}^3P_1)&=&0,\\
F_8({}^3P_2)&=&4\pi B_F\alpha_s^2
\bigg({4\pi\over M^2}\bigg)^\epsilon \mu^{4\epsilon}
{\Gamma(1-\epsilon)\over \Gamma(2-2\epsilon)}
{6-13\epsilon+4\epsilon^2\over (3-2\epsilon)(5-2\epsilon)}.\end{aligned}$$
It follows that $$\sum_{J=0,1,2}c_JF_8({}^3P_J)=-\frac{(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2-4)}{N_c^2}
\alpha_s^3\left[
\frac{7}{81\epsilon}
\left(\frac{4\pi\mu^3}{M \mu_\Lambda}\right)^{2\epsilon}
\frac{(1-\epsilon\gamma_E)\Gamma(1-\epsilon)}{\Gamma(2-2\epsilon)}
-{1\over 15}\right],
\label{f8-3pj-sum}$$ where we have neglected terms of order $\epsilon$.
Using Eq. (\[f8-3pj-sum\]), we can compare the width in full QCD \[Eq. (\[3s1-lh-full\])\] with the width in NRQCD \[Eq. (\[gamma-nrqcd-3s1-ggg\])\] to compute the short-distance coefficients. As expected, the IR poles in $\epsilon$ cancel, and we obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
F_1({}^3S_1)&=&{(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2 - 4)\over N_c^3}{(\pi^2 - 9)\over 18}
\alpha_s^3,\\
G_1({}^3S_1)&=&{(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2-4)\over N_c^3}\bigg({11\over 18}-
{19\over 216}\pi^2\bigg)\alpha_s^3,\\
H_1^1({}^3S_1)+H_1^2({}^3S_1)&=&{(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2-4)\over
N_c^3}\bigg(-{833\over 972}+{1609\over 12960}\pi^2+{7\over 81}
\log{2m\over\mu_\Lambda}\bigg)\alpha_s^3.\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$
Our result for $F_1({}^3S_1)$ agrees with that given in Ref. [@Mackenzie:1981sf], and our result for $G_1({}^3S_1)$ agrees with that given in Ref. [@Keung:jb]. Our result for $H_1^1({}^3S_1)+H_1^2({}^3S_1)$ is new.
Discussion
==========
In this paper, we have computed short-distance coefficients for the decays of a ${}^1S_0$ heavy-quarkonium state to two photons and to light hadrons and the decays of a ${}^3S_1$ heavy-quarkonium state to a lepton pair and to light hadrons. Specifically, we have computed the coefficients of the operators whose matrix elements are of order $v^4$ and whose quantum numbers are those of the quarkonium state.
In our computation, we are able to obtain only the combinations $H^1({}^{2S+1}L_J)+H^2({}^{2S+1}L_J)$, rather than the individual coefficients $H^1({}^{2S+1}L_J)$ and $H^2({}^{2S+1}L_J)$, because the corresponding operators, ${\cal Q}^1({}^{2S+1}L_J)$ and ${\cal
Q}^2({}^{2S+1}L_J)$, have identical matrix elements for on-shell heavy quarks in the center-of-momentum frame. In order to obtain the values of the individual coefficients, it would be necessary to consider matrix elements of the operators ${\cal Q}^1({}^{2S+1}L_J)$ and ${\cal
Q}^2({}^{2S+1}L_J)$ in which the heavy $Q\bar Q$ interact with additional quanta before reaching the annihilation vertex. Alternatively, one could consider matrix elements of the operators ${\cal
Q}^3({}^{2S+1}L_J)$, which, as we have shown in Appendix \[app:relation\], are related to the operators ${\cal
Q}^1({}^{2S+1}L_J)$ and ${\cal Q}^2({}^{2S+1}L_J)$ through the equations of motion.
In Tables I–IV, we show the numerical values of the short-distance coefficients that appear through order $v^4$ for the decays that we consider in this paper. For each coefficient, we take into account only the contribution that is leading in $\alpha_s$. In each case, we normalize the short-distance coefficients to the coefficient of the operator whose matrix element is of leading order in $v$. In the third column of each table, we use the velocity-scaling rules [@bbl] to estimate the size of the matrix element of the operator that is associated with each coefficient, relative to the size of the matrix element of leading order in $v$. In the case of the color-octet operators, we adopt the approach of Ref. [@Petrelli:1998ge], multiplying the velocity-scaling estimate by a factor $1/(2N_c)$ to account for the relative spin and color normalizations of the color-singlet and color-octet operators as we have defined them in this paper.
Coefficient Value Matrix Element
----------------------------------------------------------- --------- ----------------
$F_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)$ $1$ $1$
$G_{\gamma\gamma}({}^1S_0)$ $-1.33$ $v^2$
$H_{\gamma\gamma}^1({}^1S_0)+H_{\gamma\gamma}^2({}^1S_0)$ $1.51$ $v^4$
: Short-distance coefficients and estimates of sizes of corresponding matrix elements for the decay of a ${}^1S_0$ quarkonium state to two photons.
Coefficient Value Matrix Element
--------------------------------- ----------- ----------------
$F_1({}^1S_0)$ $1$ $1$
$G_1({}^1S_0)$ $-1.33$ $v^2$
$F_8({}^3S_1)$ $0.75n_f$ $v^3/(2N_c)$
$F_8({}^1S_0)$ $1.88$ $v^4/(2N_c)$
$F_8({}^1P_1)$ $1.13$ $v^4/(2N_c)$
$H_1^1({}^1S_0)+H_1^2({}^1S_0)$ $1.51$ $v^4$
: Short-distance coefficients and estimates of sizes of corresponding matrix elements for the decay of a ${}^1S_0$ quarkonium state to light hadrons.
Coefficient Value Matrix Element
--------------------------------------- --------- ----------------
$F_{ee}({}^3S_1)$ $1$ $1$
$G_{ee}({}^3S_1)$ $-1.33$ $v^2$
$H_{ee}^1({}^3S_1)+H_{ee}^2({}^3S_1)$ $1.61$ $v^4$
: Short-distance coefficients and estimates of sizes of corresponding matrix elements for the decay of a ${}^3S_1$ quarkonium state to a lepton pair.
Coefficient Value Matrix Element
--------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- ----------------
$F_1({}^3S_1)$ $1$ $1$
$G_1({}^3S_1)$ $-5.32$ $v^2$
$F_8({}^1S_0)$ $11.64\pi/\alpha_s$ $v^3/(2N_c)$
$F_8({}^3S_1)$ $4.66n_f\pi/\alpha_s$ $v^4/(2N_c)$
$F_8({}^3P_0)$ $34.93\pi/\alpha_s$ $v^4/(2N_c)$
$F_8({}^3P_1)$ $2.26-6.90n_f+5.17n_f\log(2m/\mu_\Lambda)$ $v^4/(2N_c)$
$F_8({}^3P_2)$ $9.31\pi/\alpha_s$ $v^4/(2N_c)$
$H_1^1({}^3S_1)+H_1^2({}^3S_1)$ $7.62+1.79\log(2m/\mu_\Lambda)$ $v^4$
: Short-distance coefficients and estimates of sizes of corresponding matrix elements for the decay of a ${}^3S_1$ quarkonium state to light hadrons.
In the case of charmonium, $v^2\approx 0.3$ and $\alpha_s(m_c)\approx
0.35$. Then, we see from Tables I–III that the convergence of the $v$ expansion is reasonable for the ${}^1S_0$ decays into two photons and into light hadrons and for the ${}^3S_1$ decay into light hadrons.
On the other hand, the coefficients in Table IV cast some doubt on the convergence of the $v$ expansion in the case of the ${}^3S_1$ decay into light hadrons. In the case of charmonium, all of the contributions of higher order in $v$ are larger in magnitude than the order-$v^0$ contribution, with the exception of the $H_1^1({}^3S_1)+H_1^2({}^3S_1)$ contribution. The color-octet coefficients, other than $F_8({}^3P_1)$, are enhanced by $\pi/\alpha_s$, relative to $F_1({}^3S_1)$, since the corresponding color-octet Fock states can decay into two gluons or into light-quark pairs, rather than into three gluons. In addition to this enhancement, some of the coefficients of $\pi/\alpha_s$ are quite large. However, one can, through a redefinition of the color-singlet operators, incorporate the factors $1/(2N_c)$, which we have associated with the matrix elements, into the short-distance coefficients [@Petrelli:1998ge]. Then, aside from the $\pi/\alpha_s$ enhancement, only $F_8({}^3P_0)$ is especially large. In the case of the color-singlet coefficients, $G_1({}^3S_1)$ is quite large in magnitude relative to $F_1({}^3S_1)$. However, the quantity $H_1^1({}^3S_1)+H_1^2({}^3S_1)$ is not significantly larger in magnitude than $G_1({}^3S_1)$, giving some hope that the $v$ expansion may ultimately be well behaved.
The estimates of the sizes of the relativistic corrections strongly suggest that, in order to carry out a meaningful phenomenological analysis of $S$-wave quarkonium decays into light hadrons, one would need to take into account contributions beyond leading order in $v$. (For a further discussion of this point, see Ref. [@Maltoni:2000km].) All of the contributions listed in Table IV, except for that of $F_8({}^3P_1)$, would be needed to achieve a precision of better than 50%.
Unfortunately, most of the required matrix elements are unknown. However, the number of unknown quantities can be reduced drastically by making use of the heavy-quark spin symmetry and the vacuum-saturation approximation [@bbl], although the accuracy of these approximations is not always sufficient to allow a calculation of the decay rates through relative order $v^4$. Owing to the heavy-quark spin symmetry, the matrix elements of ${\cal O}_1({}^1S_0)$, ${\cal P}_1({}^1S_0)$, ${\cal O}_8({}^3S_1)$, ${\cal O}_8({}^1S_0)$, ${\cal Q}_1^1({}^1S_0)$, and ${\cal Q}_1^2({}^1S_0)$ in a ${}^1S_0$ state are equal to the matrix elements of ${\cal O}_1({}^3S_1)$, ${\cal P}_1({}^3S_1)$, ${\cal
O}_8({}^1S_0)$, ${\cal O}_8({}^3S_1)$, ${\cal Q}_1^1({}^3S_1)$, and ${\cal Q}_1^2({}^3S_1)$ in a ${}^3S_1$ state, respectively, up to corrections of relative order $v^2$. Also owing to the heavy-quark spin symmetry, the matrix elements of the operators ${\cal O}_8({}^3P_J)$ in a ${}^3S_1$ state are equal $(2J+1)/9$ times the matrix element of ${\cal
O}_8({}^1P_1)$ in a ${}^1S_0$ state, up to corrections of relative order $v^2$. According to the vacuum-saturation approximation, the matrix elements of the operators for the electromagnetic decays are equal to the matrix elements of the color-singlet hadronic-decay operators with the same quantum numbers, up to corrections of relative order $v^4$. It also follows from the vacuum-saturation approximation that the matrix element of ${\cal Q}_1^1({}^{2S+1}S_J)$ is equal to the square of the matrix element of ${\cal P}_1({}^{2S+1}S_J)$ divided by the matrix element of ${\cal O}_1({}^{2S+1}S_J)$, up to corrections of order $v^4$. However, the matrix element of ${\cal Q}_1^2({}^{2S+1}S_J)$ is not known to be related to the others.
The matrix elements of ${\cal O}_1({}^{3}S_1)$ in the $J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$ states are known from phenomenology. The matrix elements of ${\cal O}_1({}^{3}S_1)$ and ${\cal P}_1({}^{3}S_1)$ in the $J/\psi$ and $\Upsilon$ states have also been computed on the lattice [@bks], although the lattice determinations of the matrix elements of ${\cal
P}_1({}^{3}S_1)$ are rather imprecise, owing to large uncertainties in the perturbation series that relates the lattice and continuum matrix elements. According to the Gremm-Kapustin relation [@Gremm:1997dq], for dimensionally regulated matrix elements, the matrix element of ${\cal P}_1({}^{3}S_1)$ is equal to the matrix element of ${\cal
O}_1({}^{3}S_1)$ times $(M-2m_{\rm pole})/m$, up to corrections of relative order $v^2$. Here, $M$ is the quarkonium mass, and $m_{\rm
pole}$ is the heavy-quark pole mass. The remaining unknown operator matrix elements could, in principle, be determined in lattice numerical simulations.
We wish to thank Eric Braaten and Jungil Lee for critical readings of the manuscript. We also thank Jungil Lee for confirming our result for $H^1_{ee}({}^3S_1)+H^2_{ee}({}^3S_1)$. We wish to thank G. Peter Lepage for a number of illuminating discussions. This work was supported by the U. S. Department of Energy, Division of High Energy Physics, under Contract No. W-31-109-ENG-38.
Relation between the operators of order $v^4$ {#app:relation}
=============================================
In this appendix, we demonstrate that the operators ${\cal
Q}_1^i({}^1S_0)$ \[Eq. (\[1s0-ops\])\] are related to each other by the equations of motion, as are the operators ${\cal Q}_1^i({}^3S_1)$ \[Eq. (\[3s1-ops\])\], the vacuum-saturated versions of the ${\cal
Q}_1^i({}^1S_0)$, and the vacuum-saturated versions of the ${\cal
Q}_1^i({}^3S_1)$. We assume that these operators are integrated over all space-time, so that we can employ integration by parts in re-writing them.
We begin by considering the operator $${\cal Q}_1^1({}^1S_0)=\psi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2\chi
\chi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2\psi.$$ Now, $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^\dagger(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2\psi&=&
\chi^\dagger(-i{\roarrow{\bm{\partial}}}-g{\bf A}+i{\loarrow{\bm{\partial}}}-g{\bf A})(-i{\roarrow{\bm{\partial}}}-g{\bf A}+i{\loarrow{\bm{\partial}}}-g{\bf
A})\psi\nonumber\\
&=&\chi^\dagger[2(-i{\roarrow{\bm{\partial}}}-g{\bf A})^2+2(i{\loarrow{\bm{\partial}}}-g{\bf A})^2-(i{\roarrow{\bm{\partial}}}+i{\loarrow{\bm{\partial}}})^2]\psi
\nonumber\\
&=&\chi^\dagger[4m(i\roarrow\partial_0-gA_0)+4m(i\loarrow\partial_0-gA_0)
-(i{\roarrow{\bm{\partial}}}+i{\loarrow{\bm{\partial}}})^2]\psi\nonumber\\
&=&[4im\roarrow\partial_0-(-i{\roarrow{\bm{\partial}}})^2]\chi^\dagger\psi,\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the equations of motion at leading order in $v$ in the third line. Furthermore, under integration by parts, which is equivalent to energy-momentum conservation in momentum space, $$[\psi^\dagger(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2\chi]
[4im\roarrow\partial_0-(-i{\roarrow{\bm{\partial}}})^2]\chi^\dagger\psi
\rightarrow \{[-4mi\roarrow\partial_0-(i{\roarrow{\bm{\partial}}})^2][\psi^\dagger
(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2\chi]\}\chi^\dagger\psi.
\label{int-parts}$$
Let us focus on the first $Q\bar Q$ bilinear on the right of Eq. (\[int-parts\]). It is $$\begin{aligned}
[-4mi\roarrow\partial_0-(i{\roarrow{\bm{\partial}}})^2][\psi^\dagger(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2\chi]
&=&\psi^\dagger\{-4m(i\loarrow\partial_0+gA_0)(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2
-4m(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2(i\roarrow\partial_0-gA_0)\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\hbox{}+4m[gA_0,(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2]
-4m[i\roarrow\partial_0,(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2]\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\hbox{}-(i{\loarrow{\bm{\partial}}}+i{\roarrow{\bm{\partial}}})^2(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2\}\chi.\end{aligned}$$ Then, using the equations of motion, we have $$\begin{aligned}
[-4mi\roarrow\partial_0-(i{\roarrow{\bm{\partial}}})^2][\psi^\dagger(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2\chi]
&=&\psi^\dagger\{2(i{\loarrow{\bm{\partial}}}-g{\bf A})^2(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2
+2(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2(-i{\roarrow{\bm{\partial}}}-g{\bf A})^2\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\hbox{}+4m[gA_0,(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2]
-4m[i\roarrow\partial_0,(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2]\nonumber\\
&&\qquad\hbox{}-(i{\loarrow{\bm{\partial}}}+i{\roarrow{\bm{\partial}}})^2(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2\}\chi\nonumber\\
&=&\psi^\dagger\{(-i\tensor{\bf D})^4
+4m[(-iD_0),(-i\tensor{\bf D})^2]\}\chi\nonumber\\
&=&\psi^\dagger[(-i\tensor{\bf D})^4-8m(\tensor{\bf D}\cdot g{\bf E}
+g{\bf E}\cdot\tensor{\bf D})]\chi,\end{aligned}$$ where, in arriving at the second equality, we have dropped some terms proportional to $[\tensor{D}_i,\roarrow{D}_j]=-2ig\epsilon_{ijk}B_k$ that are order $v^2$ relative to the terms that we have retained.
Thus, taking into account both $Q\bar Q$ bilinears, we have $${\cal Q}_1^1({}^1S_0)\rightarrow \psi^\dagger[(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf
D})^4-(m/2)(\tensor{\bf D}\cdot g{\bf E}
+g{\bf E}\cdot\tensor{\bf D})]\chi\chi^\dagger\psi.$$ Carrying out this procedure symmetrically on the left and right $Q\bar
Q$ bilinears of ${\cal Q}_1^1({}^1S_0)$, we conclude that, under the equations of motion and integration by parts, $${\cal Q}_1^1({}^1S_0)\rightarrow {\cal Q}_1^2({}^1S_0)
+(m/2){\cal Q}_1^3({}^1S_0).$$ A similar analysis in the spin-triplet case yields $${\cal Q}_1^1({}^3S_1)\rightarrow {\cal Q}_1^2({}^3S_1)
+(m/2){\cal Q}_1^3({}^3S_1).$$ The vacuum-saturated versions of these relations, which are relevant to the electromagnetic decays are $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle{}^1S_0| \psi^\dagger(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2
\chi |0\rangle
\langle 0| \chi^\dagger (-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2 \psi
|{}^1S_0\rangle\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}\qquad\rightarrow
{\rm \, Re \,}\left[ \langle{}^1S_0|\psi^\dagger
\chi|0\rangle
\langle 0| \chi^\dagger (-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^4 \psi
|{}^1S_0\rangle \right]\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}\qquad\phantom{\rightarrow \,}
+(m/2){\rm \, Re \,}\left[ \langle{}^1S_0| \psi^\dagger
\chi
|0\rangle \langle 0| \chi^\dagger
(\tensor{\bf D}\cdot g{\bf E}+g{\bf E}\cdot\tensor{\bf D})
\psi |{}^1S_0\rangle \right]\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&&\langle{}^3S_1| \psi^\dagger \bm{\sigma}
(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2 \chi
|0\rangle \cdot
\langle 0| \chi^\dagger \bm{\sigma} (-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^2
\psi |{}^3S_1\rangle \nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}\qquad\rightarrow
{\rm \, Re \,}\left[\langle{}^3S_1|\psi^\dagger\bm{\sigma}
\chi
|0\rangle \cdot
\langle 0| \chi^\dagger \bm{\sigma}(-{\mbox{$\frac{i}{2}$}}\tensor{\bf D})^4
\psi |{}^3S_1\rangle \right]\nonumber\\
&&\hbox{}\qquad\phantom{\rightarrow \,}
+(m/2) {\rm \, Re \,}\left[ \langle{}^3S_1| \psi^\dagger
\bm{\sigma}\chi|0\rangle \cdot \langle 0| \chi^\dagger \bm{\sigma}
(\tensor{\bf D}\cdot g{\bf E}+g{\bf E}\cdot \tensor{\bf D})
\psi |{}^3S_1\rangle \right].\end{aligned}$$
Squared matrix elements for ${}^3S_1$ decay into light hadrons {#app:sq-me}
==============================================================
In this appendix we give the expressions for the terms of order ${\bf
p}^{(0)}$, ${\bf p}^{(2)}$, and ${\bf p}^{(4)}$ in the square of the matrix element for a ${}^3S_1$ $Q\bar Q$ state to decay into light hadrons (three gluons). These terms are denoted by ${\tilde{\cal
M}}^{(0)}$, ${\tilde{\cal M}}^{(2)}$, and ${\tilde{\cal M}}^{(4)}$, respectively. The quantity $m$ is the heavy-quark mass. The invariants $s$, $t$, and $u$ are defined in Eq. (\[stu\]).
$$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{\cal M}}^{(0)}&=&
{(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2-4)\over N_c^2}{2048\pi^3\alpha_s^3\over 3}
(16m^4s^2 - 8m^2s^3 + s^4 + 16m^4st - 12m^2s^2t + 2s^3t {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}+
16m^4t^2 - 12m^2st^2 + 3s^2t^2 - 8m^2t^3 + 2st^3 + t^4){\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}\times{1\over (4m^2 - s)^2(4m^2 - t)^2(s + t)^2};\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{\cal M}}^{(2)}&=&
-{\bf p}^2{(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2-4)\over N_c^2}{8192\pi^3\alpha_s^3\over 9}
(768m^{10}s^2 - 256m^8s^3 - 48m^6s^4 + 24m^4s^5 {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}- 2m^2s^6 +
512m^{10}st - 128m^8s^2t - 256m^6s^3t + 120m^4s^4t -
18m^2s^5t + s^6t {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}+ 768m^{10}t^2 - 128m^8st^2 - 256m^6s^2t^2 +
176m^4s^3t^2 - 37m^2s^4t^2 + 3s^5t^2 - 256m^8t^3 {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}-
256m^6st^3 + 176m^4s^2t^3 - 44m^2s^3t^3 + 5s^4t^3 -
48m^6t^4 + 120m^4st^4 - 37m^2s^2t^4 {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}+ 5s^3t^4 + 24m^4t^5 -
18m^2st^5 + 3s^2t^5 - 2m^2t^6 + st^6){\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}\times{1\over m^2(4m^2 - s)^3(4m^2 - t)^3(s + t)^3};\end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned}
{\tilde{\cal M}}^{(4)}&=&
{\bf p}^4{(N_c^2-1)(N_c^2-4)\over N_c^2}{1024\pi^3\alpha_s^3\over 135}
(1966080m^{16}s^2 + 1409024m^{14}s^3 - 1445888m^{12}s^4 {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}+
223232m^{10}s^5 + 47104m^8s^6 - 14080m^6s^7 + 880m^4s^8 +
1310720m^{16}st {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}+ 2588672m^{14}s^2t - 4034560m^{12}s^3t +
1176576m^{10}s^4t + 97536m^8s^5t {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}- 86848m^6s^6t + 12352m^4s^7t -
552m^2s^8t + 1966080m^{16}t^2 + 2588672m^{14}st^2 {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}-
3047424m^{12}s^2t^2 + 984064m^{10}s^3t^2 + 371456m^8s^4t^2 -
275264m^6s^5t^2 {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}+ 56032m^4s^6t^2 - 4688m^2s^7t^2 + 155s^8t^2 +
1409024m^{14}t^3 - 4034560m^{12}st^3 {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}+ 984064m^{10}s^2t^3 +
525312m^8s^3t^3 - 408960m^6s^4t^3 + 108304m^4s^5t^3 {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}-
12452m^2s^6t^3 + 620s^7t^3 - 1445888m^{12}t^4 + 1176576m^{10}st^4 +
371456m^8s^2t^4 {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}- 408960m^6s^3t^4 + 128640m^4s^4t^4 -
18468m^2s^5t^4 + 1240s^6t^4 + 223232m^{10}t^5 {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}+ 97536m^8st^5 -
275264m^6s^2t^5 + 108304m^4s^3t^5 - 18468m^2s^4t^5 +
1550s^5t^5 {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}+ 47104m^8t^6 - 86848m^6st^6 + 56032m^4s^2t^6 -
12452m^2s^3t^6 + 1240s^4t^6 {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}- 14080m^6t^7 + 12352m^4st^7 -
4688m^2s^2t^7 + 620s^3t^7 + 880m^4t^8 - 552m^2st^8 {\nonumber\\ &&\hbox{}}+
155s^2t^8)
{1\over m^4(4m^2 - s)^4(4m^2 - t)^4(s + t)^4}.\end{aligned}$$
G. T. Bodwin, E. Braaten, and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. D [**51**]{}, 1125 (1995); [**55**]{}, 5853(E) (1997) \[hep-ph/9407339\]. R. Barbieri, E. d’Emilio, G. Curci, and E. Remiddi, Nucl. Phys. [**B154**]{}, 535 (1979). K. Hagiwara, C. B. Kim, and T. Yoshino, Nucl. Phys. [**B177**]{}, 461 (1981). P. B. Mackenzie and G. P. Lepage, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**47**]{}, 1244 (1981). W. Y. Keung and I. J. Muzinich, Phys. Rev. D [**27**]{}, 1518 (1983). I. Harris and L. M. Brown, Phys. Rev. [**105**]{}, 1656 (1957).
R. Barbieri, R. Gatto, R. Kögerler, and Z. Kunszt, Phys. Lett. [**57B**]{}, 455 (1975). W. Celmaster, Phys. Rev. D [**19**]{}, 1517 (1979). M. Beneke, A. Signer, and V. A. Smirnov, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 2535 (1998) \[hep-ph/9712302\]. A. Petrelli, M. Cacciari, M. Greco, F. Maltoni, and M. L. Mangano, Nucl. Phys. [**B514**]{}, 245 (1998) \[hep-ph/9707223\]. C. N. Yang, Phys. Rev. [**77**]{}, 242 (1950).
J. H. Kühn, J. Kaplan, and E. G. Safiani, Nucl. Phys. [**B157**]{}, 125 (1979).
B. Guberina, J. H. Kühn, R. D. Peccei, and R. Rückl, Nucl. Phys. [**B174**]{}, 317 (1980). R. Mertig, M. Bohm, and A. Denner, Comput. Phys. Commun. [**64**]{}, 345 (1991). F. Maltoni, hep-ph/0007003. G. T. Bodwin, S. Kim, and D. K. Sinclair, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) [**34**]{}, 434 (1994); [**42**]{}, 306 (1995) \[hep-lat/9412011\]; G. T. Bodwin, D. K. Sinclair, and S. Kim, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 2376 (1996) \[hep-lat/9605023\]; Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**12**]{}, 4019 (1997) \[hep-ph/9609371\]; Phys. Rev. D [**65**]{}, 054504 (2002) \[hep-lat/0107011\]. M. Gremm and A. Kapustin, Phys. Lett. B [**407**]{}, 323 (1997) \[hep-ph/9701353\].
[^1]: Short-distance coefficients can be extracted from the results in Ref. [@Keung:jb] by first making the substitution $1/M^2_{\rm meson}\rightarrow
(1/4m^2)(1-\varepsilon/m)$, where $-\varepsilon$ is the binding energy, and then making the identification $\varepsilon/m\rightarrow \langle {}^1S_0| {\cal P}_1({}^1S_0)
|{}^1S_0\rangle/[m^2\langle {}^1S_0| {\cal O}_1({}^1S_0)
|{}^1S_0\rangle]
\approx \langle {}^3S_1| {\cal P}_1({}^3S_1)
|{}^3S_1\rangle/[m^2\langle {}^3S_1| {\cal O}_1({}^3S_1)
|{}^3S_1\rangle]$.
[^2]: In Eq. (\[singlet-projector\]), the standard Clebsch-Gordan coefficients are appropriate if the spinors in Eq. (\[spinors\]) are related to each other through a unitary transformation, which preserves the SU(2) algebra, such as the charge-conjugation transformation $\eta=-i\sigma_2\xi$. One such choice of spinors is $\xi=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\0\end{array}\right)\hbox{ or }
\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\1\end{array}\right)$ and $\eta=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\1\end{array}\right)\hbox{ or }
\left(\begin{array}{c}-1\\0\end{array}\right)$, for $\lambda_1=\pm 1/2$ and $\lambda_2=\pm 1/2$, respectively. On the other hand, a popular convention is $\xi=\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\0\end{array}\right)\hbox{ or
} \left(\begin{array}{c}0\\1\end{array}\right)$ and $\eta=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\1\end{array}\right)\hbox{ or }
\left(\begin{array}{c}1\\0\end{array}\right)$, for $\lambda_1=\pm 1/2$ and $\lambda_2=\pm 1/2$, respectively. With this convention, the Clebsch-Gordan coefficients in Eq. (\[singlet-projector\]) must be multiplied by an additional factor $(-1)^{(-1/2+\lambda_2)}$.
[^3]: In computing the short-distance coefficients for the electromagnetic decay processes, we suppress trival color factors, which ultimately cancel when one matches decay rates in full QCD and NRQCD.
[^4]: In Ref. [@Petrelli:1998ge], an alternative method for dealing with the singular part was employed. The region of integration was partitioned into three regions that are related by interchange of the three gluon momenta. Only the region containing the singularity at $x=0$ was retained, and the contribution from this region was multiplied by three to obtain the complete result. The method that we present in this paper has the advantage that the limits of integration are simpler, and hence, the integrals are evaluated more easily. Also, certain terms that cancel between the singular and non-singular contributions in the method of Ref. [@Petrelli:1998ge] never appear in the present method.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We propose to combine the advantages of graphene, such as easy tunability and long coherence times, with Josephson physics to manufacture qubits. If these qubits are built around a $0$ and $\pi$ junction they can be controlled by an external flux. Alternatively, a d-wave Josephson junction can itself be tuned via a gate voltage to create superpositions between macroscopically degenerate states. We show that ferromagnets are not required for realizing $\pi$ junction in graphene, thus considerably simplifying its physical implementation. We demonstrate how one qubit gates, such as arbitrary phase rotations and the exchange gate, can be implemented.'
author:
- 'Colin Benjamin and Jiannis K. Pachos'
title: '$\pi$ junction qubit in monolayer graphene'
---
Introduction
============
Graphene, a monatomic layer of graphite exhibits promising electronic properties that can be employed for quantum technologies[@castro]. Characteristically, its low energy excitations are described by the Dirac equation, it has a zero band gap, electronic speeds can reach a hundredth of the speed of light and it supports long range phase coherence. However it has not yet been utilised to create qubits suitable for quantum computation, apart from a proposal which meshes it with bilayer structures[@loss]. Here we show that a key ingredient of Josephson qubits, a $\pi-$junction[@golubov] can be easily generated in graphene by application of a gate voltage alone. We establish a parametric regime for observing this effect and show how to manufacture qubits. These Josephson qubits can be used to perform single quantum gates, such as the phase and exchange gates. This opens up the possibility of employing graphene and utilizing its advantages for quantum information processing[@nori].
![(Color online) An overview of the set-up. (a) Two semicircular d-wave superconducting graphene strips (Gs) with normal graphene layers on top and bottom enclosing a magnetic flux, $\Phi$. By the application of suitable gate voltages to the normal graphene strip the junctions are tuned to either $\phi=0$ or $\pi$ phase shift. (b) A graphene d-wave Josephson junction. For relatively small intervening length between the superconducting graphene one can have situations wherein degenerate ground states are formed and are pliable to external control via a gate voltage. \[scheme\]](o-pi.eps){width="8cm" height="4.0cm"}
The physical system we employ consists of a graphene substrate with superconducting correlations induced in sections via the proximity effect [@gueron] or by turning graphene superconducting[@carlson] via doping. It comprises of two d-wave Josephson junctions (distinguished by their ground states, one at a phase difference $\phi=0$ and the other at $\phi=\pi$), arranged as in Fig. 1(a). The total energy of the system is controlled by the flux, $\Phi$, that passes through the ring. The reversal of super-current in a Josephson device, where the free energy has global minima at phase difference $\phi=\pi$, is referred to as $\pi$ shift. The corresponding Josephson junction is termed a $\pi$ junction. This is in contrast to a $0$ junction wherein the free energy has a global minimum at phase difference $\phi=0$ [@benjamin]. To be able to encode a qubit we have to construct a $\pi$ junction and integrate it with the rest of our device (the $0$ junction). A $\pi$ junction is needed to create a doubly degenerate ground state, where a qubit is encoded. Here we demonstrate that a $\pi$ junction can be identified in our system without the need of any ferromagnetic elements[@linder], thus greatly simplifying its experimental implementation. In Fig. 1(b) we depict a simple d-wave graphene Josephson junction, which has two degenerate ground states, that can encode a qubit. In particular, we prove that a complete set of single qubit gates can be efficiently implemented demonstrating that our proposal is promising for quantum computation.
![(Color online) The Furusaki-Tsukada approach and the processes involved. Top: $\theta^{e}_{S}$ is the angle of incidence of electron-like quasiparticle, while $-\theta^{e}_{S}$ is the angle of its reflection. Hole-like quasiparticle are Andreev reflected at angle $\theta^{h}_{S}$. In the normal region electron and holes are transmitted and incident with angles $\theta$ and $\theta^A$. Bottom: In type 1 process an electron-like quasiparticle is incident from the left, while in type 2 process a hole-like quasiparticle in incident from the left. $a_1$, $b_2$, $d_1$ and $d_2$ are amplitudes of hole-like quasiparticle, while $a_2$, $b_1$, $c_1$ and $c_2$ are scattering amplitudes for electron-like quasi-particles. \[type\]](gsggs.eps){width="8cm" height="6cm"}
In Fig. \[type\], we show our graphene $\pi$ junction set-up. It is known that with s-wave superconductors a $\pi$ junction is not possible[@been-tit]. However, a Josephson junction with d-wave superconductors can exhibit a $\pi$ shift[@sigrist]. Thus, we consider d-wave correlations in the superconducting segments (see Fig. 1).
Theory
======
The kinematics of quasi-particles in graphene is described by the Dirac-Bogoliubov-de Gennes equation[@graphene-rmp], which assumes the form $$\left( \begin{array}{cc}
\hat{H} - E_F \hat{I} & \Delta \hat{I}\\
\Delta^{\dagger} \hat{I} & E_F \hat{I} - \hat{T} \hat{H} \hat{T}^{- 1}
\end{array} \right) \Psi = E \Psi,$$ where $E$ is the excitation energy, $\Delta$ is the superconducting gap of a d-wave superconductor, $\Psi$ is the wavefunction and $\hat{\cdot}$ represents $4 \times 4$ matrices. In the above equation $$\hat{H} = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
H_+ & 0\\
0 & H_-
\end{array} \right), \hspace{0.25em} \hspace{0.2em} H_{\pm}
= - i \hbar v_F (\sigma_x \partial_x \pm \sigma_y \partial_y) + U.$$ Here $\hbar, v_F$ (set equal to unity hence forth) are the Planck’s constant and the energy independent Fermi velocity for graphene, while the $\sigma$’s denote Pauli matrices that operate on the sub-lattices $A$ and $B$. The electrostatic potential $U$ can be adjusted independently via a gate voltage or doping. We assume $U = 0$, in the normal region, while $U = - U_0$ in the superconducting graphene. In our work we consider $U_{0}=100\Delta$. Further we choose d-wave superconducting correlations which imply a type II (or high $T_c$) superconductor. This is most likely to be observed in graphene[@carlson]. The subscripts of Hamiltonian $\pm$ refer to the Fermi points $K_+$ and $K_-$ in the Brillouin zone. $T = - \tau_y
\otimes \sigma_y C,$ ($C$ being complex conjugation) is the time reversal operator, with $\tau$ being Pauli matrices that operate on the $\pm$ space and $ \hat{I}$ is the identity matrix.
To calculate the Josephson supercurrent, Free energy and show the formation of a $\pi$ junction we proceed by first calculating the scattering wave functions of our system. Let us consider (Type 1 scenario in Fig. 2)an incident electron-like quasiparticle[@graphene-sudbo] from the left superconductor with pairing gap $\Delta(\theta^{+}) e^{i \phi^{+}_1}$ ($x < 0$) and energy $E$. For a right moving electron-like quasiparticle with an incident angle $\theta$ the eigenvector and corresponding momentum read $\Psi^e_{S_{1} +}=[u_{e}, u_{e}e^{i \theta^+},v_{e}e^{-i\phi^{+}_{1}},
v_{e}e^{i( \theta^+-\phi^{+}_{1})}]^T e^{iq^e \cos \theta^+ x}, q^e
=(E_F + U_0 +\sqrt{E^2 - |\Delta(\theta^{+})|^{2}})$. A left moving electron-like quasiparticle is described by the substitution $\theta
\rightarrow \pi - \theta$. If Andreev-reflection takes place, a left moving hole-like quasiparticle is generated with energy $E$, angle of reflection $\theta_{}^-$ and its corresponding wavefunction is given by $\Psi^h_{S_{1} -}=[v_{h},-v_{h}e^{- i \theta^-},
u_{h}e^{-i\phi^{-}_{1}} , -u_{h}e^{- i(\theta^{-}+\phi^{-}_{1})}]^T
e^{- iq^h \cos \theta^- x},q^h = (E_F + U_0 - \sqrt{E^2 -
|\Delta(\theta^{-})|^{2}})$. The quasi-particle wave-vectors can also be expressed as $q^{e/h}=E_{F}+U_{0}\pm 1/\xi$, where $\xi$ is the coherence length. For the Dirac-Bogoliubov de Gennes equations to hold the Fermi wavelength in the superconductor $1/(E_{F}+U_{0})$ should be much smaller than the coherence length. The superscript e (h) denotes an electron-like (hole-like) excitation. Since translational invariance in the $y$-direction holds the corresponding component of momentum is conserved. This condition allows for the determination of the Andreev reflection angle $\theta^-$ through $q^h
\sin (\theta_{}^-) = q^e \sin (\theta^+)$. The coherence factors are given by $u_{e/h} = \sqrt{(1 + \sqrt{1 - |\Delta(\theta^{\pm})|^{2} /
E^2}) / 2}$, $v_{e/h} = \sqrt{(1 - \sqrt{1 -
|\Delta(\theta^{\pm})|^{2} / E^2}) / 2}$. We have also defined $\theta^+ = \theta^e_S,$ $\theta^- = \pi - \theta^h_S$, where the angles are defined in Fig. \[type\]. In our study we have d-wave superconductors, thus $\Delta(\theta^\pm)=\Delta\cos(2\theta^{\pm}-2\gamma)$ and the macroscopic phase is $e^{i\phi^{\pm}_{1/2}}=e^{i\phi_{1/2}}\frac{\Delta(\theta^\pm)}{|\Delta(\theta^\pm)|}$. We choose the superconductor oriented along the $110$ direction, implying $\gamma=\pi/4$.
In the normal region the eigenvector and corresponding momentum of a right moving electron with an incident angle $\theta$ read: $ \psi^e_+
= [1, e^{i \theta}, 0, 0]^T e^{ip^e \cos \theta x}, \hspace{0.25em}
\hspace{0.25em} \hspace{0.25em} p^e = (E + E_F).$ A left moving electron is described by the substitution $\theta \rightarrow \pi -
\theta$. If Andreev-reflection takes place, a left moving hole is generated with energy $E$, angle of reflection $\theta_A$ and its corresponding wave function is given by- $\psi^h_- = [0, 0, 1, e^{- i
\theta_A}]^T e^{- ip^h \cos \theta_A x}, \hspace{0.25em}
\hspace{0.25em} \hspace{0.25em} p^h = (E - E_F).$ The transmission angles $\theta$ and $\theta_A$ for the electron-like and hole-like quasi-particles are given by $q^{e} \sin \theta^{e}_S = p^e \sin
\theta$ and $q^{e} \sin \theta^{e}_S = p^h \sin \theta_A$.
The full wave function in the type 1 scenario can be written as below for the various regions $$\begin{aligned}
\psi_{S_{1}}&=&\Psi^{e}_{S_{1}+}+b_{1}\Psi^{e}_{S_{1}-}+a_{1}\Psi^{h}_{S_{1}-},
\,\, x<0,\nonumber\\
\psi_{N}&=&p\psi^{e}_{+}+q\psi^{e}_{-}+m\psi^{h}_{+}+n\psi^{h}_{-},\,\,0<x<d,\nonumber\\
\psi_{S_{2}}&=&c_{1}\Psi^{e}_{S_{2}+}+d_{1}\Psi^{h}_{S_{2}+}, \,\, x>d.\end{aligned}$$ Matching the wave functions at the interfaces one can solve for the amplitudes of reflection $a_{1}$, $b_{1}$, $c_{1}$ and $d_{1}$. Similarly, one can write the wave functions in case of type 2 scenario (hole incident from the right) and calculate the amplitudes $a_{2}$, $b_{2}$, $c_{2},$ and $d_{2}$. The detailed balance for the amplitudes are verified as follows $$\begin{aligned}
C a_1(\phi,E)&=&C' a_2(-\phi,E),\nonumber\\
b_{i}(\phi,E)&=&b_{i}(-\phi,E) (i=1,2),\end{aligned}$$ with $C=\frac{\Omega_{n,-}}{|\Delta(\theta^{-})|}\cos\theta^h_S$, and $C'=\frac{\Omega_{n,+}}{|\Delta(\theta^{+})|}\cos\theta^e_S$. Following the procedure established in Ref.[@fur-tsu] and employing analytic continuation $E \rightarrow iw_n$ the dc Josephson current is calculated as $$\begin{aligned}
I(\phi)&=&\,\,\,\,\sum_{w_n}\frac{e}{2\beta\hbar}\int^{\pi/2}_{-\pi/2}
\,\,\,\,[\frac{a_{1}(\theta^{+},\phi,iw_n)}{C'}\,\nonumber\\
& & \hspace{0.25em} \hspace{0.25em} -\,\frac{a_{2}(\theta^{+},\phi,iw_n)}{C}]\cos(\theta^e_S)d\theta^e_S,\nonumber\\
&=&\,\,\,\,\sum_{w_n}\frac{e}{2\beta\hbar}\,\,\,\,\int^{\pi/2}_{-\pi/2}
\frac {|\Delta(\theta^+)|}{\Omega_{n,+}}[{a_{1}(\theta^{+},\phi,iw_n)}\,\nonumber\\
& &\hspace{0.25em} \hspace{0.25em} -\,{a_{1}(\theta^{+},-\phi,iw_n)}]d\theta^e_S.
\label{eq:Ij}\end{aligned}$$ where $\beta=1/k_{B}T,
\Omega_{n,\pm}=\sqrt{w^{2}_{n}+|\Delta(\theta^{\pm})|^2}$ and $w_{n}=\pi k_{B} T (2n+1)$, $n=0, \pm 1, \pm 2, ...$.
The above equation has a simple physical interpretation [@fur-tsu]. Andreev reflection is equivalent to the breaking up or creation of a Cooper pair. The scattering amplitude $a_1$ describes the process in which an electron-like quasiparticle coming from the left superconducting graphene strip ($x<0$) is reflected as a hole-like quasiparticle. The amplitude $a_2$ corresponds to the reverse process in which a hole-like quasiparticle is reflected as an electron-like quasiparticle. This implies that $a_1$ and $a_2$ correspond to the passage of a Cooper pair to the left and right respectively, hence, the dc Josephson current is proportional to $a_{1}-a_{2}$. Further, the dc Josephson current is an odd function of the phase difference, $\phi$, as seen by the detailed balance condition, $a_{2}(\phi,iw_{n})/C=a_{1}(-\phi,iw_{n})/C'$. To calculate the Josephson current one thus takes the difference between the amplitudes $a_1$ and $a_2$ and then sums over the energies. In this approach we account for all the energies both bound states and the continuum. Eq.\[eq:Ij\] can be simplified as- $$\begin{aligned}
I(\phi)&=&\,\,\,\,\sum_{w_n}\frac{e}{2\beta\hbar}\,\,\,\,\int^{\pi/2}_{-\pi/2}
\frac {|\Delta(\theta^+)|}{\Omega_{n,+}}[2iJ]d\theta^e_S, \mbox{ and }\nonumber\\
J&=&\frac{A\sin(\phi)+B\sin(2\phi)}{A'+2B'\cos(\phi)+2C'\cos(2\phi)}
\label{eq:Ij-simp}\end{aligned}$$ In Eq.\[eq:Ij-simp\], $A, B, A', B',$ and $ C'$ are functions of $\theta^{+}, iw_n, E_f \mbox {and } d$. The Free energy of the Josephson junction can then be calculated as $$F(\phi)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{\phi} I(\phi') d\phi'.
\label{eq:Free}$$
$\pi$-junction
==============
Now we illustrate the results for the Josephson current as function of the length of the normal graphene interlude as well as the phase difference across the two superconducting graphene strips. The calculations are performed by treating Eqs. (\[eq:Ij\]) and (\[eq:Free\]) numerically and the derived results hold for the $T\rightarrow 0$ temperature limit. Fig. \[J-d\](a) shows the Josephson current as function of the Fermi energy, in the normal graphene strip, for different lengths of the normal graphene layer. Note that Fermi energy is easily controllable in graphene. The plot shows that for extremely small length of normal graphene layer the Josephson current is negative for a wide range of Fermi energy, implying a $\pi$ shift, while for larger intervening normal layers the Josephson current changes sign at larger values of the Fermi energy. One important fact to note is that for increased $d$ the current decreases, which is in agreement with past Josephson works. Another observation from Fig. \[J-d\](a) is that at large Fermi energy the Josephson supercurrent becomes independent of $E_f$. The explanation for this is- when $E_F >> E, \Delta$, the angles for electron and hole-like quasi-particles are $\theta_{S}^{e}=\theta_{S}^{h}=\theta=-\theta_A$. With this condition, the factor $J$ from Eq.\[eq:Ij-simp\], the Josephson supercurrent shorn of all prefactors, reduces to-
$$J=\frac{-ie^{-i\gamma}\sin(2\theta)}{E(h^{2}+e^{-2i\gamma}g^{2})}
\label{eq:J}$$
In the above equation, $\gamma=(p_{e}+p_{h}) d \cos(\theta)=E d \cos(\theta), h=(E-x)/2E,
g=(E+x)/2E, x=\sqrt{E^{2}-\sin(\theta)^{2}}$. Thus in this limit the Josephson supercurrent becomes completely independent of $E_F$. Further, for $ d \rightarrow 0$ one can clearly see from Fig. \[J-d\](a) that the Josephson supercurrent becomes completely negative, this is also evident from Eq.\[eq:J\], wherein J reduces to $-2w_{n}\sin(2\theta)/(2w_{n}^{2}+\sin(2\theta)^{2}), E = iw_{n}$. Fig. \[J-d\](b) shows the current-phase relation for two different values of the Fermi energy. It again confirms the earlier indication of $\pi$ shift. Finally, to establish beyond doubt that as function of Fermi energy one generates a $\pi$ junction we plot the free energy in Fig. \[J-d\](c). The plot shows that as one changes the Fermi energy via a gate voltage one changes the ground state of the junction from $0$ to $\pi$.
![(Color online) (a) Current (in units of $e\Delta/\hbar$ and normalized by $1/\beta$ throughout in all succeeding figures) versus Fermi energy, $E_F$, at phase difference $\phi=\pi/2$, for different values of width $d$(in units of $ \hbar v_{F}/\Delta$), $U_{0}=100 \& k_{B}T=0.0001$ in this and all succeeding figures. (b) Current versus phase, where the length of normal graphene strip is $d=0.1$, the dashed (RED) line is multiplied by a factor of ten for better visibility.(c) Free energy (normalized by $1/\beta$) of $G_{S}-G_{N}-G_{S}$ junction versus phase difference for different Fermi energies with 0 junction ($E_F=2000$ red dashed line) and $\pi$ junction ($E_F=100$ black solid line) and length of normal graphene strip $d=0.1$. (d) The approximate forms for the $0$ and $\pi$ junction energies are in good agreement with the real free energies and are used in analyzing the graphene Josephson qubit.\[J-d\]](join-new.eps){width="9cm" height="8cm"}
0.2 in
As shown in Fig. \[J-d\](c-d), the Free energy, $F$, has a minimum at $\phi=\pi$ (for the $\pi$ junction case) and the variation of F with $\phi$ is strongly dependent on the length $d$ and the Fermi energy. In this parameter regime the Free energy can be approximated as $F\sim -E_{\pi} [\cos(\phi_{\pi}+\pi)+1]$, with $E_{\pi}$ being the Josephson coupling constant. The $0$ and $\pi$ junctions, depicted in Fig. 1, have Josephson energies $U_{0}=E_{0}|\sin(\phi_0 /2)|$ and $U_{\pi}=-E_{\pi}[\cos(\phi_\pi+\pi)+1]$ plotted in Fig. \[J-d\](d). The superconducting phase difference is $\phi_0$ for the $0$ junction and $\phi_\pi$ for the $\pi$ junction. The total flux in the ring $\Phi$ satisfies $\phi_{\pi}-\phi_{0}=2\pi\Phi/\Phi_0 -2\pi l$, where $\Phi_0$ is the flux quantum and $l$ is an integer.
Qubits and Gates
================
In Ref. the authors demonstrate a qubit with a $\pi$ (SFS) junction[@buzdin] and a 0 (SNS) junction coupled into a ring. In our work we predict that our graphene based system, which does not need any ferromagnetic element in contrast to Ref., could implement a qubit. Further we show how to implement single qubit gates using our set up. The full Hamiltonian of the graphene ring system (Fig. 1) is given by $H=K+U_{tot}$ with $U_{tot}=U_{0}+U_{\pi}+U_L$, where $U_L=(\Phi-\Phi_{ext})^2/2L_S$ is the magnetic energy stored in the ring and $K$ is the flux independent kinetic energy. We next minimize the Hamiltonian with respect to flux and obtain $\Phi(\phi_0)=\beta\Phi_{0}\sin(\phi_\pi)+\Phi_{ext}$, with $\beta=2\pi E_{\pi} L_S/\Phi_0^2$. Substituting this equation in the expression for $U_{tot}$, we have: $$\frac{U_{tot}}{E_{\pi}}=\alpha[|\sin(\frac{\phi_\pi}{2}
-\frac{\pi\Phi}{\Phi_{0}})|]+[\cos(\phi_{\pi})-1]+\pi\beta\sin^{2}(\phi_{\pi}).
\label{minH}$$ with $\alpha=E_0 / E_\pi$. For typical values mentioned in Fig. \[qubit\], we plot Eq. (\[minH\]).
![(Color online) (a) Normalized energy, $U_{tot}/E_\pi$, as function of $\phi_\pi$ for no external magnetic flux. (b) In presence of an external magnetic field with $\alpha=2.5.$ (c) The degenerate ground states of a d-wave Josephson junction. \[qubit\]](gra-dwav-qu-al1.9-3.eps){width="9cm" height="4.5cm"}
We observe that the energy has double minima located approximately at $\phi_\pi\sim 3\pi/5$ ($|0\rangle$ state) and $7\pi/5$ ($|1\rangle$ state) which form the basis of the qubit. For single layer graphene with junction area [@heersche] $0.8 \times
10^{-12} \mu$ m$^{2}$ and depth $1$ nm, the electrostatic energy $E_{c}$ is $2.5 \times 10^{-24}J$, while $E_0$ the junction energy for the zero junction is around $1000 E_c$. Thus for $\alpha=3.0$, we have $\Delta E$, the energy gap, between the ground and first excited state $\Delta E/h = 1000 $GHz. The basic phase gate with $\phi=\Delta E \Delta t/\hbar=\pi$ could be implemented with gate time $\Delta t$ given by $1$ pico-second. In Fig. 4(c), the Free energy of a basic d-wave graphene Josephson junction is plotted for different values of Fermi energy and width $d=0.001$. One can easily see that degenerate states are formed at $\phi\sim\pi/2$ and $3\pi/2$. The coupling between these states can be easily varied by the gate voltage effectively realizing single qubit gates as aforementioned.
We will now show how to implement an exchange gate $\sigma_x$ acting on the qubit states $|0\rangle$ and $|1\rangle$ for the structure as depicted in Fig. 1(a). This is realized by a tunnelling transition between the potential minima that encode these qubit states. Assuming the coupling potential is deep enough we approximate the qubit states by Gaussians centered at the minima of $U_{tot}$. By varying $\alpha$ (or $E_c$) one can induce tunnelling between the two minima in a controlled way. The exchange coupling of our system is calculated as $$J=\int d\phi_{\pi}
\Psi^{*}(\phi_{\pi}-\phi_{|0\rangle})
\Big(-4E_{c}\frac{d^2}{d\phi_{\pi}^2}+U_{tot}\Big)
\Psi^{}(\phi_{\pi}-\phi_{|1\rangle}).$$ In Fig. \[exchange\] we plot the exchange coupling versus the normalized Josephson energy for various values of the electrostatic energy, $E_c$ in units of $E_\pi$. We see that for large $\alpha$ no tunnelling occurs, while for $\alpha\sim 3.0 $ we obtain $J \sim 10^{-6} E_{\pi}$ (for $E_{c}=0.01$) and, thus, the $\sigma_x$ gate can be implemented in $\Delta t \sim 10^{-6}$ seconds.
1.0cm
![(Color online) Exchange coupling J (in units of $E_\pi$) as function of $\alpha$ for different values of $E_{c}$. Here $E_c \ll E_\pi$ .\[exchange\]](exchange.eps){width="9cm" height="5cm"}
To conclude we have shown a novel implementation of a Josephson qubit using graphene as a substrate. Our work is the first to predict a qubit using only monolayer graphene. It was shown that a ferromagnetic graphene layer is unnecessary to create a $\pi$-shift, a completely novel result. $\pi$ junctions have special role in a host of applications ranging from their use in superconducting digital circuits to superconducting qubits. We have shown how a $\pi$ junction is formed in graphene where it can be very easily tuned by the application of a gate voltage alone. Secondly, we propose Josephson qubits and we present the phase and exchange gates for quantum computation purposes. Future proposals to make CNOT or other two-qubit gate designs could also be envisaged using the above architecture.
Acknowledgements
================
The authors acknowledge useful correspondence with Carlo Beenakker on a previous version of this manuscript. This work was supported by the EU grants EMALI and SCALA, EPSRC and the Royal Society.
[99]{} A. H. Castro Neto, F. Guinea, N. M. R. Peres, K. S. Novoselov and A. K. Geim, arxiv:0709.1163; A. K. Geim and K. S. Novoselov, Nature Materials [**6**]{}, 183 (2007). B. Trauzettel, D. V. Bulaev, D. Loss and G. Burkard, Nature Physics [**3**]{}, 192 (2007). A. A. Golubov, M. Yu. Kupriyanov and E. Il’ichev, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**76**]{}, 411 (2004). J. Q. You and F. Nori, Physics Today, p. 42, November (2005). A. Shailos, Euro Phys. Lett. [**79**]{}, 57008 (2007); P. Burset, A. Levy Yeyati and A. Martin-Rodero, Phys. Rev. B [**77**]{}, 205425 (2008). C. Benjamin, T. Jonckheere, A. Zazunov and T. Martin, Eur. Phys. J. B [**57**]{}, 279 (2007). J. Linder, T. Yokoyama, D. Huertas-Hernando and A. Sudbø, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 187004 (2008). M. Titov, Ph. Jacquod and C. W. J. Beenakker, [Phys. Rev. B]{} [**65**]{}, 012504 (2002). M. Sigrist and T. M. Rice, [ Rev. Mod. Phys.]{} [**67**]{}, 503 (1995); Y. Tanaka and S. Kashiwaya, [ Phys. Rev. B]{} [**53**]{}, R11957 (1996). C. W. J. Beenakker, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**97**]{}, 067007 (2006). Y. Jiang, et. al. , 235420 (2008); S. Pathak, V. B. Shenoy and G. Baskaran, arxiv:0809.0244; A. M. Black-Schaffer and S. Doniach, Phys. Rev. B [**75**]{}, 134512 (2007). J. Linder and A. Sudbo, [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**99**]{}, 147001 (2007); S. Bhattacharjee and K. Sengupta, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**97**]{}, 217001 (2006). A. Furusaki and M. Tsukada, [ Solid State Comm.]{} [**78**]{}, 299 (1991); A. Furusaki, H. Takayanagi and M. Tsukada, [ Phys. Rev. B]{} [**45**]{}, 10563 (1992). T. Yamashita, S. Tanikawa, S. Takahashi and S. Maekawa, [ Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**95**]{}, 097001 (2005). A. I. Buzdin, [ Rev. Mod. Phys.]{} [**77**]{}, 935 (2005); T. Noh, M. D. Kim and H.-S. Sim, [arxiv:0804.0349]{}. H. B. Heersche, [*et. al.,*]{} [ Nature]{} [**446**]{}, 56 (2007).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'F.K. Kasumov'
- 'A. O. Allahverdiev'
- 'A.I. Asvarov'
date: 'Received; accepted'
title: '**Are radio pulsars progenitors of AXPs and SGRs?** '
---
Introduction
============
Recently Lin & Zhang (2004) offered the possible way of magnetars’ origin according to which their progenitors may be standard radio pulsars (PSRs) exposed to frequent and (once in several years) significant glitches (rapid spinups, sudden change of the period). Unlike the standard models, according to which there must be a significant difference in the pulsars’ initial parameters, they assumed that PSR are born with a very close initial parameter (period, magnetic field, est.) but exposed to different magnitude glitches. During the pulsar lifetime these glitches gradually lead to the growth of $P$ and $\dot P$ and therefore (according to the standard formula $B\sim (P\dot P)^ {1/2}$) the value of the pulsars’ magnetic field. Such scenario provides both the growth of the pulsar’s $P$ and $\dot P$ the small values of initial strength of the magnetic field $B \approx 3 \times 10^{10} \div 3 \times 10^{11}$ $G$ to the values, characteristic for soft gamma ray repeaters (SGRs) and anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs) $B \approx 3 \times 13^{ 13} \div 3 \times 10^{14}$ $G$, of a new class of NSs called magnetars. According to the estimation of Lin & Zhang (2004) typical time, to reach the parameters of AXP and SGR is $ \ge 2 \times 10^{ 5}$ $yr$ and the typical time for pulsars to enter the region of AXP and SGR on the diagram $B - P$ is equal $ {\sim 1}{\rm .5} \times {\rm 10^{ 4} } yr$. Therefore for the above mentioned scenario to be realized the following has to be:
1\. Presence of permanent star quaking engine in the group of PSRs with very close physical parameters ($P, B, M,$ ets.) leading to sudden changes of $P$, the value and the frequency of which are considerably large $\Delta \dot P/\dot P \ge 0.0028$ and $\tau \sim 0.3$ per year.
2\. Genetic relationship of magnetars and their possible progenitors with SNRs, especially with those ages less than $10^5\,\, \rm {yr}$, should not be found, because otherwise typical time of pulsars, with reasonable initial parameters and with the above mentioned values and frequencies of glitches, to enter the region of such objects is $t \ge 2 \times 10^5 \,\, yr$.
3\. The radio pulsars which are the possible progenitors of magnetars (AXPs and SGRs) in the way before the final reaching their region must show tendency of magnetic field increase with increase of period, i.e. must be pulsars with long periods ($ P > 0.5\,\,sec$) and those with already raised magnetic fields ($B > 3 \times 13^{ 10} \,\,G$, to be disscused below).
4\. On the $P - \dot P$ diagram the group of such pulsars must go to the uper corner of the diagram, i.e. they must show a positive correlation with each other as well as with age of pulsars.
According to date observational information we will analyze the answers to the question and demonstrate that there is no serious base for realization of such scenario for evolution of radio pulsars to AXPs and SGRs.
Magnitude and frequency of glitches for possible progenitors of AXPs and SGRs.
==============================================================================
Modeling their scenario Lin and Zhang (2004) have used PSR J1757-24 with parameters of $ Ð = 0.25 ñåê$, $\dot P = 1.28 \times 10^{ - 13}$ and $B_0 = 2.6 \times 10^{11} \,\,G$. The possible genetic relations of this pulsar with SNR G 5.4-1.2 with age $\sim 10^{5}\,\, yr$ and the small speed of motion of this pulsar, the authors considered as an evidence of increase of the magnetic field in the course of its evolution. Indeed this pulsar showed a gigantic glitch $\Delta \dot P/\dot P \ge 0.0037$ (Lane et al, 1996). However, it must be noted that in the number of works the discrepancy between the ages of pulsar and SNR is withdrawn either by the more precise estimation of SNR’s age, taking into account the peculiarity of the environment in which it expanses (Gvamaradze, 2004), or by using the accretion fall-back disk model in estimation of pulsars$'$ ages (Marsden et al., 2002). It is well known that many pulsars have glitches, especially the youngest ones such as Vela and Crab with the magnitudes differing considerably. To date for several hundred pulsars the glitches are detected, moreover, in 18 cases the glitches were rather large $
\Delta P/P \le 10^{ - 6} $, $\Delta \dot P/\dot P \le 10^{ - 5} - 10^{ - 2}$ (Line et al., 2000)
In our sample of pulsars - potential progenitors of magnetars, which includes $\sim 100$ objects, only in 4 cases the glitches have been detected. These are PSR J 1740-301 (with magnitude of the glitch of $\Delta \dot P/\dot P = 0.0002 - 0.003$), PSR J 0528+2200 (0.00046), PSR J 1341-6220 (0.00015-0.003), PSR J 1801-2304 (0.00001). As we can see the magnitudes of periods$'$ changes are comparable with the glitch of basic object PSR J 1757-24 in the model of Lin & Zhang (2004), at that, the frequency of glitches in these pulsars changes in the range of 1 to 0.2 per year. Therefore the parameters of glitches of the possible progenitors of AXPs and SGRs that we included in our list rather close to the parameters in the Lin & Zhang (2004) model.
Association of possible progenitors of AXPs and SGRs with the SNRs.
===================================================================
To date well known associations of AXPs 1E 2259+586, AX J1846-0258, 1E1841-045 and SNRs G109.1-1.0, G29.6-0.1, G274+0.0, respectively, are doubtless (Gaensler 2004) Besides, according to Tagieva and Ankay (2003) the number of such possible associations can reach 6, but ages of SNRs in these pairs, with exception of the one (AXP 1Å 2259+58 with $t \approx 2 \times 10^5 \,\,yr$,and $\sim10^{3}-10^{4}\,\,yr$, respectively). Also, in the list of radio pulsars of possible progenitors of AXPs and SGRs (which must have $P \ge 0.5\,\,\sec$ è $B \ge 5 \times 10^{12} \,\,G$, there are 7 objects of genetically connected objects with hyper new remaining. These are pairs PSR J1734-33 and G354.8-0.8, PSR J1119-61 and G229.2-0.5, PSR J1726-35 and G352.2-0.1, PSR J1632-48 and G336.1-0.2, PSR J1524-57 and G322.5-0.1, PSR J1124-59 and G229.0-1.8, PSR J1413-61 and G312.4-0.4 (Manchester et al., 2002). Age all of these SNRs do not exceed $10^{5}\,\,yr$. However, there is no significant difference between the estimation of pulsar’s ages and ages of SNRs, which would be in favor of the offered model (as in case of basic pair PSR J1757-24 è G5.4 -1.2).
Selection of radio pulsar - the potential progenitors of AXPs and SGRs, $B-P$ diagram.
======================================================================================
As it was already pointed out, the small number of AXPs and SGRs (about 10 objects, in the Fig.1 and 2 they designed as “+”) shows that even with the same birth rate of radio pulsars and AXPs and SGRs (which is limiting value for them) the number of the later is approximately as less as 1.5. Indeed, the relationship of radio pulsar’s number $N_{PSR} = R_{PSR} \cdot t_{PSR}$ to the number of magnetars $N_M = R_M \cdot t_m $ at $R_{PSR} = R_M $ is proportional to $\sim t_{PSR} /t_M $, where $R$ and $t$ are birth rate and ages of these objects, respectively. Since $t_{PSR} /t_M \approx 10^7 /10^5 = 100$ and observed ratio is$\sim 1400$ the number of AXPs and SGRs is by a factor of 1.5 less than the number of radio pulsars. Taking into account the fraction of radio pulsars, “damaged” by glitches, the number of which among the known pulsar is $\sim1/10$, we can conclude that the number of potential progenitors of AXPs and SGRs is less then all the observed pulsars by a factor of $\sim 15$, i.e. their amount should be about 100 objects.
On other hand, the canonical parameters of NSs and observed values of $P$ and $\dot P$ give for the values of the magnetic field $B = 3.2 \times 10^{19} (P\dot P)^{1/2}$ $\sim 10^{11}-10^{13}\, G$. If we also take into account the possible decay of the magnetic field with time $\tau _{\rm m} \sim 3\times 10^{6} \,yr$ (Guseinov et al. 2004) than their initial values can be thrice as much as. For observed pulsars subjected to glitches to be potential progenitors of magnetars they must have the values of the magnetic field of $Â \sim (3 - 8)\times10^{12}\,\,G$. Finally, according to Ling & Zhang (2004) at chosen parameters of glitch it is necessary $\sim 2\times 10^{5}\,yr$ for pulsar the full enter the AXP and SGR state and at the same the time to be in the region of AXPs and SGRs is $ \sim 1.5\times 10^{4}\, yr$, i.e. objects subjected to initial increasing of magnetic field spent about $1/10$ time in before-magnetars stage. At initial value of $P_{0}\sim 10\, msec$ for this time the period of the pulsar can grow up to $0.5\, sec$
Taking into account the combined effect of all these factors we will restrict ourselves only to pulsars with $B \ge 5 \times 10^{12}\,\,G $ and $P \ge 0.5\,\,\sec$, the number of which according to the catalogues of ATNF and Guseinov et al. (2002) equals $\sim90$. The change of the magnetic field $B$ with period $P$ for current selection of objects is shown in the Fig.1. For the mean value of pulsars velocity of $\sim 300\,\, km/s$ (Allahverdiev et al. 1997) the pulsars with age $< 10^{5}\,\,yr$ could move away from the birth place in the $ | Z |$ direction no far $100\,\, pc$, but during $\sim ~10^{6} yr$ their moving off could be $ | Z | \ge 300\,\, pc$. That is why our sample consist of pulsars with $| Z | < 100 \,\,pc$ (relatively young pulsars) in Fig1 they designed by “x”, but the old pulsars with $| Z | > 300\,\, pc $ in the figure are shown as open circles “o”. We have excluded from our analysis pulsars with $100\, pc < | Z | < 300\, pc$ to make the difference in ages more prominent. To exclude possible selection effects and also to avoid inaccuracy in defining the distances to pulsars due to the possible deflection of pulsars$'$ birth places from the geometrical plane of the Galaxy (details in Allahverdiev et al.2005) relatively near pulsars ($ d<5\,\, kpc $) with $|Z|<100 \,pc$ and those with $|Z|>300\,\,pc$ are shown in Fig. 1 as “squares” and “black circles”, respectively.
![$P-B$ diagram for pulsars with $B>5\times 10^{12}\, G$ and $ P>0.5\, sec$. Straight lines are constant characteristic age $\tau$ lines. See text for details.[]{data-label="fig1"}](Fig1.eps){width="12"}
![ $P-\dot P$ diagram for pulsars with $B>5\times 10^{12}\, G$ and $ P>0.5\, sec$. Solid lines correspond to lines of constant characteristic aget, dotted lines - constant magnetic field $B$. Solid-curved lines mark evolutionary track described by combine model. Other symbols see in the text. []{data-label="fig2"}](Fig2.eps){width="12"}
$P-\dot P$ diagram and possible evolutionary paths of progenitors of AXPs and SGRs
==================================================================================
On the basis of our sample of radio pulsars - the possible progenitors of AXPs and SGRs (see Sec. IV) the $P-\dot P$ diagram is constructed (Fig.2). Symbols in this figure are the same as in Fig.1. Assume that these pulsars or part of them are actually exposed to pre-amplification of the magnetic field $B$ due-to glitches and achieved today values of $B$ and $P$ for $10^{4}\,\, yr$. In next $10^{5} -10^{6}\,\,yr$ years they must reach the position of AXPs and SGRs in the $P-\dot P$ diagram. In that case the distribution on the diagram should show the growth trend of their actual ages. Actual ages of pulsars are their kinematical ages, which should show the linear increase with distance from the Galactic plain $(| Z |)$ taking into consideration the birth place of pulsars in different parts of the Galaxy and their deviation from the geometrical plane of the Galaxy (Hansen & Pinney 1997; Berdnikov 1987).
As it can be seen in Fig.2 the growth trend of density of old objects with increasing $P$ doesn’t observed both taking into consideration the selection effects and without them. Most likely we see an opposite picture: young pulsars $|Z| < 100\,\,pc$ nearly uniformly distributed up to value $P \ge 5\,\,sec$. Moreover, as is obvious from Fig.1 and 2 the growth of magnetic filed B is not observed with increasing of period P and actual pulsars age. Among pulsars with $|Z|>300\,\, pc$ there are only 3 objects with magnetic field more than $10^{13}\,\, G$ when the there is not limiting to distances and one such object when $d<5\, kpc$, whereas at $|Z|<100\,\, pc$ the number of pulsars with $B >10^{13}\,\,G$, and $P\geq 2\,\, sec$ equal 11 for the case without limiting on the distance and 4 taking into consideration $d < 5\,\,kpc$.
Of course, it is necessary to take into consideration the fact that most of the high-magnetic field radio pulsars are discovered in the low-altitude multibeam Parks Galactic plane survey, and this circumstance can definitely result in selection effect for high-latitude pulsars. Nevertheless, the data and information that we have to date does not confirm necessary evolutionary picture of the offered scenario about the origin of AXPs and SGRs.
Continuous curves in Fig. 2 describe pulsars$'$ evolutionary tracks in a combined “dipole + propeller” model offered by (Menou 2001) and Alpar et al. 2001 at various values of the initial magnetic field $B$ and the accretion speed. As can be seen, this model as in the case for all pulsars (Allahverdiev et al. 2005) describes neither the evolution process along propeller - dominant branch nor these highly -magnetized objects.
Conclusions
===========
Thus, our study shows that any from above-mentioned general conditions (probably, excluding the first one) for realization of offered scenario is not confirmed by observational data. Observations give evidence in favour of standard, generally accepted, representation about the evolution of pulsars on $P-\dot P$ diagram (Ruderman 2001).
Special non-standard picture of the evolution process of AXPs and SGRs continues to keep its own status (Tomson & Duncan 1995; Malov et al. 2003). Thereupon it is important to note that the alternative propeller or fall-back disk model (Chatterjee et al. 2000; Alpar 2001) as well explain the origin of discrepancy between the characteristic and actual (kinematical) ages of pulsars (Marsden et al. 2001; Shu & Hu, 2003). However and this offered model for an explanation of evolutionary tracks of all pulsars by combined action magnetic-dipole and propeller mechanisms are met with serious difficulties (Tagieva et al.; Allahverdiev et al. 2005). Probably in the light of discovery of X-rays from one of highly magnetized pulsar PSR J1718-37 $Â \sim 7.4\times 10^{13} \, G$ (Kaspi & McLaughlin 2004), and as well as from the analysis of parameters of NSs and their possible time variation on the evolutionary tracks on the $P-\dot P$ diagram for pulsars, it is necessary to take into consideration others latent parameters of NSs (for example, masses (see, Kaspi & McLaughlin 2004; Guseinov et al. 2005) in standard evolutionary scenarios.
Allakhverdiev A.O., Alpar M.A., Gok F., Guseinov O.H) // Turkish J. Phys., 1997, v. 21, p. 688.\
Allakhverdiev A.O., Kasumov F.K., Tagieva S.O.//Proc. Int.Conf., Fizika-2005, Baku, 2005, p.23\
Alpar M.A., Ankay A., Yazgan E) // Astrophys. J., 2001, v.557, p.61.\
ATNF pulsar catalogue, 2003, (http://www.atnf.csiro.au/research/pulsar/psrcat/)\
Berdnikov L.H. // Pis’ma v Astron Zhurnal,1987, v.13, p.110 (Astron Letters)\
Chatterjee P., Hernquist L., Narayan R.) // Astrophys.J., 2000, v. 534, p. 373.\
Hansen B.M.S., Pinney E.S.) // MNRAS, 1997, v. 291, p.569\
Gaensler B.M.) // Adv.Space Res, 2004, v.33, p.645.\
Gvaramadze, V.V.) // Astron.Astrophys., 2004, v. 415, p.1073.\
Guseinov O.H., Yerli S.K.,Ozkan S., Sezer A., Tagieva S.O.) // astro-ph/0206050, 2002.\
Guseinov O.H., Ozkan S., Sezer A.) // astro-ph/0309241, Astropys.Space Sci., 2005, in press.\
Kaspi V.M, Gavriil F.P., Woods P.M., Jensen J.B., Roberts M.S., Chakrabarty D.) // Astrophys.J., 2003, v.588, p.L93.\
Kaspi V.M., McLaughlin M.A.) // Astrophys.J., 2004, v. 618, p.L41.\
Lin J.R., Zhang S. N.) // astro-ph/0405131, 2004.\
Lyne A.G., Shemar S.L., Smith F.G.) // MNRAS, 1996, v.315,p.534.\
Lyne A.G., Shemar S.L., Smith F.G.) // MNRAS, 2000, v.315, p.534.\
Malov I.F., Machabeli G.Z., Malofeev B.M.// Astron.Zh, 2003,v.47,p.232\
Manchester R.N., Bell J.F., Camillo F. et.al.) // Neutron Stars in Supernova Remnants, ASP Conference Series 271, (eds. Slane P.O. & Gaensler B.M.), Springer-Verlag, 2002, p.31.\
Marsden D., Lingenfelter R.E., Rotshild R.) // Astrophys.J., 2001, v. 547, p. L45\
Marsden D., Lingenfelter R.E., Rothscild R.E.) // Mem. Soc. Astron. Ital.,2002, 73, 566.\
Menou K., Perna R., Hernquist L.) // astro-ph/0103326, 2001.\
Osso, S.D., Izrael G.L., Stella L., Possenti A., Perozzi E.)\
Astrophys.J., 2003, v.599, p, 485.\
Ruderman M. // astro-ph/0109353, 2001.\
Tagieva S.O., Ankay A) // Astron.Astrophys.Trans., 2003, v.22, p.59.\
Tagieva S.O., Yazgan E., Ankay A.) // Int.J.Mod. Phys.D, 2003, v. 12, p. 825.\
Thompson C., Duncan R.C.) // MNRAS, 1995, v. 275, p. 255.\
Shi Y., Xu R.X.) // Astrophys.J., 2003, v. 596, p. L75.\
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The aim of this paper is to show that a [probability measure ]{}$\mu$ on ${\mathbf{R}^d}$ concentrates independently of the dimension like a gaussian measure if and only if it verifies Talagrand’s ${\mathbf{T}}_2$ transportation-cost inequality. This theorem permits us to give a new and very short proof of a result of Otto and Villani. Generalizations to other types of concentration are also considered. In particular, one shows that the Poincaré inequality is equivalent to a certain form of dimension free exponential concentration. The proofs of these results rely on simple Large Deviations techniques.'
address: 'Université Paris Est - Laboratoire d’Analyse et de Mathématiques Appliquées (UMR CNRS 8050), 5 bd Descartes, 77454 Marne la Vallée Cedex 2, France'
author:
- Nathael Gozlan
title: A characterization of dimension free concentration in terms of transportation inequalities
---
<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Université Paris Est,</span>\
Laboratoire Analyse et Mathématiques Appliquées,\
UMR CNRS 8050,\
5 bd Descartes, 77454 Marne la Vallée Cedex 2, France
Introduction
============
One says that a [probability measure ]{}$\mu$ on ${\mathbf{R}^d}$ has the gaussian dimension free concentration property if there are three non-negative constants $a$, $b$ and $r_o$ [such that ]{}for every integer $n$, the product measure $ \mu^n $ verifies the following inequality: $$\label{gaussian}
\forall r\geq r_o,\qquad \mu^n{\left(}A+r B_2 {\right)}\geq 1-be^{-a(r-r_o)^2},$$ for all measurable subset $A$ of ${{\left(}\mathbf{R}^d{\right)}^n }$ with $ \mu^n(A)\geq 1/2$ denoting by $B_2$ the Euclidean unit ball of ${{\left(}\mathbf{R}^d{\right)}^n }$.
The first example is of course the standard Gaussian measure on ${\mathbf{R}}$ for which the [inequality ]{} holds true with the sharp constants $r_o=0$, $ a= 1/2$ and $ b=1/2 $. Gaussian concentration is not the only possible behavior ; for example, if $p\in [1,2]$ the [probability measure ]{}$d\mu_p(x)=Z_p^{-1}e^{-|x|^p}\,dx$ verifies a concentration [inequality ]{}similar to with $r^2$ replaced by $\min(r^p,r^2)$. In recent years many authors developed various functional approaches to the concentration of measure phenomenon. For example, the Logarithmic-Sobolev [inequality ]{}is well known to imply ; this is the renowned Herbst argument (which is explained, for example, in Chapter 5 of Ledoux’s book [@Led]). Among the many functional [inequalities ]{}yielding concentration estimates let us mention: Poincaré [inequalities ]{}[@Gromov1983; @BL97], Logarithmic-Sobolev inequalities([@Ledoux1996; @BG99]), modified Logarithmic-Sobolev [inequalities ]{}[@BL97; @Bobkov2005; @GGM05; @BR06], Transportation-cost [inequalities ]{}[@Mar86; @Tal96a; @BG99; @Sam00; @BL00; @OV00; @BGL01; @Gozlan2007], inf-convolution [inequalities ]{}[@Mau91; @Latala2008], Latała-Oleskiewicz inequalities [@Beckner1989; @Latala2000a; @Barthe2003; @Barthe2006]…Several surveys and monographs are now available on this topic (see for instance [@Led], [@Log-Sob] or [@Vill; @Vill2]). This large variety of tools and points of view raises the following natural question: is one of these functional [inequalities ]{}equivalent to say ?
In this paper, one shows with a certain generality that Talagrand’s transportation-cost [inequalities ]{}are equivalent to dimension free concentration of measure. Let us give a flavor of our results in the Gaussian case. Let us first define the optimal quadratic transportation-cost on $ {\mathrm{P}(\mathbf{R}^d)}$ (the set of [probability measures ]{}on ${\mathbf{R}^d}$). For all $\nu$ and $\mu$ in ${\mathrm{P}(\mathbf{R}^d)}$, one defines $$\label{Tr2}
\mathcal{T}_2(\nu,\mu)=\inf_\pi \int |x-y|^2_2\,d\pi(x,y),$$ where $\pi$ describes the set $P(\nu,\mu)$ of [probability measures ]{}on ${\mathbf{R}^d}\times{\mathbf{R}^d}$ having $\nu$ and $\mu$ for marginal distributions. One says that $\mu$ verifies the [inequality ]{}${\mathbf{T}}_2(C)$, if $$\label{T2}
\forall \nu \in {\mathrm{P}(\mathbf{R}^d)},\qquad \mathcal{T}_2(\nu,\mu)\leq C{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)},$$ where $ {\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}$ is the relative entropy of $\nu$ with respect to $\mu$ defined by ${\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}=\int \log{\left(}\frac{d\nu}{d\mu}{\right)}\,d\nu$ if $\nu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$ and $+\infty$ otherwise. The idea of controlling an optimal transportation-cost by the relative entropy to obtain concentration first appeared in Marton’s works [@Mar86; @Mar96]. The [inequality ]{}${\mathbf{T}}_2$ was then introduced by Talagrand in [@Tal96a], where it was proved to be fulfilled by Gaussian probability measures. In particular, if $\mu=\gamma$ is the standard Gaussian measure on ${\mathbf{R}}$, then the [inequality ]{} holds true with the sharp constant $C=2$.
The following theorem is the main result of this work.
\[equiv2\] Let $\mu$ be a [probability measure ]{}on ${\mathbf{R}^d}$ and $a>0$ ; the following propositions are equivalent:
1. There are $r_o,b\geq 0$ [such that ]{}for all $n$ the probability $\mu^n$ verifies ,
2. The [probability measure ]{}$\mu$ verifies ${\mathbf{T}}_2(1/a)$.
The example of the standard Gaussian measure $\gamma$ proves that the relation between the constants is sharp. The fact that (2) implies (1) is well known and follows from a nice and general argument of Marton. The proof of the converse is surprisingly easy and relies on a very simple Large Deviations argument. We think that this new result confirms the relevance of the Large Deviations point of view for functional [inequalities ]{}initiated by Léonard and the author in [@Gozlan2007a] and pursued in [@Guillin2007] by Guillin, Léonard, Wu and Yiao. Moreover Theorem \[equiv2\] turns out to be a quite powerful tool. For example, the famous result by Otto and Villani stating that the Logarithmic-Sobolev [inequality ]{}(${\mathbf{LSI}}$) implies the ${\mathbf{T}}_2$ [inequality ]{}(see [@OV00 Theorem 1]) is a direct consequence of Theorem \[equiv2\] (see Theorem \[OV1\] and its proof).
The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we give a brief account on the Large Deviations phenomenon entering the game. In section 3, we focus on the case of Gaussian concentration and prove Theorem \[equiv2\] in an abstract Polish setting. In section 4, one considers non-Gaussian concentrations and relates them to other transportation-cost inequalities. In section 5, we prove the equivalence between Poincaré [inequality ]{}and dimension free concentration of the exponential type. The section 6, is devoted to remarks concerning known criteria for transportation-cost inequalities.
**Acknowledgements:** I want to warmly acknowledge Patrick Cattiaux, Arnaud Guillin, Michel Ledoux and Paul-Marie Samson for their valuable comments about this work.
Some preliminaries on Large Deviations
======================================
In this section, we consider the following abstract framework: $({\mathcal{X}},\rho)$ is a Polish space and the set of [probability measures ]{}on ${\mathcal{X}}$ is denoted by ${\mathrm{P}({\mathcal{X}})}$. Let $\mu$ be a [probability measure ]{}on ${\mathcal{X}}$ and $(X_i)_i$ an i.i.d sequence of random variables with law $\mu$ defined on some probability space $(\Omega,{\mathbb{P}})$. The empirical measure $L_n$ is defined for all integer $n$ by $$L_n=\dfrac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\delta_{X_i},$$ where $\delta_x$ stands for the Dirac mass at point $x$.
According to Varadarajan’s Theorem (see for instance [@Dudley Theorem 11.4.1]), with probability $1$ the sequence $(L_n)_n$ converges to $\mu$ in ${\mathrm{P}({\mathcal{X}})}$ for the topology of weak convergence, this means that there is a measurable subset $\mathcal{N}$ of $\Omega$ with ${\mathbb{P}}(\mathcal{N})=0$ [such that ]{}for all $\omega\notin \mathcal{N}$, $$\int f\,dL_n(\omega)\xrightarrow[n\to+\infty]{}\int f\,d\mu,$$ for all bounded continuous $f$ on ${\mathcal{X}}$.
The topology of weak convergence can be metrized by various metrics. Here, one will consider the Wasserstein metrics. Let $p\geq 1$ and define $${\mathrm{P}_{p}({\mathcal{X}})}={\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}\nu\in {\mathrm{P}({\mathcal{X}})}\text{ s.t. } \int \rho(x_o,x)^p\,d\nu(x)<+\infty, \text{ for some } x_o\in {\mathcal{X}}\ra.$$ For all [probability measures ]{}$\nu_1,\nu_2 \in{\mathrm{P}_{p}({\mathcal{X}})}$, define $$\mathcal{T}_p(\nu_1,\nu_2)=\inf_{\pi}\int \rho(x,y)^p\,d\pi(x,y)\quad\text{and}\quad W_p(\nu_1,\nu_2)={\left(}\mathcal{T}_p(\nu_1,\nu_2){\right)}^{1/p}$$ where $\pi$ describes the set $P(\nu_1,\nu_2)$ of couplings of $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$.
According to e.g [@Vill Theorems 7.3 and 7.12], $W_p$ is a metric on ${\mathrm{P}_{p}({\mathcal{X}})}$ and for every sequence $\mu_n$ in ${\mathrm{P}_{p}({\mathcal{X}})}$, $W_p(\mu_n,\mu)\to 0$ if and only if $\mu_n$ converges to $\mu$ for the weak topology and $\int \rho(x_o,x)^p\,d\mu_n\to\int \rho(x_o,x)^p\,d\mu$, for some (and thus any) $x_o\in {\mathcal{X}}.$
From these considerations, one can conclude that if $\mu\in {\mathrm{P}_{p}({\mathcal{X}})}$, then $W_p(L_n,\mu)\to 0$ with probability one, and in particular, ${\mathbb{P}}(W_p(L_n,\mu)\geq t)\to 0$ when $n\to+\infty$, for all $t>0$. Moreover, supposing that $\mu \in {\mathrm{P}_{p}({\mathcal{X}})}$, with $p>1$, it is easy to check that the sequence $W_p(L_n,\mu)$ is bounded in $\mathbb{L}_p(\Omega,{\mathbb{P}})$, thus it is uniformly integrable and consequently ${\mathbb{E}}[W_p(L_n,\mu)]\to 0.$ This is summarized in the following proposition:
\[convergence\] If $\mu\in {\mathrm{P}_{p}({\mathcal{X}})}$, then the sequence $W_p(L_n,\mu)\to 0$ almost surely (and thus in probability) and if $p>1$, then the convergence is in $\mathbb{L}_1$: ${\mathbb{E}}[W_p(L_n,\mu)]\to 0$.
On the other hand, Sanov’s Theorem (see e.g [@DZ Theorem 6.2.10]) says that for all good sets $A$, ${\mathbb{P}}(L_n \in A)$ behaves like $e^{-n{\operatorname{H}}(A\,|\,\mu)}$ when $n$ is large, where ${\operatorname{H}}(A\,|\,\mu)$ stands for the infimum of ${\operatorname{H}}(\cdot\,|\,\mu)$ on $A$. So, when $A$ does not contain $\mu$, ${\operatorname{H}}(A\,|\,\mu)>0$ and this probability tends to $0$ exponentially fast. With this in mind, one can expect that ${\mathbb{P}}(W_p(L_n,\mu)> t)$ behaves like $e^{-n{\operatorname{H}}(t)}$, where ${\operatorname{H}}(t)=\inf{\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}: \nu \text{ s.t. } W_p(\nu,\mu)> t\ra$. The following result validates partially this heuristic, stating that ${\mathbb{P}}(W_p(L_n,\mu)> t)$ tends to $0$ not faster than $e^{-n{\operatorname{H}}(t)}$.
\[Sanov\] If $\mu\in {\mathrm{P}_{p}({\mathcal{X}})}$, then for all $t>0$, $$\liminf_{n\to+\infty} \frac{1}{n}\log {\mathbb{P}}{\left(}W_p(L_n,\mu)> t{\right)}\geq -\inf{\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}: \nu\in{\mathrm{P}_{p}({\mathcal{X}})}\text{ s.t. } W_p(\nu,\mu)>t\ra.$$
For the sake of completeness, an elementary proof of this result will be displayed in the appendix. As in [@Gozlan2007a], the use of this Large Deviations technique will be the key step in the proof of Theorem \[equiv2\].
The Gaussian case
=================
An abstract version of Theorem \[equiv2\]
-----------------------------------------
As in the preceding section, $({\mathcal{X}},\rho)$ will be a Polish space. The product space ${\mathcal{X}}^n$ will be equipped with the following metric: $$\rho_2^n(x,y)={\left[}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho (x^i,y^i)^2{\right]}^{1/2}$$ (here $x=(x^1,x^2,\ldots,x^n)$ with $x^i\in {\mathcal{X}}$ for all $i$).
In the general case, one says that a [probability measure ]{}$\mu$ on $({\mathcal{X}},\rho)$ verifies the dimension free Gaussian concentration property, if there are $r_o, a, b\geq 0$ [such that ]{}for all $n$ the probability $\mu^n$ verifies $$\label{gaussian abstract}
\forall r\geq r_o,\qquad \mu^n(A^r)\geq 1-be^{-a{\left(}r-r_o{\right)}^2},$$ for all measurable $A\subset {\mathcal{X}}^n$ [such that ]{}$\mu_n(A)\geq 1/2$, where $A^r$ denotes the $r$-enlargement of $A$ defined by $$A^r={\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}x\in {\mathcal{X}}^n \text{ such that there is } \bar{x}\in A \text{ with } \rho_2^n(x,\bar{x})\leq r\ra$$ Of course, when ${\mathcal{X}}={\mathbf{R}^d}$ is equipped with its Euclidean metric one has $A^r=A+r B_2$ and one recovers the definition .
\[equiv2 abstract\] Let $\mu\in \mathrm{P}_2({\mathcal{X}})$ and $a>0$ ; the following propositions are equivalent:
1. There are $r_o,b\geq0$ [such that ]{}for all $n$ the probability $\mu^n$ verifies ,
2. The probability $\mu$ verifies ${\mathbf{T}}_2(1/a)$.
Let us recall the definition of the ${\mathbf{T}}_1$ transportation-cost inequality. One says that a [probability measure ]{}$\mu$ on ${\mathcal{X}}$ verifies ${\mathbf{T}}_1(C)$, if $$\forall \nu\in{\mathrm{P}({\mathcal{X}})},\qquad W_1(\nu,\mu)\leq\sqrt{C{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}}.$$ According to Jensen’s inequality, the [inequality ]{}${\mathbf{T}}_1(C)$ is weaker than ${\mathbf{T}}_2(C)$ ; it was completely characterized in terms of square exponential integrability in [@DGW03].
The proof of the following well known result makes use of the so called Marton’s argument.
\[Marton\] If $\mu$ verifies ${\mathbf{T}}_1(C)$, then for all measurable subset $A$ of ${\mathcal{X}}$, [such that ]{}$\mu(A)\geq 1/2$ $$\forall r\geq r_o,\qquad \mu(A^r)\geq 1-e^{-C^{-1}(r-r_o)^2},$$ where $r_o=\sqrt{C\log(2)}.$
Consider a subset $A$ of ${\mathcal{X}}$ and define $d\mu_A={{\ensuremath{{\AArm 1\AAk{-.8}{I}I}}}}_A\,d\mu(x)/\mu(A)$. Let $B={\mathcal{X}}\setminus A^r$ and define $\mu_B$ accordingly. Since the distance between two points of $A$ and $B$ is always more than $r$, one has $W_1(\mu_A,\mu_B)\geq r$. The triangle [inequality ]{}and the [transportation-cost inequality ]{}${\mathbf{T}}_1(C)$ yield $$\begin{aligned}
r\leq W_1(\mu_A,\mu_B)&\leq W_1(\mu_A,\mu)+W_1(\mu_B,\mu)\\&\leq \sqrt{C{\operatorname{H}}(\mu_A\,|\,\mu)} + \sqrt{C{\operatorname{H}}(\mu_B\,|\,\mu)}\\
&= \sqrt{C\log(1/\mu(A))}+\sqrt{C\log(1/\mu(B))}.\end{aligned}$$ Rearranging terms gives the result.
Let us show that (2) implies (1). The main point is that ${\mathbf{T}}_2$ tensorizes ; this means that if $\mu$ verifies ${\mathbf{T}}_2(1/a)$ then $\mu^n$ verifies ${\mathbf{T}}_2(1/a)$ on the space ${\mathcal{X}}^n$ equipped with $\rho_2^n$. The reader can find a general result concerning tensorization properties of transportation-cost [inequalities ]{}in [@Gozlan2007a Theorem 5]. Jensen’s [inequality ]{}implies that $W_1^2\leq \mathcal{T}_2$ and consequently $\mu^n$ verifies ${\mathbf{T}}_1(1/a)$ (on ${\mathcal{X}}^n$ equipped with $\rho_2^n$) for all $n$. Applying Proposition \[Marton\] to $\mu^n$ gives with $r_o=\sqrt{\log(2)/a}$, $b=1$ and $a$.
Let us show that (1) implies (2). For every integer $n$, and $x\in {\mathcal{X}}^n$, define $L_n^x=n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\delta_{x^i}.$ The map $x\mapsto W_2(L_n^x,\mu)$ is $1/\sqrt{n}$-Lipschitz. Indeed, if $x=(x^1,\ldots,x^n)$ and $y=(y^1,\ldots,y^n)$ are in ${\mathcal{X}}^n$, then thanks to the triangle inequality, $$\left|W_2(L_n^x,\mu)-W_2(L_n^y,\mu)\right|\leq W_2(L_n^x,L_n^y).$$ According to the convexity property of $\mathcal{T}_2(\,\cdot\,,\,\cdot\,)$ (see e.g [@Vill2 Theorem 4.8]), one has $$\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^x,L_n^y)\leq \frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \mathcal{T}_2(\delta_{x^i},\delta_{y^i})=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(x^i,y^i)^2=\frac{1}{n}\rho_2^n(x,y)^2,$$ which proves the claim.
Now, let $(X_i)_i$ be an i.i.d sequence of law $\mu$ and let $L_n$ be its empirical measure. Let $m_n$ be the median of $W_2(L_n,\mu)$ and define $A={\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}x : W_2(L_n^x,\mu)\leq m_n\ra$. Then $\mu^n(A)\geq 1/2$ and it is easy to show that $A^r\subset {\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}x : W_2(L_n^x,\mu)\leq m_n+r/\sqrt{n}\ra$. Applying to $A$ gives $$\forall r\geq r_o,\qquad {\mathbb{P}}{\left(}W_2(L_n,\mu)> m_n+r/\sqrt{n}{\right)}\leq b\exp{\left(}-a(r-r_o)^2{\right)}.$$ Equivalently, as soon as $\sqrt{n}(u-m_n)\geq r_o$, one has $${\mathbb{P}}{\left(}W_2(L_n,\mu)> u{\right)}\leq b\exp{\left(}-a(\sqrt{n}(u-m_n)-r_o)^2{\right)}.$$ Now, since $W_2(L_n,\mu)$ converges to $0$ in probability (see Proposition \[convergence\]), the sequence $m_n$ goes to $0$ when $n$ goes to $+\infty$. Consequently, $$\forall u>0,\qquad \limsup_{n\to+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log {\mathbb{P}}{\left(}W_2(L_n,\mu)> u{\right)}\leq -au^2.$$
The final step is given by Large Deviations. According to Theorem \[Sanov\], $$\liminf_{n\to+\infty}\dfrac{1}{n}\log {\mathbb{P}}{\left(}W_2(L_n,\mu)> u{\right)}\geq-\inf{\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}: \nu\in \mathrm{P}_2({\mathcal{X}}) \text{ s.t. } W_2(\nu,\mu)>u \ra.$$ This together with the preceding [inequality ]{}yields $$\inf{\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}: \nu\in \mathrm{P}_2({\mathcal{X}}) \text{ s.t. } W_2(\nu,\mu)>u\ra\geq au^2$$ or in other words, $$aW_2(\nu,\mu)^2\leq {\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)},$$ and this achieves the proof. Let us make a remark on the proof. The careful reader will notice that the second part of the proof applies if one replaces $W_2(\,\cdot\,,\mu)$ by any application $\Phi :{\mathrm{P}({\mathcal{X}})}\to {\mathbf{R}}^+$ which is continuous with respect to the weak topology, verifies $\Phi(\mu)=0$, and is such that for all integer $n$, the map ${\mathcal{X}}^n\to {\mathbf{R}}^+ : x\mapsto \Phi(L_n^x)$ is $1/\sqrt{n}$-Lipschitz for the metric $\rho_2^n$ on ${\mathcal{X}}^n$. For such an application $\Phi$, one can show, with exactly the same proof, that the dimension free Gaussian concentration property implies that $a\Phi^2(\nu)\leq {\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}$, for all $\nu$ and it could be that this new inequality is stronger than ${\mathbf{T}}_2$. Actually, it is not the case. Namely, it is an easy exercise to show that if $\Phi$ verifies the above listed properties, then $\Phi(\nu)\leq W_2(\nu,\mu)$, for all $\nu$, and so the choice $\Phi=W_2$ is optimal.
Otto and Villani’s Theorem
--------------------------
Our aim is now to recover and extend a theorem by Otto and Villani stating that the Logarithmic-Sobolev inequality is stronger than Talagrand’s ${\mathbf{T}}_2$ inequality.
Let us recall that a [probability measure ]{}$\mu$ on ${\mathcal{X}}$ verifies the Logarithmic-Sobolev [inequality ]{}with constant $C>0$ (${\mathbf{LSI}}(C)$ for short) if $${\operatorname{Ent}}_\mu(f^2)\leq C \int |\nabla f|^2\,d\mu,$$ for all locally Lipschitz $f$, where the entropy functional is defined by $${\operatorname{Ent}}_\mu(f)=\int f\log f\,d\mu-\int f\,d\mu\log{\left(}\int f\,d\mu{\right)},\qquad f\geq0,$$ and the length of the gradient is defined by $$\label{length}
|\nabla f|(x)=\limsup_{y\to x}\frac{|f(x)-f(y)|}{\rho(x,y)}$$ (when $x$ is an isolated point, we put $|\nabla f|(x)=0$).
In [@OV00 Theorem 1], Otto and Villani proved that if a [probability measure ]{}$\mu$ on a Riemannian manifold $M$, satisfies the [inequality ]{}${\mathbf{LSI}}(C)$ then it also satisfies the inequality ${\mathbf{T}}_2(C)$. Their proof was rather involved and uses partial differential equations, optimal transportation results, and fine observations relating relative entropy and Fisher information. A simpler proof, as well as a generalization, was proposed by Bobkov, Gentil and Ledoux in [@BGL01]. It makes use of the dual formulation of transportation-cost inequalities discovered by Bobkov and Götze in [@BG99] and relies on hypercontractivity properties of the Hamilton-Jacobi semi group put in light in the same paper [@BGL01]. Otto and Villani’s result was successfully generalized by Wang on paths spaces in [@Wang04]. More recently, Lott and Villani showed that implication ${\mathbf{LSI}}\Rightarrow {\mathbf{T}}_2$ remains true on a length space provided the measure $\mu$ satisfies a doubling condition and a local Poincaré inequality (see [@Lott2007 Theorem 1.8]).
The converse implication ${\mathbf{T}}_2\Rightarrow {\mathbf{LSI}}$ is sometimes true. For example, it is the case when $\mu$ is a Log-concave probability measure (see [@OV00 Corollary 3.1]). However, in the general case, ${\mathbf{T}}_2$ and ${\mathbf{LSI}}$ are not equivalent. In [@CG06], Cattiaux and Guillin give an example of a [probability measure ]{}verifying ${\mathbf{T}}_2$ and not ${\mathbf{LSI}}$.
With Theorem \[equiv2 abstract\] in hand, one could think that the implication ${\mathbf{LSI}}\Rightarrow {\mathbf{T}}_2$ is now completely straightforward. Namely, it is well known that the Logarithmic-Sobolev [inequality ]{}implies dimension free Gaussian concentration ; since this latter is equivalent to Talagrand’s ${\mathbf{T}}_2$ inequality it should be clear that the Logarithmic-Sobolev [inequality ]{}implies ${\mathbf{T}}_2$. It is effectively the case on reasonable spaces such as ${\mathbf{R}^d}$ but in the general case, a subtle technical question was not taken into account in the preceding line of reasoning. Namely, if $\mu$ verifies the ${\mathbf{LSI}}(C)$ inequality, then according to the additive property of the Logarithmic-Sobolev inequality, one can conclude that the product measure $\mu^n$ verifies $$\label{Log Sob n}
{\operatorname{Ent}}_{\mu^n} (f^2)\leq C\int \sum_{i=1}^n |\nabla_if|^2(x)\,d\mu^n(x),$$ where the length of the ’partial derivative’ $|\nabla_if|$ is defined according to . The problem is that, in this very abstract setting, $\sum_{i} |\nabla_if|^2(x)$ and $|\nabla f|^2(x)$ (computed with respect to $\rho_2^n$) may be different. The tensorized Logarithmic-Sobolev inequality will yield concentration [inequalities ]{}for functions [such that ]{}$\sum_{i}|\nabla_if|^2(x)\leq 1$ $\mu^n$-almost everywhere and this class of functions may not contain $1$-Lipschitz functions for the $\rho_2^n$ metric. Nevertheless, this difficulty can be circumvented as shown in the following theorems.
\[OV1\] Let $\mu$ be a [probability measure ]{}on ${\mathcal{X}}$ and suppose that for all integer $n$ the function $F_n$ defined on ${\mathcal{X}}^n$ by $F_n(x)=W_2(L_n^x,\mu)$ verifies $$\label{derivee}
\sum_{i=1}^n |\nabla_i F_n|^2(x)\leq 1/n, \text{ for } \mu^n \text{ almost every } x\in {\mathcal{X}}^n.$$ If $\mu$ verifies the [inequality ]{}${\mathbf{LSI}}(C)$, then $\mu$ verifies the [inequality ]{}${\mathbf{T}}_2(C)$.
We have seen during the proof of Theorem \[equiv2 abstract\] that the functions $F_n$ are $1/\sqrt{n}$-Lipschitz for the metric $\rho_2^n$. Suppose that ${\mathcal{X}}={\mathbf{R}}^d$ or a Riemannian manifold $M$, then according to Rademacher’s Theorem, $F_n$ is almost everywhere differentiable on ${{\left(}\mathbf{R}^d{\right)}^n }$ (resp. $M^n$) with respect to the Lebesgue measure. It is thus easy to show that condition is fulfilled when $\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure. This permits us to recover Otto and Villani’s result as stated in [@OV00].
As we said above the product measure $\mu^n$ verifies the [inequality ]{}. Apply this inequality to $f=e^{\frac{s}{2}F_n}$, with $s\in {\mathbf{R}}^+$. It is easy to show that $|\nabla_i e^{\frac{s}{2}F_n}|=\frac{s}{2}e^{\frac{s}{2}F_n}|\nabla_i F_n|$, thus, using condition , one sees that the right hand side of is less than $C\frac{s^2}{4n}\int e^{sF_n}\,d\mu^n$. Letting $Z(s)=\int e^{sF_n}\,d\mu^n$, one gets the differential inequality: $$\frac{Z'(s)}{sZ(s)}-\frac{\log Z(s)}{s^2}\leq \frac{C}{4n}.$$ Integrating this yields: $$\forall s\in {\mathbf{R}}^+,\qquad Z(s)=\int e^{sF_n}\,d\mu^n\leq e^{s \int F_n\,d\mu^n + \frac{Cs^2}{4n}}.$$ This implies that $${\mathbb{P}}{\left(}W_2(L_n,\mu)\geq t+{\mathbb{E}}{\left[}W_2(L_n,\mu){\right]}{\right)}\leq e^{-nt^2/C}.$$ According to Proposition \[convergence\], ${\mathbb{E}}{\left[}W_2(L_n,\mu){\right]}\to 0$. Arguing exactly as in proof of Theorem \[equiv2 abstract\], one concludes that the inequality ${\mathbf{T}}_2(C)$ holds. With an extra assumption on the support of $\mu$, one shows in the following theorem that the implication ${\mathbf{LSI}}\Rightarrow {\mathbf{T}}_2$ is true with a relaxed constant:
\[OV2\] Let $\mu$ be a [probability measure ]{}on ${\mathcal{X}}$ [such that ]{}$$\label{Cuesta Tuero}
\forall k\in {\mathbf{R}},\quad \forall u\neq v \in {\mathcal{X}},\qquad \mu{\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}x\in {\mathcal{X}}\text{ s.t. } \rho^2(x,u)-\rho^2(x,v)=k\ra=0.$$ If $\mu$ verifies the [inequality ]{}${\mathbf{LSI}}(C)$ then $\mu$ satisfies ${\mathbf{T}}(2C)$.
The condition first appeared in a paper by Cuesta-Albertos and Tuero-D[í]{}az on optimal transportation. Roughly speaking, this assumption guaranties the uniqueness of the Monge-Kantorovich Problem of transporting $\mu$ on a probability measure $\nu$ with finite support (see [@Cuesta-Albertos1993 Theorem 3]). For $\mu$ on ${\mathbf{R}^d}$, the condition amounts to say that $\mu$ does not charge hyperplanes. We think that working better it would be possible to obtain the right constant $C$ instead of $2C$.
We will use a sort of symmetrization argument. First observe that the [probability measure ]{}$\mu^n\times\mu^n$ verifies the following Logarithmic-Sobolev inequality: $${\operatorname{Ent}}_{\mu^n\times \mu^n}(f^2)\leq C\sum_{i=1}^n |\nabla_{i,\,1}f|^2(x,y)+|\nabla_{i,\,2}f|^2(x,y)\, d\mu^n(x)d\mu^n(y)$$ for all $f:{\mathcal{X}}^n\times{\mathcal{X}}^n\to{\mathbf{R}}:(x,y)\mapsto f(x,y)$, where $|\nabla_{i,\,1}f|$ (resp. $|\nabla_{i,\,2} f|$) denotes the length of the gradient with respect to the $x^i$-coordinate (resp. the $y^i$-coordinate).
Define $G_n(x,y)=W_2(L_n^x,L_n^y)$ for all $x,y\in {\mathcal{X}}^n$. One wants to apply the tensorized Logarithmic-Sobolev [inequality ]{}to the function $G_n$. To do so one needs to compute the length of its partial derivatives. Let us explain how to compute $L=|\nabla_{1,\,1}G_n|(a,b)$, for instance. For every $z\in {\mathcal{X}}$, let $za=(z,a^2,\ldots,a^n)$ ; obviously, $$L= \limsup_{z\to a^1}\frac{\left|W_2(L_n^{za},L_n^b)-W_2(L_n^{a},L_n^b)\right|}{\rho(z,a^1)}=\frac{1}{2W_2(L_n^a,L_n^b)}\limsup_{z\to a^1}\frac{\left|\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^{za},L_n^b)-\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^{a},L_n^b)\right|}{\rho(z,a^1)}.$$
According to the condition , the probability measure $\mu$ is diffuse ; so the probability of points $x\in {\mathcal{X}}^n$ having distinct coordinates is one. So, one can suppose without restriction that the coordinates of $a$ (resp. $b$) are all different. If $z$ is sufficiently close to $a^1$, the coordinates of $za$ are all distinct too. According to e.g [@Vill Example p. 5], the optimal transport of $L_n^a$ on $L_n^b$ is given by a permutation, this means that there is at least one permutation $\sigma$ of ${\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}1,\ldots,n\ra$ [such that ]{}$$\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^a,L_n^b)=n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(a^i,b^{\sigma(i)})^2.$$ Let us denote by $S$ the set of these permutations and define accordingly the set $S_z$ of permutations realizing the optimal transport of $L_n^{za}$ on $L_n^b$.
Without loss of generality, one can suppose that $S$ is a singleton. Indeed, let $\sigma$ and $\tilde{\sigma}$ be two distinct permutations and consider $$H_{\sigma,\,\tilde{\sigma}}={\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}x\in {\mathcal{X}}^n : \sum_{i=1}^n \rho(x^i, b^{\sigma(i)})^2= \sum_{i=1}^n \rho(x^i, b^{\tilde{\sigma}(i)})^2 \ra.$$ Applying Fubini’s Theorem together with the condition , one gets easily that $\mu^n{\left(}H_{\sigma,\,\tilde{\sigma}}{\right)}=0.$ This readily proves the claim. In the sequel we will set $S={\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}\sigma^*\ra$.
Now we claim that if $z$ is sufficiently close to $a^1$, then $S_z ={\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}\sigma^*\ra$. Indeed, let $${\varepsilon}_o=\min_{\sigma\neq\sigma^*}{\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(a^i,b^{\sigma(i)})^2-\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^a,L_n^b) \ra>0 ;$$ then there is a neighborhood $V$ of $a^1$ [such that ]{}for all $z\in V$, one has $$\left|\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^{za},L_n^b)-\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^{a},L_n^b)\right|\leq {\varepsilon}_o/3$$ and for all permutation $\sigma$, $$\left|n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho((za)^i,b^{\sigma(i)})^2-n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(a^i,b^{\sigma(i)})^2\right|\leq {\varepsilon}_o/3.$$ Now, if $z\in V$ and $\sigma \in S_z$, one has $$n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(a^i,b^{\sigma(i)})^2\leq n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho((za)^i,b^{\sigma(i)})^2+{\varepsilon}_o/3=\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^{za},L_n^b)+{\varepsilon}_o/3\leq \mathcal{T}_2(L_n^{a},L_n^b)+2{\varepsilon}_o/3.$$ By the definition of the number ${\varepsilon}_o$, one concludes that $\sigma=\sigma^*$, which proves the claim.
Now, if $z \in V$, then $$\frac{\left| \mathcal{T}_2(L_n^{za},L_n^b)-\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^{a},L_n^b)\right|}{\rho(z,a^1)}= \frac{\left| \rho(z,b^{\sigma^*(1)})^2 -\rho(a^1,b^{\sigma^*(1)})^2\right|}{n\rho(z,a^1)} \leq \frac{1}{n}{\left(}\rho(z,b^{\sigma^*(1)})+ \rho(a^1,b^{\sigma^*(1)}){\right)}.$$ So letting $z\to a^1$, yields ${\displaystyle}L\leq \frac{\rho(a^1,b^{\sigma^*(1)})}{nW_2(L_n^a,L_n^b)}$.
Doing the same for the other partial derivatives yields: $$\sum_{i=1}^n |\nabla_{i,\,1}G_n|^2(a,b)\leq \frac{\sum_{i=1}^n\rho(a^i,b^{\sigma^*(i)})^2}{n^2\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^a,L_n^b)}=\frac{1}{n}.$$ Finally, $$\sum_{i=1}^n |\nabla_{i,\,1}G_n|^2(a,b) + |\nabla_{i,\,2}G_n|^2(a,b)\leq \frac{2}{n},$$ for $\mu^n\times\mu^n$ almost every $a,b \in {\mathcal{X}}^n\times {\mathcal{X}}^n.$
Now reasoning as in the proof of Theorem \[OV1\], one concludes that $${\mathbb{P}}{\left(}W_2(L_n^X,L_n^Y)> t+{\mathbb{E}}{\left[}W_2(L_n^X,L_n^Y){\right]}{\right)}\leq e^{-nt^2/(2C)}.$$
On the other hand, an easy adaptation of Proposition \[Sanov\] yields $$\begin{gathered}
\liminf_{n\to+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log {\mathbb{P}}{\left(}W_2(L_n^X,L_n^Y)> t+{\mathbb{E}}{\left[}W_2(L_n^X,L_n^Y){\right]}{\right)}\geq\\ -\inf{\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}{\operatorname{H}}(\nu_1\,|\,\mu) +{\operatorname{H}}(\nu_2\,|\,\mu) : \nu_1,\nu_2\in \mathrm{P}_2(X) \text{ s.t. } W_2(\nu_1,\nu_2)>t\ra.\end{gathered}$$ From this follows as before that $$\mathcal{T}_2(\nu_1,\nu_2)\leq 2C{\left(}{\operatorname{H}}(\nu_1\,|\,\mu) +{\operatorname{H}}(\nu_2\,|\,\mu){\right)}$$ holds for all [probability measures ]{}$\nu_1,\nu_2$ belonging to $\mathrm{P}_2(X)$. Taking $\nu_2=\mu$ gives the [inequality ]{}${\mathbf{T}}_2(2C)$.
Our next goal is to recover and extend a result of Lott and Villani. Following [@Lott2007], one says that a [probability measure ]{}$\mu$ on ${\mathcal{X}}$ verifies the [inequality ]{}${\mathbf{LSI}}^+(C)$ if $${\operatorname{Ent}}_\mu(f^2)\leq C \int |\nabla^- f|^2\,d\mu,$$ holds true for all locally Lipschitz $f$, where the subgradient norm $|\nabla^-f|$ is defined by $$|\nabla^-f|(x)=\limsup_{y\to x}\frac{[f(y)-f(x)]_+}{\rho(x,y)},$$ with $[a]_+=\max(a,0).$ Since $|\nabla^-f|\leq |\nabla f|$, the [inequality ]{}${\mathbf{LSI}}^+$ is stronger than ${\mathbf{LSI}}$ ; more precisely, ${\mathbf{LSI}}^+(C)\Rightarrow {\mathbf{LSI}}(C).$
\[OV3\] If $\mu$ verifies the [inequality ]{}${\mathbf{LSI}}^+(C)$, then $\mu$ verifies ${\mathbf{T}}_2(C).$
This result was first obtained by Lott and Villani using the Hamilton-Jacobi method. This approach forced them to make many assumptions on ${\mathcal{X}}$ and $\mu$. In particular, in [@Lott2007 Theorem 1.8] ${\mathcal{X}}$ was supposed to be a compact length space and a doubling condition was imposed on $\mu$. The result above shows that the implication ${\mathbf{LSI}}^+\Rightarrow {\mathbf{T}}_2$ is in fact always true. The following proof uses an argument which I learned from Paul-Marie Samson.
The [inequality ]{}${\mathbf{LSI}}^+$ tensorizes, so $\mu^n$ verifies $${\operatorname{Ent}}_{\mu^n}(f^2)\leq C\int \sum_{i=1}^n |\nabla_i^-f|^2\,d\mu^n.$$ Take $f=e^{\frac{s}{2}F_n}$, $s\in {\mathbf{R}}^+$ with $F_n(x)=W_2(L_n^x,\mu)$. Once again, it is easy to check that $|\nabla^-_i e^{\frac{s}{2}F_n}|=\frac{s}{2}e^{\frac{s}{2}F_n}|\nabla_i^- F_n|$ (note that the function $x\mapsto e^{sx}$ is non decreasing). Reasoning as in the proof of Theorem \[OV1\], it is enough to show that $\sum_{i}|\nabla_i^- F_n|^2(x)\leq 1/n$ for $\mu^n$-almost all $x\in {\mathcal{X}}^n$. Let us show how to compute $|\nabla_1^-F_n|$. Let $z\in X$, $a=(a^1,\ldots,a^n)\in {\mathcal{X}}^n$ and set $za=(z,a^2,\ldots,a^n)$, then $$|\nabla_1^-F_n|(a)=\frac{1}{2F_n(a)}\limsup_{z\to a^1}\frac{{\left[}\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^{za},\mu)-\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^{a},\mu){\right]}_+}{\rho(z,a^1)}.$$ Let $\pi\in P(L_n^a,\mu)$ be an optimal coupling ; it is not difficult to see that one can write $\pi(dx,dy)=p(x,dy)L_n^a(dx)$, where $p(a^i,dy)=\nu_i(dy)$ with $\nu_1,\ldots,\nu_n$ [probability measures ]{}on ${\mathcal{X}}$ [such that ]{}$n^{-1}{\left(}\nu_1+\cdots+\nu_n{\right)}=\mu$. Let $\tilde{p}$ be defined as $p$ with $z$ in place of $a^1$ ; then $\widetilde{\pi}=\tilde{p}(x,dy)L_n^{za}(dy)$ belongs to $P(L_n^{za},\mu)$ (but is not necessary optimal). One has $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^{za},\mu)-\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^{a},\mu)&\leq \int \rho(x,y)^2\,d\widetilde{\pi}(x,y)-\int \rho(x,y)^2\,d\pi(x,y)\\
&= \frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \int \rho((za)^i,y)^2\,d\nu_i(y)-\frac{1}{n} \sum_{i=1}^n \int \rho(a^i,y)^2\,d\nu_i(y)\\
&= \frac{1}{n} \int \rho(z,y)^2-\rho(a^1,y)^2\,d\nu_1(y)\\
&\leq \frac{1}{n} \rho(z,a^1)\int \rho(z,y)+\rho(a^1,y)\,d\nu_1(y).\end{aligned}$$ Since the function $x\mapsto[x]_+$ is non decreasing, one has $$\frac{{\left[}\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^{za},\mu)-\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^{a},\mu){\right]}_+}{\rho(z,a^1)}\leq \frac{1}{n}\int \rho(z,y)+\rho(a^1,y)\,d\nu_1(y).$$ Letting $z\to a^1$ yields ${\displaystyle}|\nabla_1^-F_n(a)|^2\leq \frac{\int \rho(a^1,y)^2\,d\nu_1(y)}{n^2\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^a,\mu)}$. Doing the same computations for the other derivatives (with the same optimal coupling $\pi$), one gets ${\displaystyle}|\nabla_i^-F_n(a)|^2\leq \frac{\int \rho(a^i,y)^2\,d\nu_i(y)}{n^2\mathcal{T}_2(L_n^a,\mu)}.$ Summing these inequalities gives $\sum_{i}|\nabla_i^- F_n|^2(a)\leq 1/n$ for all $a\in {\mathcal{X}}^n$, which achieves the proof.
Generalizations to non Gaussian concentration
=============================================
A first generalization for super-Gaussian concentration
-------------------------------------------------------
The following theorem can be established with exactly the same proof as Theorem \[equiv2\]. We leave the proof to the reader.
\[equiv p>2\] Let $\mu$ be a [probability measure ]{}on ${\mathcal{X}}$, $p\geq 2$ and $a>0$. The following propositions are equivalent:
1. There are $r_o,b\geq0$ [such that ]{}for every $n$ the probability measure $\mu^n$ verifies for all $A$ subset of ${\mathcal{X}}^n$ with $\mu^n(A)\geq 1/2$, $$\forall r\geq r_o,\qquad \mu^n(A^r)\geq 1-be^{-a(r-r_o)^p},$$ where the enlargement $A^r$ is performed with respect to the metric $\rho_p^n$ on ${\mathcal{X}}^n$ defined by $$\forall x,y\in {\mathcal{X}}^n,\qquad \rho_p^n(x,y)={\left[}\sum_{i=1}^n \rho(x^i,y^i)^p{\right]}^{1/p}.$$
2. The [probability measure ]{}$\mu$ verifies the following transportation cost inequality: $$\forall \nu \in {\mathrm{P}_{p}({\mathcal{X}})},\qquad \mathcal{T}_p(\nu,\mu)\leq a^{-1}{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}.$$
Talagrand’s two level concentration inequalities.
-------------------------------------------------
Our approach is sufficiently flexible to be adapted to various forms of concentration. We do not want to enter in too general (and maybe useless) generalizations. We will content to give one more example not covered by the preceding theorems. We want to find the [transportation-cost inequality ]{}equivalent to Talagrand’s two level concentration [inequalities ]{}which are well adapted to concentration rates between exponential and Gaussian.
Let us say that a [probability measure ]{}$\mu$ on ${\mathbf{R}^d}$ satisfies a two level dimension free concentration [inequality ]{}of order $p\in [1,2]$ if there are two non-negative constants $a$ and $b$ [such that ]{}for every $n$ the [inequality ]{}$$\label{two level}
\forall r\geq 0,\qquad \mu^n{\left(}A + \sqrt{r}B_2+\sqrt[p]{r}B_p{\right)}\geq 1-be^{-ar},$$ holds for all measurable subset $A$ of ${{\left(}\mathbf{R}^d{\right)}^n }$ [such that ]{}$\mu^n(A)\geq 1/2,$ where $B_2$ and $B_p$ are the standard unit balls of ${{\left(}\mathbf{R}^d{\right)}^n }$. Inequalities of this form appear in [@Talagrand1994], where it is proved that the measure $d\mu_p(x)=Z_p^{-1}e^{-|x|^p}$, $p\geq 1$ verifies such a bound.
The transportation-cost adapted to this kind of concentration is defined for all [probability measures ]{}$\nu_1$, $\nu_2$ on ${{\left(}\mathbf{R}^d{\right)}^n }$ by $${\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}(\nu,\mu)}= \inf_{\pi\in P(\nu_1,\nu_2)} \int \sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{j=1}^d\alpha_p(x^i_j-y^i_j)\,d\pi(x,y)$$ where $\alpha_p(u)=\min(|u|^2,|u|^p)$ (here $x=(x^1,\ldots,x^n)$ with $x^i\in {\mathbf{R}^d}$ for all $i$).
\[equivp<2\] Let $\mu$ be a [probability measure ]{}on ${\mathbf{R}^d}$ and $p\in [1,2]$. The following propositions are equivalent:
1. The two level concentration holds for some non-negative $a,b$ independent of $n$.
2. The probability measure $\mu$ verifies the [transportation-cost inequality ]{}$$\forall \nu\in {\mathrm{P}(\mathbf{R}^d)},\qquad {\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}(\nu,\mu)}\leq C{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)},$$ for some constant $C$.
More precisely, if holds for some constants $a,b$, then the [transportation-cost inequality ]{}holds with the constant $C=288/a$. Conversely, if the [transportation-cost inequality ]{}holds for some constant $C$, then is true for $b=2$ and $a=1/(2C)$.
The following lemma collects different facts that are needed in the proof.
\[petit lemme\]
1. For all $x,y\geq 0$, ${\alpha}_p(x+y)\leq 2{\alpha}_p(x)+2{\alpha}_p(y)$.
2. For all integer $n\geq 1$ and all [probability measures ]{}$\nu_1,\nu_2$ and $\nu_3$ on ${{\left(}\mathbf{R}^d{\right)}^n }$, $${\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(\nu_1,\nu_3)\leq 2{\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(\nu_1,\nu_2)+2{\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(\nu_2,\nu_3).$$
3. For all integer $n\geq 1$ and all $r\geq 0$, define $$B_{2,\,p}(r)={\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}x\in {{\left(}\mathbf{R}^d{\right)}^n }: \sum_{i=1}^{n}\sum_{j=1}^d{\alpha}_p(x^i_j)\leq r \ra.$$ Then for all $p\in[1,2]$, $$\frac{1}{12}{\left(}\sqrt{r}B_2+\sqrt[p]{r}B_p{\right)}\subset B_{2,\,p}(r)\subset \sqrt{r}B_2+\sqrt[p]{r}B_p$$
The first point is easy to check. The second point follows from the first one by integration ; the detailed argument can be found in the proof of [@Gozlan2007 Proposition 4]. The third point is Lemma 2.3 of [@Talagrand1994]. Let us recall the proof of (2) implies (1). According to the tensorization property, for all $n$ and all [probability measure ]{}$\nu$ on ${{\left(}\mathbf{R}^d{\right)}^n }$, $${\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(\nu,\mu^n)\leq C{\operatorname{H}}(\nu\,|\,\mu^n)$$ holds. Take $A$ and $B$ in ${{\left(}\mathbf{R}^d{\right)}^n }$ and define $d\mu^n_A={{\ensuremath{{\AArm 1\AAk{-.8}{I}I}}}}_ {A}\,d\mu/\mu^n(A)$ and $d\mu^n_B={{\ensuremath{{\AArm 1\AAk{-.8}{I}I}}}}_{B}\,d\mu/\mu^n(B)$. According to point (2) of Lemma \[petit lemme\], and the [transportation-cost inequality ]{}satisfied by $\mu^n$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(\mu^n_A,\mu^n_B)\leq 2{\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(\mu^n_A,\mu^n)+2{\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(\mu_B^n,\mu^n)&\leq 2C{\operatorname{H}}(\mu^n_A\,|\,\mu^n)+2C{\operatorname{H}}(\mu^n_B\,|\,\mu^n)\\
&=-2C\log(\mu^n(A)\mu^n(B)).\end{aligned}$$ Define $$c_{2,\,p}(A,B)=\inf{\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}r\geq 0 \text{ s.t. } {\left(}A+B_{2,\,p}(r){\right)}\cap B\neq \emptyset\ra$$ then ${\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(\mu_A^n,\mu_B^n)\geq c_{2,\,p}(A,B)$ and so $$\mu^n(A)\mu^n(B)\leq e^{-c_{2,\,p}(A,B)/2C}.$$ Now, if $\mu^n(A)\geq 1/2$ and $B={{\left(}\mathbf{R}^d{\right)}^n }\setminus(A+B_{2,\,p}(r))$, one has $c_{2,\,p}(A,B)=r$ and so $ \mu^n(A+B_{2,\,p}(r))\geq 1-2e^{-r/2C}.$ Using point (3) of Lemma \[petit lemme\] gives $ \mu^n(A+\sqrt{r}B_2+\sqrt[p]{r}B_p)\geq 1-2e^{-r/2C}.$
Now let us prove the converse. Let $(X_i)_i$ be an i.i.d sequence of law $\mu$ and let $L_n$ be its empirical measure. Consider $A={\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}x\in {{\left(}\mathbf{R}^d{\right)}^n }\text{ s.t. } {\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(L_n^x,\mu)\leq m_n\ra$ where $m_n$ denotes the median of ${\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(L_n,\mu)$. According to point (3) of Lemma \[petit lemme\], $A+\sqrt{r}B_2+\sqrt[p]{r}B_p\subset A+12B_{2,\,p}(r).$ Let $x\in A+12B_{2,\,p}(r)$ ; there is some $\bar{x}\in A$ [such that ]{}$$\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^d {\alpha}_p{\left(}\frac{x_j^i-\bar{x}_j^i}{12}{\right)}\leq r$$ (here $x=(x^1,x^2,\ldots,x^n)$ with $x^i \in {\mathbf{R}^d}$). Since ${\alpha}_p(x/12)\geq {\alpha}_p(x)/144$, one gets ${\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(L_n^x,L_n^{\bar{x}})\leq 144r/n$. According to point (2) of Lemma \[petit lemme\], ${\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(L_n^x,\mu)\leq 2{\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(L_n^x,L_n^{\bar{x}})+2{\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(L_n^{\bar{x}},\mu)\leq 2m_n+288r/n.$ Consequently, the following holds for all $n$: $$\forall r\geq 0,\qquad {\mathbb{P}}({\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(L_n,\mu)\geq 2m_n+288r/n)\leq be^{-ar}.$$ Reasoning as in the proof of Theorem \[equiv2\], one concludes that $$\forall \nu\in {\mathrm{P}(\mathbf{R}^d)},\qquad {\mathcal{T}_{2,\,p}}(\nu,\mu)\leq \frac{288}{a}{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}.$$
Poincaré [inequality ]{}and exponential concentration
=====================================================
In this section, one considers more carefully the case $p=1$ of the preceding one. Let us recall that a [probability measure ]{}$\mu$ on ${\mathbf{R}^d}$ satisfies the Poincaré [inequality ]{}with constant $C>0$ if $$\label{Poincare}
{\operatorname{Var}}_\mu(f)\leq C \int |\nabla f|_2^2\,d\mu$$ for all smooth $f$.
The following theorem proves the equivalence between Poincaré inequality, dimension free exponential concentration and the corresponding transportation-cost inequality.
Let $\mu$ be a [probability measure ]{}on ${\mathbf{R}^d}$. The following propositions are equivalent:
1. The [probability measure ]{}$\mu$ verifies Poincaré [inequality ]{}with a constant $C_1$.
2. The [probability measure ]{}$\mu$ verifies for some constants $a,b>0$ $$\forall r\geq 0,\qquad \mu^n(A+D_{2,\,1}(r))\geq 1-be^{-ar},$$ for all subset $A$ of ${{\left(}\mathbf{R}^d{\right)}^n }$ [such that ]{}$ \mu^n(A)\geq 1/2,$ where the set $D_{2,1}(r)$ is defined by $$D_{2,\,1}(r)={\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}x\in {{\left(}\mathbf{R}^d{\right)}^n }\text{ s.t. } \sum_{i=1}^n {\alpha}_1(|x^i|_2)\leq r\ra.$$
3. The [probability measure ]{}$\mu$ verifies the following [transportation-cost inequality ]{}for some constant $C_2>0$ $$\forall \nu\in {\mathrm{P}(\mathbf{R}^d)},\qquad {\mathcal{T}_{\mathrm{SG}}(\nu,\mu)}=\inf_{\pi} \int {\alpha}_1{\left(}|x-y|_2{\right)}\,d\pi(x,y)\leq C_2{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}.$$
More precisely:\
- (1) implies (2) with $a=\kappa \max(C_1,\sqrt{C_1})^{-1}$, $\kappa$ being a universal constant.\
- (2) implies (3) with $C_2=2/a$.\
- (3) implies (1) with $C_1=C_2/2.$
The equivalence between (1) and (3) was first obtained by Bobkov, Gentil and Ledoux in [@BGL01 Corollary 5.1] with the Hamilton-Jacobi approach. The equivalence of (1) and (2) (or (2) and (3)) seems to be new. According to (a careful reading of) [@BL97 Corollary 3.2], (1) implies (2) with $b=1$ and $a$ depending only on $C_1$ ; one can take $a=\kappa \max(C_1,\sqrt{C_1})^{-1}$, where $\kappa$ is a universal constant. According to (a slightly different version of) Theorem \[equivp<2\] with $p=1$, (2) implies (3) (with $C_2=2/a$). It remains to prove that (3) implies (1). This last point is classical ; let us simply sketch the proof. The [transportation-cost inequality ]{}is equivalent to the following property: for all bounded $f$ on ${\mathbf{R}^d}$, $$\int e^{Qf}\,d\mu\leq e^{\int f\,d\mu},$$ where ${\displaystyle}Qf(x)=\inf_{y\in {\mathbf{R}^d}}{\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}f(y)+ C_2^{-1}{\alpha}_1(|x-y|_2)\ra$ (for a proof of this fact see e.g the proof of (3.15) in [@BG99] or [@Gozlan2007a Corollary 1]). Let $f$ be a smooth function and apply the preceding [inequality ]{}to $tf$. When $t$ goes to $0$, it can be shown that $$Q(tf)(x)-tf(x)=-\frac{C_2t^2}{4}|\nabla f|_2^2(x)+o(t^2),$$ so $\int e^{Q(tf)}\,d\mu = 1+t\int f\,d\mu +\frac{t^2}{2}\int f^2\,d\mu-\frac{C_2t^2}{4}\int |\nabla f|_2^2\,d\mu+o(t^2)$. On the other hand, $e^{t\int f\,d\mu}=1+t\int f\,d\mu+\frac{t^2}{2}{\left(}\int f\,d\mu{\right)}^2$. One concludes, that $${\operatorname{Var}}_\mu(f)\leq \frac{C_2}{2}\int |\nabla f|^2\,d\mu,$$ which achieves the proof.
Remarks
=======
The $(\tau)$ property
---------------------
Transportation-cost inequalities are closely related to the so called $(\tau)$ property introduced by Maurey in [@Mau91]. If $c(x,y)$ is a non negative function defined on some product space ${\mathcal{X}}\times {\mathcal{X}}$ and $\mu$ is a [probability measure ]{}on ${\mathcal{X}}$, one says that $(\mu,c)$ has the $(\tau)$ property if for all non-negative $f$ on ${\mathcal{X}}$, $$\int e^{Q_cf}\,d\mu\cdot\int e^{-f}\,d\mu\leq 1,$$ where ${\displaystyle}Q_cf(x)=\inf_{y\in {\mathcal{X}}}{\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}f(y)+ c(x,y)\ra.$ The recent paper by Latała and Wojtaszczyk [@Latala2008] provides an excellent introduction together with a lot of new results concerning this class of inequalities.
The $(\tau)$ property is in fact a sort of dual version of the transportation-cost inequality. This was first observed by Bobkov and Götze in [@BG99]. In the case of ${\mathbf{T}}_2$, one can show that if $\mu$ verifies ${\mathbf{T}}_2(C)$ then $(\mu, (2C)^{-1}|x-y|_2^2)$ has the $(\tau)$ property and conversely, if $(\mu,C^{-1}|x-y|_2^2)$ has the $(\tau)$ property, then $\mu$ verifies ${\mathbf{T}}_2(C)$. A general statement can be found in [@Gozlan2008 Proposition 4.17].
Sufficient conditions for transportation-cost inequalities.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Several sufficient conditions for transportation-cost inequalities are known. Let us recall some of them. In [@Gozlan2007 Theorem 5], the author proved the following result:
Let $\mu$ be a symmetric [probability measure ]{}on ${\mathbf{R}}$ of the form ${\displaystyle}d\mu(x)=e^{-V(x)}\,dx$, with $V$ a smooth function [such that ]{}${\displaystyle}\lim_{x\to+\infty} \frac{V''(x)}{V'(x)^2}=0$. Let $p\geq 1$ ; if $V$ is [such that ]{}${\displaystyle}\limsup_{x\to+\infty}\frac{x^{p-1}}{V'(x)}<+\infty,$ then $\mu$ verifies the [transportation-cost inequality ]{}$$\forall \nu\in \mathrm{P}({\mathbf{R}}),\qquad \inf_{\pi \in P(\nu,\mu)} \int {\alpha}_p(x-y)\,d\pi(x,y)\leq C{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)},$$ where ${\alpha}_p(u)=u^2$ if $|u|\leq 1$ and ${\alpha}_p(u)=|u|^p$ if $|u|\geq 1$.
The case $p=2$ was first established by Cattiaux and Guillin in [@CG06] with a completely different proof. Other cost functions $\alpha$ can be considered in place of the ${\alpha}_p$. Furthermore, if $\mu$ satisfies Cheeger’s inequality on ${\mathbf{R}}$, then a necessary and sufficient condition is known for the transportation-cost inequality associated to $\alpha$ (see [@Gozlan2007 Theorem 2]).
On ${\mathbf{R}^d}$, a relatively weak sufficient condition for ${\mathbf{T}}_2$ (and other transportation-cost inequalities) was established by the author in [@Gozlan2008] (Theorem 4.8 and Corollary 4.13). Define $\omega^{(d)}:{\mathbf{R}}^d\to{\mathbf{R}}^d:(x_1,\ldots x_d)\mapsto (\omega(x_1),\ldots,\omega(x_d))$, where $\omega(u)={\varepsilon}(u)\max(|u|,u^2)$ with ${\varepsilon}(u)=1$ when $u$ is non-negative and $-1$ otherwise. If the image of $\mu$ under the map $\omega^{(d)}$ verifies the Poincaré inequality, then $\mu$ satisfies ${\mathbf{T}}_2.$ It can be shown that this condition is strictly weaker than the condition $\mu$ verifies ${\mathbf{LSI}}$ (see [@Gozlan2008 Theorem 5.9]).
Other sufficient conditions were obtained by Bobkov and Ledoux in [@BL00] with an approach based on the Prekopa-Leindler inequality, or in [@Cordero-Erausquin2004] by Cordero-Erausquin, Gangbo and Houdr[é]{} with an optimal transportation method.
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
The following proposition is quite classical in Large Deviations theory. It can be found in Deuschell and Stroock’s book [@Deuschel1989 Exercise 3.3.23, p. 76].
\[DS\] Let $A\subset {\mathrm{P}({\mathcal{X}})}$ be [such that ]{}${\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}x\in {\mathcal{X}}^n : L_n^x \in A\ra$ is measurable. Then for every [probability measure ]{}$\nu$ on ${\mathcal{X}}$ absolutely continuous with respect to $\mu$ and [such that ]{}$\nu^n(x : L_n^x \in A)>0$, one has $$\begin{gathered}
\frac{1}{n}\log{\left(}\mu^n(L_n^{\cdot} \in A)e^{n{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}}{\right)}\geq -{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}\frac{\nu^n(L_n^{\cdot} \in A^c)}{\nu^n(L_n^{\cdot} \in A)}+\frac{1}{n}\log \nu^n(L_n^{\cdot} \in A)-\frac{1}{ne\nu^n(L_n^{\cdot} \in A)}\end{gathered}$$
Let $h=\frac{d\nu^n}{d\mu^n}$ and $B=\left\{x \in {\mathcal{X}}^n : L_n^x \in A \text{ and } h(x)>0\right\}$. Then, $$\mu^n(L_n^{\cdot} \in A)\geq \mu^n(B)=\int_{B}h(x)\,d\nu^n(x)=\nu^n(B)\frac{\int_{B}e^{-\log h(x)}\,d\nu^n(x)}{\nu^n(B)}.$$ Applying Jensen’s [inequality ]{}gives $$\log \mu^n(L_n^{\cdot} \in A)\geq \log\nu^n(B)-\frac{\int_{B}\log h(x)\,d\nu^n}{\nu^n(B)}.$$ Since ${\operatorname{H}}{\left(}\nu^n\,|\,\mu^n{\right)}=\int\log h(x)\,d\nu^n$, one concludes that $$\label{annex1}
\log\mu^n(L_n^{\cdot}\in A)\geq \log\nu^n(B)-\frac{{\operatorname{H}}{\left(}\nu^n\,|\,\mu^n{\right)}}{\nu^n(B)}+\frac{\int_{B^c}\log h(x)h(x)\,d\mu^n}{\nu^n(B)}$$ But for all $x>0$, $x\log x\geq -1/e$, so $$\label{annex2}
\frac{\int_{B^c}\log h(x)h(x)\,d\mu^n}{\nu^n(B)}\geq -\frac{\mu^n(B)}{e\nu^n(B)}\geq -\frac{1}{e\nu^n(B)}.$$ Putting into and using $${\operatorname{H}}{\left(}\nu^n\,|\,\mu^n{\right)}=n{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}\quad \text{ and }\qquad \nu^n(B)=\nu^n(L_n^{\cdot}\in A),$$ gives the desired inequality. Let $t\geq 0$ and define $A={\left\{}
\newcommand{\ra}{\right\}}\nu \in {\mathrm{P}_{p}({\mathcal{X}})}\text{ s.t. } W_p(\nu,\mu)> t\ra$. Take $\nu\in A$ [such that ]{}${\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}<+\infty$. If $(Y_i)_i$ is an i.i.d sequence of law $\nu$, and $L_n^Y=n^{-1}\sum_{i=1}^n\delta_{Y_i}$, then $L_n^Y$ converges to $\nu$ almost surely for the $W_p$ distance and so $\nu^n(L_n^\cdot\in A)={\mathbb{P}}{\left(}W_p{\left(}L_n^Y,\mu{\right)}>t{\right)}\to{\mathbb{P}}(W_p(\nu,\mu)> t)=1,$ when $n$ tends to $+\infty.$ Applying Proposition \[DS\] to $A$ and $\nu$ and taking the limit when $n$ goes to $+\infty$, gives $$\liminf_{n\to+\infty}\frac{1}{n}\log {\mathbb{P}}{\left(}W_p(L_n,\mu)> t{\right)}\geq -{\operatorname{H}(\nu\,|\,\mu)}.$$ Optimizing over $\nu$ gives the result.
[GLWY07]{}
C. An[é]{}, S. Blach[è]{}re, D. Chafa[ï]{}, P. Foug[è]{}res, I. Gentil, F. Malrieu, C. Roberto, and G. Scheffer. , volume 10 of [*Panoramas et Synthèses \[Panoramas and Syntheses\]*]{}. Société Mathématique de France, Paris, 2000.
F. Barthe, P. Cattiaux, and C. Roberto. Interpolated inequalities between exponential and [G]{}aussian, [O]{}rlicz hypercontractivity and isoperimetry. , 22(3):993–1067, 2006.
W. Beckner. A generalized [P]{}oincaré inequality for [G]{}aussian measures. , 105:397–400, 1989.
S.G. Bobkov and F. G[ö]{}tze. Exponential integrability and transportation cost related to logarithmic [S]{}obolev inequalities. , 163(1):1–28, 1999.
S.G. Bobkov, I. Gentil, and M. Ledoux. Hypercontractivity of [H]{}amilton-[J]{}acobi equations. , 80(7):669–696, 2001.
S.G. Bobkov and M. Ledoux. Poincaré’s inequalities and [T]{}alagrand’s concentration phenomenon for the exponential distribution. , 107(3):383–400, 1997.
S.G. Bobkov and M. Ledoux. From [B]{}runn-[M]{}inkowski to [B]{}rascamp-[L]{}ieb and to logarithmic [S]{}obolev inequalities. , 10(5):1028–1052, 2000.
F. Barthe and C. Roberto. Sobolev inequalities for probability measures on the real line. , 159(3):481–497, 2003.
F. Barthe and C. Roberto. Modified [L]{}ogarithmic-[S]{}obolev inequalities. Preprint, 2006.
S.G. Bobkov and B. Zegarlinski. Entropy bounds and isoperimetry. , 176(829):x+69, 2005.
J. A. Cuesta-Albertos and A. Tuero-D[í]{}az. A characterization for the solution of the [M]{}onge-[K]{}antorovich mass transference problem. , 16(2):147–152, 1993.
D. Cordero-Erausquin, W. Gangbo, and C. Houdr[é]{}. Inequalities for generalized entropy and optimal transportation. In [*Recent advances in the theory and applications of mass transport*]{}, volume 353 of [*Contemp. Math.*]{}, pages 73–94. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2004.
P. Cattiaux and A. Guillin. Talagrand’s like quadratic transportation cost inequalities. , 86(9):341–361, 2006.
H. Djellout, A. Guillin, and L. Wu. Transportation cost-information inequalities and applications to random dynamical systems and diffusions. , 32(3B):2702–2732, 2004.
J.D. Deuschel and D.W. Stroock. , volume 137 of [*Pure and Applied Mathematics*]{}. Academic Press Inc., Boston, MA, 1989.
R.M. Dudley. . The Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Mathematics Series. Wadsworth & Brooks/Cole Advanced Books & Software, Pacific Grove, CA, 1989.
A. Dembo and O. Zeitouni. . Applications of Mathematics 38. Springer Verlag, 1998.
I. Gentil, A. Guillin, and L. Miclo. Modified logarithmic [S]{}obolev inequalities and transportation inequalities. , 133(3):409–436, 2005.
N. Gozlan and C. Léonard. A large deviation approach to some transportation cost inequalities. , 139(1-2):235–283, 2007.
A. Guillin, C. Léonard, L.M. Wu, and N. Yiao. Transportation-information inequalities for [M]{}arkov processes. Preprint. Availlable on the ArXiv, 2007.
M. Gromov and V.D. Milman. A topological application of the isoperimetric inequality. , 105:843–854, 1983.
N. Gozlan. Characterization of [T]{}alagrand’s like transportation-cost inequality on the real line. , 250(2):400–425, 2007.
N. Gozlan. Poincaré inequalities and dimension free concentration of measure. Preprint, 2008.
M. Ledoux. On [T]{}alagrand’s deviation inequalities for product measures. , 1:63–87, 1996.
M. Ledoux. , volume 89 of [ *Mathematical Surveys and Monographs*]{}. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2001.
R. Latala and K. Oleszkiewicz. Between [S]{}obolev and [P]{}oincaré. , 1745:147–168, 2000.
J. Lott and C. Villani. Hamilton-[J]{}acobi semigroup on length spaces and applications. , 88(3):219–229, 2007.
R. Lata[ł]{}a and J. O. Wojtaszczyk. On the infimum convolution inequality. Preprint. Availlable on the ArXiv, 2008.
K. Marton. A simple proof of the blowing-up lemma. , 32(3):445–446, 1986.
K. Marton. Bounding [$\overline d$]{}-distance by informational divergence: a method to prove measure concentration. , 24(2):857–866, 1996.
B. Maurey. Some deviation inequalities. , 1(2):188–197, 1991.
F. Otto and C. Villani. Generalization of an inequality by [T]{}alagrand and links with the logarithmic [S]{}obolev inequality. , 173(2):361–400, 2000.
P.M. Samson. Concentration of measure inequalities for [M]{}arkov chains and [$\Phi$]{}-mixing processes. , 28(1):416–461, 2000.
M. Talagrand. The supremum of some canonical processes. , 116(2):283–325, 1994.
M. Talagrand. Transportation cost for [G]{}aussian and other product measures. , 6(3):587–600, 1996.
C. Villani. . Graduate Studies in Mathematics 58. American Mathematical Society, Providence RI, 2003.
C. Villani. Optimal transport, old and new. In preparation, 2008.
F-Y Wang. Probability distance inequalities on [R]{}iemannian manifolds and path spaces. , 206(1):167–190, 2004.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
bibliography:
- 'auto\_generated.bib'
title: A search for the standard model Higgs boson decaying to charm quarks
---
=1
Introduction
============
The discovery of a Higgs boson, , with the CERN LHC data collected in 2010–2012 by both the ATLAS [@Aad:2012tfa] and CMS [@Chatrchyan:2012xdj; @Chatrchyan2013] experiments in 2012 represented a major step toward the characterization of the electroweak symmetry breaking mechanism [@PhysRevLett.13.321; @PhysRevLett.13.508; @PhysRevLett.13.585]. The mass of this particle is measured to be ${m_{\PH}}\sim 125$ [@Aad:2015zhl; @Sirunyan:2017exp; @Aaboud:2019lxo] and its decays in the $\PGg\PGg$, $\PZ\PZ$, $\PW\PW$, and $\PGt\PGt$ modes have been observed [@Aad:2014eha; @Khachatryan:1728107; @Aad:2014eva; @Chatrchyan:2013mxa; @ATLAS:2014aga; @Aad:2015ona; @Chatrchyan:1633401; @Aad:2015vsa; @Chatrchyan:1643937; @Sirunyan:2273798; @Sirunyan:2018egh]. All measured properties so far [@Sirunyan:2017exp; @Sirunyan:2019twz; @Sirunyan:2018koj; @Aad:2015gba; @Khachatryan:2014jba; @Chatrchyan:2012jja; @Aad:2013xqa; @Khachatryan:2016vau; @Aad:2015zhl; @Sirunyan:2017exp; @Aaboud:2018ezd; @Aaboud:2018wps] indicate that, within the measurement uncertainties, this new particle is consistent with the expectations of the standard model (SM). Nevertheless, there remains much to be learned about the properties of this new particle. One of the highest priorities of the LHC physics program is the measurement of the couplings of the boson to other SM particles. Recently both ATLAS and CMS Collaborations reported the first direct measurements of the boson couplings to third-generation quarks ( and ) [@Sirunyan:2018hoz; @Aaboud:2018urx; @Sirunyan:2018kst; @Aaboud:2018zhk] and found them to be also compatible with the SM prediction. A measurement of the couplings of the boson to second generation leptons [@ATLAS-CONF-2019-028; @Sirunyan:2018hbu] and quarks is the next target.
In this paper, we focus on the search for bosons decaying to $\PQc\PAQc$, a charm quark-antiquark pair. The boson to charm quark Yukawa coupling $y_{{\PQc}}$ can be significantly modified by physics beyond the SM [@Ghosh:2015gpa; @Botella:2016krk; @Harnik:2012pb; @Altmannshofer:2016zrn]. Allowed range for unobserved decays constitutes the bound on the charm quark Yukawa coupling. Indirect constraints on $y_{{\PQc}}$ obtained from a global fit to existing boson data result in an upper bound on $\kappa_{\PQc} \equiv y_{\PQc} / y_{\PQc}^{\text{SM}}$ of 6.2 [@Perez:2015aoa] at 95% confidence level (), assuming the absence of non-SM production mechanisms. A direct measurement of this process is extremely challenging at a hadron collider. The branching fraction of this process according to SM computations, $\mathcal{B}({\ensuremath{\PH\to\ccbar}\xspace})=0.0288^{+0.0016}_{-0.0006}$ [@deFlorian:2016spz], is a factor 20 smaller than that of $\PH \to \bbbar$, and there is a very large background from SM processes comprised uniquely of jets produced through the strong interaction, referred to as quantum chromodynamics (QCD) multijet events. Results from direct searches for ${\ensuremath{\PH\to\ccbar}\xspace}$ at the LHC in the ($\PZ\to\ell\ell$, $\ell=\Pe$ or $\mu$) channel were previously reported by the ATLAS Collaboration using a data sample of proton-proton ($\Pp\Pp$) collisions at a centre-of-mass energy of $13\TeV$, corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 36.1 [@Aaboud:2018fhh]. The observed (expected) exclusion limit on the signal strength $\mu$ (defined as the product of the measured boson production cross section and the $\PH \to \ccbar$ branching fraction divided by the same quantity as predicted by the SM) at 95% CL was found to be 110 (150).
This paper presents the first direct search for the [$\PH\to\ccbar$]{}decay carried out by the CMS Collaboration. It uses $\Pp\Pp$ collision data corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9, collected with the CMS experiment at the LHC in 2016 at a centre-of-mass energy of 13. The search targets bosons produced in association with a or boson, which we collectively refer to as vector () bosons. The presence of a boson greatly suppresses backgrounds stemming from otherwise overwhelming QCD multijet processes, and its leptonic decays provide a crucial handle to collect the events efficiently. The most significant remaining backgrounds arise from +jets (processes that account for one or more jets recoiling against a vector boson), , and [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \cPqb \cPaqb)$]{}processes. To fully explore the [$\PH\to\ccbar$]{}decay mode, the analysis is split into two separate searches involving different topologies: the “resolved-jet” topology, in which the boson candidate is reconstructed from two well-separated and individually resolved charm quark jets, and the “merged-jet” topology, in which the hadronization products of the two charm quarks are reconstructed as a single jet. The former focuses on boson candidates with lower transverse momentum, , while the latter performs better for boson candidates with high . In practice, the two topologies can have significant overlap and so, for the final result, the two are made distinct by defining them in reference to whether the boson in the event has [$\pt(\PV)$]{}below or above a single threshold chosen to maximise the sensitivity to the [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}process.
The central feature of this search is the identification of charm quark jets. In both topologies, novel tools based upon advanced machine learning (ML) techniques are used for charm quark jet identification [@Sirunyan:2017ezt; @CMS-PAS-JME-18-002]. In addition, the merged-jet topology makes use of jet substructure information to further suppress the backgrounds.
The CMS detector
================
The central feature of the CMS apparatus is a superconducting solenoid of 6 internal diameter, providing a magnetic field of 3.8. Within the solenoid volume are a silicon pixel and strip tracker, a lead tungstate crystal electromagnetic calorimeter (ECAL), and a brass and scintillator hadron calorimeter (HCAL), each composed of a barrel and two endcap sections. Forward calorimeters extend the pseudorapidity ($\eta$) coverage provided by the barrel and endcap detectors. Muons are detected in gas-ionisation chambers embedded in the steel flux-return yoke outside the solenoid.
In the barrel section of the ECAL, an energy resolution of about 1% is achieved for unconverted or late-converting photons that have energies in the range of tens of GeV. The remaining barrel photons have a resolution of about 1.3% up to $\abs{\eta} = 1$, rising to about 2.5% at $\abs{\eta} = 1.4$. In the endcaps, the resolution of unconverted or late-converting photons is about 2.5%, while other endcap photons have a resolution between 3 and 4% [@CMS:EGM-14-001].
In the region $\abs{\eta} < 1.74$, the HCAL cells have widths of 0.087 in $\eta$ and 0.087 in azimuth ($\phi$). In the $\eta$-$\phi$ plane, and for $\abs{\eta} < 1.48$, the HCAL cells map on to $5{\times}5$ arrays of ECAL crystals to form calorimeter towers projecting radially outwards from close to the nominal interaction point. For $\abs{\eta} > 1.74$, the coverage of the towers increases progressively to a maximum of 0.174 in $\Delta \eta$ and $\Delta \phi$. Within each tower, the energy deposits in ECAL and HCAL cells are summed to define the calorimeter tower energies.
Muons are measured in the range $\abs{\eta} < 2.4$, with detection planes made using three technologies: drift tubes, cathode strip chambers, and resistive-plate chambers. The efficiency to reconstruct and identify muons is greater than 96%. Matching muons to tracks measured in the silicon tracker results in a relative resolution, for muons with up to 100, of 1% in the barrel and 3% in the endcaps. The resolution in the barrel is better than 7% for muons with up to 1 [@Sirunyan:2018].
Events of interest are selected using a two-tiered trigger system [@Khachatryan:2016bia]. The first level, composed of custom hardware processors, uses information from the calorimeters and muon detectors to select events at a rate of around 100 within a fixed time interval of less than 4. The second level, known as the high-level trigger (HLT), consists of a farm of processors running a version of the full event reconstruction software optimised for fast processing, and reduces the event rate to around 1 before data storage.
A more detailed description of the CMS detector, together with a definition of the coordinate system used and the relevant kinematic variables, can be found in Ref. [@Chatrchyan:2008zzk].
Simulated event samples {#sec:mcsamples}
=======================
Signal and background processes are simulated using various event generators, while the CMS detector response is modelled with [@GEANT4]. The quark-induced [$\PZ\PH$]{}and [$\PW\PH$]{}signal processes are generated at next-to-leading order (NLO) accuracy in QCD using the v2 [@Nason:2004rx; @POWHEG; @Alioli:2010xd] event generator extended with the Multi-scale improved NLO (MiNLO) procedure [@Hamilton2012; @Luisoni:2013kna], while the gluon-induced [$\PZ\PH$]{}process is generated at leading order (LO) accuracy with v2. The boson mass is set to 125for all signal samples. The production cross sections of the signal processes [@deFlorian:2016spz] are corrected as a function of [$\pt(\PV)$]{}to next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) QCD + NLO electroweak (EW) accuracy combining the <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vhnnlo</span> [@Ferrera:2013yga; @Ferrera:2014lca; @Ferrera:2011bk; @Ferrera:2017zex], <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">vh@nnlo</span> [@Brein:2012ne; @Harlander:2013mla], and <span style="font-variant:small-caps;">hawk</span> v2.0 [@Denner:2014cla] generators as described in Ref. [@deFlorian:2016spz].
The +jets events are generated with v2.4.2 [@Alwall:2014hca] at NLO with up to two additional partons, and at LO accuracy with up to four additional partons. The production cross sections for the +jets samples are scaled to the NNLO cross sections obtained using 3.1 [@Li:2012wna]. Events in both LO and NLO samples are reweighted to account for NLO EW corrections to [$\pt(\PV)$]{}, which reach up to 10% for ${\ensuremath{\pt(\PV)}\xspace}\approx 400\GeV$. In addition, a LO-to-NLO correction is applied to LO samples as a function of the separation in $\eta$ between the two leading jets in the event [@Sirunyan:2017elk]. The [$\pt(\PV)$]{}spectrum in simulation after the aforementioned corrections is observed to be harder than in data, as expected due to missing higher-order EW and QCD contributions to the +jets processes [@NLO_plus_QCD_weight]. A residual reweighting of [$\pt(\PV)$]{}, that is obtained via a fit to the data-to-simulation ratio in the control regions (detailed in Section \[sec:resolved\_an\]) of the [$\PW(\ell\PGn)\PH(\ccbar)$]{}and [$\PZ(\ell\ell)\PH(\ccbar)$]{}channels in the resolved analysis, is applied.
Diboson background events are generated with v2.4.2 [@Alwall:2014hca] at NLO with up to two additional partons in the matrix element calculations. The same generator is used at LO accuracy to generate a sample of QCD multijet events. The [@Frixione:2007nw] and single top production processes in the $\PQt\PW$- and $t$-channels [@Re:2010bp; @Frederix:2012dh] are generated to NLO accuracy with v2, while the $s$-channel [@Alioli:2009je] single top process is generated with v2.4.2. The production cross sections for the samples are scaled to the NNLO prediction with the next-to-next-to-leading-log result obtained from [[<span style="font-variant:small-caps;">Top++</span> v2.0]{}]{} [@Czakon:2011xx]. The samples are reweighted as a function of top quark to account for the known differences between data and simulation [@PhysRevD.95.092001].
The parton distribution functions (PDF) used to produce all samples are the NNLO [NNPDF3.1]{} set [@Ball:2017nwa]. For parton showering and hadronisation, including the [$\PH\to\ccbar$]{}decay, the matrix element generators are interfaced with v8.230 [@Sjostrand:2014zea] with the CUETP8M1 [@Khachatryan:2015pea] underlying event tune. The matching of jets from matrix element calculations and those from parton shower is done with the FxFx [@Frederix:2012ps] (MLM [@Alwall:2007fs]) prescription for NLO (LO) samples. For all samples, simulated additional $\Pp\Pp$ interactions in the same or adjacent bunch crossings (pileup) are added to the hard-scattering process. The events are then reweighted to match the pileup profile observed in the collected data.
Event reconstruction and selection {#sec:reconstruction}
==================================
Events are reconstructed using the CMS particle-flow (PF) algorithm [@CMS-PRF-14-001], which seeks to reconstruct and identify the individual particles in the event via an optimal combination of all information in the CMS detector. The reconstructed particles are identified as charged or neutral hadrons, electrons, muons, or photons, and constitute a list of PF candidate physics objects. At least one reconstructed vertex is required. In the case of multiple collision vertices from pileup interactions, the candidate vertex with the largest value of summed physics-object $\pt^2$ is taken to be the primary $\Pp\Pp$ interaction vertex. The physics objects are the jets, clustered using the jet finding algorithm [@Cacciari:2008gp; @Cacciari:2011ma] with the tracks assigned to candidate vertices as inputs, and the associated missing transverse momentum, taken as the negative vector sum of the of those jets. Events affected by reconstruction failures, detector malfunctions, or noncollision backgrounds, are identified and rejected by dedicated filters [@Sirunyan:2019kia].
Electrons are reconstructed by combining information from the tracker and energy deposits in the ECAL [@Khachatryan:2015hwa]. Muons are reconstructed by combining information from the tracker and the muon system [@Sirunyan:2018]. Only tracks originating from the PV can be associated with the electrons or muons, and quality criteria [@Khachatryan:2015hwa; @Sirunyan:2018] are further imposed that obtain more pure identification without substantial loss of efficiency. To suppress leptons stemming from and decays, while retaining leptons from decays, isolation is required from jet activity within a cone of radius $\Delta R = \sqrt{\smash[b]{(\Delta\eta)^2+(\Delta\phi)^2}} = 0.3$. The isolation is defined as the scalar sum of the PF candidates within the cone divided by the lepton . The upper threshold applied on the relative isolation is 0.06 for electrons and muons in the [$\PW(\ell\PGn)\PH(\ccbar)$]{}channel and 0.15 and 0.25 for electrons and muons respectively in the [$\PZ(\ell\ell)\PH(\ccbar)$]{}channel. Charged PF candidates not originating from the PV, as well as PF candidates identified as electrons or muons, are not considered in the sum [@CMS:2019kuk]. The isolation of electrons and muons is also corrected for the estimated energy that is contributed to the isolation region by neutral particles originating from pileup. In the case of electrons, the latter is estimated by an effective jet area from the measured neutral energy density [@Khachatryan:2015hwa], while for muons, the $\Delta\beta$-correction method [@Sirunyan:2018] is applied.
Jets are reconstructed by clustering the PF candidates with the anti-algorithm [@Cacciari:2008gp; @Cacciari:2011ma] using a distance parameter $R$. The jet momentum is determined as the vectorial sum of all PF candidate momenta in the jet, and is found in simulation to be within 5 to 10% of the true momentum over the full detector acceptance and range of considered in this analysis. The raw jet energies are then corrected to establish a relatively uniform response of the calorimeter in $\eta$ and a calibrated absolute response in . Additional corrections to account for any residual differences between the jet energy scale in data and simulation are extracted and applied based on comparison of data and simulated samples in relevant control regions [@Khachatryan:2016kdb]. The jet energy resolution typically amounts to 15–20% at 30, about 10% at 100, and 5% at 1 [@Khachatryan:2016kdb]. Corrections extracted from data control regions are applied to account for the difference between the jet energy resolution in data and simulation. Additional selection criteria are applied to each jet to remove those that are potentially dominated by instrumental or reconstruction failures [@CMS-PAS-JME-16-003].
Two collections of jets reconstructed with the anti-algorithm are used in the search. The first consists of jets clustered with $R=0.4$, and will be referred to as “[small-$R$]{} jets”. The charged hadron subtraction algorithm [@CMS-PAS-JME-14-001] is used to eliminate PF candidates from the jet constituents associated with vertices from pileup interactions. The neutral component of the energy arising from pileup interactions is estimated with the effective area method [@CMS-PAS-JME-16-003]. The [small-$R$]{} jets are required to have $\pt > 20$and to be within the tracker acceptance, $\abs{\eta} < 2.4$. Any [small-$R$]{} jets that overlap with preselected electrons and muons, as defined by $\Delta R(\text{j},\ell)<0.4$, are discarded.
The second jet collection is based on jets reconstructed using $R=1.5$. This collection will be referred to as “[large-$R$]{} jets” in what follows. In this case, the PUPPI algorithm [@Bertolini:2014bba] is used to correct the jet energy for contributions coming from pileup. Additional information on jet substructure is obtained by reclustering the constituents of these jets via the Cambridge–Aachen algorithm [@Dokshitzer:1997in]. The “modified mass drop tagger” algorithm [@Dasgupta:2013ihk; @Butterworth:2008iy], also known as the “soft-drop” (SD) algorithm, with angular exponent $\beta = 0$, soft cutoff threshold $z_{\text{cut}} =
0.1$, and characteristic radius $R_{0} = 1.5$ [@Larkoski:2014wba], is applied to remove soft, wide-angle radiation from the jet. In the default configuration, the SD algorithm identifies two hard subjets within the [large-$R$]{} jet by reversing the Cambridge–Aachen clustering history. The kinematics of the two subjets is used to calculate the 4-momentum of the [large-$R$]{} jet. The [large-$R$]{} jets are required to have $\abs{\eta}<2.4$ and a soft drop mass of $50 < {\ensuremath{m_{\text{SD}}}}< 200\GeV$. [Large-$R$]{} jets that overlap with preselected electrons and muons, as defined by $\Delta R(\text{j},\ell)<1.5$, are discarded.
One of the most challenging tasks of this analysis is the discrimination of jets that are the result of the hadronisation of quarks from all other jet flavours. Tagging jets is more difficult than tagging jets because they are less distinct from light-flavour quark or gluon jets () in regard to mass, decay length of charmed hadrons produced in the hadronisation process, and multiplicity of tracks inside the jet. The resolved- and merged-jet topology analyses use different strategies for tagging jets. More details on tagging are presented below in Sections \[sec:resolvedanalysis\] and \[sec:boostedanalysis\].
The missing transverse momentum vector is computed as the negative vector sum of all the PF candidates in an event, and its magnitude is denoted [@Sirunyan:2019kia]. The magnitude and direction of are modified to account for corrections to the energy scale of the reconstructed jets in the event.
Baseline selection {#sec:selection}
------------------
The search uses the leptonic decays of the vector bosons to define three mutually exclusive channels based on the charged-lepton multiplicity in the final state, namely: “0L” channel as referring to the [$\PZ(\PGn\PGn)\PH(\ccbar)$]{}signal process, “1L” channel as referring to the [$\PW(\ell\PGn)\PH(\ccbar)$]{}signal process, and “2L” channel as referring to the [$\PZ(\ell\ell)\PH(\ccbar)$]{}signal process. The 1L and 2L channels are further subdivided based on lepton flavour. Only electrons and muons are considered in this search.
Events in the 0L channel are collected with a trigger, while events in the 1L channel are obtained with a trigger requiring the presence of an isolated electron or muon with above 27 and 24, respectively. Events in the 2L channel of the resolved-jet topology analysis are selected by triggers that require the presence of a pair of leptons with larger than 23 and 12for electrons, and 17 and 8for muons. The same dielectron trigger has been used in the 2L [$\PZ(\Pe\Pe)$]{} channel of the merged-jet topology analysis, while events in the [$\PZ(\PGm\PGm$)]{} channel are selected by the above single-muon trigger, which provides high efficiency for muons produced in the decays of high-bosons.
The collected events are required to pass additional offline criteria. In the 0L channel corresponding to boson decays to neutrinos, $\ptmiss > 170$is required and events with identified isolated leptons are rejected. The is taken to correspond to $\ptvec(\PV)$ in this case. Events with a single electron (muon) with $\pt>30$ (25)pass the 1L selection. The leptonically decaying boson is approximately reconstructed as the vectorial sum of the lepton momentum and . The event topology is required to be compatible with the leptonic decay of a Lorentz-boosted boson by requiring $\Delta\phi(\ptmiss,\ell)<2.0$ (1.5) in the resolved-jet (merged-jet) topology analysis. Finally, for the 2L selection, the two highest leptons are required to be of the same flavour, opposite electric charge, and to have a above 20. The boson candidates are then reconstructed as the sum of the four-momenta of these two leptons, and the invariant mass of the candidates is required to be compatible with the boson mass ($75 <m_{\ell\ell}< 105\GeV$).
A typical [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} event has the signature of a vector boson recoiling against a boson with little additional activity. The event selection is designed to retain such events while suppressing background processes as much as possible. In addition to the requirement of a high- vector boson, the QCD multijet background is reduced to negligible levels by demanding the $\ptvecmiss$ to not be aligned with any jet in the event and requiring the azimuthal angular separation $\Delta\phi(\ptvecmiss{}_{\text{trk}},\ptvecmiss)<0.5$ for which $\ptvecmiss{}_{\text{trk}}$ is calculated solely from charged particles. This latter selection reduces the contribution of QCD multijet events that arise from the presence of “fake” $\ptvecmiss$ coming from jet energy mismeasurement in the calorimeters. A significant fraction of the background is suppressed by rejecting events with [$\text{N}^{\text{aj}}_{\text{small-}R}$]{} $>1$ in the 0L and 1L channels, and [$\text{N}^{\text{aj}}_{\text{small-}R}$]{} $>2$ in the 2L channel of the merged-jet topology analysis, where [$\text{N}^{\text{aj}}_{\text{small-}R}$]{} represents the additional [small-$R$]{} jet multiplicity. This requirement is not needed in the 2L channel of the resolved-jet topology analysis where the top quark background is negligible.
The dominant background that remains after the application of the event selection described above is +jets. Contribution from this background is suppressed by requiring the dijet invariant mass ($m_{\text{jj}}$) to satisfy $50<m_{\text{jj}}<200\GeV$. Contributions from and single top processes remain significant in the 0L and 1L channels because of the presence of at least one boson and because quarks are often misidentified as quarks by the tagging algorithms. Contributions from diboson processes are typically small as a result of their small production cross sections. The background originating from bosons decaying into quarks presents kinematic properties similar to those of the signal, with the exception of a higher average energy of neutrinos in jets than in jets. This background is reduced by exploiting dedicated jet flavour taggers, as described in Sections \[sec:resolvedanalysis\] and \[sec:boostedanalysis\].
The details of the resolved-jet topology and merged-jet topology analyses are described in Sections \[sec:resolved\_an\] and \[sec:boosted\_an\], respectively. Section \[sec:systematics\] is dedicated to the treatment of the systematics uncertainties and Section \[sec:results\] presents the results of the two analyses and of their combination. Section \[sec:results\] presents also the strategy that is used to make the two analyses mutually exclusive in order to facilitate their combination for the final results.
Resolved-jet topology analysis \[sec:resolvedanalysis\] {#sec:resolved_an}
=======================================================
Approximately 95% of the $\PV\PH$ events produced at $\sqrt{s}=13\TeV$ have a vector boson with lower than 200, corresponding to the phase space region where the boson decay products generally give rise to two distinctly reconstructed [small-$R$]{} jets in the CMS detector. The resolved-jet analysis aims to exploit a large fraction of this phase space which, however, contains a sizeable background contamination. The requirement of a moderate boost of the vector boson is then found to be crucial to the reduction of +jets and backgrounds. Dedicated charm taggers based on ML are used to order the jets in the event by their likelihood to be jets that are considered for use in reconstructing the boson candidate.
Backgrounds arise from the production of and bosons in association with one or more jets, single and pair-produced top quarks, and diboson events. A small residual QCD background is present in the 0L and 1L channels. High-purity control regions for the [+]{}and backgrounds are identified in data and used to estimate expected yields of these backgrounds in the signal region. Samples of events in regions that are disjoint from the signal region in tagging probability and dijet mass but which are enhanced in [+]{} and [+]{} production are used to provide data-driven constraints on the [+]{} and [+]{} backgrounds, respectively. Finally, a binned maximum likelihood fit is carried out simultaneously in the signal region and in the control regions for all channels.
Higgs boson reconstruction {#sec:HrecoResolved}
--------------------------
The candidate is reconstructed as two distinct [small-$R$]{} jets. The identification of jets among those arising from other flavours of quarks or gluons is achieved with the Deep Combined Secondary Vertex (DeepCSV) algorithm [@Sirunyan:2017ezt]. This algorithm encodes a multiclassifier based on advanced ML techniques and provides three output weights $p(\cPqb)$, $p(\PQc)$, and $p(\cPqu{}\cPqd{}\cPqs{}\Pg)$ which can be interpreted as the probabilities for a given jet to have originated from a bottom quark, a charm quark, or a gluon or light-flavour quark, respectively. By combining the various DeepCSV outputs, it is possible to define two discriminators for tagging. The inputs to the DeepCSV algorithm are variables constructed from observables associated with the reconstructed primary and secondary vertices, tracks, and jets. The discrimination between jets and light-flavour quark or gluon jets is achieved via the probability ratio defined as $\textit{CvsL} = p(\PQc) / [ p(\PQc) + p(\cPqu{}\cPqd{}\cPqs{}\Pg) ]$. In the same way, discrimination between jets and jets makes use of the probability ratio defined as $\textit{CvsB} = p(\PQc) / [ p(\PQc) + p(\cPqb) ]$. The two discriminator ratio values for each jet define a two-dimensional distribution. The resulting tagging efficiency as a function of the jet and light-flavour quark or gluon jet efficiencies is shown in Fig. \[fig:CTagEfficiency\]. To account for residual O(10%) differences in the distributions of $\textit{CvsL}$ and $\textit{CvsB}$ found in the comparison of data and simulation, reshaping scale factors have been extracted using an iterative fit to distributions in control regions enriched in Drell–Yan+jets, semileptonic +jets, and +events that provide data samples with large fractions of light-flavour quark or gluon jets, jets, and jets, respectively.
![Efficiency to tag a jet as a function of the jet and light-flavour quark or gluon jet mistag rates. The working point adopted in the resolved-jet topology analysis to select the leading *CvsL* jets is shown with a white cross. The white lines correspond to jet iso-efficiency curves. The plot makes use of jets with $\pt>20$that have been clustered with AK4 algorithm in a simulated +jets sample before application of data-to-simulation reshaping scale factors.[]{data-label="fig:CTagEfficiency"}](Figure_001.pdf){width="65.00000%"}
The probability ratios $\textit{CvsL}$ and $\textit{CvsB}$ are used to discriminate candidates that are consistent with the jet hypothesis from jets originating from light-flavour quarks or gluons, and quarks, respectively. The two jets with the highest score of $\textit{CvsL}$ in the event are chosen to build the candidate four-vector. Events are required to have the leading jet in $\textit{CvsL}$ score passing the tagger working point requirements $(\textit{CvsL}>0.4,~\textit{CvsB}>0.2)$. This working point has been chosen such that the efficiency to identify a jet is approximately 28%, while the misidentification rate is 4% for light-flavour quark or gluon jets and 15% for jets. To account for jets originating from final-state radiation (FSR), additional jets with $\pt > 30\GeV$ and $\abs{\eta}<3.0$ are included in the calculation of the components of the candidate four-vector if they lie in a cone of $\Delta R<0.8$ centred on the direction of one of the two leading jets.
Signal extraction {#sec:ResoStrategy}
-----------------
In addition to the selections reported in Sections \[sec:selection\] and \[sec:HrecoResolved\], in the 1L and 0L channels of the resolved-jet topology analysis, where larger backgrounds are expected, the candidates are required to have of at least 100 and 170respectively, while, for the same channels, the candidates are required to have of at least 100 and 120. In the 2L channel, where the background from production is much smaller and the effective signal cross section is also lower, two regions are considered: a low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}region defined by $50 < {\ensuremath{\pt(\PV)}\xspace}< 150\GeV$ and a high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}region with ${\ensuremath{\pt(\PV)}\xspace}> 150$(no upper cut is applied on ${\ensuremath{\pt(\PV)}\xspace}$). In [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} signal events, the vector boson is typically produced in the azimuthal direction opposite to that of the boson. Therefore, an additional requirement on the difference in azimuthal angle between the reconstructed and candidate, [$\Delta\phi(\PV,\PH)$]{} $>$2.5 ($>$2.0 in the 0L channel), is applied.
In the signal regions defined by the application of the selection criteria mentioned above, a boosted decision tree (BDT) with gradient boost [@Hocker:2007ht] has been trained to enhance the signal separation from background. Separate BDTs have been trained for 0L, 1L, and 2L (low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}and high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}) channels. The distributions of all variables used to construct the BDT discriminator and hence the BDT distribution itself are taken from simulation after the application of the corrections detailed in Section \[sec:mcsamples\]. Table \[tab:ResoBDTInputs\] lists the input variables considered in each channel. As expected, the most discriminating variables are found to be the candidate invariant mass and the $\textit{CvsL}_{\text{max}}$.
\[tab:ResoBDTInputs\]
The remaining background contribution is estimated from a combination of simulated events and data. While the normalisations of QCD, single-top, diboson, and [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \cPqb \cPaqb)$]{}processes are estimated via simulation, the normalisations of the +jets and +jets backgrounds are determined from fits to data in dedicated control regions in order to avoid potential mismodelling of the flavour composition of these samples. Four control regions per channel are designed to constrain the most important background processes: a region dominated by +jets events (TT), a region targeting +jets with at least one jet originating from light-flavour quarks or gluons (LF), a region enriched in +jets events with one jet and one or jet (HF), and a region enriched with [+]{}events (CC). The definitions of the different control regions are based mainly on the inversion of the criteria on the charm tagger discriminators values of the $\textit{CvsL}$-leading jet applied to define the signal regions. To define the LF control region the selection $(\textit{CvsL}<0.4,~\textit{CvsB}>0.2)$ is used while both the HF and TT control regions are defined applying the selection $(\textit{CvsL}>0.4,~\textit{CvsB}<0.2)$. In order to differentiate the TT from HF control regions, further requirements are applied such as a veto on the reconstructed boson mass in the 2L channel, $m_{\ell\ell}\notin [75,120]\GeV$, and the requirement ${\ensuremath{\text{N}^{\text{aj}}_{\text{small-}R}}}\geq2$. The CC control region is defined identically to the signal region, except for inverting the requirement on the mass. The simulated +jets backgrounds are similarly split into four classes depending on the flavour(s) of the additional jet(s) present in the processes: +2 light-flavour quark or gluon jets, [+]{}and 1or 1, +$\PQb\PQb$ or $\PQb\PQc$, and +$\PQc\PQc$ jets.
Separate normalisation scale factors are used to constrain +jets processes in the 0L and 2L channels, while the normalisation scale factors related to +jets processes are shared between the 0L and 1L analysis channels. To constrain the +jets process, on the other hand, each channel relies on its own independent normalisation scale factors. The normalisation scale factors are measured together with the signal strength modifier through a simultaneous fit to data in all control and signal regions for all of the analysis channels. The simulated diboson background is split according to the presence or absence of a boson decaying to a pair of charm quarks, labelling them as [$\PV\PZ(\PZ\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}if such a boson decay is present and VV+other otherwise. Whereas in the signal regions the BDT discriminator is used for the final signal extraction, in the control regions the shape of the $\textit{CvsB}$ distribution is used in the TT, HF, and CC regions, while that of $\textit{CvsL}$ is used in the LF region.
Figure \[fig:BDTCR2lepLow\] shows the most representative distributions of the $CvsB$ discriminant for the subleading $\textit{CvsL}$ jet for the HF and CC control regions in the 2L ([$\PZ(\PGm\PGm$)]{}) low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L ([$\PZ(\Pe\Pe)$]{}) high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L ([$\PW(\mu\nu)$]{}), and 0L channels. The post-fit distributions (for fit details, see Section \[sec:results\]) in Fig. \[fig:BDTCR2lepLow\] show good agreement between the data and the simulation in these two most significant control regions. Moreover, the employment of the full distribution of the $\textit{CvsB}$ score provides a good separation between the +$\PQb\PQb$ and +$\PQc\PQc$ processes that makes it possible to constrain these two backgrounds. The corresponding distributions for the other channels are not shown but are similar in their behaviour.
![Post-fit $\textit{CvsB}_{\text{min}}$ distributions in the CC (left panel) and HF (right panel) control regions for the 2L ([$\PZ(\PGm\PGm$)]{}) low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L ([$\PZ(\Pe\Pe)$]{}) high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L ([$\PW(\mu\nu)$]{}), and 0L channels.[]{data-label="fig:BDTCR2lepLow"}](Figure_002-a.pdf "fig:"){width="37.50000%"} ![Post-fit $\textit{CvsB}_{\text{min}}$ distributions in the CC (left panel) and HF (right panel) control regions for the 2L ([$\PZ(\PGm\PGm$)]{}) low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L ([$\PZ(\Pe\Pe)$]{}) high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L ([$\PW(\mu\nu)$]{}), and 0L channels.[]{data-label="fig:BDTCR2lepLow"}](Figure_002-b.pdf "fig:"){width="37.50000%"} ![Post-fit $\textit{CvsB}_{\text{min}}$ distributions in the CC (left panel) and HF (right panel) control regions for the 2L ([$\PZ(\PGm\PGm$)]{}) low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L ([$\PZ(\Pe\Pe)$]{}) high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L ([$\PW(\mu\nu)$]{}), and 0L channels.[]{data-label="fig:BDTCR2lepLow"}](Figure_002-c.pdf "fig:"){width="37.50000%"} ![Post-fit $\textit{CvsB}_{\text{min}}$ distributions in the CC (left panel) and HF (right panel) control regions for the 2L ([$\PZ(\PGm\PGm$)]{}) low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L ([$\PZ(\Pe\Pe)$]{}) high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L ([$\PW(\mu\nu)$]{}), and 0L channels.[]{data-label="fig:BDTCR2lepLow"}](Figure_002-d.pdf "fig:"){width="37.50000%"} ![Post-fit $\textit{CvsB}_{\text{min}}$ distributions in the CC (left panel) and HF (right panel) control regions for the 2L ([$\PZ(\PGm\PGm$)]{}) low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L ([$\PZ(\Pe\Pe)$]{}) high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L ([$\PW(\mu\nu)$]{}), and 0L channels.[]{data-label="fig:BDTCR2lepLow"}](Figure_002-e.pdf "fig:"){width="37.50000%"} ![Post-fit $\textit{CvsB}_{\text{min}}$ distributions in the CC (left panel) and HF (right panel) control regions for the 2L ([$\PZ(\PGm\PGm$)]{}) low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L ([$\PZ(\Pe\Pe)$]{}) high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L ([$\PW(\mu\nu)$]{}), and 0L channels.[]{data-label="fig:BDTCR2lepLow"}](Figure_002-f.pdf "fig:"){width="37.50000%"} ![Post-fit $\textit{CvsB}_{\text{min}}$ distributions in the CC (left panel) and HF (right panel) control regions for the 2L ([$\PZ(\PGm\PGm$)]{}) low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L ([$\PZ(\Pe\Pe)$]{}) high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L ([$\PW(\mu\nu)$]{}), and 0L channels.[]{data-label="fig:BDTCR2lepLow"}](Figure_002-g.pdf "fig:"){width="37.50000%"} ![Post-fit $\textit{CvsB}_{\text{min}}$ distributions in the CC (left panel) and HF (right panel) control regions for the 2L ([$\PZ(\PGm\PGm$)]{}) low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L ([$\PZ(\Pe\Pe)$]{}) high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L ([$\PW(\mu\nu)$]{}), and 0L channels.[]{data-label="fig:BDTCR2lepLow"}](Figure_002-h.pdf "fig:"){width="37.50000%"}
Merged-jet topology analysis \[sec:boostedanalysis\] {#sec:boosted_an}
====================================================
For the case of a Lorentz-boosted boson as flagged by a boson with ${\ensuremath{\pt(\PV)}\xspace}\gtrsim 200\GeV$, a merged-jet topology is considered. The dominant backgrounds after the baseline selection presented in Section \[sec:selection\] come from +jets and processes. The bosons in the signal process have on average larger than those from the +jets background. The analysis focuses on the reconstruction of moderately to highly Lorentz-boosted bosons where the decay products are contained in a single [large-$R$]{} jet. Dedicated object reconstruction tools based on [large-$R$]{} jets and advanced ML techniques were developed to identify and reconstruct Lorentz-boosted bosons decaying to charm quarks.
Higgs boson reconstruction {#higgs-boson-reconstruction}
--------------------------
The cornerstone of the merged-jet topology analysis is the reconstruction of the [$\PH\to\ccbar$]{} candidate in a single, [large-$R$]{} jet, which has the potential to provide a better signal purity because the signal has a tendency to be more boosted than the dominant +jets and backgrounds, as noted above. In view of this, the high-regime with ${\ensuremath{\pt(\PV)}\xspace}\gtrsim 200\GeV$, though representing no more than approximately 5% of the total phase space, can provide a significant contribution to the search. Moreover, the merged-jet approach has important advantages over the resolved-jet approach at high . The possibility for both quarks to reside in a single [large-$R$]{} jet enhances the signal acceptance, improves the identification of the correct pair of jets to use in reconstructing the boson, and similarly facilitates the task of taking into account any FSR that may have been emitted by the quarks. A more detailed discussion of the potential advantages of this approach can be found in Refs. [@Butterworth:2008iy; @Plehn:2009rk]. Given the small fraction of signal events that survive a selection with ${\ensuremath{\pt(\PV)}\xspace}\gtrsim 200\GeV$, it is critical to carefully choose the $R$ parameter of the jet clustering algorithm. In general, the angular separation between the decay products of a Lorentz-boosted particle such as the boson is approximately given by $\Delta R \sim 2m_{\PH}/{\ensuremath{\pt(\PH)}\xspace}$. For a ${\ensuremath{\pt(\PH)}\xspace}\sim{\ensuremath{\pt(\PV)}\xspace}$ of 200, this gives $\Delta R \approx 1.25$. For good signal purity and acceptance, we have thus chosen to use [large-$R$]{} jets clustered by the anti-algorithm with a distance parameter of $R=1.5$.
As for the resolved-jet topology analysis, one of the biggest challenges is the efficient reconstruction of the pair of quarks from the boson decay, while also achieving significant rejection of both light-flavour quarks and gluons, as well as quarks that contribute backgrounds to this search. To this end, a novel algorithm, DeepAK15 [@CMS-PAS-JME-18-002], has been used for the identification of jet substructure to tag , , and bosons, as well as top quarks. In addition, DeepAK15 is designed to discriminate between decay modes with different flavour content (e.g. ${\ensuremath{\PH\to\bbbar}\xspace}$, ${\ensuremath{\PH\to\ccbar}\xspace}$, $\PH \to \PQq\PAQq\PQq\PAQq$) [@CMS-PAS-JME-18-002]. The algorithm deploys ML methods on the PF candidates and secondary vertices, which are used as inputs. DeepAK15 is designed to exploit information related to jet substructure, flavour, and pileup simultaneously, yielding substantial gains with respect to other approaches [@CMS-PAS-JME-18-002]. With the aid of a generative adversarial neural network [@CMS-PAS-JME-18-002; @NIPS2014_5423], the algorithm is largely decorrelated from the jet mass, while preserving most of the method’s discriminating power.
The performance in terms of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve of the $\ccbar$ discriminant for identifying a pair of quarks from boson decay versus quarks from the +jets process for [large-$R$]{} jets with $\pt>200$is shown in Fig. \[fig:roc\_deepak15\] (left). Three working points (WPs) are defined on the $\ccbar$ tagging discriminant distribution with approximately 1, 2.5, and 5% misidentification rates, and the corresponding efficiencies for identifying a $\ccbar$ pair are approximately 23, 35, and 46%. Another important parameter is the misidentification of jets as signal jets. The corresponding ROC curve is displayed in Fig. \[fig:roc\_deepak15\] (right). For the three WPs defined above, the corresponding jet misidentification rates are approximately 9, 17, and 27%. To improve the sensitivity of the analysis, three mutually exclusive $\ccbar$-enriched categories, the “low-purity” (LP), “medium-purity” (MP), and “high-purity” (HP) categories, are defined based on the three WPs. The merged jet algorithm is calibrated using data and MC simulated samples, and -dependent simulation-to-data scale factors, typically ranging from 0.85 to 1.30, are extracted and applied only to the [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} signal events for reasons that will be provided in Section \[sec:boosted\_sigextr\].
![\[fig:roc\_deepak15\] The performance of the $\ccbar$ discriminant to identify a $\ccbar$ pair in terms of receiver operating characteristic curves, for [large-$R$]{} jets with $\pt>200$, before the application of data-to-simulation scale factors. Left: the efficiency to correctly identify a pair of quarks from boson decay vs. the efficiency of misidentifying quarks from the +jets process. Right: the efficiency to correctly identify a pair of quarks from boson decay vs. the efficiency of misidentifying a pair of quarks from boson decay. The gray stars and crosses on the ROC curves represent the three working points used in the merged-jet topology analysis.](Figure_003-a.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![\[fig:roc\_deepak15\] The performance of the $\ccbar$ discriminant to identify a $\ccbar$ pair in terms of receiver operating characteristic curves, for [large-$R$]{} jets with $\pt>200$, before the application of data-to-simulation scale factors. Left: the efficiency to correctly identify a pair of quarks from boson decay vs. the efficiency of misidentifying quarks from the +jets process. Right: the efficiency to correctly identify a pair of quarks from boson decay vs. the efficiency of misidentifying a pair of quarks from boson decay. The gray stars and crosses on the ROC curves represent the three working points used in the merged-jet topology analysis.](Figure_003-b.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Signal extraction {#sec:boosted_sigextr}
-----------------
In the merged-jet topology analysis, events are required to have at least one [large-$R$]{} jet with $\pt>200$, with the highest [large-$R$]{} jet selected as the boson candidate. In [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}signal events, the vector boson and the boson are typically emitted back-to-back in $\phi$. Therefore, the difference in azimuthal angle between the reconstructed vector boson and candidate, [$\Delta\phi(\PV,\PH)$]{}, is required to be at least 2.5. To avoid double-counting, [small-$R$]{} jets are removed from the event if they overlap the candidate with $\Delta R(\text{{small-$R$}\ jet}, \PH)<1.5$.
To further distinguish the signal process from the main backgrounds, a separate BDT is developed for each channel. The goal is to define a discriminant that improves the separation between [${\PV}\PH$]{}signal and the main backgrounds, while remaining largely independent of the $\ccbar$ tagging discriminant and the mass. The BDT only makes use of kinematic information from the event, without including intrinsic properties of such as the flavour content and the mass of the [large-$R$]{} jet, which will be used in a fit to the data for the signal extraction. Table \[tab:kinBDT-inputs\] summarises the kinematic variables used as input to the BDT for each of the three channels.
\[tab:kinBDT-inputs\]
The BDT distributions of the three channels for events passing the above selection are shown in Fig. \[fig:2l-kinBDT-DeepAK15\] (left) for the [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}signal and the background processes. The discrimination power of the BDT depends on the channel. An improved discrimination power is obtained in the 2L and 1L channels compared to the 0L channel. In particular, in the 1L channel, improvement is achieved thanks to the presence of the charged lepton and , which are then used for the training of the BDT to provide additional handles to suppress the background. For all channels, events with BDT values greater than 0.5 define the signal region. Figure \[fig:2l-kinBDT-DeepAK15\] (right) shows the distributions of the $\ccbar$ discriminant in the three channels in the signal region for the signal and the background processes. Good separation is observed between signal and background. The performance of the $\ccbar$ discriminant degrades with the presence of quarks, as is the case for events, for instance. The signal regions of the merged-jet topology analysis are finally defined requiring the [large-$R$]{} jet to pass one of the three working points of the $\ccbar$ discriminant mentioned above.
![The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}signal and background distributions of the kinematic BDT output (left), and the $\ccbar$ discriminant in events with BDT values greater than 0.5 (right), in the 0L (upper), 1L (middle) and 2L (lower) channels. The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}signal is normalised to the sum of all backgrounds. The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \cPqb \cPaqb)$]{} contribution, similarly normalised, is also shown.[]{data-label="fig:2l-kinBDT-DeepAK15"}](Figure_004-a.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}signal and background distributions of the kinematic BDT output (left), and the $\ccbar$ discriminant in events with BDT values greater than 0.5 (right), in the 0L (upper), 1L (middle) and 2L (lower) channels. The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}signal is normalised to the sum of all backgrounds. The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \cPqb \cPaqb)$]{} contribution, similarly normalised, is also shown.[]{data-label="fig:2l-kinBDT-DeepAK15"}](Figure_004-b.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}signal and background distributions of the kinematic BDT output (left), and the $\ccbar$ discriminant in events with BDT values greater than 0.5 (right), in the 0L (upper), 1L (middle) and 2L (lower) channels. The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}signal is normalised to the sum of all backgrounds. The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \cPqb \cPaqb)$]{} contribution, similarly normalised, is also shown.[]{data-label="fig:2l-kinBDT-DeepAK15"}](Figure_004-c.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}signal and background distributions of the kinematic BDT output (left), and the $\ccbar$ discriminant in events with BDT values greater than 0.5 (right), in the 0L (upper), 1L (middle) and 2L (lower) channels. The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}signal is normalised to the sum of all backgrounds. The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \cPqb \cPaqb)$]{} contribution, similarly normalised, is also shown.[]{data-label="fig:2l-kinBDT-DeepAK15"}](Figure_004-d.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}signal and background distributions of the kinematic BDT output (left), and the $\ccbar$ discriminant in events with BDT values greater than 0.5 (right), in the 0L (upper), 1L (middle) and 2L (lower) channels. The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}signal is normalised to the sum of all backgrounds. The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \cPqb \cPaqb)$]{} contribution, similarly normalised, is also shown.[]{data-label="fig:2l-kinBDT-DeepAK15"}](Figure_004-e.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"} ![The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}signal and background distributions of the kinematic BDT output (left), and the $\ccbar$ discriminant in events with BDT values greater than 0.5 (right), in the 0L (upper), 1L (middle) and 2L (lower) channels. The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}signal is normalised to the sum of all backgrounds. The [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \cPqb \cPaqb)$]{} contribution, similarly normalised, is also shown.[]{data-label="fig:2l-kinBDT-DeepAK15"}](Figure_004-f.pdf "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
Dedicated control regions, each enriched in a specific background process, are defined to aid the background estimation in each channel. Two types of control regions are defined: the “low-BDT” control region consisting of events with BDT value $<$0.5, which is enriched in +jets background, and the high-[$\text{N}^{\text{aj}}_{\text{small-}R}$]{} control region, defined by inverting the selection on the number of [small-$R$]{} jets to yield a high-purity sample. The latter is not used for the 2-lepton channel since the contribution is small in this channel. In both control regions, events are required to satisfy the same $\ccbar$ tagging discriminant criteria as applied in the signal regions in order to probe events with a similar flavour composition. This allows the efficiency of the $\ccbar$ tagging discriminant to be estimated directly from the data without further corrections being required, as verified in studies with simulated events and events in data validation regions orthogonal to the control and signal regions.
The low-BDT and the high-[$\text{N}^{\text{aj}}_{\text{small-}R}$]{} control regions, together with the signal regions, are included in the maximum likelihood fit to correct for any difference between data and simulation in the production rate of the +jets and processes in the phase space selected by this analysis. Parameters used to separately scale the overall normalisation of the +jets, +jets, and background processes are allowed to float freely in the fit. These parameters scale the background rate in the same way in both the control and the signal regions. The parameters are defined separately for each channel, with the exception that the same scale factor is assumed for the +jets process in the 0L and 1L channels. Any potential difference in the $\ccbar$ tagging efficiency between data and simulation is also taken into account in the measured simulation-to-data scale factors.
Systematic uncertainties {#sec:systematics}
========================
Systematic effects can impact the shape of the BDT discriminant distribution for both the resolved- and the merged-jet topologies, as well as the candidate mass in the merged-jet topology. The dominant uncertainties are associated with the normalisation of the background from the data control regions and the limited sizes of the simulated samples. Additional systematic effects are related to the jet energy scale and resolution, which are treated as correlated between the large- and [small-$R$]{} jets. Theoretical uncertainties related to the cross sections and the spectra of the signal and backgrounds are also considered. In the resolved-jet analysis the systematic uncertainties in PDFs, and in the renormalisation and factorisation scales are treated as uncorrelated among the four flavour classes considered in the +jets processes, as described in Section \[sec:resolvedanalysis\]. Lastly, the uncertainties in the quark identification are also considered. The full list of systematic uncertainties is provided in Table \[tab:systematics\].
In Table \[tab:systematicsImpact\] the uncertainty sources are grouped into categories and their impact on the fitted signal strength resulting from the combination of the resolved-jet and merged-jet topology analyses is provided (see Section \[sec:results\] for more details). The uncertainty breakdown shows that the search for the [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}process is mainly limited by the available statistics: the related uncertainty accounts for more than 85% of the total uncertainty in the fitted $\mu$. The statistical uncertainties include contributions from the limited number of events in the available dataset and the background normalisations extracted from the control regions. The main sources of systematics uncertainties come from the charm tagging efficiencies and the modelling of the simulated physics processes, representing $\sim28\%$ and $\sim25\%$ of the total uncertainty, respectively. Also the uncertainties in the theory prediction play a considerable role, representing approximately 30% of the total uncertainty in $\mu$.
\[tab:systematics\]
Results {#sec:results}
=======
The signal extraction strategy is based on a binned likelihood fit to the data, with the signal and control regions fitted simultaneously. The upper limit (UL) on the signal strength $\mu$ for SM production of [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} is extracted at 95% based on a modified frequentist approach [@CLS1; @CLS2] under the asymptotic approximation for the profile likelihood test statistic [@Cowan:2010js; @CMS-NOTE-2011-005]. Both analyses are validated by measuring the products of the [${\PV}\PZ$]{}production cross section and the branching fraction of to charm quark-antiquark pair, $\mathcal{B}\left(\PZ \to {\PQc}{\PAQc}\right)$. The systematic uncertainties are incorporated in the fit as constrained parameters of the likelihood function. The cross section of the [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \cPqb \cPaqb)$]{}process is set to its SM prediction for the boson mass of 125.
The results obtained in the resolved-jet and merged-jet topologies analyses independently, i.e., exploiting larger regions of the full phase space prior to defining disjoint data samples for the combination of results, are described in Sections \[sec:results\_reso\] and \[sec:results\_boost\]. As described in Sections \[sec:resolved\_an\] and \[sec:boosted\_an\], in the merged-jet topology analysis the phase-space considered is bounded from below by ${\ensuremath{\pt(\PV)}}>200\GeV$, while for the resolved-jet topology analysis the lower bound is set by the [$\pt(\PV)$]{} thresholds of 50, 100, and 170in the 2L, 1L and 0L channels, respectively. Neither of the analyses has an upper limit on [$\pt(\PV)$]{}. The two analyses are then combined for the final result, presented in Section \[sec:combination\], after making them statistically independent via a selection on [$\pt(\PV)$]{} to set an upper bound for the resolved-jet topology analysis that is also the lower bound on the merged-jet topology analysis.
Resolved-jet topology {#sec:results_reso}
---------------------
In the resolved-jet topology analysis, the [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} signal is extracted via a binned likelihood fit to the BDT output distributions, that is carried out simultaneously with fits to the backgrounds in control regions. In the LF control regions the fits are for the $\textit{CvsL}_{\text{min}}$ distributions, while in the TT, HF, and CC control regions they are for the $\textit{CvsB}_{\text{min}}$ distributions, as detailed in Section \[sec:ResoStrategy\].
The analysis is first validated by measuring the product of the [${\PV}\PZ$]{}production cross section and $\mathcal{B}\left(\PZ \to {\PQc}{\PAQc}\right)$ normalised to the SM prediction. A separate BDT is trained for each channel, using [$\PV\PZ(\PZ\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} as signal and [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} as contribution to background with cross section fixed to the SM prediction. The measured signal strength for the [$\PV\PZ(\PZ\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} process is $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PZ(\PZ\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}=1.35^{+0.94}_{-0.95}$ with an observed (expected) significance of 1.5 $(1.2)$ standard deviations ($\sigma$), respectively. The results are consistent within uncertainties with the SM expectation.
A dedicated BDT is trained for each channel to distinguish the [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} signal from the backgrounds. Figure \[fig:PostFitSR\] displays the BDT distributions in all search channels after the fit to the data. In all plots, the value of each nuisance parameter has been fixed to its best fit value. In general, the BDT distributions in data agree well with the background predictions. The largest excess in the data occurs at large BDT values in the high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{} 2L ([$\PZ(\Pe\Pe)$]{}) channel with an observed local signal significance of $2.1\,\sigma$.
![Post-fit distributions of the BDT score in the signal region of the resolved-jet topology analysis for the 2L low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L, and 0L channels. The plain red histograms represent the signal contribution normalized by the post-fit value of $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$, while the red line histograms show the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor 100. []{data-label="fig:PostFitSR"}](Figure_005-a.pdf "fig:"){width="37.00000%"} ![Post-fit distributions of the BDT score in the signal region of the resolved-jet topology analysis for the 2L low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L, and 0L channels. The plain red histograms represent the signal contribution normalized by the post-fit value of $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$, while the red line histograms show the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor 100. []{data-label="fig:PostFitSR"}](Figure_005-b.pdf "fig:"){width="37.00000%"}\
![Post-fit distributions of the BDT score in the signal region of the resolved-jet topology analysis for the 2L low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L, and 0L channels. The plain red histograms represent the signal contribution normalized by the post-fit value of $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$, while the red line histograms show the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor 100. []{data-label="fig:PostFitSR"}](Figure_005-c.pdf "fig:"){width="37.00000%"} ![Post-fit distributions of the BDT score in the signal region of the resolved-jet topology analysis for the 2L low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L, and 0L channels. The plain red histograms represent the signal contribution normalized by the post-fit value of $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$, while the red line histograms show the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor 100. []{data-label="fig:PostFitSR"}](Figure_005-d.pdf "fig:"){width="37.00000%"}\
![Post-fit distributions of the BDT score in the signal region of the resolved-jet topology analysis for the 2L low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L, and 0L channels. The plain red histograms represent the signal contribution normalized by the post-fit value of $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$, while the red line histograms show the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor 100. []{data-label="fig:PostFitSR"}](Figure_005-e.pdf "fig:"){width="37.00000%"} ![Post-fit distributions of the BDT score in the signal region of the resolved-jet topology analysis for the 2L low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L, and 0L channels. The plain red histograms represent the signal contribution normalized by the post-fit value of $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$, while the red line histograms show the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor 100. []{data-label="fig:PostFitSR"}](Figure_005-f.pdf "fig:"){width="37.00000%"} ![Post-fit distributions of the BDT score in the signal region of the resolved-jet topology analysis for the 2L low-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 2L high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}, 1L, and 0L channels. The plain red histograms represent the signal contribution normalized by the post-fit value of $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$, while the red line histograms show the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor 100. []{data-label="fig:PostFitSR"}](Figure_005-g.pdf "fig:"){width="37.00000%"}
The observed (expected) UL at 95% CL on $\mu$ for SM [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} production is 75 ($38^{+16}_{-11}$), and the measured signal strength is $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}=41^{+20}_{-20}$. The uncertainties in the expected UL correspond to a variation of $\pm1\,\sigma$ in the expected event yields under the background-only hypothesis. The results are consistent with the SM expectations within two standard deviations. This modest deviation is mostly due to the small excess mentioned above. The results for each channel and their combination are shown in Table \[tab:limits-ind\]. The most sensitive channel is 2L, whereas the 0L and 1L channels have similar sensitivity.
Merged-jet topology {#sec:results_boost}
-------------------
In the merged-jet topology analysis, the [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} signal is extracted via a binned maximum likelihood fit to the soft-drop mass [$m_{\text{SD}}$]{} of , with the signal regions and the control regions from all three purity categories included in the fit simultaneously. In total, 15 bins are used in the fit for each region, with a bin width of 10corresponding roughly to the [$m_{\text{SD}}$]{} resolution. The [$m_{\text{SD}}$]{} distributions of the [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} and background processes in all three channels in the high-purity category are shown in Fig. \[fig:sdmass-comp-2l\]. The background prediction is in good agreement with the observed data, within uncertainties.
![The [$m_{\text{SD}}$]{} distribution of in data and simulation in the merged-jet topology analysis signal regions after the maximum likelihood fit, for events in the high purity category. Upper row: 2L channel, electrons (left) and muons (right); middle row: 1L channel, electron (left) and muon (right); lower row: 0L channel. The plain red histograms represent the signal contribution normalized by the post-fit value of $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$, while the red line histograms show the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor 100.[]{data-label="fig:sdmass-comp-2l"}](Figure_006-a.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![The [$m_{\text{SD}}$]{} distribution of in data and simulation in the merged-jet topology analysis signal regions after the maximum likelihood fit, for events in the high purity category. Upper row: 2L channel, electrons (left) and muons (right); middle row: 1L channel, electron (left) and muon (right); lower row: 0L channel. The plain red histograms represent the signal contribution normalized by the post-fit value of $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$, while the red line histograms show the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor 100.[]{data-label="fig:sdmass-comp-2l"}](Figure_006-b.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![The [$m_{\text{SD}}$]{} distribution of in data and simulation in the merged-jet topology analysis signal regions after the maximum likelihood fit, for events in the high purity category. Upper row: 2L channel, electrons (left) and muons (right); middle row: 1L channel, electron (left) and muon (right); lower row: 0L channel. The plain red histograms represent the signal contribution normalized by the post-fit value of $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$, while the red line histograms show the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor 100.[]{data-label="fig:sdmass-comp-2l"}](Figure_006-c.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"} ![The [$m_{\text{SD}}$]{} distribution of in data and simulation in the merged-jet topology analysis signal regions after the maximum likelihood fit, for events in the high purity category. Upper row: 2L channel, electrons (left) and muons (right); middle row: 1L channel, electron (left) and muon (right); lower row: 0L channel. The plain red histograms represent the signal contribution normalized by the post-fit value of $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$, while the red line histograms show the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor 100.[]{data-label="fig:sdmass-comp-2l"}](Figure_006-d.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![The [$m_{\text{SD}}$]{} distribution of in data and simulation in the merged-jet topology analysis signal regions after the maximum likelihood fit, for events in the high purity category. Upper row: 2L channel, electrons (left) and muons (right); middle row: 1L channel, electron (left) and muon (right); lower row: 0L channel. The plain red histograms represent the signal contribution normalized by the post-fit value of $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$, while the red line histograms show the expected signal contribution multiplied by a factor 100.[]{data-label="fig:sdmass-comp-2l"}](Figure_006-e.pdf "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
Similar to the resolved-jet topology analysis, the full procedure of the merged-jet topology analysis is validated by measuring the product of the [${\PV}\PZ$]{}production cross section and $\mathcal{B}\left(\PZ \to {\PQc}{\PAQc}\right)$ normalised to the SM prediction. The event selection, including the kinematic BDT, the $\ccbar$ tagging discriminant criteria, and the signal extraction procedure, remain unchanged. In place of [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}, the [$\PV\PZ(\PZ\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} process is considered to be the signal and [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} contributes to the background with cross section fixed to the SM prediction. The measured signal strength is $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PZ(\PZ\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}=0.69^{+0.89}_{-0.75}$ with an observed (expected) significance of 0.9 $(1.3)\,\sigma$. The results are consistent within uncertainties with the SM expectation.
The best fit value of $\mu$ for SM [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} production is $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}=21^{+26}_{-24}$, and the observed (expected) UL on $\mu$ is found to be 71 ($49^{+24}_{-15}$) at 95% . The uncertainties in the expected UL correspond to a variation of $\pm1\,\sigma$ in the expected event yields under the background-only hypothesis. The observed values are in agreement with the SM expectation. The results for each channel and their combination are shown in Table \[tab:limits-ind\]. All channels yield comparable sensitivity in the merged-jet topology analysis.
\[tab:limits-ind\]
Combination {#sec:combination}
-----------
To further improve the sensitivity of the search, a single likelihood analysis has been carried out on the two sets of data selected in the merged- and resolved-jet topologies analyses. To this end, the two analyses are categorised based on [$\pt(\PV)$]{}. Events with values smaller than a certain value of [$\pt(\PV)$]{}are used in the resolved-jet topology analysis, whereas the remaining events are used in the merged-jet topology analysis. The main theoretical and experimental systematic uncertainties are correlated between the two analyses, with the exception of those related to the charm tagger efficiency (merged-jet topology) and reshaping (resolved-jet topology), and those related to the +jets PDFs and the renormalisation and factorisation scales because of the different treatment of the +jets processes adopted for the two analyses. The two regions demarcated by ${\ensuremath{\pt(\PV)}\xspace}=300\GeV$ provide the best combined sensitivity in terms of expected limits on [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}.
The combination is validated by measuring the [$\PV\PZ(\PZ\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} signal strength. The measured value is $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PZ(\PZ\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}=0.55^{+0.86}_{-0.84}$ with an observed (expected) significance of 0.7 $(1.3)\,\sigma$.
The fitted [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} signal strength from the combination of the two analyses after the selection on ${\ensuremath{\pt(\PV)}\xspace}$ is shown for all channels combined, per production process and per single analysis channel, in Fig. \[fig:comb-vhcc-plot-1\]. The 95% CL upper limits on the signal strength $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$ of each individual analysis after the selection on ${\ensuremath{\pt(\PV)}\xspace}$ and their combination is presented in Table \[tab:comb-vhcc\] and displayed in Fig. \[fig:comb-vhcc-plot-2\]. The observed (expected) UL on $\sigma\left({\ensuremath{{\PV}\PH}\xspace}\right)\mathcal{B}\left(\PH \to \ccbar \right)$ obtained in the combined analysis is 4.5 $(2.4^{+1.0}_{-0.7})$at 95% , which is equivalent to an observed (expected) upper limit on $\mu$ of 70 ($37^{+16}_{-11}$) at 95% confidence level. The uncertainties in the expected UL correspond to a variation of $\pm1\,\sigma$ in the expected event yields under the background-only hypothesis. The measured signal strength is $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}=37^{+17}_{-17}\stat^{+11}_{-9}\syst$. The observed values of the signal strength agrees within $2.1\,\sigma$ with the SM expectation. The results in the individual channels also agree with the SM expectation. The modest disagreement between the expected and observed UL’s is mainly due to the small excess observed in data in the [$\PZ(\Pe\Pe)$]{} high-[$\pt(\PV)$]{}channel of the resolved-jet topology analysis.
[lcccccc]{}\
& Resolved-jet & Merged-jet &\
& (${\ensuremath{\pt(\PV)}\xspace}<300\GeV$) & (${\ensuremath{\pt(\PV)}\xspace}\geq300\GeV$) & 0L & 1L & 2L & All channels\
Expected & $45_{-13}^{+18}$ & $73_{-22}^{+34}$ & $79_{-22}^{+32}$ & $72_{-21}^{+31}$ & $57_{-17}^{+25}$ & $37_{-11}^{+16}$\
Observed & 86 & 75 & 83 & 110 & 93 & 70\
![\[fig:comb-vhcc-plot-1\]The fitted signal strength $\mu$ for the [$\PZ\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}and [$\PW\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{}processes, and in each individual channel (0L, 1L, and 2L). The vertical blue line corresponds to the best fit value of $\mu$ for the combination of all channels, while the light-purple band corresponds to the $\pm1\,\sigma$ uncertainty in the measurement.](Figure_007.pdf){width="65.00000%"}
![\[fig:comb-vhcc-plot-2\]The 95% CL upper limits on $\mu$ for the [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} process from the combination of the resolved-jet and merged-jet topologies analyses in the different channels (0L, 1L, and 2L) and combined. The inner (green) and the outer (yellow) bands indicate the regions containing 68% and 95%, respectively, of the distribution of limits expected under the background-only hypothesis.](Figure_008.pdf "fig:"){width="68.00000%"}\
Summary
=======
In this paper, we present the first search by the CMS Collaboration for the standard model (SM) Higgs boson decaying to a pair of charm quarks, produced in association with a vector boson (or ). The search uses proton-proton collision data at a centre-of-mass energy of 13collected with the CMS detector in 2016 and corresponding to an integrated luminosity of 35.9. The search is carried out in five modes, [$\PZ(\PGm\PGm)\PH$]{}, [$\PZ(\Pe\Pe)\PH$]{}, [$\PZ(\PGn\PGn)\PH$]{}, [$\PW(\PGm\PGn)\PH$]{}, and [$\PW(\Pe\PGn)\PH$]{}, with two complementary analyses targeting different regions of phase space. The signal is extracted by statistically combining the results of the two analyses. Each analysis is first validated by carrying out a search for boson decay to a $\ccbar$ pair and comparing the observed signal strength with the SM prediction. The boson signal strength for the combination of the two analyses is measured to be $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PZ(\PZ\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}=\sigma/\sigma_\text{SM}=0.55^{+0.86}_{-0.84}$, with an observed (expected) significance of 0.7 (1.3) standard deviations.
The measured best fit value of $\sigma\left({\ensuremath{{\PV}\PH}\xspace}\right)\mathcal{B}\left(\PH \to \ccbar \right)$ for the combination of the two analyses is $2.40^{+1.12}_{-1.11}\stat^{+0.65}_{-0.61}\syst$, which corresponds to a best fit value of $\mu$ for SM [$\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)$]{} production of $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}=\sigma/\sigma_\text{SM}=37^{+17}_{-17}\stat^{+11}_{-9}\syst$, compatible within two standard deviations with the SM prediction. The larger measured $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$ value is due to a small excess observed in data in the resolved analysis, with a local significance of 2.1 standard deviations. The observed (expected) 95% upper limit on $\sigma\left({\ensuremath{{\PV}\PH}\xspace}\right)\mathcal{B}\left(\PH \to \ccbar \right)$ from the combination of the two analyses is 4.5 ($2.4^{+1.0}_{-0.7}$). This limit can be translated into an observed (expected) upper limit on $\mu_{{\ensuremath{\PV\PH(\PH\to \PQc \PAQc)}\xspace}}$ of 70 $(37^{+16}_{-11})$ at 95% by using the theoretical values of the cross section and branching fraction for the SM boson with the mass of 125. This result is the most stringent limit on $\sigma\left(\Pp\Pp\to \PH \right)\mathcal{B}\left({\ensuremath{\PH\to\ccbar}\xspace}\right)$ to-date.
We congratulate our colleagues in the CERN accelerator departments for the excellent performance of the LHC and thank the technical and administrative staffs at CERN and at other CMS institutes for their contributions to the success of the CMS effort. In addition, we gratefully acknowledge the computing centres and personnel of the Worldwide LHC Computing Grid for delivering so effectively the computing infrastructure essential to our analyses. Finally, we acknowledge the enduring support for the construction and operation of the LHC and the CMS detector provided by the following funding agencies: BMBWF and FWF (Austria); FNRS and FWO (Belgium); CNPq, CAPES, FAPERJ, FAPERGS, and FAPESP (Brazil); MES (Bulgaria); CERN; CAS, MoST, and NSFC (China); COLCIENCIAS (Colombia); MSES and CSF (Croatia); RPF (Cyprus); SENESCYT (Ecuador); MoER, ERC IUT, PUT and ERDF (Estonia); Academy of Finland, MEC, and HIP (Finland); CEA and CNRS/IN2P3 (France); BMBF, DFG, and HGF (Germany); GSRT (Greece); NKFIA (Hungary); DAE and DST (India); IPM (Iran); SFI (Ireland); INFN (Italy); MSIP and NRF (Republic of Korea); MES (Latvia); LAS (Lithuania); MOE and UM (Malaysia); BUAP, CINVESTAV, CONACYT, LNS, SEP, and UASLP-FAI (Mexico); MOS (Montenegro); MBIE (New Zealand); PAEC (Pakistan); MSHE and NSC (Poland); FCT (Portugal); JINR (Dubna); MON, RosAtom, RAS, RFBR, and NRC KI (Russia); MESTD (Serbia); SEIDI, CPAN, PCTI, and FEDER (Spain); MOSTR (Sri Lanka); Swiss Funding Agencies (Switzerland); MST (Taipei); ThEPCenter, IPST, STAR, and NSTDA (Thailand); TUBITAK and TAEK (Turkey); NASU (Ukraine); STFC (United Kingdom); DOE and NSF (USA).
Individuals have received support from the Marie-Curie programme and the European Research Council and Horizon 2020 Grant, contract Nos. 675440, 752730, and 765710 (European Union); the Leventis Foundation; the A.P. Sloan Foundation; the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation; the Belgian Federal Science Policy Office; the Fonds pour la Formation à la Recherche dans l’Industrie et dans l’Agriculture (FRIA-Belgium); the Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie (IWT-Belgium); the F.R.S.-FNRS and FWO (Belgium) under the “Excellence of Science – EOS" – be.h project n. 30820817; the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, No. Z181100004218003; the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports (MEYS) of the Czech Republic; the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) under Germany’s Excellence Strategy – EXC 2121 “Quantum Universe" – 390833306; the Lendület (“Momentum") Programme and the János Bolyai Research Scholarship of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the New National Excellence Program ÚNKP, the NKFIA research grants 123842, 123959, 124845, 124850, 125105, 128713, 128786, and 129058 (Hungary); the Council of Science and Industrial Research, India; the HOMING PLUS programme of the Foundation for Polish Science, cofinanced from European Union, Regional Development Fund, the Mobility Plus programme of the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, the National Science Center (Poland), contracts Harmonia 2014/14/M/ST2/00428, Opus 2014/13/B/ST2/02543, 2014/15/B/ST2/03998, and 2015/19/B/ST2/02861, Sonata-bis 2012/07/E/ST2/01406; the National Priorities Research Program by Qatar National Research Fund; the Ministry of Science and Education, grant no. 3.2989.2017 (Russia); the Programa Estatal de Fomento de la Investigaci[ó]{}n Cient[í]{}fica y T[é]{}cnica de Excelencia María de Maeztu, grant MDM-2015-0509 and the Programa Severo Ochoa del Principado de Asturias; the Thalis and Aristeia programmes cofinanced by EU-ESF and the Greek NSRF; the Rachadapisek Sompot Fund for Postdoctoral Fellowship, Chulalongkorn University and the Chulalongkorn Academic into Its 2nd Century Project Advancement Project (Thailand); the Nvidia Corporation; the Welch Foundation, contract C-1845; and the Weston Havens Foundation (USA).
The CMS Collaboration \[app:collab\]
====================================
=5000=500=5000
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Doubly occupied configuration interaction (DOCI) with optimized orbitals often accurately describes strong correlations while working in a Hilbert space much smaller than that needed for full configuration interaction. However, the scaling of such calculations remains combinatorial with system size. Pair coupled cluster doubles (pCCD) is very successful in reproducing DOCI energetically, but can do so with low polynomial scaling ($N^3$, disregarding the two-electron integral transformation from atomic to molecular orbitals). We show here several examples illustrating the success of pCCD in reproducing both the DOCI energy and wave function, and show how this success frequently comes about. What DOCI and pCCD lack are an effective treatment of dynamic correlations, which we here add by including higher-seniority cluster amplitudes which are excluded from pCCD. This frozen pair coupled cluster approach is comparable in cost to traditional closed-shell coupled cluster methods with results that are competitive for weakly correlated systems and often superior for the description of strongly correlated systems.'
author:
- 'Thomas M. Henderson'
- 'Ireneusz W. Bulik'
- Tamar Stein
- 'Gustavo E. Scuseria'
bibliography:
- 'pCCDT.bib'
title: 'Seniority-based coupled cluster theory'
---
Introduction
============
The coupled cluster (CC) family of methods[@Paldus1999; @Bartlett2007; @BartlettShavitt] offer a powerful wave function approach to the description of weakly correlated systems, to the point that the accurate treatment of such systems is essentially routine: provided that the system is not too large, one can simply apply coupled cluster with single and double excitations[@CCSD] (CCSD) or CCSD plus perturbative triple excitations,[@CCSDT] which we refer to as CCSD(T). The same, unfortunately, cannot be said for the coupled cluster treatment of strongly correlated systems, for which traditional single-reference methods such as CCSD or CCSD(T) may fail badly. Much progress has been made in multi-reference coupled cluster theory,[@Bartlett2007] to be sure, but the techniques are by no means black box or computationally inexpensive. Continued developments of coupled cluster techniques for strongly correlated systems is essential.
In 2013, Ayers and coworkers made a surprising disocvery along these lines: a method which they refer to as the antisymmetric product of 1-reference orbital geminals[@Limacher2013; @Limacher2014; @Tecmer2014; @Boguslawski2014] (AP1roG) and which we will refer to as pair coupled cluster doubles[@Stein2014] (pCCD) provides a remarkably reasonable description of the strong correlations for a wide variety of systems. What makes this so surprising is that pCCD looks like coupled cluster doubles (CCD) restricted to include only those excitations which preserve electron pairs, but pCCD, unlike CCD, seems to be able to describe strong correlations. Why should a simplification of a fundamentally single-reference method be able to describe multi-reference problems?
In this manuscript, we seek to do three things. First, we want to provide a self-contained description of pCCD, with all the equations one needs to implement the approach. Second, we wish to offer some perspective on the method’s successes. Third, we wish to go beyond pCCD and include some of the dynamic correlations which pCCD does not provide. To accomplish this, however, we first must discuss doubly occupied configuration interaction and orbital seniority.
Seniority and Doubly Occupied Configuration Interaction
=======================================================
Pair coupled cluster theory is based on the concept of the seniority of a determinant. The seniority is the number of unpaired electrons. The idea is simple: every spinorbital $\phi_p$ is paired with one and only one other spinorbital, $\phi_{\bar{p}}$, and the seniority of a determinant is the number of spinorbital pairs which between them contain only one electron. Loosely speaking, seniority is related to the number of broken electron pairs.
In this work, as in our previous work on the subject,[@Stein2014] we restrict ourselves to singlet pairing, in which the orbitals that are paired are the two spinorbitals corresponding to the same spatial orbital. In that case, the seniority operator is just $$\Omega = N - 2 \, D$$ where $N$ is the number operator $$N = \sum_p \left(c_{p_\uparrow}^\dagger \, c_{p_\uparrow} + c_{p_\downarrow}^\dagger \, c_{p_\downarrow}\right) = \sum_p \left(n_{p_\uparrow} + n_{p_\downarrow}\right)$$ and $D$ is a double-occupancy operator $$D = \sum_p c_{p_\uparrow}^\dagger \, c_{p_\downarrow}^\dagger \, c_{p_\downarrow} \, c_{p_\uparrow} = \sum_p \, n_{p_\uparrow} \, n_{p_\downarrow}.$$ Throughout this work, we will use indices $i$, $j$, $k$, $l$ for occupied spatial orbitals, $a$, $b$, $c$, $d$ for virtual spatial orbitals, and $p$, $q$, $r$, $s$ for general spatial orbitals.
It is important to notice that seniority depends on which orbitals we use to define the double-occupancy operator $D$, because a unitary transformation which mixes the orbitals leaves $N$ invariant but changes the form of $D$. If we define seniority with respect to the molecular orbitals of the restricted Hartree-Fock (RHF) determinant $|\textrm{RHF}\rangle$, then we see that the RHF determinant is a seniority eigenfunction and has seniority zero. If we define seniority with respect to a different basis, this need not be true. It is also important to note that seniority is not a symmetry of the molecular Hamiltonian – $[H,\Omega] \neq 0$ – which means that the exact wave function is not an eigenfunction of $\Omega$.
The utility of the seniority concept comes from using it as an alternative to organize Hilbert space.[@Bytautas2011] Conventionally, we describe determinants in terms of their excitation level, which we can extract from the particle-hole number operator $$2 \, N_{ph} = \sum_a \, \left(n_{a_\uparrow} + n_{a_\downarrow}\right) + \sum_i \, \left(2 - n_{i_\uparrow} - n_{i_\downarrow}\right).$$ As with seniority, the excitation level is neither orbitally invariant (because defining particles and holes with respect to a different Fermi vacuum changes the excitation level) nor a symmetry of the Hamiltonian, but it nevertheless provides a valuable framework within which we can organize Hilbert space and solve the Schrödinger equation in a subspace. The exact wave function is generally a linear combination of determinants of all possible excitation levels, and similarly it is generally a linear combination of determinants of all possible seniorities. The success of single-reference coupled cluster theory for weakly correlated systems is grounded on the fact that the coupled cluster expansion in terms of particle-hole excitations out of the Hartree-Fock determinant converges rapidly toward full configuration interaction (FCI). The ground state of weakly correlated systems, then, is characterized by having a low number of particle-holes.
![Top panel: Dissociation of the equally-spaced H$_8$ chain. Bottom panel: Dissociation of N$_2$. Both calculations are done in the cc-pvdz basis set and restrict the CI problem to a minimal active space. We emphasize that curves are obtained with an RHF wave function. Results taken from Ref. . \[fig:Laimis\]](H8ASymm "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}\
![Top panel: Dissociation of the equally-spaced H$_8$ chain. Bottom panel: Dissociation of N$_2$. Both calculations are done in the cc-pvdz basis set and restrict the CI problem to a minimal active space. We emphasize that curves are obtained with an RHF wave function. Results taken from Ref. . \[fig:Laimis\]](N2ASymm "fig:"){width="45.00000%"}
We posit that the ground state of strongly correlated systems is characterized by having a *low seniority number in a suitable one-electron basis*. One can test this by defining configuration interaction (CI) restricted to the zero seniority sector of Hilbert space, which we refer to as doubly occupied configuration interaction (DOCI).[@Allen1962; @Smith1965; @Weinhold1967; @Couty1997; @Kollmar2003; @Bytautas2011] Because DOCI is not invariant to the orbitals with respect to which seniority is defined, we optimize this choice energetically. This is analagous to optimizing the identity of the reference determinant in an excitation-truncated CI calculation, or with optimizing the orbitals in CAS-SCF, though DOCI is generally size consistent. As we and others have shown, DOCI with orbital optimization provides a valuable tool for the description of strong correlations. This can be shown in Fig. \[fig:Laimis\], which shows that DOCI gives the correct limit in the dissociation of the equally spaced H$_8$ chain and gives most of the strong correlation in N$_2$ as well. Note that these plots are generated using a minimal active space to remove, to the degree possible, dynamic correlation at dissociation.
The chief drawback of DOCI is that of computational cost: the number of determinants with $\Omega=0$ is just the square root of the number of all determinants with a given particle number, so the cost of DOCI is the square root of the cost of full CI. Worse yet, it is more difficult to use symmetry to eliminate determinants from DOCI than it is to eliminate determinants from FCI. For example, every DOCI determinant is a spin singlet with our singlet pairing scheme, so we cannot use spin symmetry to reduce the number of determinants to be included. In practice, DOCI calculations on systems with more than a few dozen electrons are prohibitively expensive.
This is where pCCD enters the picture: pCCD generally provides results which for the molecular Hamiltonian are nearly indistinguishable from those of DOCI, but whereas the computational cost of DOCI scales combinatorially with system size, the cost of pCCD scales as $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$.
Pair Coupled Cluster Doubles
============================
In pCCD, we write the wave function as $$|\Psi\rangle = \mathrm{e}^T |0\rangle$$ where $|0\rangle$ is a closed-shell reference determinant and $$T = \sum_{ia} t_i^a \, P_a^\dagger \, P_i$$ in terms of the pair operators $P_a^\dagger$ and $P_i$, where generically $$P_q^\dagger = c_{q_\uparrow}^\dagger \, c_{q_\downarrow}^\dagger$$ with the singlet pairing we are using. As usual, one can insert this ansatz into the Schrödinger equation to get
$$\begin{aligned}
E &= \langle 0| \bar{H} | 0\rangle,
\label{Eqns:pCCD_energy}
\\
0 &= \langle 0| P_i^\dagger \, P_a \, \bar{H} |0 \rangle,
\label{Eqns:pCCD_amplitudes}\end{aligned}$$
\[Eqns:pCCD\]
where the similarity transformed Hamiltonian $\bar{H}$ is given by $$\bar{H} = \mathrm{e}^{-T} \, H \, \mathrm{e}^T.$$ In AP1roG, one instead writes
$$\begin{aligned}
E &= \langle 0| H \, \mathrm{e}^T | 0\rangle,
\label{Eqns:AP1roG_energy}
\\
E \, \langle 0| P_i^\dagger \, P_a \, \mathrm{e}^T |0\rangle &= \langle 0| P_i^\dagger \, P_a \, H \, \mathrm{e}^T |0 \rangle,
\label{Eqns:AP1roG_amplitudes}\end{aligned}$$
\[Eqns:AP1roG\]
but because
$$\begin{aligned}
\langle 0| \mathrm{e}^{-T} &= \langle 0|
\\
\langle 0 | P_i^\dagger \, P_a \, \mathrm{e}^{-T} &= \langle 0 | P_i^\dagger \, P_a - t_i^a \, \langle 0|
\\
&= \langle 0 | P_i^\dagger \, P_a - \langle 0| P_i^\dagger \, P_a \, \mathrm{e}^T |0\rangle \, \langle 0|
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
one can see that Eqns. \[Eqns:pCCD\_energy\] and \[Eqns:AP1roG\_energy\] are identical, and consequently so too are Eqns. \[Eqns:pCCD\_amplitudes\] and \[Eqns:AP1roG\_amplitudes\].
Explicitly, the pCCD energy and amplitudes are given by
$$\begin{aligned}
E &= \langle 0| H |0\rangle + \sum_{ia} t_i^a \, v^{ii}_{aa}
\\
0 &= v_{ii}^{aa} + 2 \, \Big(f^a_a - f^i_i- \sum_j v^{jj}_{aa} \, t_j^a - \sum_b v^{ii}_{bb} \, t_i^b\Big) t_i^a
\label{Eqn:TEqns}
\\
&- 2 \, \Big(2 \, v^{ia}_{ia} - v^{ia}_{ai} - v^{ii}_{aa} \, t_i^a \Big) t_i^a
\nonumber
\\
&+ \sum_b v^{aa}_{bb} \, t_i^b
+ \sum_j v_{ii}^{jj} \, t_j^a
+ \sum_{jb} v^{jj}_{bb} \, t_j^a \, t_i^b
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
where $f^p_q$ is an element of the Fock operator and $v^{pq}_{rs} = \langle \phi_p \, \phi_q | V_{ee} | \phi_r \, \phi_s\rangle$ is a two-electron integral in Dirac notation. As promised, these equations can be solved in $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$ computational cost with the aid of the intermediate $y_i^j = \sum_b v^{jj}_{bb} \, t_i^b$.
As with traditional CC methods, we can define a left-hand eigenvector $\langle \mathcal{L}|$ of $\bar{H}$ in CI-like fashion: $$\langle \mathcal{L} | = \langle 0| (1+Z)$$ where $$Z = \sum_{ia} z^i_a \, P_i^\dagger \, P_a.$$ Then the expectation value of $\bar{H}$ is $$\mathcal{E} = \langle 0| (1+Z) \, \bar{H} | 0\rangle = \langle 0| (1+Z) \, \mathrm{e}^{-T} \, H \, \mathrm{e}^T |0 \rangle.$$ The equations for the amplitudes $t_i^a$ are just $$0 = \frac{\partial \mathcal{E}}{\partial z^a_i}$$ and guarantee by their satisfaction that $$\mathcal{E} = \langle 0| \bar{H} |0\rangle$$ for any value of $Z$; similarly, we obtain the amplitudes $z^a_i$ from $$0 = \frac{\partial \mathcal{E}}{\partial t_i^a}.$$ We find that the $z$ equations are $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= v^{ii}_{aa}
+ 2 \, \Big(f^a_a - f^i_i - \sum_j v^{jj}_{aa} \, t_j^a - \sum_b v^{ii}_{bb} \, t_i^b\Big) \, z^i_a
\\
&- 2 \, \Big(2 \, v^{ia}_{ia} - v^{ia}_{ai} - 2 \, v^{ii}_{aa} \, t_i^a\Big) \, z^i_a
\nonumber
\\
&- 2 \, v^{ii}_{aa} \, \Big(\sum_j z^j_a \, t_j^a + \sum_b z^i_b \, t_i^b\Big)
\nonumber
\\
&+ \sum_b v^{bb}_{aa} \, z^i_b
+ \sum_j v_{jj}^{ii} \, z^j_a
+ \sum_{jb} t_j^b \, \left(v^{ii}_{bb} \, z^j_a + v^{jj}_{aa} \, z^i_b\right).
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Again, these can be solved in $\mathcal{O}(N^3)$ time. We should emphasize that the pCCD energy and amplitude equations for both $T$ and $Z$ can be extracted from the usual RHF-based CCD[@Scuseria1987b; @Scuseria1988] by simply retaining only the pair amplitudes $t_{ii}^{aa}$ and $z^{aa}_{ii}$ which we have here written as simply $t_i^a$ and $z^a_i$ for compactness of notation and to emphasize that the pCCD $t$ and $z$ amplitudes are two-index quantities. In practice, one usually finds that $Z \sim T^\dagger$, as we might expect. We note in passing that one can readily identify the various channels[@Scuseria2008; @Scuseria2013] of the CCD amplitude equations in Eqn. \[Eqn:TEqns\], where the ladder terms are found on the third line, the ring and crossed-ring terms appear on the second line, and what we have termed the Brueckner or mosaic terms appear on the first line. For pCCD, the various ring terms decouple, though our limited numerical experience suggests that a pair ring CCD model is not useful.
Like DOCI, pCCD is not invariant to the choice of which orbitals are used to define the pair operators $P_p^\dagger$. Additionally, pCCD depends on the choice of reference determinant $|0\rangle$. In order to have a well-defined method, we must provide a way of fixing these choices. This can be accomplished by orbital optimization,[@Scuseria1987; @Bozkaya2011] for which purpose we introduce the one-body antihermitian operator $$\kappa = \sum_{p>q} \sum_\sigma \kappa_{pq} \, \left(c_{p_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{q_\sigma} - c_{q_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{p_\sigma}\right)$$ which, when exponentiated, creates unitary orbital rotations; here, $\sigma$ indexes spins (*i.e.* $\sigma = \uparrow,\downarrow$). Note that in contrast to the typical coupled-cluster orbital optimization which includes only occupied-virtual mixing, we must allow *all* orbitals to mix. We have taken $\kappa$ to be real.
Given the rotation operator, we can simply generalize the energy to $$\mathcal{E}(\kappa) = \langle 0 | (1+Z) \, \mathrm{e}^{-T} \, \mathrm{e}^{-\kappa} \, H \, \mathrm{e}^{\kappa} \, \mathrm{e}^T |0\rangle$$ and make it stationary with respect to $\kappa$, which gives us $$\begin{aligned}
0 &= \left.\frac{\partial \mathcal{E}(\kappa)}{\partial \kappa_{pq}}\right|_{\kappa=0}
\\
&= \sum_\sigma \langle 0| (1+Z) \, \mathrm{e}^{-T} \, [H, c_{p_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{q_\sigma} - c_{q_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{p_\sigma}] \, \mathrm{e}^T |0\rangle
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where we work at $\kappa = 0$ by transforming the basis in which we express the Hamiltonian (*i.e.* by transforming the one- and two-electron integrals). The commutator can be evaluated readily: $$\begin{aligned}
[H, c_{p_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{q_\sigma}]
&= \sum_r h^r_p \, c_{r_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{q_\sigma}
- \sum_r h^q_r \, c_{p_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{r_\sigma}
\\
&+ \sum_{rst} \, \sum_{\sigma^\prime} v^{rs}_{pt} \, c_{r_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{s_{\sigma^\prime}}^\dagger \, c_{t_{\sigma^\prime}} \, c_{q_\sigma}
\nonumber
\\
&- \sum_{rst} \, \sum_{\sigma^\prime} v^{qt}_{rs} \, c_{p_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{t_{\sigma^\prime}}^\dagger \, c_{s_{\sigma^\prime}} \, c_{r_\sigma}
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where the Hamiltonian is $$H = \sum_{pq} \sum_\sigma h^p_q \, c_{p_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{q_\sigma} + \frac{1}{2} \, \sum_{pqrs} \sum_{\sigma \sigma^\prime} v^{pq}_{rs} \, c_{p_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{q_{\sigma^\prime}}^\dagger \, c_{s_{\sigma^\prime}} \, c_{r_\sigma}$$ in terms of one-electron integrals $h^p_q$ and the two-electron integrals $v^{pq}_{rs}$ previously defined. The energy gradient is then $$\begin{aligned}
\left.\frac{\partial \mathcal{E}(\kappa)}{\partial \kappa_{pq}}\right|_{\kappa=0}
&= \Big[\sum_r \left(h^r_p \, \gamma^q_r - h^q_r \, \gamma^r_p\right)
\label{Eqn:OrbGradient}
\\
&\hspace{2ex}
+ \sum_{rst} \left(v^{rs}_{pt} \, \Gamma^{qt}_{rs} - v^{qt}_{rs} \, \Gamma^{rs}_{pt}\right)\Big] - \left(p \leftrightarrow q\right)
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\gamma^p_q$ and $\Gamma^{pq}_{rs}$ are one-body and two-body density matrices, given by
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^p_q &= \sum_\sigma \langle 0| (1+Z) \, \mathrm{e}^{-T} \, c_{q_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{p_\sigma} \, \mathrm{e}^T |0\rangle,
\\
\Gamma^{pq}_{rs} &= \sum_{\sigma \sigma^\prime} \langle 0| (1+Z) \, \mathrm{e}^{-T} \, c_{r_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{s_{\sigma^\prime}}^\dagger \, c_{q_{\sigma^\prime}} \, c_{p_\sigma} \, \mathrm{e}^T |0\rangle.\end{aligned}$$
We use a Newton-Raphson scheme to minimize the norm of the orbital gradient, which finds an orbital stationary point. Having found such a point, we check the eigenvalues of the coupled cluster orbital Hessian and, if there is a negative eigenvalue, follow the instability until we find a local energy minimum or saddle point (*i.e.* we look for points with zero gradient and non-negative Hessian). The analytic formulae for the density matrices and the orbital Hessian are presented in the appendix. As has been previously pointed out, there are multiple solutions to the orbital optimization equations, and because the optimized orbitals are generally local in character if the system is strongly correlated,[@Bytautas2011; @Limacher2014; @Stein2014] it proves convenient to start from the RHF determinant with localized molecular orbitals. We should also point out that convergence of the pair amplitude and response equations is greatly aided by using DIIS.[@Scuseria1986] Our Newton-Raphson procedure typically uses the diagonal Hessian and turns on the full analytic Hessian only near convergence; this avoids getting trapped in high energy local minima.
It should be noted here that the one-body density matrix $\bm{\gamma}$ is diagonal in the basis in which we define the pairing. In other words, the molecular orbitals defining the pCCD $T$ and $Z$ operators are also the natural orbitals of pCCD. The two-body density matrix $\bm{\Gamma}$ is also very sparse and has a kind of semi-diagonal form where only $\Gamma_{pp}^{qq}$, $\Gamma_{pq}^{pq}$, and $\Gamma_{pq}^{qp}$ are non-zero. These properties are true both for pCCD and for DOCI (and indeed for any zero-seniority wave function method). Detailed expressions for the density matrices can be found in the Appendix.
Pair Coupled Cluster and Doubly Occupied Configuration Interaction
==================================================================
Now that we have given ample detail about pCCD and have introduced DOCI, it will prove useful to compare results from the two methods for a variety of small systems for which the DOCI calculations are feasible. We will compare the energies from the two approaches, and also look at overlaps of the pCCD and DOCI wave functions; explicitly, we will compute $$\Delta E = E_\mathrm{pCCD} - E_\mathrm{DOCI}
\label{Eqn:defDE}$$ to assess the quality of the pCCD energy and $$S = \langle 0 | (1+Z) \, \mathrm{e}^{-T} | \mathrm{DOCI}\rangle \, \langle \mathrm{DOCI} | \mathrm{e}^T |0\rangle
\label{Eqn:defS}$$ to assess the quality of the pCCD wave functions. Note that $S \approx 1$ when pCCD is close to DOCI; more explicitly, we have $$\langle 0 | (1+Z) \, \mathrm{e}^{-T} \, \mathrm{e}^T |0\rangle =1,$$ and inserting the projector $|\mathrm{DOCI}\rangle \, \langle \mathrm{DOCI}|$ should not substantially change this value when pCCD and DOCI roughly coincide. Because pCCD is biorthogonal, we do *not* have $S < 1$; indeed, we will frequently see that $S$ is slightly larger than one. We emphasize here that both pCCD and DOCI can be symmetry adapted despite having individual orbitals which are not symmetry eigenfunctions, due to the orbital optimization; indeed, for the examples discussed below pCCD with optimized orbitals appears to respect point-group symmetry, though we have found model Hamiltonians for which this is not the case. We will always compare DOCI and pCCD with the same orbital set (usually orbitals optimized for pCCD). Spot checks show that typically orbitals optimized for DOCI are virtually indistinguishable from orbitals optimized for pCCD.
All DOCI and pCCD calculations in this section and indeed throughout the manuscript use in-house programs, as do the frozen-pair coupled cluster calculations discussed in Sec. \[sec:fpCC\]; other calculations used the *Gaussian* program package.[@Gaussian] Throughout, we will use Dunning’s cc-pVDZ basis set,[@Dunning1989] because we need a sufficiently small basis that the DOCI is computationally tractable, though we will use Cartesian rather than spherical $d$-functions.
We start by noting that for H$_2$, as for any two-electron singlet, pCCD with orbital optimization is exact (and is equivalent to DOCI). This is just because one can use occupied-virtual rotations to make single excitations in CCSD vanish (in other words, one can do Brueckner coupled cluster doubles) and then pick a virtual-virtual rotation to eliminate the seniority two excitation amplitudes. One can see this by noting that for a two-electron singlet, we have $$T = \frac{1}{2} \, \sum_{ab} t_{1,1}^{ab} c_{a_\uparrow}^\dagger \, c_{b_\downarrow}^\dagger \, c_{1_\downarrow} \, c_{1_\uparrow};$$ the combination of fermionic antisymmetry and spin symmetry means that $t_{1,1}^{ab} = t_{1,1}^{ba}$, so we can define a real symmetric matrix $M_{ab} = t_{1,1}^{ab}$ which can be diagonalized by a virtual-virtual rotation so that $T$ takes the pCCD form. Numerically, we find that with optimized orbitals, $E_\mathrm{pCCD} = E_\mathrm{DOCI} = E_\mathrm{FCI}$ and $S = 1$, as we should.
![Dissociation of LiH. Top panel: Dissociation energies from FCI, DOCI, and pCCD. Bottom panel: Difference between DOCI and pCCD energies ($\Delta E$, defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defDE\] and measured on the left axis) and in the overlap ($1-S$, measured on the right axis with $S$ defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defS\]). \[Fig:LiH\]](LiHLocEnergy2 "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}\
![Dissociation of LiH. Top panel: Dissociation energies from FCI, DOCI, and pCCD. Bottom panel: Difference between DOCI and pCCD energies ($\Delta E$, defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defDE\] and measured on the left axis) and in the overlap ($1-S$, measured on the right axis with $S$ defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defS\]). \[Fig:LiH\]](LiHLocError "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
In Fig. \[Fig:LiH\] we show results for the dissociation of LiH. Because LiH is a quasi-two–electron problem, we would expect DOCI and pCCD to be very accurate in this case. Indeed, Fig. \[Fig:LiH\] shows that pCCD and DOCI are energetically indistinguishable and both are essentially superimposable with FCI (errors are on the order of 0.4 mE$_\mathrm{H}$ throughout the dissociation). Moreover, the DOCI and pCCD wave functions have near unit overlap throughout the dissociation. This is exactly what we would expect for such a problem.
![Dissociation of equally spaced hydrogen chains. Top panel: Differences between DOCI and pCCD energies ($\Delta E$, defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defDE\]) per electron pair. Bottom panel: deviations in the overlap ($1-S$, with $S$ defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defS\]) per electron pair. \[Fig:HChain\]](HChainLocEnergy "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}\
![Dissociation of equally spaced hydrogen chains. Top panel: Differences between DOCI and pCCD energies ($\Delta E$, defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defDE\]) per electron pair. Bottom panel: deviations in the overlap ($1-S$, with $S$ defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defS\]) per electron pair. \[Fig:HChain\]](HChainLocOverlap "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
We next turn our attention to the dissociation of equally spaced hydrogen chains. These serve as important prototypes of strongly correlated systems and map in a loose sense to the Hubbard Hamiltonian.[@Hubbard1963] The top panel of Fig. \[Fig:HChain\] shows the difference between the DOCI and pCCD energies per electron pair, while the bottom panel shows the deviation of the overlap $S$ from unity, again per electron pair. These results appear to be saturating, though unfortunately the DOCI calculations on H$_{10}$ are impracticably expensive with our code.
![Dissociation of equally spaced hydrogen chains in the canonical RHF basis rather than the pCCD-optimized basis used elsewhere. Top panel: Differences between DOCI and pCCD energies ($\Delta E$, defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defDE\]). Bottom panel: deviations in the overlap ($1-S$, with $S$ defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defS\]). \[Fig:HChainCan\]](HChainCanEnergy "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}\
![Dissociation of equally spaced hydrogen chains in the canonical RHF basis rather than the pCCD-optimized basis used elsewhere. Top panel: Differences between DOCI and pCCD energies ($\Delta E$, defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defDE\]). Bottom panel: deviations in the overlap ($1-S$, with $S$ defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defS\]). \[Fig:HChainCan\]](HChainCanOverlap "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
We should note that while the equivalence between DOCI and pCCD has been established for energetically optimized orbitals, we see the same general behavior when DOCI and pCCD pair canonical RHF orbitals instead, though not to the same degree. That is, even pairing canonical RHF orbitals rather than optimized orbitals, pCCD and DOCI give energies that agree to within a few milliHartree, with the agreement predictably degrading as the systems become more strongly correlated. We can see this in hydrogen chains in Fig. \[Fig:HChainCan\]. Strangely, the agreement between DOCI and pCCD appears to improve as we move from H$_4$ to H$_6$ to H$_8$ when using canonical RHF orbitals, while in the optimized orbital case we see the opposite behavior. We should emphasize that the deviations in the energy and overlap in Fig. \[Fig:HChainCan\] are not shown per electron pair.
![Symmetric double dissociation of H$_2$O. Top panel: Dissociation energies from DOCI and pCCD, as well as from unrestricted Hartree-Fock (UHF) and CCSD and CCSD(T) based thereon. Bottom panel: Errors in the energy ($\Delta E$, defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defDE\] and measured on the left axis) and in the overlap ($1-S$, measured on the right axis with $S$ defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defS\]). \[Fig:H2O\]](H2O "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}\
![Symmetric double dissociation of H$_2$O. Top panel: Dissociation energies from DOCI and pCCD, as well as from unrestricted Hartree-Fock (UHF) and CCSD and CCSD(T) based thereon. Bottom panel: Errors in the energy ($\Delta E$, defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defDE\] and measured on the left axis) and in the overlap ($1-S$, measured on the right axis with $S$ defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defS\]). \[Fig:H2O\]](H2OLocError "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
Our next example is the symmetric double dissociation of H$_2$O, as shown in Fig. \[Fig:H2O\]. Again, pCCD and DOCI provide nearly identical energies throughout the dissociation process, and the overlaps of the pCCD and DOCI wave functions are large. The coincidence of DOCI and pCCD, in other words, is true not just for one pair of strongly correlated electrons, but for two pairs as well. At dissociation, DOCI and pCCD give essentially the unrestricted Hartree-Fock (UHF) result, despite being closed-shell wave functions, though as we shall see later, this is somewhat fortuitous. These methods miss a significant amount of the correlation compared to UHF-based CCSD and CCSD(T); the dynamic correlation, then, is clearly not well described.
![Dissociation of N$_2$. Top panel: Dissociation energies from DOCI and pCCD, as well as from RHF, UHF, and RHF- and UHF-based CCSD. Bottom panel: Errors in the energy ($\Delta E$, defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defDE\] and measured on the left axis) and in the overlap ($1-S$, measured on the right axis with $S$ defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defS\]). \[Fig:N2\]](N2 "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}\
![Dissociation of N$_2$. Top panel: Dissociation energies from DOCI and pCCD, as well as from RHF, UHF, and RHF- and UHF-based CCSD. Bottom panel: Errors in the energy ($\Delta E$, defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defDE\] and measured on the left axis) and in the overlap ($1-S$, measured on the right axis with $S$ defined in Eqn. \[Eqn:defS\]). \[Fig:N2\]](N2LocError "fig:"){width="48.00000%"}
Similar conclusions can be reached from examining the dissociation of N$_2$. As Fig. \[fig:Laimis\] reveals, DOCI does not give all the strong correlation needed to dissociate the triple bond in N$_2$ correctly, but does offer substantial improvements over RHF. We see similar results in Fig. \[Fig:N2\]. In these calculations, we froze the nitrogen $1s$ core orbitals after the orbital optimization and compare the frozen-core DOCI to the frozen-core pCCD. We also note that our procedure of repeatedly following instabilities in the pCCD orbital Hessian led to an unphysical reference determinant for which the pCCD broke down; we have thus used a stationary point rather than a minimum of the pCCD energy functional to define the reference. Our results reiterate that pCCD and DOCI get most but not all of the strong correlation in N$_2$, and fail to account for the dynamic correlation effectively. Nonetheless, even for this triple bond we see that DOCI and pCCD have close agreement.
Optimized Canonical
------------------- ----------------------- -----------------------
$E_\mathrm{Ref}$ -128.488 823 -128.488 866
$E_\mathrm{DOCI}$ -128.559 677 -128.546 705
$E_\mathrm{pCCD}$ -128.559 674 -128.546 701
$E_\mathrm{CCSD}$ -128.683 931 -128.683 958
$1 - S$ $1.43 \times 10^{-7}$ $1.16 \times 10^{-7}$
: Energies and overlaps in the neon atom. Here, $E_\mathrm{Ref}$ denotes the energy of the reference determinant. We show results for both the optimized determinant for pCCD and for the canonical RHF determinant as a reference. \[tab:Neon\]
One can see that DOCI and pCCD do not describe dynamic correlation particularly well by considering the neon atom, as seen in Tab. \[tab:Neon\]. While DOCI and pCCD are in excellent agreement with one another, they only retrieve about 36% of the correlation energy even after orbital optimization, with optimized orbitals very close to the canonical RHF molecular orbitals. The bulk of the correlations must then involve determinants of higher seniority. In order to remedy this deficiency, we turn to what we call frozen-pair coupled cluster,[@Stein2014] as we will describe shortly.
First, however, it may be instructive to take a closer look at the $T$-amplitudes of pCCD and the CI coefficients of DOCI, to understand why the two methods coincide so neatly. Often, what we find, as in the examples above, is that the pCCD $T$-amplitudes are such that each occupied orbital is strongly correlated with at most one virtual orbital, so that each row of the matrix $t_i^a$ has at most one large entry, while most of the amplitudes are small. The DOCI vector follows this same basic structure, which is unsurprising since the DOCI and pCCD wave functions are essentially the same. In these cases, pCCD and DOCI are similar to a kind of perfect pairing wave function.[@Hurley1953; @Goddard1978; @VanVoorhis2002] For example, for the stretched H$_2$O case, the pCCD and DOCI wave functions are qualitatively $$|\Psi\rangle \approx |\mathrm{O}_{1s}^2 \, \mathrm{O}_\mathrm{lp}^4 \, \left(\mathrm{OH}_\sigma^2 - \alpha \, \mathrm{OH}_{\sigma^\star}^2\right)^2 \rangle$$ where $\alpha$ approaches 1 at dissociation and where $\mathrm{O}_{1s}$, $\mathrm{O}_\mathrm{lp}$, $\mathrm{OH}_\sigma$, and $\mathrm{OH}_{\sigma^\star}$ respectively denote the oxygen $1s$ orbital, oxygen lone-pair orbitals, OH bonding orbitals, and OH antibonding orbitals. In the case of stretched H$_2$O, it is the small deviations from this perfect pairing structure which cause the energy to be close to the UHF limit. That is, the only wave function amplitudes larger than $\sim 0.05$ correspond to excitations from an OH bonding orbital into its antibonding orbital, but correlating the bonding orbitals alone yields an energy somewhat above the sum of restricted open-shell Hartree-Fock atomic energies. Thus, we might not expect pCCD to describe strong correlations beyond those accessible with the perfect pairing structure, even though we must emphasize that the pCCD wave function is not inherently limited to this form.
Indeed, it is important to note that we have found cases in the repulsive Hubbard Hamiltonian[@Hubbard1963] for which neither pCCD nor DOCI adopt a perfect pairing structure, yet the two methods still agree closely. We also note that for the attractive pairing Hamiltonian[@Henderson2014] or the attractive Hubbard Hamiltonian (results not shown), one can find instances in which pCCD does not resemble DOCI. In these cases, the DOCI coefficients and the pCCD amplitudes are dense and neither DOCI nor pCCD displays a perfect pairing structure. While pCCD and DOCI include a perfect pairing wave function as a special case, they are more general methods. The fact that pCCD closely resembles DOCI seems a key feature of fermionic repulsive Hamiltonians like the molecular one.
Frozen Pair Coupled Cluster \[sec:fpCC\]
========================================
The basic idea of frozen pair coupled cluster is very simple. One could imagine decomposing the $T_2$ double-excitation operator into a pair part $T_2^{(0)}$ and a non-pair part $\tilde{T}_2$; one would then solve the pCCD equations for the pair amplitudes and then solve the usual CCD equations without allowing the pair amplitudes to change. Note that the non-pair operator $\tilde{T}_2$ creates seniority non-zero determinants, which we rely upon to provide the dynamic correlation which pCCD lacks; $\tilde{T}_2$ on a seniority zero determinant returns a linear combination of determinants with seniorities two and four. Note also that the Fock operator for orbital-optimized pCCD is in general neither diagonal nor in the semicanonical form which diagonalizes the occupied-occupied and virtual-virtual blocks, so the full non-canonical form of the amplitude equations must be used. This is not a concern for pCCD, where only the diagonal elements of the (generally non-diagonal) Fock operator contribute to the amplitude equations.
What we have described above we would call frozen pair CCD (fpCCD). One could of course extend this basic idea to include single excitations and triple or higher excitations in the cluster operator. What we wish to do here is to briefly consider frozen pair coupled cluster with single-, double-, and triple-excitation amplitudes (fpCCSDT).[@Noga1987; @Scuseria1988b]
![Frozen pair symmetric double dissociation of H$_2$O. \[Fig:fpH2O\]](fpH2O){width="50.00000%"}
In Fig. \[Fig:fpH2O\], we show the symmetric double dissociation of H$_2$O, this time with the frozen pair approximation. The effect of single excitations is in this case small (fpCCD and fpCCSD give similar results) and fpCCSD gives results fairly similar to the UHF-based CCSD and CCSD(T) curves. Adding full triple excitations in fpCCSDT gives larger correlation at dissociation and probably overcorrelates somewhat.
![Symmetric double dissociation of H$_2$O at 110$^\circ$ bond angle, with frozen pair coupled cluster and traditional coupled cluster methods. FCI and CCSD data taken from Ref. . All results use closed-shell (restricted) wave functions. \[Fig:H2OWeird\]](H2OWeird){width="50.00000%"}
For comparison purposes, we show results from FCI and RHF-based CCSD and CCSDT in Fig. \[Fig:H2OWeird\]. These calculations fix the H-O-H bond angle at 110$^{\circ}$ rather than at the 104.474$^{\circ}$ used in our other calculations, and use spherical $d$ functions; the CCSD, CCSDT, and FCI data are taken from Ref. . We see that as one stretches the bond, CCSD and CCSDT go through a maximum and turn over; for larger bond lengths, we would expect CCSD and CCSDT to overcorrelate more. In contrast, fpCCD is coincidentally very close to FCI, and while fpCCSD and fpCCSDT overcorrelate somewhat more, they provide sensibly-shaped dissociation curves without requiring symmetry breaking.
Method Energy
---------------------- --------------
$E_\mathrm{Ref}$ -128.488 823
$E_\mathrm{pCCD}$ -128.559 674
$E_\mathrm{fpCCD}$ -128.687 585
$E_\mathrm{CCD}$ -128.683 851
$E_\mathrm{fpCCSD}$ -128.687 619
$E_\mathrm{CCSD}$ -128.683 931
$E_\mathrm{fpCCSDT}$ -128.688 497
$E_\mathrm{CCSDT}$ -128.685 089
: Energies in the neon atom. Here, $E_\mathrm{Ref}$ denotes the energy of the reference determinant. \[tab:Neon2\]
Table \[tab:Neon2\] shows fpCCD and fpCCSD results for the neon atom. While pCCD undercorrelates significantly compared to CCSD, making the frozen pair approximation yields results that differ from those without freezing $T_2^{(0)}$ by about 4 milliHartree. As with the double dissociation of H$_2$O, frozen pair coupled cluster overcorrelates slightly.
As a final example, we consider fpCCSD for the dissociation of N$_2$, as seen in Fig. \[Fig:fpN2\]. As should by now be familiar, fpCCSD gives a reasonable accounting for dynamic correlation but overcorrelates somewhat. Both fpCCSD and RHF-based CCSD break down for large bond lengths, and have an artificial bump in the dissociation curve; while fpCCSD does not eliminate this unphysical effect, it at least mitigates it somewhat.
Our results show that frozen pair coupled cluster should be understood as an easy way to incorporate the reasonable pCCD description of strong correlation while retaining much of the ability of traditional coupled cluster to also describe dynamic correlation. However, while easy to implement and conceptually simple, it is also important to note that a frozen pair full coupled cluster approach would give the wrong answer. In other words, in the exact theory one must clearly allow the zero-seniority $T_2$ amplitudes to relax from their pCCD values. In practice, fpCCSD should allow for a reasonable description of both strongly and weakly correlated systems at essentially the cost of a CCSD calculation, without breaking spin symmetry, although fpCCSD would be expected to break down somewhat for cases where pCCD is unable to capture all the strong correlations, as is the case with N$_2$. For two-electron singlets, fpCCD and fpCCSD are both exact, because as we have previously noted, pCCD is already FCI, which implies that $T_1$ and the non-zero seniority parts of $T_2$ vanish.
![Dissociation of N$_2$ with various coupled cluster methods. \[Fig:fpN2\]](fpN2){width="50.00000%"}
Conclusions
===========
While traditional coupled cluster theory is highly successful for the description of weakly correlated systems, it generally fails to describe strong correlation. Paradoxically, by simply eliminating the vast bulk of the cluster operator, one can form pair coupled cluster doubles, which accurately reproduces DOCI, and to the extent that DOCI can describe strong correlations, so too can pCCD. Moreover, pCCD accomplishes this task with mean-field computational scaling for the coupled cluster part. Not only does pCCD reproduce the DOCI energy, it also reproduces the DOCI wave function. The DOCI wave function, in other words, is essentially factorizable into the pCCD form. Loosely, this can be accomplished because, upon orbital optimization, the pCCD and DOCI wave functions studied in this work adopt a perfect–pairing-like structure.
While pCCD can describe strong correlations, it is much less successful at modeling dynamic correlation, which apparently requires the breaking of electron pairs to obtain higher seniority determinants when we define pairs in terms of the spatial orbitals in a particle-hole representation. Using pCCD to obtain the zero-seniority part of the cluster operator and then solving the traditional coupled cluster equations for the rest of the amplitudes yields frozen-pair coupled cluster, which seems to be able to describe both weakly and strongly correlated systems with reasonable accuracy and with a computational cost not much different from that of standard coupled cluster methods.
Of course pCCD is not a panacea and there are occasions when pCCD fails to account for the strong correlation present in the DOCI wave function, although we have not seen such a case for the molecular Hamiltonian. Likewise, it is possible that the DOCI form is too restricted to allow for a complete description of the strong correlations present, as appears to happen in the dissociation of N$_2$, for example. In such cases, the frozen-pair coupled-cluster approach would be of less utility. We speculate that it may be possible to include these strong correlations by generalizing the pairing structure to non-singlet pairing, so that the pairs included in pCCD and DOCI are not just the two electrons in the same spatial orbital. Regardless, we hope that pCCD and its frozen pair extensions will be useful tools for the description of both weakly and strongly correlated systems without the need for symmetry breaking or higher excitation operators.
This work was supported by the National Science Foundation (CHE-1110884). GES is a Welch Foundation chair (C-0036). T.S. is an awardee of the Weizmann Institute of Science – National Postdoctoral Award Program for Advancing Women in Science. We would like to thank Carlos Jiménez-Hoyos for helpful discussion.
Density Matrices and Orbital Hessian
====================================
For completeness, we include here expressions for the pCCD density matrices and orbital rotation Hessian; together with the orbital rotation gradient of Eqn. \[Eqn:OrbGradient\], these provide everything needed for the Newton-Raphson algorithm we use for orbital optimization.
Recall that the energy is written as $$\mathcal{E}(\kappa) = \langle 0 | (1+Z) \, \mathrm{e}^{-T} \, \mathrm{e}^{-\kappa} \, H \, \mathrm{e}^{\kappa} \, \mathrm{e}^T |0\rangle$$ with $$\kappa = \sum_{p>q} \sum_\sigma \kappa_{pq} \, \left(c_{p_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{q_\sigma} - c_{q_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{p_\sigma}\right)$$ where the orbital rotation is given by the unitary transformation $\exp(\kappa)$. At every step of the Newton-Raphson scheme, we solve for $\kappa$, build $\exp(\kappa)$ which rotates to a new orbital basis, transform the integrals, and begin a new iteration.
We have already seen that the gradient is simply $$\left.\frac{\partial \mathcal{E}(\kappa)}{\partial \kappa_{pq}}\right|_{\kappa=0}
= \mathcal{P}_{pq} \, \sum_\sigma \langle [H, c_{p_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{q_\sigma}] \rangle$$ where $\mathcal{P}_{pq}$ is a permutation operator $\mathcal{P}_{pq} = 1 - \left( p\leftrightarrow q\right)$ and the notation for the expectation value means $$\langle \mathcal{O} \rangle = \langle 0| (1+Z) \, \mathrm{e}^{-T} \, \mathcal{O} \, \mathrm{e}^T |0\rangle.$$ Similarly, the Hessian is $$\begin{aligned}
H_{pq,rs}
&= \left.\frac{\partial^2 \mathcal{E}(\kappa)\hfill}{\partial \kappa_{pq} \, \partial \kappa_{rs}}\right|_{\kappa=0}
\\
&= \frac{1}{2} \, \mathcal{P}_{pq} \, \mathcal{P}_{rs} \, \sum_{\sigma,\eta} \langle [[H, c_{p_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{q_\sigma}], c_{r_\eta}^\dagger \, c_{s_\eta}] \rangle
\nonumber
\\
&+ \frac{1}{2} \, \mathcal{P}_{pq} \, \mathcal{P}_{rs} \, \sum_{\sigma,\eta} \langle [[H, c_{r_\eta}^\dagger \, c_{s_\eta}], c_{p_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{q_\sigma}] \rangle
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta$ is another spin index. We obtain
$$\begin{aligned}
H_{pq,rs}
= \mathcal{P}_{pq} \, \mathcal{P}_{rs} \,
& \Big\{\frac{1}{2} \, \sum_u
\left[\delta_{qr} \, \left(h^u_p \, \gamma^s_u + h^s_u \, \gamma^u_p\right)
+ \delta_{ps} \, \left(h^u_r \, \gamma^q_u + h^q_u \, \gamma^u_r\right)
\right]
- \left(h^s_p \, \gamma^q_r + h^q_r \, \gamma^s_p\right)
\\
&+ \frac{1}{2} \, \sum_{tuv}
\left[\delta_{qr} \, \left(v^{uv}_{pt} \, \Gamma^{st}_{uv} + v^{st}_{uv} \, \Gamma^{uv}_{pt}\right)
+ \delta_{ps} \, \left(v^{qt}_{uv} \, \Gamma^{uv}_{rt} + v^{uv}_{rt} \, \Gamma^{qt}_{uv}\right)
\right]
\nonumber
\\
&+ \sum_{uv} \left(v^{uv}_{pr} \, \Gamma^{qs}_{uv} + v^{qs}_{uv} \, \Gamma^{uv}_{pr}\right)
- \sum_{tu} \left(v^{st}_{pu} \, \Gamma^{qu}_{rt} + v^{ts}_{pu} \, \Gamma^{qu}_{tr} + v^{qu}_{rt} \, \Gamma^{st}_{pu} + v^{qu}_{tr} \, \Gamma^{ts}_{pu}\right)
\Big\}.
\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
The one-particle density matrix we have defined as $$\gamma^p_q = \sum_\sigma \langle 0| (1+Z) \, \mathrm{e}^{-T} \, c_{q_\sigma}^\dagger \, c_{p_\sigma} \, \mathrm{e}^T |0\rangle.$$ Because $T$ and $Z$ both preserve the seniority of the wave function, and the reference $|0\rangle$ has seniority zero, it is immediately clear that the one-particle density matrix is diagonal in the basis in which we have defined the pairing; the optimized orbital basis for pCCD, in other words, is also its natural orbital basis. We then have
$$\begin{aligned}
\gamma^j_i &= 2 \, \left(1 - x^j_i\right) \, \delta_{ij},
\\
\gamma^b_a &= 2 \, x^b_a \, \delta_{ab},
\\
\gamma^i_a &= \gamma^a_i = 0,\end{aligned}$$
where $\delta_{pq}$ is the Kronecker delta and where we have defined
$$\begin{aligned}
x_i^j &= \sum_a t_i^a \, z^j_a,
\\
x_a^b &= \sum_i t_i^b \, z^i_a.\end{aligned}$$
Recall that $i$ and $a$ are respectively occupied and virtual orbital indices.
Similar considerations show that the two-particle density matrix is also sparse in the natural orbital basis. The non-zero elements of the two-particle density matrix are $$\Gamma_{ii}^{jj} = 2 \, \left[x_i^j + \delta_{ij} \, \left(1 - 2 \, x_i^i\right)\right],$$ $$\Gamma_{ii}^{aa} = 2 \, \left[t_i^a + x_i^a - 2 \, t_i^a \, \left(x_a^a + x_i^i - t_i^a \, z^i_a\right)\right],$$ $$\Gamma_{aa}^{ii} = 2 \, z^i_a,$$ $$\Gamma_{aa}^{bb} = 2 \, x_a^b,$$ $$\Gamma_{ij}^{ij} = 4 \, \left(1 - x_i^i - x_j^j\right) + 2 \, \delta_{ij} \, \left(3 \, x_i^i - 1\right),$$ $$\Gamma_{ia}^{ia} = \Gamma_{ai}^{ai} = 4 \, \left(x_a^a - t_i^a \, z^i_a\right),$$ $$\Gamma_{ab}^{ab} = 2 \, \delta_{ab} \, x_a^a,$$ $$\Gamma_{pq}^{qp} \underset{q \neq p}{=} - \frac{1}{2} \, \Gamma_{pq}^{pq}.$$ We have defined the additional intermediate $$x_i^a = \sum_{jb} t_i^b \, t_j^a \, z^j_b.$$
Note that the sparsity of the one- and two-particle density matrices allows one to considerably reduce the cost of evaluating the Hessian.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this note, we use the disformal transformation to induce a geometry from the manifold which is originally Riemannian. The new geometry obtained here can be considered as a generalization of Weyl integrable geometry. Based on these results, we further propose a geometry which is naturally a generalization of Weyl geometry.'
author:
- 'Fang-Fang Yuan'
- Peng Huang
title: Induced geometry from disformal transformation
---
Introduction
============
Disformal transformation was first introduced by Bekenstein as a generalization of usual conformal transformation in theories of gravity [@Bekenstein:1992pj]. Unlike the conformal transformation where only a positive definite functional of scalar field is involved, the covariant derivatives of scalar field are also needed to define the disformal transformation of metric. This kind of transformation has been applied to various areas including varying speed of light models [@Bassett:2000wj], inflation [@Kaloper:2003yf], relativistic extensions of modified Newtonian dynamics paradigm [@Bekenstein:2004ne], dark energy models [@Zumalacarregui:2010wj] and dark matter models . Furthermore, as generalized scalar-tensor theories with second order field equations, Horndeski theories have been extensively studied in recent years (for even more general, but healthy, scalar-tensor theories and their further important developments, see ). Interestingly, they are shown to be invariant under a special class of disformal transformations [@Bettoni:2013diz]. By introducing some constraints, this result can be extended [@Zumalacarregui:2013pma]. For a sample of recent developments concerning disformal transformation, see .
On the other hand, it is known for a long time that Weyl integrable geometry [@Weyl:1918ib] has intimate relations with conformal transformation . Accordingly, in the context of scalar-tensor theories of gravity including Brans-Dicke theory, the frames issue and scale invariance issue have always been the focus of debate. A new viewpoint introduced by Quiros et al. is that the resolution of these physical questions depends on how we assign the affine structure to the underlying spacetimes. A strict equivalence between Jordan’s frame (JF) and Einstein’s frame (EF) requires us precisely incorporate the Riemannian structure of the starting spacetime (in which the scalar-tensor theory lives) through conformal transformation into the new geometry, and this operation will inevitably cause the initial Riemannian spacetime to change into Weyl integrable geometry after conformal transformation. This point of view takes advantage of a well-known fact that Weyl integrable geometry and Riemannian geometry can be transformed into each other by appropriate Weyl rescalings, thus they in fact describe the same spacetime but with different gauge, see [@Romero:2012hs] for a well demonstration on this issue.
In history, Weyl integrable geometry was proposed to get rid of the second clock effect, and its tight connection to Riemannian geometry comes from careful investigation of itself. However, as will be show evidently in Section \[sec3\], Weyl integrable geometry can be induced from Riemannian geometry by conformal transformation entirely without any *a priori* knowledge of the so-called Weyl integrable geometry. With this observation in mind, a natural question to ask is: what new geometry will be induced if we implement disformal instead of conformal transformation to the metric in the original Riemannian geometry? A clear answer to this question may bring benefits in twofolds. The most direct benefit is, mathematically, it will give us new geometry whose importance needs further study. Physically, it may help to understand the equivalence between disformal frames and EFs in Horndeski theories , just as what has happened in usual scalar-tensor theories, and this is important for our understanding of the most general scalar-tensor theories. Thus, in this work, we would like to investigate this problem and figure out what geometry will be induced from disformal transformation.
The outline of this paper is as follows. In Section \[sec2\], we review the conceptional basis of Weyl and Weyl integrable geometry in some detail. In Section \[sec3\], we firstly show in detail how to induce Weyl integrable geometry from Riemannian geometry by conformal transformation, from which we extract a general and explicit strategy for our further investigation. After the foundation is laid, we then focus on the special disformal transformation and obtain a new induced connection. The corresponding gauge transformation is also derived. We conclude our discussions in the last section.
A brief review of Weyl integrable geometry
==========================================
Weyl geometry was proposed by Weyl in 1918 as an attempt to unify gravity with electromagnetism [@Weyl:1918ib]. While the metricity condition of Riemannian geometry reads as $\nabla_{\m}g_{\a\b}=0$, the Weyl nonmetricity condition reads \[2.1\] \^[(W)]{}\_g\_=ø\_g\_. Here $\o_{\m}$ denotes a 1-form field known as gauge vector field, and $^{(W)}\nabla_{\m}$ is the Weyl covariant derivative whose affine connection (Weyl connection) is \[2.2\] \^[(W)]{}\^[ł]{}\_={\^[ł]{}\_}-(\^[ł]{}\_ø\_+\^[ł]{}\_ø\_-g\_g\^[ł]{}ø\_), with $\big \{^{\l}_{\a\b}\big\}$ the Levi-Civita connection in Riemannian geometry.
Roughly speaking, Weyl’s idea to unify gravity with electromagnetism in the framework of Weyl geometry is to interpret the gauge vector field $\o_{\m}$ just as the electromagnetic field. However, the presence of $\o_{\m}$ causes the length of a vector, i.e. $l=\sqrt {g_{\a\b}l^{\a}l^{\b}}$, to vary point to point as $\f{dl}{l}=\f{1}{2}\o_{\m}dx^{\m}$. Thus, its length will generally take a different value after the vector has been parallel-transported in a closed path: $l=l_0\exp\oint \o_{\m}dx^{\m}$. As pointed out by Einstein, this would phenomenally lead to a broadening of the atomic spectral lines for electrons immersed in the $\o_{\m}$ field. Since this so-called “second clock effect” has not been confirmed experimentally, Weyl geometry was considered not physically viable.
To make a way out of this dilemma, Weyl subsequently proposed a particular class of Weyl geometry later known as Weyl integrable geometry. This entails that the gauge vector field $\o_{\m}$ is now restricted to be an exact form which can be described by the derivative of a scalar field $\phi$, i.e. $\o_{\m} \equiv \p_{\m}\psi$. Then (\[2.1\]) and (\[2.2\]) will take the following form \[2.3\] \^[(WI)]{}\_g\_=\_ g\_, \^[(WI)]{}\^[ł]{}\_={\^[ł]{}\_}-(\^[ł]{}\_\_+\^[ł]{}\_\_-g\_g\^[ł]{}\_). By construction the length of a vector is invariant when it is parallel-transported along a closed path, because the Stokes’s theorem ensures that $l=l_0\exp\oint \p_{\m}\psi dx^{\m}=l_0$.
It is obvious that no torsion is present in Weyl and Weyl integrable geometry since the two lower indices of the Weyl connection are symmetric. Furthermore, an important feature of Weyl geometry is that (\[2.1\]) and (\[2.2\]) are invariant under the following simultaneous transformations in $g_{\a\b}$ and $\o_{\m}$, also known as Weyl rescalings or Weyl gauge transformation: \[2.4\] |g\_=Ø\^2g\_, |ø\_=ø\_+2\_Ø. Note that besides the conformal transformation, Weyl rescalings also involve the transformation of $\o_{\m}$. Weyl integrable geometry has the similar characteristic except the Weyl rescalings now take a simpler form as \[2.5\] |g\_=Ø\^2g\_, |=+2Ø. It can be verified that this connection (\[2.33\]) is also invariant under Weyl rescalings.
Thus in Weyl (or Weyl integrable) geometry, the metric $g_{\a\b}$ and gauge vector $\o_{\m}$ (or $\p_{\m}\psi$) in fact represent an equivalence class of metrics and gauge vectors. Two given pairs, $(g_{\a\b}, \o_{\m})$ and $(g'_{\a\b}, \o'_{\m})$, are in the same equivalence class if they are related to each other through Weyl rescalings defined by (\[2.4\]) or (\[2.5\]). Thus, for any given Weyl integrable geometry with pair $(g_{\a\b}, \psi)$, one can always choose $\O=e^{-\f{1}{2}\psi}$ in the Weyl rescalings, then the definition (\[2.3\]) for Weyl integrable geometry turns into \[2.6\] \_|g\_=0, \^[ł]{}\_={\^[|ł]{}\_}=|g\^[ł]{}(\_|g\_+\_|g\_-\_|g\_), which defines a Riemannian geometry. The concern is, since the pairs $(g_{\a\b}, \psi)$ and $(\bar g_{\a\b}= e^{-\psi} g_{\a\b}, \bar \psi=0)$ are in the same equivalence class, they actually define the same geometry but only with different gauges.
Induced geometry from disformal transformation
==============================================
The case of conformal transformation
------------------------------------
Before we settle down to induce geometry from Riemannian geometry by disformal transformation, it’s helpful to start with a simpler example for the clarification of concepts and fixing conventions, thus we want to show how is Weyl integrable geometry induced by conformal transformation here.
It’s apparent from Section \[sec2\] that, from Weyl integrable geometry, one can get a Riemannian geometry by appropriate Weyl rescalings. However, this process certainly depends on our knowledge about the Weyl integrable geometry. If one has no *a priori* knowledge of the so-called Weyl integrable geometry, can she/he induce it from the mere knowledge about the starting Riemannian geometry?
To answer this question, we start from the metricity condition and corresponding Levi-Civita connection for Riemannian geometry which are \[2.7\] \_ g\_=0,\^[ł]{}\_={\^[ł]{}\_}=g\^[ł]{}(\_g\_+\_g\_-\_g\_).
Then, we do conformal transformation to the metric. We stress that this operation should not be treated as new input to the theory, but a change of units [@Dicke:1961gz]. For later convenience, we denote the conformal transformation as \[2.8\] |g\_=A()g\_, with $A(\phi)$ a positive definite function of scalar field $\phi$. Now, a simple calculation can be done as follows: \[2.91\] \_g\_&=&0=\_( A\^[-1]{}|g\_)\
&=&-A\^[-2]{}A\_|g\_+A\^[-1]{}\_|g\_, with $A_{\m}=\nabla_{\m}A$. Then, rearranging (\[2.91\]) appropriately, we arrive at \[2.92\] \_|g\_=\_(A)|g\_. Furthermore, we can also rewrite the Levi-Civita connection for $g_{\a\b}$ in the new field variable $\bar g_{\a\b}$ as {\^[ł]{}\_}={\^[|ł]{}\_}-, with $\{^{\bar \l}_{\a\b}\}$ the Levi-Civita connection corresponding to $\bar g_{\a\b}$. It’s also easy to check that, the new nonmetricity condition and connection are invariant under simultaneous transformations in $\bar g_{\a\b}$ and $\ln A$: |[|g]{}\_= B()|g\_, |A=A+B.
Now it’s obvious that, if we denote $\psi=\ln A, \quad \O^2=B$ and rewrite $\bar g_{\a\b}$ as $g_{\a\b}$ for convenience, (\[2.92\])-(\[2.94\]) are exactly the same as (\[2.3\]) and (\[2.5\]) for Weyl integrable geometry. The crucial point is that the new nonmetricity condition (\[2.92\]) is totally and exclusively induced from the starting metricity condition (\[2.7\]) for Riemannian geometry without any new input and any new constraint, so is the new connection. It is in this sense that we call Weyl integrable geometry an “induced geometry”.
Nonmetricity condition and affine connection
--------------------------------------------
Now we start to induce new geometry from disformal transformation by the method we have demonstrated and investigated in detail. The disformal transformation introduced by Bekenstein [@Bekenstein:1992pj] has the following form: \[4.1\] |g\_=A(, X)g\_+B(, X)\_\_, where $X = \f{1}{2} g^{\a\b}\phi_\a \phi_\b$. Recently it has been shown in that Horndeski theories are invariant under the special disformal transformation \[4.222\] |g\_=A()g\_+B()\_\_. This will be the starting point of our subsequent discussions.
The goal we want to achieve is to derive a new (non)metricity condition from Riemannian geometry. This process must be conducted without any new input or any new constraint to insure the induced geometry is faithfully *induced* from the starting Riemannian geometry by disformal transformation. With these considerations, we treat (\[4.2\]) as a complicated version of change of units, i.e., it does not introduce new input or new constraint into the theory. Then, we start with two equations which can be derived from (\[4.222\]) that g\_&=&|g\_-\_\_,\
g\^&=&A|g\^+|\^|\^, where $\bar X =\f{1}{2}\phi_{\m}\phi_{\n}\bar g^{\m\n}$ and $\bar \phi^{\m}=\phi_{\n}\bar g^{\n\m}$.
Then, a simple calculation can be done as \_g\_&=&0 =\_(|g\_-\_\_)\
&=&-A\^[-2]{}A\_|g\_+\_|g\_-\_(\_\_). Rearranging the results as \_|g\_=|g\_+A\_(\_\_). It is obvious that, if we restrict to disformal transformation with $B=0$, (\[4.4\]) turns right back to (\[2.92\]) which is for induced geometry from conformal transformation. (\[4.4\]) looks like a nonmetricity condition which is of our expectation. Nevertheless, in order to get the induced geometry, we need to rewrite both sides of this equation with new field variables $\bar g_{\a\b}$ and $\phi_{\a}$, this in fact comes down to rewrite the original Levi-Civita connection in new variables. This can be done by inserting (\[4.3\]) into the connection, then after some calculation we can arrive at {\^[ł]{}\_}&=&{\^[|ł]{}\_}-(\^[ł]{}\_\_+\^[ł]{}\_\_)+|\^[ł]{}|g\_\
&&-|\^[ł]{}\_\_-|\^[ł]{}(|\_+|\_), with the prime denoting the derivative with respect to $\phi$ and $\bar \phi_{\a\b}=\p_{\b}\phi_{\a}-\big \{^{\bar \l}_{\a\b}\big \}\phi_{\l}$.
The tricky part of this story is that if one starts with [@Bettoni:2013diz] {\^[ł]{}\_}&=&{\^[|ł]{}\_}-(\^[ł]{}\_\_+\^[ł]{}\_\_)-(-AA’g\_+(AB’-2A’B)\_\_)\
&&-\^[ł]{}\_, then use $g^{\a\b}=A\bar g^{\a\b}+\f{AB}{1-2B\bar X}\bar \phi^{\a}\bar \phi^{\b}$ and $X=\f{A\bar X}{1-2B\bar X}$ to rewrite the original metric in (\[4.7\]) into new metric, it’s in fact still difficult to get a formula which is described completely by $\bar g_{\a\b}$ and $\phi$, for there is always a Levi-Civita connection for the original metric $g_{\a\b}$ in term $\phi_{\a\b}$ which causes the rewriting of field variables into an infinite iteration. The more economical, or even the only way, to arrive the formula (\[4.6\]) is to proceed the calculation done as here. This is totally different from what has happened for inducing geometry from Riemannian geometry by conformal transformation, which also implies that disformal transformation is a nontrivial generalization of conformal transformation.
Now inserting (\[4.6\]) into the RHS of (\[4.5\]) and rewriting $\bar g_{\a\b}$ as $g_{\a\b}$ for convenience, we arrive at the new induced nonmetricity condition \_ g\_&=& g\_-( g\_\_+ g\_\_)+\_\_\_\
&&+(\_ \_+\_ \_), with the new induced affine connection defined as \^[ł]{}\_&=&{\^[ł]{}\_}-(\^[ł]{}\_\_+\^[ł]{}\_\_)+ \^[ł]{}g\_\
&&-\^[ł]{}\_\_-\^[ł]{}(\_+\_). One should notice that $\phi_{\a\b}$ is understood as $\phi_{\a\b}
=\p_{\b}\phi_{\a}-\big \{^{\l}_{\a\b}\big\}\phi_{\l}$.
These two formulas, (\[4.8\]) and (\[4.9\]) are just what we look for to define a new geometry. They are both induced from Riemannian geometry by disformal transformation. The disformal transformation of the metric is just a generalized change of units, thus this operation on the field variable of the theory does not introduce any new input or new constraint. Exactly because of this reason we call our finding an “induced geometry” from disformal transformation.
Gauge transformation
--------------------
For a special disformal transformation of the original metric $\bar g_{\a\b}=Ag_{\a\b}+B\phi_{\a}\phi_{\b}$, we have \_|g\_=|g\_+\_(B\_\_)-B\_\_. Now we recall that the gauge transformation for metric in Weyl integrable geometry, which is an induced geometry from conformal transformation, is a conformal transformation of the original metric. Thus, it is reasonable to infer that the gauge transformation for metric used to define geometry induced from disformal transformation, is also a disformal transformation. In fact, if we implement the second disformal transformation to the metric $\bar g_{\a\b}$ as \[4.11\] |[|g]{}\_&=&C|g\_+D\_\_\
&=&ACg\_+BC\_\_+D\_\_. we arrive at \[4.12\] \_|[|g]{}\_=|[|g]{}\_+\_(BC\_\_+D\_\_)-(BC\_\_+D\_\_). Through the comparison of (\[4.10\]) and (\[4.12\]), it can be seen that the nonmetricity condition (\[4.12\]) is invariant under the following simultaneous transformations:
|g\_|[|g]{}\_= ACg\_+BC\_\_+D\_\_,\
A AC,\
B\_\_ BC\_\_+D\_\_.
Then, a further deduction can be made is that, since it is totally induced from (\[4.5\]) which is equivalent to (\[4.10\]), they must be invariant under the same gauge transformation. Thus, it seems that (\[4.133\]) is indeed the expected gauge transformation for our induced geometry.
Nevertheless, it should be stressed here that (\[4.133\]) includes only a subset of the total allowed gauge transformations. To get the whole set of gauge transformation for the induced geometry, we first rewrite (\[4.11\]) as g\_=|[|g]{}\_-\_\_-\_\_. Comparing this with (\[4.2\]) and (\[4.3\]), it seems that one can expect that the inverse metric $g^{\a\b}$ can take the form as g\^=E|[|g]{}\^+F|[|]{}\^|[|]{}\^+G|[|]{}\^|[|]{}\^. However, a detailed investigation shows that, generally, there is no solutions to the constraint equations set by $g_{\a\b}g^{\a\r}=\d^{\r}_{\b}$, which tells that the inverse metric in form of (\[4.23\]) does not exist. This will inevitably forbid a successful rewriting of the Levi-Civita connection in (\[4.12\]) with disformal-transformed metric $\bar {\bar g}_{\a\b}$, thus makes it impossible to define the correct connection for the induced geometry.
The way out of this dilemma is to notice the fact that we do not take all reasonable terms into consideration in (\[4.23\]). The term which should not be ignored is $H(\bar {\bar \psi}^{\a}\bar {\bar \phi}^{\b}+\bar {\bar \phi}^{\a}\bar {\bar \psi}^{\b})$. If we supplement this term into (\[4.23\]) and solve constraint equations set by $g_{\a\b}g^{\a\r}=\d^{\r}_{\b}$, we can find that there are indeed consistent solutions about $E,F,G,H$. More importantly, this fact in turn inspires us that the whole gauge transformation of the metric should be defined as |[|g]{}\_&=&C|g\_+D\_\_+I(\_\_+\_\_)\
&=&ACg\_+BC\_\_+D\_\_+I(\_\_+\_\_). Through some tedious but straight calculation, one can show that, the original metric $g_{\a\b}$ and its inverse can be rewrite with new metric as g\_&=&|[|g]{}\_-\_\_-\_\_-(\_\_+\_\_),\
g\^&=&AC|[|g]{}\^+, with $a,b,c,d$ defined as \[4.27\]
a=1-2BC|[|X]{}-2I|[|Z]{},\
b=2BC|[|Z]{}+2I|[|Y]{},\
c=1-2D|[|Y]{}-2I|[|Z]{},\
d=2D|[|Z]{}+2I|[|X]{},
where $\bar {\bar X}=\f{1}{2}\phi_{\m}\phi_{\n}\bar {\bar g}^{\m\n}, \bar {\bar Y}=\f{1}{2}\psi_{\m}\psi_{\n}\bar {\bar g}^{\m\n}$ and $\bar {\bar Z}=\f{1}{2}\phi_{\m}\psi_{\n}\bar {\bar g}^{\m\n}$. With these results in hand, we can rewrite the original Levi-Civita connection with new variables and interpret it as the induced connection for the induced geometry. Thus, transformation defined by (\[4.24\]) is indeed the gauge transformation for our induced geometry. The fascinating feature of this transformation is that it is not a trivial expected disformal transformation but with additional crossover term, $I(\phi_{\a}\psi_{\b}+\psi_{\a}\phi_{\b})$.
For clarity, we rewrite $\bar {\bar g}_{\a\b}$ as $\bar g_{\a\b}$ in (\[4.24\]) to keep correspondence with the notation used in (\[4.8\]) and (\[4.9\]), then, the gauge transformation of the induced geometry can be extracted from (\[4.24\]) as follows: \[4.28\]
g\_|g\_= ACg\_+BC\_\_+D\_\_+I(\_\_+\_\_),\
A AC,\
B\_\_ BC\_\_+D\_\_+I(\_\_+\_\_).
Generalized Weyl geometry
-------------------------
The induced geometry defined by (\[4.8\]) and (\[4.9\]) can be naturally considered as a generalization of Weyl integrable geometry. Recalling the fact that Weyl geometry can be easily got by replacing $\p_{\m}\phi$ in (\[2.3\]) and (\[2.4\]), which are used to define Weyl integrable geometry, with 1-form field $\o_{\m}$, we can expect that implementing similar replacement in (\[4.8\]) and (\[4.9\]) will leads to new geometry which is a natural generalization of Weyl geometry. In order to do this, we first rewrite (\[4.8\]) as \_ g\_&=&\_(A)( g\_+B\_\_)- ( g\_-B\_\_)\
&&-( g\_-B\_\_)+(B\_\_)\_[;]{}. We also rearrange (\[4.9\]) as \^[ł]{}\_&=&{\^[ł]{}\_}-(\^[ł]{}\_\_(A)+\^[ł]{}\_\_(A))+(g\_-B\_\_)\
&&-(B\_\_+B\_\_)-(\_+\_).
Now, we would like to replace $\p_{\m}(\ln A)$ and $\phi_{\a}$ with 1-form field $\o_{\m}$ and $\chi_{\a}$ respectively, and treat $X$ as the norm of the 1-form field $\chi_{\a}$. A careful treatment of term $\f{B_{\b}}{2(1-2B X)}\phi^{\l}\phi_{\a}$ is needed. In (\[4.8\]) and (\[4.9\]), $B$ is defined as a scalar functional of the scalar field $\phi$ and $B_{\b}=\f{dB}{d\phi}\f{\p \phi}{\p x^{\b}}$. However, after the aforementioned replacement is made, the restriction on $B$ and $B_{\b}$ does not make sense anymore, thus the meaning of $B_{\b}$ needs to be specified individually. In order to be as general as possible, we would like to require that $B$ is not a scalar functional of other field anymore but a scalar field only, and $B_{\b}$ is just its gradient.
Then, the generalized geometry corresponding to Weyl geometry is defined by nonmetricity condition \_ g\_&=&ø\_( g\_+B\_\_)- ( g\_-B\_\_)\
&&-( g\_-B\_\_)+(B\_\_)\_[;]{}, with its connection defined as \^[ł]{}\_&=&{\^[ł]{}\_}-(\^[ł]{}\_ø\_+\^[ł]{}\_ø\_)+(g\_-B\_\_)\
&&-(B\_\_+B\_\_)-(\_[;]{}+\_[;]{}).
Conclusion and discussion
=========================
For a conclusion, we start from Riemannian geometry and then implement disformal transformation on the metric. By treating this operation as a gauge transformation therefore no new input or constraint is introduced, we induce new nonmetricity condition and connection to define a new geometry, see (\[4.8\]) and (\[4.9\]). It is in this sense that we say the new geometry is *induced*.
The important feature of the induced geometry is that it preserves the affine structure of the original Riemannian geometry. No matter what geometry (the original or the induced) is under consideration, the covariant derivative is in fact the same one, but described with different variables. Concretely, in Riemannian geometry, the Levi-Civita connection is just itself and described by metric $g_{\a\b}$ only; in the induced Weyl integrable geometry, the original Levi-Civita connection is described by the new metric $\bar g_{\a\b}$ and $A$.
Furthermore, noticing the fact that Weyl geometry can be obtained simply by replacing the gradient of the scalar field in Weyl integrable geometry with a 1-form field, we implement similar replacement on (\[4.8\]) and (\[4.9\]) to generalize the new induced geometry further. This operation naturally leads to a new geometry which corresponds to a generalization of Weyl geometry, see (\[4.16\]) and (\[4.17\]).
A natural generalization of this work would be to consider the usual disformal transformation (\[4.1\]) or even the extended disformal transformation (with a rank-two symmetric tensor $E_{(\a\b)}$) [@Zumalacarregui:2013pma]. One may also establish a disformal equivalence principle along the line of [@Quiros:2011wb]. Note that in his original work [@Bekenstein:1992pj], Bekenstein invoked Finsler geometry to motivate the introduction of disformal transformation. It is natural to anticipate that our discussions here may have connections with the mathematical aspects of the Finsler geometry.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank Miao Li and Zhenhui Zhang for helpful discussions.
[0]{}
J. D. Bekenstein, “The Relation between physical and gravitational geometry,” Phys. Rev. D [**48**]{}, 3641 (1993) \[gr-qc/9211017\]. B. A. Bassett, S. Liberati, C. Molina-Paris and M. Visser, “Geometrodynamics of variable speed of light cosmologies,” Phys. Rev. D [**62**]{}, 103518 (2000) \[astro-ph/0001441\]. N. Kaloper, “Disformal inflation,” Phys. Lett. B [**583**]{}, 1 (2004) \[hep-ph/0312002\]. J. D. Bekenstein, “Relativistic gravitation theory for the MOND paradigm,” Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 083509 (2004) \[Erratum-ibid. D [**71**]{}, 069901 (2005)\] \[astro-ph/0403694\].
M. Zumalacarregui, T. S. Koivisto, D. F. Mota and P. Ruiz-Lapuente, “Disformal Scalar Fields and the Dark Sector of the Universe,” JCAP [**1005**]{}, 038 (2010) \[arXiv:1004.2684 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. D. Bettoni, S. Liberati and L. Sindoni, “Extended LCDM: generalized non-minimal coupling for dark matter fluids,” JCAP [**1111**]{}, 007 (2011) \[arXiv:1108.1728 \[gr-qc\]\]. A. H. Chamseddine and V. Mukhanov, “Mimetic Dark Matter,” JHEP [**1311**]{}, 135 (2013) \[arXiv:1308.5410 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. N. Deruelle and J. Rua, “Disformal transformations, veiled General Relativity and Mimetic Gravity,” JCAP [**1409**]{}, 002 (2014).
G. W. Horndeski, “Second-order scalar-tensor field equations in a four-dimensional space,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. [**10**]{}, 363 (1974).
C. Deffayet and D. A. Steer, “A formal introduction to Horndeski and Galileon theories and their generalizations,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**30**]{}, 214006 (2013) \[arXiv:1307.2450 \[hep-th\]\].
C. Deffayet, X. Gao, D. A. Steer and G. Zahariade, “From k-essence to generalised Galileons,” Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 064039 (2011) \[arXiv:1103.3260 \[hep-th\]\]. J. Gleyzes, D. Langlois, F. Piazza and F. Vernizzi, “Healthy theories beyond Horndeski,” arXiv:1404.6495 \[hep-th\]. X. Gao, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, no. 8, 081501 (2014) \[arXiv:1406.0822 \[gr-qc\]\]. X. Gao, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, no. 10, 104033 (2014) \[arXiv:1409.6708 \[gr-qc\]\]. D. Bettoni and S. Liberati, “Disformal invariance of second order scalar-tensor theories: Framing the Horndeski action,” Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 084020 (2013) \[arXiv:1306.6724 \[gr-qc\]\].
M. Zumalacarregui and J. Garcia-Bellido, “Transforming gravity: from derivative couplings to matter to second-order scalar-tensor theories beyond the Horndeski Lagrangian,” Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 064046 (2014) \[arXiv:1308.4685 \[gr-qc\]\]. T. S. Koivisto, D. F. Mota and M. Zumalacarregui, “Screening Modifications of Gravity through Disformally Coupled Fields,” Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 241102 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.3167 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. E. Goulart and F. T. Falciano, “Disformal invariance of Maxwell’s field equations,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**30**]{}, 155020 (2013) \[arXiv:1303.4350 \[gr-qc\]\].
P. Brax, C. Burrage, A. C. Davis and G. Gubitosi, “Cosmological Tests of the Disformal Coupling to Radiation,” JCAP [**1311**]{}, 001 (2013) \[arXiv:1306.4168 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. Y. Akrami, T. S. Koivisto and A. R. Solomon, “The nature of spacetime in bigravity: two metrics or none?,” Gen. Rel. Grav. [**47**]{}, 1838 (2014) \[arXiv:1404.0006 \[gr-qc\]\]. P. Brax and C. Burrage, “Constraining Disformally Coupled Scalar Fields,” Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 104009 (2014) \[arXiv:1407.1861 \[astro-ph.CO\]\]. P. Creminelli, J. Gleyzes, J. Norena and F. Vernizzi, “Resilience of the standard predictions for primordial tensor modes,” arXiv:1407.8439 \[astro-ph.CO\]. M. Minamitsuji, “Disformal transformation of cosmological perturbations,” Phys. Lett. B [**737**]{}, 139 (2014) \[arXiv:1409.1566 \[astro-ph.CO\]\].
J. Sakstein, “Disformal Theories of Gravity: From the Solar System to Cosmology,” arXiv:1409.1734 \[astro-ph.CO\]. J. Sakstein, “Towards Viable Cosmological Models of Disformal Theories of Gravity,” arXiv:1409.7296 \[astro-ph.CO\]. S. Tsujikawa, “Disformal invariance of cosmological perturbations in a generalized class of Horndeski theories,” arXiv:1412.6210 \[hep-th\]. C. van de Bruck and J. Morrice, “Disformal couplings and the dark sector of the universe,” arXiv:1501.03073 \[gr-qc\].
H. Weyl, “Gravitation and electricity,” Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) [**1918**]{}, 465 (1918). R. H. Dicke, “Mach’s principle and invariance under transformation of units,” Phys. Rev. [**125**]{}, 2163 (1962). M. Novello and S. E. P. Bergliaffa, “Bouncing Cosmologies,” Phys. Rept. [**463**]{}, 127 (2008) \[arXiv:0802.1634 \[astro-ph\]\]. E. Scholz, “Weyl geometry in late 20th century physics,” arXiv:1111.3220 \[math.HO\].
I. Quiros, R. Garcia-Salcedo, J. E. M. Aguilar and T. Matos, “The conformal transformation’s controversy: what are we missing?,” Gen. Rel. Grav. [**45**]{}, 489 (2013) \[arXiv:1108.5857 \[gr-qc\]\].
I. Quiros, “Scale invariance: fake appearances,” arXiv:1405.6668 \[gr-qc\]. C. Romero, J. B. Fonseca-Neto and M. L. Pucheu, “General Relativity and Weyl Geometry,” Class. Quant. Grav. [**29**]{}, 155015 (2012) \[arXiv:1201.1469 \[gr-qc\]\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address:
- 'Department of Physics, Boston University, Boston MA 02215'
- 'Centro de Física do Porto, Universidade do Porto, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal'
- 'Centro de Física do Porto, Universidade do Porto, 4169-007 Porto, Portugal'
- 'Physics Department, Brown University, Providence RI 02912'
author:
- 'Richard C. Brower[^1]'
- 'Miguel S. Costa'
- Marko Djurić
- 'Chung-I Tan'
title: Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering and Higgs Production Using the Pomeron in AdS
---
#### Pomeron-Graviton Duality: {#sec:pomeron}
In the Regge limit, $s\gg t$, it can be shown for a wide range of scattering processes that the amplitude is dominated by Pomeron exchange. Traditionally this has been modeled at weak coupling using perturbative QCD, but we will use here a formulation based on gauge/gravity duality, or the $AdS/CFT$ correspondence, of which one particular example is the duality between $\mathcal{N} = 4$ SYM and Type IIB string theory on $AdS_5 \times S^5$. This approach has the advantages of allowing us to study the strong coupling region, providing a unified soft and hard diffractive mechanism, and as we will see it also fits well the experimental data.
In lowest order in weak ’t Hooft coupling for QCD, a bare Pomeron was first identified by Low and Nussinov as a two gluon exchange corresponding to a Regge cut in the $J$-plane at $j_0 = 1$. Going beyond the leading order, Balitsky, Fadin, Kuraev and Lipatov (BFKL) summed all the diagrams for two gluon exchange to first order in $\lambda = g^2 N_c$ and [*all*]{} orders in $(g^2 N_c \log s)^n$, thus giving rise to the so-called BFKL Pomeron. The position of this $J$-plane cut is at $j_0 = 1+ \log (2) g^2 N_c /\pi^2$, recovering the Low-Nussinov result in the $\lambda\rightarrow 0$ limit. In a holographic approach to diffractive scattering [@Brower:2006ea; @Brower:2007qh; @Brower:2007xg; @Cornalba:2006xm], the weak coupling Pomeron is replaced by the “Regge graviton” in AdS space, as formulated by Brower, Polchinski, Strassler and Tan (BPST) [@Brower:2006ea; @Brower:2007xg] which has both hard components due to near conformality in the UV and soft Regge behavior in the IR. Corrections to the strong coupling lower the intercept from $j=2$ to j\_0 = 2 - 2 / . \[eq:BPST-intercept\]
.25cm
In Fig. \[fig:effective\], we compare this with the weak coupling BFKL intercept to second order. A typical phenomenological estimates for this parameter for QCD is about $j_0 \simeq 1.25$, which suggests that the physics of diffractive scattering is in the cross over region between strong and weak coupling. A corresponding treatment for Odderons has also been carried out [@Brower:2008cy]. We also show in Fig. \[fig:effective\] the dominance of gluons, in a conventional partonic approach, thus further justifying the large $N_c$ approximation, where quark constituents are suppressed.
#### Holographic Treatment of Deeply Virtual Compton Scattering: {#sec:DVCS}
Previously, we have applied the $AdS/CFT$ correspondence to deep inelastic scattering[@Brower:2010wf; @Cornalba:2010vk; @Saturation] (see for example [@Brower:2011dx] for more references and the report from the previous Moriond conference). DVCS is the scattering between an off-shell photon and a proton, with the outgoing photon being on-shell. We make use of the fact that the DVCS cross section and differential cross section can be related to the Pomeron exchange amplitude, $A(s,t)$ via $$\frac{d\sigma}{dt} (x,Q^2,t)= \frac{|A|^2}{16\pi s^2} \,,\label{eq:diff_xsection}$$ and $$\sigma (x,Q^2)=\frac{1}{16\pi s^2} \int dt \, |A|^2 \,. \label{eq:xsection}$$ In the holographic approach, the impact parameter space $(b_\perp, z)$ is 3 dimensional, where $z \ge 0$ is the warped radial 5th dimension. Conformal dilatations ( $\log z \rightarrow \log z + \mbox{const}$) take one from the UV boundary at $z = 0$ deep into the IR $z = \mbox{large}$. The near forward elastic amplitude takes the eikonal form, $$A(s,t)=2i s\int d^{2}b \; e^{i \vec q \cdot \vec b} \int dzdz'\; P_{13}(z)P_{24}(z')\big\{ 1- e^{i \chi(s,b,z,z')}\big\} \; .\label{eq:A}$$ where $t=-q^2_{\perp}$ and the eikonal function, $\chi$, is related to a BPST Pomeron kernel in a transverse $AdS_3$ representation, $\mathcal{K}({s},b,z,z') $, by $$\label{eq:chi_definition}
\chi( s,b,z,z')=\frac{g_{0}^{2}}{2{s}}(\frac{R^{2}}{zz'})^2\mathcal{K}({s},b,z,z').$$ An important unifying features for the holographic map is factorization in the AdS space. For hadron-hadron scattering, $P_{ij}(z)= \sqrt{-g(z)} (z/R)^2 \phi_i(z) \phi_j(z) $ involves a product of two external normalizable wave functions for the projectile and the target respectively. For DVCS, states 1 and 3 are replaced by currents for an off-shell and on-shell photon respectively, and we can simply replace $P_{13}$ by product of the appropriate unnormalized wave-functions. We can calculate these by evaluating the R-current - graviton Witten diagram in AdS, and we get $$P_{13}(z) = - C\, \frac{\pi^2}{6}\,z^3\, K_1(Q z). \label{eq:p13}$$ Here $C$ is a normalization constant that can be calculated in the strict conformal limit. When expanded to first order in $\chi$, Eq. (\[eq:A\]) provides the contribution from exchanging a single Pomeron. When $\chi$ is large equation (\[eq:A\]) can be replaced by an AdS black disk model.[@Costa:2012fw]. In the conformal limit, a simple expression can be found. Confinement can next be introduced, eg., via a hardwall model $z < z_{cut-off}$. The effect of saturation can next be included via the full transverse $AdS_3$ eikonal representation (\[eq:A\]).
#### Pomeron Kernel:
The leading order BFKL Pomeron has remarkable properties. It enters into the first term in the large $N_c$ expansion with zero beta function. Thus it is in effect the weak coupling cylinder graph for the Pomeron for a large $N_c$ conformal theory, the same approximations used in the AdS/CFT approach albeit at strong coupling. Remarkable BFKL integrability properties allows one to treat the BFKL kernel as the solution to an $SL(2,\mathcal{C})$ conformal spin chain. Going to strong coupling, the two gluon exchange evolves into a close string of infinitely many tightly bound gluons but the same underlying symmetry persists, referred to as Möbius invariance in string theory or the isometries of the transverse $AdS_3$ impact parameter geometry. The position of the $j$-plane cut moves from $j_0 = 1+ \log (2) g^2 N_c/\pi^2$ up to $j_0 = 2- 2/\sqrt{g^2 N_c} $ and the kernel obeys a Schrödinger equation on $AdS_3$ space for the Lorentz boost operators $M_{+-}$ , $$\left[ (-\partial_u^2 - te^{-2u})/2+\sqrt{\lambda}(j-j_0) \right]G_j(t,z,z')=\delta(u-u'),\label{adseq}$$ with $z=e^{-u}.$ In the conformal limit, $G_j(t,z,z')= \int dq\; q \; J_{\tilde \Delta(j)}(zq) J_{\tilde\Delta(j)}(qz')/(q^2-t)$, $\tilde\Delta(j)^2 = 2\lambda (j-j_0)$, and the Pomeron kernel is obtained via an inverse Mellin transform. From here we can obtain $\chi$ using (\[eq:chi\_definition\]). The solution for $\chi$ exhibits diffusion $$\chi(\tau,L) = (\cot(\frac{\pi\rho}{2}) + i) g_{0}^{2} e^{(1-\rho)\tau}\frac{L}{\sinh L} \frac{\exp(\frac{-L^{2}}{\rho\tau})}{(\rho \tau)^{3/2}},\label{strongkernel}$$ in the “size” parameter $\log z$ for the exchanged closed string, analogous to the BFKL kernel at weak coupling, with diffusing taking place in $\log(k_\perp)$, the virtuality of the off shell gluon dipole. The diffusion constant takes on $\mathcal{D} = 2/\sqrt{g^2N_c}$ at strong coupling compared to $\mathcal{D} = 7 \zeta(3) g^2 N_c/2 \pi^2 $ in weak coupling. The close analogy between the weak and strong coupling Pomeron suggests the development of a hybrid phenomenology leveraging plausible interpolations between the two extremes.
#### Fit to HERA Data
We now apply equations (\[eq:diff\_xsection\]) and (\[eq:xsection\]) to compare our model to the measurements at HERA.[@Chekanov:2008vy; @:2009vda] Related papers using AdS/CFT correspondence applied to DVCS include [@Gao:2009se; @Marquet:2010sf; @Nishio:2011xz]. We use equation (\[eq:p13\]) for the photon wavefunctions and a delta function for the proton. Note that equation (\[strongkernel\]) is for the conformal model, and the hard wall expression would include another term with the contribution due to the presence of the hard wall. See [@Costa:2012fw] for the explicit form. We obtain a good agreement with experiment, with $\chi^2$ varying from $0.51 - 1.33$ depending on the particular data and model we are considering. We find that confinement starts to play a role at small $|t|$, and the hardwall fits the data better in this region. Explicitly, the parameter values we get for the hard wall model are $g_0^2 = 2.46\, \pm 0.70\,, z_* = 3.35 \pm 0.41\ {\rm GeV}^{-1},\ \rho = 0.712 \pm 0.038\,,\ z_0 = 4.44 \pm 0.82\ {\rm GeV}^{-1}$ for the differential cross section, and $g_0^2 = 6.65 \pm 2.30\,, z_* = 4.86 \pm 2.87\ {\rm GeV}^{-1} ,\ \rho = 0.811 \pm 0.036\,,\ z_0 = 8.14 \pm 2.96\ {\rm GeV}^{-1},$ with $\chi^2_{d.o.f}=0.51$ and $1.03$ respectively. In figure \[fig:dvcs\_fit\] we present the plots corresponding to these parameters.
\[fig:dvcs\_fit\]
  \
  
#### Double Diffractive Higgs Production
We would now like to extend these methods to double diffractive Higgs production from forward proton-proton scattering, $p p \rightarrow p H p$.[@Brower:2012mk] The protons scatter through very small angles with a large rapidity gaps separating the Higgs in the central region. The Higgs subsequently decays into large transverse momentum fragments. Although this represents a small fraction of the total cross section, the exclusive channel should provide an exceptional signal to background discrimination by constraining the Higgs mass to both the energy of decay fragments and the energy lost to the forward protons [@Kharzeev:2000jwa]. To extend our previous methods to this process, first notice that after expanding equation (\[eq:A\]) to single pomeron exchange, we can schematically represent it as $$A(s,t) = \Phi_{13}*\widetilde {\cal K}_P * \Phi_{24} \; .
\label{eq:adsPomeronScheme}$$
A holographic treatment of Higgs production amounts to a generalization of our previous $AdS$ treatment for 2-to-2 amplitudes to one for 2-to-3 amplitudes, e.g., from Fig. \[fig:cylindarHiggs\]a to Fig. \[fig:cylindarHiggs\]b. A more refined analysis for Higgs production requires a careful treatment for that depicted in Fig. \[fig:cylindarHiggs\]c. A particularly useful paper for the diffractive Higgs analysis is the prior work by Herzog, Paik, Strassler and Thompson [@Herzog:2008mu] on holographic double diffractive scattering. In this analysis, one generalizes (\[eq:adsPomeronScheme\]) to 2-to-3 amplitude where $$A(s,s_1, s_2, t_1, t_2) = \Phi_{13}* \widetilde{\cal K}_P*V_H* \widetilde {\cal K}_P* \Phi_{24} \; ,
\label{eq:adsDoublePomeronScheme}$$ schematically represented by Fig. \[fig:cylindarHiggs\]b. However, a new aspect, not addressed in [@Herzog:2008mu], is the issue of scale invariance breaking. A proper accounting for a non-vanishing gluon condensate $\langle F^2\rangle$ turns out to be a crucial ingredient in understanding the strength of diffractive Higgs production. We now must pause to realize that in any conformal theory the is no dimensional parameter to allow for such a dimensionful two-graviton-dilaton coupling, $M^2 \phi h_{\mu\nu} h^{\mu \nu}$, emerging in an expansion of the AdS gravity action if scale invariance is maintained. However since QCD is not a conformal theory this is just one of many reasons to introduce conformal symmetry breaking. To model an effective QCD background we will for the most part introduce two modifications of the pure AdS background: (1) an IR hardwall cut-off beyond $z = 1/\Lambda_{qcd}$ to give confinement and linear static quark potential at large distances and (2) a slow deformation in the UV ($z \rightarrow 0$) to model the logarithmic running for asymptotic freedom. Both break conformal invariance, which as we will argue is required to couple the two gravitons to the dilaton and produce a Higgs in the central rapidity region.
#### Pomeron-Pomeron Fusion Vertex
We are now in a position to focus on the Higgs vertex, $V_H$. It is important to stress that our general discussion in moving from single-Pomeron exchange processes, (\[eq:adsPomeronScheme\]), to double-Pomeron exchange, (\[eq:adsDoublePomeronScheme\]), applies equally well for both diffractive glueball production and for Higgs production. The difference lies in how to treat the new central vertex. For the production of a glueball, the vertex will be proportional to a normalizable $AdS$ wave-function. There will also be an overall factor controlling the strength of coupling to the external states, e.g., the Pomeron-Pomeron-glueball couplings. For Higgs production, on the other hand, the central vertex, $V_H$, involves a non-normalizable bulk-to-boundary propagator, appropriate for a scalar external current. This in turns leads to coupling to a Higgs scalar. This is analogous to the use of a non-normalizable current for $P_{13}(z)$ in equation (\[eq:p13\]).
A Higgs scalar in the standard model couples exclusively to the quarks via Yukawa coupling, which for simplicity we will assume is dominated by the top quark, with $
%\begin{equation}
{\cal L} = - \frac{g}{2 M_W} m_t \; \bar t(x) t(x) \phi_H(x).
%\label{eq:HiggsCoupling2ttbar}
%\end{equation}
$ Taking advantage of the scale separations between the QCD scale, the Higgs mass and the top quark mass, $
\Lambda_{qcd} \ll m_H \ll 2 m_t
$, heavy quark decoupling allows one to replace the Yukawa coupling by direct coupling of Higgs to gluons, which is treated as an external source in the AdS dictionary. Consequently $V_H$, in a coordinate representation, is replaced by the vertex for two AdS Pomerons fusing at $(x'_{1\perp},z'_1)$ and $(x'_{2\perp},z'_2)$ and propagating this disturbance to the $\bar t(x) t(x)$ scalar current at the boundary of AdS. The double diffractive Higgs vertex $V_H$ can then be obtained in a two-step process.
First, since the Yukawa Higgs quark coupling is proportional to the quark mass, it is dominated by the top quark. Assuming $m_H \ll m_t$, this can be replaced by an effective interaction by evaluating the two gluon Higgs triangle graph in leading order $O(M_H/m_t)$. Second, using the AdS/CFT dictionary, the external source for $F^a_{\mu \nu}F^a_{\mu \nu}(x)$ is placed at the AdS boundary ($z_0 \rightarrow 0$) connecting to the Pomeron fusion vertex in the interior of $AdS_3$ at ${\bf b}_H=(x'_H,z'_H)$, by a scalar bulk-to-boundary propagator, $K(x'_H - x_H,z'_H,z_0)$.
We are finally in the position to put all the pieces together. Although we eventually want to go to a coordinate representation in order to perform eikonal unitarization, certain simplification can be achieved more easily in working with the momentum representation. The Higgs production amplitude, schematically given by (\[eq:adsDoublePomeronScheme\]), can then be written explicitly as $$\begin{aligned}
A(s,s_1,s_2, t_1,t_2)&\simeq & \int dz_1 dz dz_2\; \sqrt{-g_1}\sqrt{-g} \sqrt{-g_2}\;\Phi_{13} (z_1) \\
&\times& \widetilde {\cal K}_P(s_1,t_1,z_1,z) \; V_H(q^2 , z)\; \widetilde {\cal K}_P(s_2,t_2,z,z_2)\; \Phi_{24}(z_2) \;.
\label{eq:adsDoublePomeronHiggs}\end{aligned}$$ where $q^2= -m_H^2$. For this production vertex, we will keep it simple by expressing it as $$V_H( q^2,z)= V_{PP\phi} K(q^2,z) L_H\; .
\label{eq:HiggsVertex}$$ where $K(q^2,z)$ is the conventionally normalized bulk to boundary propagator, $V_{PP\phi}$ serves as an overall coupling from two-Pomeron to $F^2$, and $L$ is the conversion factor from $F^2$ to Higgs, i.e., $
L_H = L(-m_H^2)\simeq \frac{\alpha_s g}{24 \pi M_W}.
$ By treating the central vertex $ V_{PP\phi}$ as a constant, which follows from the super-gravity limit, we have ignored possible additional dependence on $\kappa$, as well as that on $t_1$ and $t_2$. This approximation gives an explicit factorizable form for Higgs production.
#### Strategy for Phenomenological Estimates
As a first step in making a phenomenological estimate for the cross section, we ask how the central vertex, $V_H$, or equivalently, $ V_{PP\phi}$, via (\[eq:HiggsVertex\]), can be normalized, following the approach of Kharzeev and Levin [@Kharzeev:2000jwa] based on the analysis of trace anomaly. We also show how one can in principle use the elastic scattering to normalize the bare BPST Pomeron coupling to external protons and the ’t Hooft coupling $g^2N_c$.
We start from Eq. (\[eq:adsDoublePomeronHiggs\]). When nearing the respective tensor poles at $t_1\simeq m_0^2$ and $ t_2\simeq m_0^2$, the amplitude can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
A(s,s_1,s_2, t_1,t_2)&\simeq&g_{13}\; \frac{ \Gamma_{GGH} \; s^2 }{(t_1-m_0^2)(t_2-m_0^2) } \; g_{24}
\label{eq:2to3KL}\end{aligned}$$ We have performed the $z_1$ and $z_2$ integrations, and have also made use of the fact that $s_1s_2\simeq \kappa\; s\simeq m_H^2 s $. Here $\Gamma_{GGH}$ is the effective on-shell glueball-glueball-Higgs coupling, which can also be expressed as $
\Gamma_{GGH} =L_H F ( - m^2_H)
$ where $L_H= \frac{\alpha_s g}{24 \pi M_W}$ and $ F $ is a scalar form factor $
F(q^2) = <G, ++,q_1| F^a_{\mu\nu} F^a_{\mu\nu}(0) | G,--,q_2>.
$ That is, in the high energy Regge limit, the dominant contribution comes from the maximum helicity glueball state [@Brower:2006ea], with $\lambda = 2$. In this limit, this form factor, is given by the overlap of the dilaton bulk to boundary propagator F(q\^2) &=&(’ m\_H\^2)\^2 V\_[PP]{} dz e\^[-4A(z)]{} \_G(z) K(q,z) \_G(z) \[eq:formfactor\] What remains to be specified is the overall normalization, $F(0)$.
We next follow D. Kharzeev and E. M. Levin [@Kharzeev:2000jwa], who noted that, from the SYM side, $F(q^2)$ at $q^2=0$, can be considered as the glueball condensate. Consider matrix elements of the trace-anomaly between two states, $|\alpha(p)>$ and $|\alpha'(p')>$, with four-momentum transfer $q=p-p'$. In particular, for a single particle state of a tensor glueball $|G(p)>$, this leads to $<G(p)| {\Theta}^\alpha_\alpha|G(p')> = \frac{\widetilde \beta}{2 g} <G(p)| F^a_{\mu \nu} F^{a \mu \nu} | G(p') >$. At $q = 0$, the forward matrix element of the trace of the energy-momentum tensor is given simply by the mass of the relevant tensor glueball, with $<G|{\Theta}^\alpha_\alpha | G > = M_G^2$, this directly yields F(0) = <G| F\^a\_ F\^[a ]{} | G > =- \[eq:FF\] where $\widetilde \beta = - b\alpha_s/(2 \pi)$, $b = 11 - 2n_f/3$, for $N_c=3$. In what follows, we will use $n_f=3$. Note that heavy quark contribution is not included in this limit. Since the conformal scale breaking is due the running coupling constant in QCD, there is apparently a mapping between QCD scale breaking and breaking of the AdS background in the IR, which gives a finite mass to the glueball and to give a non-zero contribution to the gauge condensate.
Let us turn next to the non-forward limit. We accept the fact that, in the physical region where $t<0$ and small, the cross sections typically have an exponential form, with a logarithmic slope which is mildly energy-dependent. We therefore approximate all amplitudes in the near forward region where $t<0$ and small, $
A(s,t) \simeq e^{B_{eff}(s)\; t/2}\; A(s,0)
$ where $B_{eff}(s)$ is a smoothly slowly increasing function of s, (we expect it to be logarithmic). We also assume, for $t_1<0$, $t_2<0$ and small, the Higgs production amplitude is also strongly damped so that A(s,s\_1,s\_2, t\_1, t\_2) e\^[B’\_eff(s\_1) t\_1/2]{} e\^[B’\_eff(s\_2) t\_2 /2 ]{} A(s,s\_1,s\_2, t\_10, t\_20) \[eq:higgs\] We also assume $B'_{eff}(s)\simeq B_{eff}(s) + {\rm b}$. With these, both the elastic, the total pp cross sections and the Higgs production cross section can now be evaluated. Various cross sections will of course depend on the unknown slope parameter, $B_{eff}$, which can at best be estimated based on prior experience with diffractive estimates. One can relate $B_{eff}$ directly in terms of the experimentally smooth dimensionless ratio, $
R_{el}(s) = {\sigma_{el}}/{\sigma_{total}} = \frac{ (1+\rho^2) \sigma_{total}(s) }{16\pi B_{eff} (s) }.
$ Upon squaring the amplitude, $A(s,s_1,s_2, t_1, t_2)$, (\[eq:higgs\]), the double-differential cross section for Higgs production can now be obtained. After integrating over $t_1$ and $t_2$ and using the fact that, for $m_H^2$ large $s \simeq {s_1 s_2}/{m_H^2}$, one finds $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d\sigma}{dy_H } &\simeq &(1/\pi) \times C' \times | \Gamma_{GGH}(0)/\widetilde m^2|^2 \times \frac{\sigma( s)}{\sigma(m_H^2)} \times R^2_{el}(m_H \sqrt s )\end{aligned}$$ The value of the above result is model dependent, and with our model is $\sim 1 pb$. This is of the same order as estimated in [@Kharzeev:2000jwa]. However, as also pointed in [@Kharzeev:2000jwa], this should be considered as an over-estimate. The major source of suppression will come from absorptive correction, which can lead to a central production cross section in the femtobarn range. A lot of details have been glossed over in the above derivation, see [@Brower:2012mk].
#### Conclusions:
We have presented the phenomenological application of the AdS/CFT correspondence to the study of high energy diffractive scattering for QCD. Fits to the HERA DVCS data at small x demonstrate that the strong coupling BPST Graviton/Pomeron [@Brower:2006ea] does allow for a very good description of diffractive DVCS with few phenomenological parameters, the principal one being the intercept to the bare Pomeron fit to be $j_0 \simeq 1.2-1.3$. Encouraged by this, we plan to undertake a fuller study of several closely related diffractive process: total and elastic cross sections, DIS, virtual photon production, vector meson production and double diffractive production of heavy quarks. The goal is that by over-constraining the basic AdS building blocks of diffractive scattering, this framework will give a compelling phenomenological prediction for the double diffractive production of the Higgs in the standard model to aid in the analysis of LHC data.
#### Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
The work of M.S.C. and M.D. was partially funded by grants PTDC/FIS/ 099293/2008 and CERN/FP/ 116358/2010. *Centro de Física do Porto* is partially funded by FCT. The work of M.D. is supported by the FCT/Marie Curie Welcome II program. The work of R.C.B. was supported by the Department of Energy under contract DE-FG02-91ER40676, and that of C.-IT. by the Department of Energy under contract DE-FG02-91ER40688, Task-A. R.B. and C.-IT. would like to thank the Aspen Center for Physics for its hospitality during the early phase of this work.
#### References {#references .unnumbered}
[99]{}
R. C. Brower, J. Polchinski, M. J. Strassler, C. -I Tan, JHEP [**0712**]{}, 005 (2007).
M. S. Costa and M. Djuric, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} (2012) 016009 \[arXiv:1201.1307 \[hep-th\]\].
R. C. Brower, M. Djuric and C. -I Tan, JHEP [**1209**]{} (2012) 097 \[arXiv:1202.4953 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. C. Brower, M. Djurić, I. Sarcevic, C. -I Tan, JHEP [**1011**]{}, 051 (2010).
R. C. Brower, M. Djuric, I. Sarcevic and C. -ITan, arXiv:1106.5681 \[hep-ph\]. L. Cornalba and M. S. Costa, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{} (2008) 096010, `arXiv:0804.1562 [hep-ph]`. J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 231 (1998) E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. [**2**]{}, 253-291 (1998). F.E. Low,
S. Nussinov,
L. Cornalba, M. S. Costa, J. Penedones, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**105**]{}, 072003 (2010).
J. H. Gao and B. W. Xiao, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{} (2010) 035008, `arXiv:0912.4333 [hep-ph]`. C. Marquet, C. Roiesnel, S. Wallon, JHEP [**1004** ]{} (2010) 051, `arXiv:1002.0566 [hep-ph]`.
R. Nishio and T. Watari, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{} (2011) 075025, `arXiv:1105.2999 [hep-ph]`. R. Nishio and T. Watari, `arXiv:1105.2907 [hep-ph]`.
J. Polchinski, M. J. Strassler, JHEP [**0305**]{}, 012 (2003). R. C. Brower, M. J. Strassler, C. -I Tan, JHEP [**0903**]{}, 050 (2009). R. C. Brower, M. J. Strassler, C. -I Tan, JHEP [**0903**]{}, 092 (2009). R. C. Brower, M. Djuric and C-I Tan, JHEP [**0907**]{}, 063 (2009). L. Cornalba, M. S. Costa, J. Penedones, R. Schiappa, Nucl. Phys. [**B767**]{}, 327-351 (2007). L. Cornalba, M. S. Costa, J. Penedones, JHEP [**0806**]{}, 048 (2008).
L. Cornalba, M. S. Costa, J. Penedones, JHEP [**0709**]{}, 037 (2007). S. Chekanov [*et al.*]{} \[ZEUS Collaboration\], JHEP [**0905**]{} (2009) 108, `arXiv:0812.2517 [hep-ex]`. F. D. Aaron [*et al.*]{} \[H1 Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**681**]{} (2009) 391, `arXiv:0907.5289 [hep-ex]`. F. D. Aaron [*et al.*]{} \[H1 Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**659**]{} (2008) 796, `arXiv:0709.4114 [hep-ex]`. D. Kharzeev and E. Levin, Phys. Rev. D [**63**]{}, 073004 (2001) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0005311\]. C. P. Herzog, S. Paik, M. J. Strassler and E. G. Thompson, JHEP [**0808**]{}, 010 (2008) \[arXiv:0806.0181 \[hep-th\]\].
[^1]: speaker
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Charged rotating Kerr-Newman black holes are known to be superradiantly unstable to perturbations of charged massive bosonic fields whose proper frequencies lie in the bounded regime $0<\omega<\text{min}\{\omega_{\text{c}}\equiv
m\Omega_{\text{H}}+q\Phi_{\text{H}},\mu\}$ \[here $\{\Omega_{\text{H}},\Phi_{\text{H}}\}$ are respectively the angular velocity and electric potential of the Kerr-Newman black hole, and $\{m,q,\mu\}$ are respectively the azimuthal harmonic index, the charge coupling constant, and the proper mass of the field\]. In this paper we study analytically the complex resonance spectrum which characterizes the dynamics of linearized charged massive scalar fields in a near-extremal Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime. Interestingly, it is shown that near the critical frequency $\omega_{\text{c}}$ for superradiant amplification and in the eikonal large-mass regime, the superradiant instability growth rates of the explosive scalar fields are characterized by a non-trivial (non-monotonic) dependence on the dimensionless charge-to-mass ratio $q/\mu$. In particular, for given parameters $\{M,Q, J\}$ of the central Kerr-Newman black hole, we determine analytically the optimal charge-to-mass ratio $q/\mu$ of the explosive scalar field which [*maximizes*]{} the growth rate of the superradiant instabilities in the composed Kerr-Newman-black-hole-charged-massive-scalar-field system.
author:
- Shahar Hod
title: 'Analytic treatment of the system of a Kerr-Newman black hole and a charged massive scalar field'
---
Introduction
============
Recent analytical [@Hodkn] and numerical [@Herkn] studies of the coupled Einstein-Maxwell-Klein-Gordon field equations have revealed that, thanks to the intriguing mechanism of superradiance in curved black-hole spacetimes [@Zel; @PressTeu2; @Bekc], charged rotating black holes can support stationary bound-state configurations of charged massive bosonic (integer-spin) fields which are everywhere regular outside the black-hole horizon [@Notekr; @Hodkr; @Herkr].
These stationary bosonic field configurations [@Hodkn; @Herkn] are characterized by proper frequencies which coincide with the critical (threshold) frequency $\omega_{\text{c}}$ for the superradiant scattering phenomenon in the black-hole spacetime [@Zel; @PressTeu2; @Bekc]. In particular, stationary charged field configurations linearly coupled to a charged rotating Kerr-Newman black hole of mass $M$, electric charge $Q$, and angular momentum $J=Ma$, are characterized by the simple relation [@Hodkn; @Herkn; @Noteun] $$\label{Eq1}
\omega_{\text{field}}=\omega_{\text{c}}\equiv
m\Omega_{\text{H}}+q\Phi_{\text{H}}\ ,$$ where $\{\omega_{\text{field}},m,q\}$ are respectively the proper frequency, the azimuthal harmonic index, and the charge coupling constant of the stationary charged scalar field mode [@Notedim1], and [@Chan] $$\label{Eq2}
\Omega_{\text{H}}={{a}\over{r^2_++a^2}}\ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \
\Phi_{\text{H}}={{Qr_+}\over{r^2_++a^2}}\$$ are respectively the angular velocity and electric potential of the Kerr-Newman black hole.
The proper frequencies of these stationary bosonic field configurations are also characterized by the inequality [@Hodkn; @Herkn; @Notekr; @Hodkr; @Herkr] $$\label{Eq3}
\omega^2_{\text{field}}<\mu^2$$ (here $\mu$ is the proper mass of the bosonic field [@Notedim2]), a property which guarantees that these external bound-state configurations cannot radiate their energies to spatial infinity [@Hodkn; @Herkn; @Notekr; @Hodkr; @Herkr].
Interestingly, the stationary bosonic-field configurations (\[Eq1\]) studied in [@Hodkn; @Herkn; @Notekr; @Hodkr; @Herkr] mark the physical boundary between stable and unstable composed black-hole-field configurations. In particular, the amplitude of an external bound-state bosonic field configuration whose proper frequency is characterized by the inequality $\omega_{\text{field}}>\omega_{\text{c}}$ is known to decay in time [@PressTeu2; @Notemas], whereas the amplitude of an external bound-state bosonic field configuration whose proper frequency is characterized by the property \[see Eqs. (\[Eq1\]) and (\[Eq3\])\] $$\label{Eq4}
0<\omega_{\text{field}}<\text{min}\{\omega_{\text{c}},\mu\}$$ is known to grow exponentially over time [@Notemas; @Notemir; @CarDias].
The superradiant instability properties of the composed Kerr-Newman-black-hole-charged-massive-scalar-field system were studied in the interesting work of Furuhashi and Nambu,[@FN]. In particular, it was found that, in the small frequency $M\omega\ll1$ and small charge-coupling $qQ\ll1$ regime, the growth rate [@Notegwr] of the superradiant instabilities is given by the simple expression [@FN; @Notecon] $$\label{Eq5}
\Im\omega={{\mu^4}\over{24}}a(M^2-Q^2)(M\mu-qQ)^5\ \ \ \ \text{for}\
\ \ \ \{M\omega\ll1, M\mu\ll1, qQ\ll1\}\ .$$ Inspecting the relation (\[Eq5\]) for the imaginary part of the resonant frequency which characterizes the composed black-hole-charged-field system, one realizes that, in the small frequency $M\omega\ll1$ regime, the characteristic growth rate of the superradiant instabilities is a monotonically [*decreasing*]{} function of the dimensionless quantity $qQ$. That is, for given values $\{M,Q,a\}$ of the black-hole physical parameters, $\Im\omega$ is found to be a monotonically decreasing function of the charge coupling parameter $q$ which characterizes the explosive scalar fields.
The main goal of the present paper is to analyze the instability properties of the composed Kerr-Newman-black-hole-charged-massive-scalar-field system in the regime of large field frequencies. To this end, we shall study the complex resonance spectrum which characterizes the dynamics of the charged massive scalar fields in the near-extremal charged spinning Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime. In particular, below we shall determine analytically the characteristic growth rates of the superradiant instabilities near the threshold (critical) frequency $\omega_{\text{c}}$ \[see Eq. (\[Eq1\])\] [@Notethrs]. Interestingly, as we shall explicitly show in the present analysis, the superradiant instability growth rates of the explosive charged massive scalar fields near the critical frequency (\[Eq1\]) are characterized by a non-trivial ([*non*]{}-monotonic) dependence on the dimensionless black-hole-field charge coupling parameter $qQ$. In particular, for given parameters $\{M,Q, a\}$ of the central Kerr-Newman black hole, we shall determine analytically the optimal charge-to-mass ratio $q/\mu$ of the explosive scalar field which [*maximizes*]{} the growth rate of the superradiant instabilities in this composed Kerr-Newman-black-hole-charged-massive-scalar-field system.
Description of the system
=========================
We shall study analytically the superradiant instability properties of a physical system which is composed of a charged massive scalar field $\Psi$ which is linearly coupled to a charged spinning near-extremal Kerr-Newman black hole. In terms of the familiar Boyer-Lindquist coordinates $(t,r,\theta,\phi)$, the line element which describes the external spacetime of a Kerr-Newman black hole of mass $M$, electric charge $Q$, and angular momentum per unit mass $a=J/M$ is given by [@Chan] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq6}
ds^2=-{{\Delta}\over{\rho^2}}(dt-a\sin^2\theta
d\phi)^2+{{\rho^2}\over{\Delta}}dr^2+\rho^2
d\theta^2+{{\sin^2\theta}\over{\rho^2}}\big[a
dt-(r^2+a^2)d\phi\big]^2\ ,\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta\equiv r^2-2Mr+a^2+Q^2$ and $\rho^2\equiv
r^2+a^2\cos^2\theta$. The zeroes of the metric function $\Delta$, $$\label{Eq7}
r_{\pm}=M\pm(M^2-a^2-Q^2)^{1/2}\ ,$$ determine the radii of the black-hole (event and inner) horizons.
The dynamics of a linearized scalar field of mass $\mu$ and charge coupling constant $q$ in the Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime is governed by the familiar Klein-Gordon wave equation [@Teuk; @Stro] $$\label{Eq8}
[(\nabla^\nu-iqA^\nu)(\nabla_{\nu}-iqA_{\nu}) -\mu^2]\Psi=0\ ,$$ where $A_{\nu}$ is the electromagnetic potential of the charged black hole. It is convenient to decompose the scalar field eigenfunction $\Psi(t,r,\theta,\phi)$ in the form [@Teuk; @Stro; @Notedec] $$\label{Eq9}
\Psi=\sum_{l,m}e^{im\phi}{S_{lm}}(\theta;a\sqrt{\mu^2-\omega^2}){R_{lm}}(r;M,Q,a,\mu,q,\omega)e^{-i\omega
t}\ ,$$ where $R_{lm}$ is the radial part of the scalar eigenfunction and $S_{lm}$ is the angular part of the scalar eigenfunction. Substituting the scalar field decomposition (\[Eq9\]) back into the Klein-Gordon wave equation (\[Eq8\]) and using the line element (\[Eq6\]) of the curved Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime, one obtains [@Teuk; @Stro] two coupled ordinary differential equations \[see Eqs. (\[Eq10\]) and (\[Eq12\]) below\] of the confluent Heun type [@Heun; @Fiz1; @Teuk; @Abram; @Stro; @Hodasy] for the angular and radial parts of the charged massive scalar eigenfunction.
The angular (spheroidal harmonic) functions $S_{lm}(\theta)$ satisfy the ordinary differential equation [@Heun; @Fiz1; @Teuk; @Abram; @Stro; @Hodasy] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq10}
{1\over {\sin\theta}}{{d}\over{\theta}}\Big(\sin\theta {{d
S_{lm}}\over{d\theta}}\Big) +\Big[K_{lm}+a^2(\mu^2-\omega^2)
-a^2(\mu^2-\omega^2)\cos^2\theta-{{m^2}\over{\sin^2\theta}}\Big]S_{lm}=0\
.\end{aligned}$$ This differential equation determines the discrete family of angular eigenvalues $\{K_{lm}\}$ which characterize the regular [@Noteran] angular eigenfunctions $\{S_{lm}(\theta)\}$ [@Heun; @Fiz1; @Teuk; @Abram; @Stro; @Hodasy]. For later purposes we note that, in the asymptotic $m\gg1$ regime, the angular eigenvalues of the spheroidal differential equation (\[Eq10\]) are characterized by the simple asymptotic behavior [@Hodpp; @Notewlm] $$\label{Eq11}
K_{mm}=m^2[1+O(m^{-1})]-a^2(\mu^2-\omega^2)\ .$$
The radial part of the Klein-Gordon wave equation (\[Eq8\]) in the Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime is given by [@Teuk; @Stro; @Notecoup] $$\label{Eq12}
{{d}
\over{dr}}\Big(\Delta{{dR_{lm}}\over{dr}}\Big)+\Big[{{H^2}\over{\Delta}}
+2ma\omega-\mu^2(r^2+a^2)-K_{lm}\Big]R_{lm}=0\ ,$$ where $$\label{Eq13}
H\equiv \omega(r^2+a^2)-ma-qQr\ .$$ The differential equation (\[Eq12\]), which determines the radial behavior of the charged massive scalar fields in the charged spinning Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime, is supplemented by the physically motivated boundary condition of purely ingoing scalar waves (as measured by a comoving observer) at the outer horizon of the Kerr-Newman black hole [@Hodkn; @Herkn; @Notemas; @Notebr]: $$\label{Eq14}
R(r\to r_+)\sim e^{-i(\omega-\omega_{c})y}\ ,$$ where the “tortoise" radial coordinate $y$ is defined by the relation $dy/dr=(r^2+a^2)/\Delta$ [@Noteho]. In addition, bound-state configurations of the charged massive scalar fields in the Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime are characterized by radial eigenfunctions which, in the small frequency $\omega^2<\mu^2$ regime \[see Eq. (\[Eq3\])\], decay exponentially fast at spatial infinity [@Hodkn; @Herkn; @Notemas]: $$\label{Eq15}
R(r\to\infty)\sim {{1}\over{r}}e^{-\sqrt{\mu^2-\omega^2}r}\ .$$
The radial differential equation (\[Eq12\]), supplemented by the boundary conditions (\[Eq14\]) and (\[Eq15\]), single out a discrete spectrum of complex resonant frequencies $\{\omega(\mu,q,l,m,M,Q,a;n)\}$ [@Notenr] which characterize the dynamics of the charged massive scalar fields in the charged rotating Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime. In particular, resonant frequencies whose imaginary parts are positive are associated with the exponentially growing superradiant instabilities [@Notemas; @Notemir; @CarDias] which characterize the composed black-hole-scalar-field system \[see Eq. (\[Eq9\])\]. As we shall show below, for near-extremal Kerr-Newman black holes in the regime $(r_+-r_-)/r_+\ll1$, the characteristic complex resonance spectrum of the composed Kerr-Newman-charged-massive-scalar-field system can be studied analytically in the vicinity of the critical resonant frequency $\omega_{\text{c}}$ \[see Eq. (\[Eq1\])\] [@Notethrs].
The resonance equation and its regime of validity
=================================================
In the present section we shall study the differential equation (\[Eq12\]) which determines the spatial behavior of the radial scalar eigenfunctions. In particular, we shall derive a resonance condition \[see Eq. (\[Eq42\]) below\] for the complex eigenfrequencies which characterize the dynamics of the charged massive scalar fields in the spacetime of a near-extremal charged rotating Kerr-Newman black hole.
The resonance equation for the complex resonant frequencies which characterize the dynamics of [*neutral*]{} scalar fields in the spacetime of a [*neutral*]{} near-extremal Kerr black hole was derived in [@HodHod]. It is important to emphasize that the analysis presented in [@HodHod] is restricted to the regime $M\mu=O(1)$ of moderate field masses. In the present study we shall generalize the analysis of [@HodHod] to the regime of [*charged*]{} massive scalar fields propagating in the spacetime of a [*charged*]{} near-extremal Kerr-Newman black hole. In addition, below we shall extend the analysis of [@HodHod] to the regime $M\mu\gg1$ of large field masses [@Notecare].
It is convenient to express the physical quantities which characterize the composed Kerr-Newman-black-hole-linearized-charged-massive-scalar-field system in terms of the dimensionless variables [@Teuk; @Stro] $$\label{Eq16}
x\equiv {{r-r_+}\over {r_+}}\ \ \ ;\ \ \
\tau\equiv{{r_+-r_-}\over{r_+}}\ \ \ ;\ \ \ k\equiv 2\omega r_+-qQ\
\ \ ; \ \ \ \varpi\equiv{{\omega-\omega_{\text{c}}}\over{2\pi
T_{\text{BH}}}}\ ,$$ where $T_{\text{BH}}=(r_+-r_-)/4\pi(r^2_++a^2)$ is the Bekenstein-Hawking temperature of the charged spinning Kerr-Newman black hole. Substituting (\[Eq16\]) into (\[Eq12\]), one finds the differential equation $$\label{Eq17}
x(x+\tau){{d^2R}\over{dx^2}}+(2x+\tau){{dR}\over{dx}}+UR=0\$$ for the radial eigenfunctions of the charged massive scalar fields in the Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime, where $$\label{Eq18}
U=U(x;\mu,q,\omega,l,m,M,Q,a)={{[\omega
r_+x^2+kx+\varpi\tau/2]^2}\over{x(x+\tau)}}-K+2ma\omega-\mu^2[r^2_+(1+x)^2+a^2]\
.$$
The radial equation (\[Eq17\]) can be solved analytically in the two asymptotic regions $x\ll1$ and $x\gg\text{max}\{\tau,M(\omega_{\text{c}}-\omega)\}$ [@HodHod]. Note, in particular, that in the double asymptotic regime [@Notedar] $$\label{Eq19}
\tau\ll1\ \ \ \ \text{and}\ \ \ \ M(\omega_{\text{c}}-\omega)\ll1\ ,$$ one can use a standard matching procedure in the overlapping region $\text{max}\{\tau,M(\omega_{\text{c}}-\omega)\}\ll x\ll 1$ in order to determine the complex resonant frequencies $\{\omega(\mu,q,l,m,M,Q,a;n)\}$ which characterize the dynamics of the charged massive scalar fields in the charged spinning Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime.
We shall first solve the radial differential equation (\[Eq17\]) in the region $$\label{Eq20}
x\ll 1\ ,$$ in which case one can use the near-horizon approximation $U\to
U_{\text{near}}\equiv
(kx+\varpi\tau/2)^2/[x(x+\tau)]-K+2ma\omega-\mu^2(r^2_++a^2)$ for the effective radial potential in (\[Eq17\]). The near-horizon radial solution of (\[Eq17\]) which respects the physically motivated boundary condition (\[Eq14\]) at the outer horizon of the Kerr-Newman black hole can be expressed in terms of the hypergeometric function [@Abram; @HodHod; @Morse]: $$\label{Eq21}
R(x)=x^{-i{{\varpi}\over{2}}}\Big({x\over
\tau}+1\Big)^{i{{\varpi}\over{2}}-ik}{_2F_1}({1\over
2}+i\delta-ik,{1\over 2}-i\delta-ik;1-i\varpi;-x/\tau)\ ,$$ where $$\label{Eq22}
\delta^2\equiv -K-{1\over 4}+2ma\omega+k^2-\mu^2(r^2_++a^2)\ .$$ It proves useful to write the near-horizon radial solution (\[Eq21\]) in the form (see Eq. 15.3.7 of [@Abram]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq23}
R(x)&=&x^{-i{{\varpi}\over{2}}}\Big({x\over
\tau}+1\Big)^{i{{\varpi}\over{2}}-ik}\Big[
{{\Gamma(1-i\varpi)\Gamma(2i\delta)}\over{\Gamma({1/2}+i\delta-ik)\Gamma({1/2}+i\delta+ik-i\varpi)}}
\Big({{x}\over{\tau}}\Big)^{-1/2+i\delta+ik} \nonumber \\&& \times
{_2F_1}({1\over 2}-i\delta-ik,{1\over
2}-i\delta-ik+i\varpi;1-2i\delta;-\tau/x)+(\delta\to -\delta)\Big]\
,\end{aligned}$$ where the notation $(\delta\to -\delta)$ means “replace $\delta$ by $-\delta$ in the preceding term". Using the simple asymptotic behavior (see Eq. 15.1.1 of [@Abram]) $$\label{Eq24}
_2F_1(a,b;c;z)\to 1\ \ \ \text{for}\ \ \ {{ab}\over{c}}\cdot z\to 0\$$ of the hypergeometric function, one finds from (\[Eq23\]) the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq25}
R(x)={{\Gamma(1-i\varpi)\Gamma(2i\delta)\tau^{1/2-i\delta-i\varpi/2}}\over{\Gamma({1/2}+i\delta-ik)
\Gamma({1/2}+i\delta+ik-i\varpi)}}x^{-{{1}\over{2}}+i\delta}
+(\delta\to -\delta)\\end{aligned}$$ for the radial eigenfunction of the charged massive scalar fields in the intermediate region $$\label{Eq26}
\tau\times \text{max}(m,\varpi)\ll x\ll 1\ .$$
We shall next solve the radial differential equation (\[Eq17\]) in the region $$\label{Eq27}
x\gg \text{max}(\tau,\varpi\tau/m)\ ,$$ in which case one can replace (\[Eq17\]) by $$\label{Eq28}
x^2{{d^2R}\over{dx^2}}+2x{{dR}\over{dx}}+U_{\text{far}}R=0\ ,$$ where the effective potential in (\[Eq28\]) is given by $U\to
U_{\text{{far}}}=(\omega
r_+x+k)^2-K+2ma\omega-\mu^2[r^2_+(1+x)^2+a^2]$. The radial solution of (\[Eq28\]) can be expressed in terms of the confluent hypergeometric function [@Abram; @HodHod; @Morse]: $$\label{Eq29}
R(x)=N_1\times(2\epsilon)^{{1\over 2}+i\delta}x^{-{1\over
2}+i\delta}e^{-\epsilon x}{_1F_1}({1\over
2}+i\delta-\kappa,1+2i\delta,2\epsilon x)+N_2\times(\delta\to
-\delta)\ ,$$ where we have used here the dimensionless variables $$\label{Eq30}
\epsilon\equiv \sqrt{\mu^2-\omega^2}r_+\ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \
\kappa\equiv {{\omega kr_+-(\mu r_+)^2}\over{\epsilon}}\ .$$ As we shall show below, the normalization constants $\{N_1,N_2\}$ of the radial solution (\[Eq29\]) can be determined analytically by a standard matching procedure. Using the simple asymptotic behavior (see Eq. 13.1.2 of [@Abram]) $$\label{Eq31}
_1F_1(a,b,z)\to 1\ \ \ \text{for}\ \ \ {{a}\over{b}}\cdot z\to 0\$$ of the confluent hypergeometric function, one finds from (\[Eq29\]) the expression $$\label{Eq32}
R(x)=N_1\times(2\epsilon)^{{1\over 2}+i\delta}x^{-{1\over
2}+i\delta}+N_2\times(\delta\to -\delta)\$$ for the radial eigenfunction of the charged massive scalar fields in the intermediate region $$\label{Eq33}
\tau\times\text{max}(1,\varpi/m)\ll x\ll m^{-1}\ .$$
From Eqs. (\[Eq26\]) and (\[Eq33\]) one learns that, for near-extremal charged spinning Kerr-Newman black holes in the regime $\tau\ll1$, there is an overlap radial region which is determined by the strong inequalities $$\label{Eq34}
\tau\times\text{max}(m,\varpi)\ll x_o\ll m^{-1}\ ,$$ in which the expressions (\[Eq21\]) and (\[Eq29\]) for the radial scalar eigenfunction $R(x)$ are both valid. Note, in particular, that the two expressions (\[Eq25\]) and (\[Eq32\]) for the radial eigenfunction in the overlap region (\[Eq34\]) have the same functional dependence on the dimensionless radial coordinate $x$. Thus, one can determine the normalization constants $N_1$ and $N_2$ of the radial eigenfunction (\[Eq29\]) by matching the expressions (\[Eq25\]) and (\[Eq32\]) in their overlap region (\[Eq34\]). This matching procedure yields $$\label{Eq35}
N_1(\delta)={{\Gamma(1-i\varpi)\Gamma(2i\delta)}\over{\Gamma({1\over
2}+i\delta-ik)\Gamma({1\over 2}+i\delta+ik-i\varpi)}}\tau^{{1\over
2}-i\delta-i{{\varpi}\over{2}}}(2\epsilon)^{-{1\over 2}-i\delta}\ \
\ \ {\text{and}} \ \ \ \ N_2(\delta)=N_1(-\delta)\ .$$
We shall now derive the characteristic equation which determines the complex resonant frequencies of the composed Kerr-Newman-black-hole-charged-massive-scalar-field system. We first point out that the radial eigenfunction (\[Eq29\]) of the charged massive scalar fields is characterized by the asymptotic behavior (see Eq. 13.5.1 of [@Abram]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq36}
R(x\to\infty)&\to&
\Big[N_1\times(2\epsilon)^{\kappa}{{\Gamma(1+2i\delta)}\over{\Gamma({1\over
2}+i\delta+\kappa)}}x^{-1+\kappa}(-1)^{-{1\over
2}-i\delta+\kappa}+N_2\times(\delta\to -\delta)\Big]e^{-\epsilon x}
\nonumber \\&& +
\Big[N_1\times(2\epsilon)^{-\kappa}{{\Gamma(1+2i\delta)}\over{\Gamma({1\over
2}+i\delta-\kappa)}}x^{-1-\kappa}+N_2\times(\delta\to
-\delta)\Big]e^{\epsilon x}\\end{aligned}$$ at spatial infinity. Taking cognizance of the boundary condition (\[Eq15\]), which characterizes the spatial behavior of the bound-state radial scalar eigenfunctions at asymptotic infinity, one realizes that the coefficient of the exploding exponent $e^{\epsilon
x}$ in the asymptotic expression (\[Eq36\]) must vanish: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Eq37}
N_1\times(2\epsilon)^{-\kappa}{{\Gamma(1+2i\delta)}\over{\Gamma({1\over
2}+i\delta-\kappa)}}x^{-1-\kappa}+N_2\times(\delta\to -\delta)=0\ .\end{aligned}$$ Substituting into (\[Eq37\]) the normalization constants $N_1$ and $N_2$ \[see Eq. (\[Eq35\])\], one finds the resonance equation $$\label{Eq38}
\Big[{{\Gamma(-2i\delta)}\over{\Gamma(2i\delta)}}\Big]^2{{\Gamma({1\over
2}+i\delta-ik)\Gamma({1\over 2}+i\delta-\kappa)\Gamma({1\over
2}+i\delta+ik-i\varpi)}\over{\Gamma({1\over
2}-i\delta-ik)\Gamma({1\over 2}-i\delta-\kappa)\Gamma({1\over
2}-i\delta+ik-i\varpi)}}\big(2\epsilon\tau\big)^{2i\delta}=1\$$ which determines the complex resonant frequencies of the charged massive scalar fields in the near-extremal charged rotating Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime.
We note that the resonance equation (\[Eq38\]) can be simplified in the regime $$\label{Eq39}
\tau\ll {{\bar\omega}\over{m}}$$ of near-extremal Kerr-Newman black holes, where here [@Notenkn] $$\label{Eq40}
{\bar\omega}\equiv
{{(r^2_++a^2)(\omega-\omega_{\text{c}})}\over{r_+}}\$$ is a dimensionless parameter which quantifies the distance between the proper frequency of the charged massive scalar field and the critical frequency (\[Eq1\]) [@Notethrs] for superradiant scattering in the charged rotating Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime. In particular, in the near-extremal regime (\[Eq39\]), one can use the approximated relation [@Abram; @Notenkn] $$\label{Eq41}
{{\Gamma({1\over 2}+i\delta+ik-i\varpi)}\over{\Gamma({1\over
2}-i\delta+ik-i\varpi)}}=(-i\varpi)^{2i\delta}[1+O(m/\varpi)]\$$ for the Gamma functions that appear in the resonance equation (\[Eq38\]). Substituting (\[Eq41\]) into (\[Eq38\]), one finds the resonance condition $$\label{Eq42}
\Big[{{\Gamma(-2i\delta)}\over{\Gamma(2i\delta)}}\Big]^2{{\Gamma({1\over
2}+i\delta-ik)\Gamma({1\over 2}+i\delta-\kappa)}\over{\Gamma({1\over
2}-i\delta-ik)\Gamma({1\over
2}-i\delta-\kappa)}}\big(-4i\epsilon{\bar\omega}\big)^{2i\delta}=1\
.$$ It is worth emphasizing again that the resonance equation (\[Eq42\]) is valid in the regime \[see Eqs. (\[Eq16\]), (\[Eq34\]), (\[Eq39\]), and (\[Eq40\])\] $$\label{Eq43}
m\tau\ll{\bar\omega}\ll m^{-1}\ .$$
In the next section we shall show that, for $\delta\in\mathbb{R}$ [@Notedel], the (rather cumbersome) resonance equation (\[Eq42\]) yields a remarkably simple expression for the dimensionless ratio $\omega_{\text{I}}/(\omega_{\text{R}}-\omega_{\text{c}})$, where $\{\omega_{\text{R}},\omega_{\text{I}}\}$ are respectively the real and imaginary parts of the complex resonant frequencies which characterize the dynamics of the charged massive scalar fields in the near-extremal charged spinning Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime.
The superradiant instability spectrum of the composed Kerr-Newman-black-hole-charged-massive-scalar-field system
================================================================================================================
Taking cognizance of the derived resonance equation (\[Eq42\]), one finds that the resonant frequencies of the composed Kerr-Newman-black-hole-charged-massive-scalar-field system in the regime (\[Eq43\]) can be expressed in the compact form $$\label{Eq44}
\bar\omega={\cal R}\times{\cal J}\ ,$$ where [@NoteGam; @Noteintg] $$\label{Eq45}
{\cal R}\equiv {{e^{-\pi n/\delta}}\over{4\epsilon}}
\Big\{\Big[{{\Gamma(2i\delta)}\over{\Gamma(-2i\delta)}}\Big]^2{{\Gamma({1\over
2}-i\delta-\kappa)}\over{\Gamma({1\over
2}+i\delta-\kappa)}}\Big\}^{1/2i\delta}\in\mathbb{R}\$$ and $$\label{Eq46}
{\cal J}\equiv i\Big[{{\Gamma({1\over
2}-i\delta-ik)}\over{\Gamma({1\over
2}+i\delta-ik)}}\Big]^{1/2i\delta}\in\mathbb{C}\ .$$ Equations (\[Eq44\]), (\[Eq45\]), and (\[Eq46\]) imply the relations $$\label{Eq47}
\bar\omega_{\text{I}}={\cal R}\times{\cal J}_{\text{I}}\ \ \ \
\text{and}\ \ \ \ \bar\omega_{\text{R}}={\cal R}\times{\cal
J}_{\text{R}}\ ,$$ which, in turn, yield the remarkably simple dimensionless ratio $$\label{Eq48}
%{\cal F}(l,m,\alpha)\equiv
{{\omega_{\text{I}}}\over{\omega_{\text{R}}-\omega_{\text{c}}}}
%{{\bar\omega_{\text{I}}}\over{\bar\omega_{\text{R}}}}
={{{\cal J}_{\text{I}}}\over{{\cal J}_{\text{R}}}}\$$ for the resonant frequencies of the charged massive scalar fields in the near-extremal Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime.
In the next section we shall study the eikonal large-mass $M\mu\gg1$ regime [@Notemmu] of the composed Kerr-Newman-black-hole-charged-massive-scalar-field system. In particular, below we shall show that the characteristic dimensionless ratio ${{\omega_{\text{I}}}/({\omega_{\text{R}}-\omega_{\text{c}}}})$ \[see Eq. (\[Eq48\])\] can be expressed in a remarkably compact form in this large-mass regime.
The eikonal large-mass $M\mu\gg1$ regime
========================================
In the present section we shall analyze the asymptotic large-mass regime $$\label{Eq49}
M\mu\gg1$$ of the composed Kerr-Newman-black-hole-charged-massive-scalar-field system. In the asymptotic regime (\[Eq49\]), one can use the approximated relation [@Abram; @Notemmu] $$\label{Eq50}
{{\Gamma({1\over 2}-i\delta-ik)}\over{\Gamma({1\over
2}+i\delta-ik)}}=e^{(2i-\pi)\delta}(k+\delta)^{-i(k+\delta)}(k-\delta)^{i(k-\delta)}[1+e^{-2\pi(k-\delta)}]
[1+O(m^{-1})]\$$ for the Gamma functions that appear in the expression (\[Eq46\]) for ${\cal J}$. Substituting (\[Eq50\]) into (\[Eq46\]), one finds $$\label{Eq51}
{\cal
J}=-e(k+\delta)^{-(k+\delta)/2\delta}(k-\delta)^{(k-\delta)/2\delta}[1+e^{-2\pi(k-\delta)}]^{1/2i\delta}\
,$$ which yields the remarkably simple dimensionless relation \[see Eq. (\[Eq48\])\] [@Notese] $$\label{Eq52}
%{\cal F}(M\mu\gg1)
{{\omega_{\text{I}}}\over{\omega_{\text{c}}-\omega_{\text{R}}}}={{e^{-2\pi(k-\delta)}}\over{2\delta}}\$$ for the characteristic resonant frequencies of the composed Kerr-Newman-black-hole-charged-massive-scalar-field system in the eikonal large-mass regime (\[Eq49\]).
As a consistency check, we shall now compare our large-mass result (\[Eq52\]) for the resonant frequencies of the composed black-hole-field system with the corresponding large-mass result of Zouros and Eardley [@ZouEar]. In their highly important work, Zouros and Eardley [@ZouEar] have performed a WKB analysis for the specific case of [*neutral*]{} scalar fields linearly coupled to a [*neutral*]{} spinning Kerr black hole in the large-mass $M\mu\gg1$ regime. In particular, for the case of near-extremal Kerr black holes in the regime [@Notempl] $$\label{Eq53}
a\simeq M\ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \ l=m\gg1\ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \ \mu\simeq
\omega\simeq m\Omega_{\text{H}}\simeq m/2M\gg 1\ ,$$ Zouros and Eardley [@ZouEar] have derived the well known WKB result [@Noteer] $$\label{Eq54}
M\omega_{\text{I}}\propto e^{-2\pi(2-\sqrt{2})M\mu}\ .$$ Note that, for near-extremal Kerr black holes, the specific case (\[Eq53\]) corresponds to \[see Eqs. (\[Eq11\]), (\[Eq16\]), and (\[Eq22\])\] $$\label{Eq55}
k=m\ \ \ \ \text{and}\ \ \ \ \delta={{m}\over{\sqrt{2}}}+O(1)\ .$$ Substituting (\[Eq55\]) into our analytically derived expression (\[Eq52\]), one finds the dimensionless ratio $$\label{Eq56}
%{\cal F}(l=m\gg1,\alpha\to m/2\gg1)
{{\omega_{\text{I}}}\over{\omega_{\text{c}}-\omega_{\text{R}}}}={{e^{-2\pi(2-\sqrt{2})M\mu}}
\over{2\sqrt{2}M\mu}}\ ,$$ a result which is consistent with the important result (\[Eq54\]) of Zouros and Eardley [@ZouEar] for the specific case of [*neutral*]{} scalar fields linearly coupled to a [*neutral*]{} near-extremal spinning Kerr black hole.
The optimal charge-to-mass ratio of the explosive scalar fields
===============================================================
In the present section we shall analyze the functional dependence of the superradiant instability growth rate (\[Eq52\]) on the dimensionless ratio $q/\mu$ which characterizes the explosive charged massive scalar fields. Taking cognizance of Eqs. (\[Eq1\]), (\[Eq11\]) [@Noteklem], (\[Eq16\]), and (\[Eq22\]), one finds the expression $$\label{Eq57}
\delta-k=\sqrt{(2\omega_{\text{c}}r_+-qQ)^2-(a\omega_{\text{c}}-m)^2-\mu^2r^2_+}-(2\omega_{\text{c}}r_+-qQ)$$ for the exponent of (\[Eq52\]) near the superradiant instability threshold (\[Eq1\]) [@Notethrs; @Notewn] of the near-extremal Kerr-Newman black holes. From Eq. (\[Eq57\]) one immediately learns that the exponent $\delta-k$ is a monotonically decreasing function of the mass parameter $\mu$. Thus, one can maximize the value of the exponent (\[Eq57\]) by minimizing (for a given value of the critical field frequency $\omega_{\text{c}}$) the proper mass of the explosive scalar field. In particular, taking cognizance of Eq. (\[Eq3\]) one realizes that, for a given value of the critical field frequency $\omega_{\text{c}}$ [@Notewn], the exponent (\[Eq57\]) can be maximized by taking $$\label{Eq58}
{{\mu}\over{\omega_{\text{c}}}}\to 1^+\ .
% \ \ \ \text{where}\ \ \ \ \omega_{\text{c}}=m\Omega_{\text{H}}+q\Phi_{\text{H}}\ .$$ Substituting Eqs. (\[Eq1\]), (\[Eq2\]), and (\[Eq58\]) into (\[Eq57\]), and defining the dimensionless quantities $$\label{Eq59}
\gamma\equiv{{qQ}\over{m}}\ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \ s\equiv {{a}\over{r_+}}\
,$$ one finds $$\label{Eq60}
\delta-k=m\cdot{{\sqrt{-s^2(3-s^2)\gamma^2+4s(1-s^2)\gamma+3s^2-1}-[2s+(1-s^2)\gamma]}\over{1+s^2}}\$$ for the maximally allowed value of the exponent (\[Eq57\]) near the superradiant instability threshold (\[Eq1\]) of the near-extremal Kerr-Newman black holes.
For a given value of the dimensionless black-hole rotation parameter $s$, the superradiant instability growth rate of the charged massive scalar fields \[that is, the value of $\omega_{\text{I}}$, see Eq. (\[Eq52\])\] can be maximized by maximizing with respect to $\gamma$ the expression (\[Eq60\]) for the exponent $\delta-k$ [@NoteqQd]. In particular, a simple differentiation of (\[Eq60\]) with respect to the dimensionless variable $\gamma$ yields [@Notedm] $$\label{Eq61}
%\text{max}_{\gamma}\{\delta-k\}=m\cdot
%{{\sqrt{1+s^2}-2}\over{s(3-s^2)}}\ ,
\text{max}_{\gamma}\{\delta-k\}=-{{m}\over{s(2+\sqrt{1+s^2})}}\ ,$$ where this maximally allowed value of the exponent $\delta-k$ is obtained for $$\label{Eq62}
%\gamma=\gamma^*(s)={{(2-\sqrt{1+s^2})(1-s^2)}\over{s(3-s^2)}}\ .
\gamma=\gamma^*(s)={{1-s^2}\over{s(2+\sqrt{1+s^2})}}\ .$$ It is worth noting that the expression (\[Eq61\]) for $\text{max}\{\delta-k\}$ is a monotonically increasing function of the dimensionless black-hole rotation parameter $s$. In particular, one finds from (\[Eq61\]) $\text{max}\{\delta-k\}=m(1/\sqrt{2}-1)$ in the $s\to 1$ limit, in agreement with the highly important result (\[Eq54\]) of Zouros and Eardley [@ZouEar] for the specific case of [*neutral*]{} scalar fields linearly coupled to a [*neutral*]{} near-extremal spinning Kerr black hole.
Summary
=======
The superradiant instability properties of the composed Kerr-Newman-black-hole-charged-massive-scalar-field system were studied [*analytically*]{}. In particular, we have analyzed the near-critical [@Notethrs; @Notewn] complex resonance spectrum which characterizes the dynamics of linearized charged massive scalar fields in a near-extremal charged spinning Kerr-Newman black-hole spacetime.
Interestingly, it was shown that in the eikonal large-mass regime the superradiant instability growth rates of the explosive charged massive scalar fields are characterized by a non-trivial ([*non*]{}-monotonic) dependence on the dimensionless black-hole-field charge coupling parameter $qQ$ [@Notelwlq]. In particular, for given parameters $\{M,Q, a\}$ of the central near-extremal Kerr-Newman black hole, the superradiant instability growth rate is maximized for \[see Eqs. (\[Eq1\]), (\[Eq2\]), (\[Eq58\]), (\[Eq59\]), and (\[Eq62\])\] $$\label{Eq63}
(qQ)_{\text{optimal}}=m\cdot {{1-s^2}\over{s(2+\sqrt{1+s^2})}}\ \ \
\ \text{and}\ \ \ \ (M\mu)_{\text{optimal}}=m\cdot
{{s^2+\sqrt{1+s^2}}\over{s(2+\sqrt{1+s^2})\sqrt{1+s^2}}}\ .$$ These relations yield the dimensionless compact expression $$\label{Eq64}
%{{q}\over{\mu}}={{(2-\sqrt{1+s^2})(1+s^2)\sqrt{1-s^2}}\over{(2-\sqrt{1+s^2})(1-s^2)+s^2(3-s^2)}}
\Big({{q}\over{\mu}}\Big)_{\text{optimal}}={{\sqrt{1-s^4}}\over{s^2+\sqrt{1+s^2}}}$$ for the optimal charge-to-mass ratio of the explosive scalar field which maximizes the growth rate of the superradiant instabilities. Finally, taking cognizance of Eqs. (\[Eq52\]), (\[Eq60\]), and (\[Eq62\]), one finds the large-mass expression $$\label{Eq65}
\text{max}\Big\{{{\omega_{\text{I}}}\over{\omega_{\text{c}}-\omega_{\text{R}}}}\Big\}={{\sqrt{1+s^2}}\over{2s\cdot
m}}\times \exp\Big[-{{2\pi}\over{s(2+\sqrt{1+s^2})}}\cdot m\Big]\$$ for the maximum growth rate of the superradiant instabilities in the composed Kerr-Newman-black-hole-charged-massive-scalar-field bomb.
[**ACKNOWLEDGMENTS**]{}
This research is supported by the Carmel Science Foundation. I thank Yael Oren, Arbel M. Ongo, Ayelet B. Lata, and Alona B. Tea for stimulating discussions.
[99]{}
S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 024051 (2014) \[arXiv:1406.1179\]; S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B [**751**]{}, 177 (2015).
C. L. Benone, L. C. B. Crispino, C. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 104024 (2014).
Ya. B. Zel‘dovich, Pis‘ma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**14**]{}, 270 (1971) \[JETP Lett. [**14**]{}, 180 (1971)\]; Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. [**62**]{}, 2076 (1972) \[Sov. Phys. JETP [**35**]{}, 1085 (1972)\]; A. V. Vilenkin, Phys. Lett. B [**78**]{}, 301 (1978).
W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Nature [**238**]{}, 211 (1972); W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. [**185**]{}, 649 (1973).
J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D [**7**]{}, 949 (1973).
It is worth noting that the physical properties of these stationary composed black-hole-bosonic-field configurations were studied extensively in recent years, see [@Hodkr; @Herkr] and references therein.
S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 104026 (2012) \[arXiv:1211.3202\]; S. Hod, The Euro. Phys. Journal C [**73**]{}, 2378 (2013) \[arXiv:1311.5298\]; S. Hod, Class. and Quant. Grav. [**32**]{}, 134002 (2015) \[arXiv:1607.00003\]; S. Hod, Class. and Quant. Grav. [**33**]{}, 114001 (2016).
C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**112**]{}, 221101 (2014); C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 124018 (2014); C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**23**]{}, 1442014 (2014); Y. Brihaye, C. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, Phys. Lett. B [**739**]{}, 1 (2014); J. C. Degollado and C. A. R. Herdeiro, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 065019 (2014); C. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and H. Rúnarsson, Phys. Lett. B [**739**]{}, 302 (2014); C. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Class. Quantum Grav. [**32**]{} 144001 (2015); C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**24**]{}, 1542014 (2015); C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**24**]{}, 1544022 (2015); J. C. Degollado and C. A. R. Herdeiro, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**45**]{}, 2483 (2013); P. V. P. Cunha, C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and H. F. Rúnarsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**115**]{}, 211102 (2015); B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, and S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Lett. B [**744**]{}, 406 (2015); C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and H. F. Rúnarsson, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 084059 (2015); C. Herdeiro, J. Kunz, E. Radu, and B. Subagyo, Phys. Lett. B [**748**]{}, 30 (2015); C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and H. F. Rúnarsson, Class. Quant. Grav. [**33**]{}, 154001 (2016); C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and H. F. Rúnarsson, arXiv:1604.06202; Y. Brihaye, C. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, arXiv:1605.08901; Y. Ni, M. Zhou, A. C. Avendano, C. Bambi, C. A. R. Herdeiro, and E. Radu, arXiv:1606.04654; M. Wang, arXiv:1606.00811 .
We shall use natural units in which $G=c=\hbar=1$.
Note that the charge coupling constant of the scalar field stands for $q/\hbar$. Thus, this field parameter has the dimensions of $($length$)^{-1}$.
S. Chandrasekhar, [*The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes*]{}, (Oxford University Press, New York, 1983).
Note that the proper mass of the scalar field stands for $\mu/\hbar$. Thus, this field parameter has the dimensions of $($length$)^{-1}$.
T. Damour, N. Deruelle and R. Ruffini, Lett. Nuovo Cimento [**15**]{}, 257 (1976); S. Detweiler, Phys. Rev. D [**22**]{}, 2323 (1980); V. Cardoso and J. P. S. Lemos, Phys. Lett. B [**621**]{}, 219 (2005); V. Cardoso and S. Yoshida, JHEP 0507:009 (2005); S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 084001 (2007); S. Hod and O. Hod, e-print arXiv:0912.2761.; H. R. Beyer, J. Math. Phys. [**52**]{}, 102502 (2011); Y. S. Myung, Phys. Rev. D [**84**]{}, 024048 (2011); S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B [**708**]{}, 320 (2012) \[arXiv:1205.1872\]; S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B [**713**]{}, 505 (2012); J. P. Lee, JHEP [**1201**]{}, 091 (2012); J. P. Lee, Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**27**]{}, 1250038 (2012); S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B [**718**]{}, 1489 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.6474\]; S. R. Dolan, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 124026 (2013); H. Witek, V. Cardoso, A. Ishibashi, and U. Sperhake, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 043513 (2013); V. Cardoso, Gen. Relativ. and Gravit. [**45**]{}, 2079 (2013); J. C. Degollado and C. A. R. Herdeiro, Gen. Rel. Grav. [**45**]{}, 2483 (2013); R. Li, The Euro. Phys. Journal C [**73**]{}, 2274 (2013); S. J. Zhang, B. Wang, E. Abdalla, arXiv:1306.0932; H. Witek, arXiv:1307.1145; Y. S. Myung, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 104017 (2013); R. Li, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 127901 (2013); R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 023514 (2013); S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B [**739**]{}, 196 (2014) \[arXiv:1411.2609\]; H. Okawa, H. Witek, and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 104032 (2014); B. Arderucio, arXiv:1404.3421; M. O. P. Sampaio, C. Herdeiro, M. Wang, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 064004 (2014); S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D [**91**]{}, 044047 (2015) \[arXiv:1504.00009\]; H. M. Siahaan, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D [**24**]{}, 1550102 (2015); R. Brito, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Lect. Notes Phys. [**906**]{}, 1 (2015); S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B [**749**]{}, 167 (2015) \[arXiv:1510.05649\]; J. W. Gerow and A. Ritz, Phys. Rev. D [**93**]{}, 044043 (2016); S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B [**758**]{}, 181 (2016) \[arXiv:1606.02306\]; Y. Huang and D. J. Liu, arXiv:1606.08913 .
It is worth mentioning that one can also trigger the superradiant instabilities in the composed black-hole-bosonic-field system by placing a reflecting mirror around the black hole. The physical role of this external mirror is to prevent the superradiantly amplified bosonic fields from escaping to spatial infinity. The physical properties of this composed black-hole-bosonic-field-mirror bomb were analyzed in [@PressTeu2; @CarDias].
V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, J. P. S. Lemos, and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 044039 (2004); Erratum-ibid. D [**70**]{}, 049903 (2004); Carlos A. R. Herdeiro, J. C. Degollado, and H. F. Rúnarsson, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 063003 (2013); S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 064055 (2013) \[arXiv:1310.6101\]; S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{}, 124007 (2013) \[arXiv:1405.1045\]; S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D [**90**]{}, 027501 (2014) \[arXiv:1405.7702\]; S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B [**736**]{}, 398 (2014) \[arXiv:1412.6108\]; S. Hod, The Euro. Phys. Jour. C [**74**]{}, 3137 (2014) \[arXiv:1410.4567\]; J, C. Degollado and C. A. R. Herdeiro, Phys. Rev. D [**89**]{}, 063005 (2014); S. R. Dolan, S. Ponglertsakul, and E. Winstanley, Phys. Rev. D [**92**]{}, 124047 (2015); R. Li and J. Zhao, The Euro. Phys. Jour. C [**74**]{} 3051 (2014); R. Li and J. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B [**740**]{}, 317 (2015); R. Li, J. Zhao, X. Wu, Y. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C [**75**]{}, 142 (2015); R. Li, Y. Tian, H. Zhang, and J. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B [**750**]{}, 520 (2015); R. Li, J. K. Zhao, and Y. M Zhang, Commun. Theor. Phys. [**63**]{}, 569 (2015); N. S. Gual, J. C. Degollado, P. J. Montero, J. A. Font, C. Herdeiro, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**116**]{}, 141101 (2016); S. Ponglertsakul, E. Winstanley, and S. R. Dolan, arXiv:1604.01132; S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B [**755**]{}, 177 (2016) \[arXiv:1606.00444\]; Y. Huang, D. J. Liu, and X. Z. Li, arXiv:1606.00100.
H. Furuhashi and Y. Nambu, Prog. Theor. Phys. [**112**]{}, 983 (2004).
The growth rates of the superradiant instabilities are determined by the imaginary parts of the resonant frequencies which characterize the composed black-hole-massive-bosonic-field system.
It is worth noting that the expression (\[Eq5\]) of [@FN] for the growth rates of the superradiant instabilities in the small-frequency ($M\omega\ll1$) small-mass ($M\mu\ll1$) regime refers to the case of linearized charged massive scalar fields with $l=m=1$ \[here $\{l,m\}$ are the harmonic indices of the scalar field. As shown in [@FN], the most unstable (exponentially explosive) scalar mode is characterized by these values of the harmonic parameters\].
It is worth emphasizing that the physical significance of the critical frequency (\[Eq1\]) stems from the fact that this resonant field frequency marks the onset of the exponentially growing superradiant instabilities in the composed Kerr-Newman-black-hole-charged-massive-scalar-field system.
S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**29**]{}, 1114 (1972); S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. [**185**]{}, 635 (1973).
T. Hartman, W. Song, and A. Strominger, JHEP 1003:118 (2010).
Here $\omega$ is the conserved frequency of the charged massive scalar field mode, and $\{l,m\}$ are respectively the spheroidal and azimuthal harmonic indices (with $l\ge |m|$) of the charged scalar field mode.
A. Ronveaux, [*Heun’s differential equations*]{}. (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 1995); C. Flammer, [*Spheroidal Wave Functions*]{} (Stanford University Press, Stanford, 1957).
P. P. Fiziev, e-print arXiv:0902.1277; R. S. Borissov and P. P. Fiziev, e-print arXiv:0903.3617; P. P. Fiziev, Phys. Rev. D [**80**]{}, 124001 (2009); P. P. Fiziev, Class. Quant. Grav. [**27**]{}, 135001 (2010).
M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, [*Handbook of Mathematical Functions*]{} (Dover Publications, New York, 1970).
S. Hod, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 121101 (2008) \[arXiv:0805.3873\].
The angular eigenfunctions $S_{lm}(\theta)$ are assumed to be regular at the two angular poles $\theta=0$ and $\theta=\pi$ [@Heun; @Fiz1; @Teuk; @Abram; @Stro; @Hodasy].
S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B [**717**]{}, 462 (2012) \[arXiv:1304.0529\]; S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 064017 (2013) \[arXiv:1304.4683\]; S. Hod, Phys. Lett. B [**746**]{}, 365 (2015) \[arXiv:1506.04148\].
It is worth noting that this asymptotic relation is valid in the regime $-a^2(\mu^2-\omega^2)<m^2$ [@Hodpp]. Taking cognizance of (\[Eq3\]), one realizes that this inequality is trivially satisfied by the bound-state resonances of the massive scalar fields.
It is worth emphasizing the fact that, for spinning Kerr-Newman black holes, the ordinary differential equations which determine the angular and radial behaviors of the charged massive scalar fields \[see Eqs. (\[Eq10\]) and (\[Eq12\]), respectively\] are coupled by the angular eigenvalues $\{{K_{lm}}\}$.
For brevity, we shall henceforth omit the harmonic indices $\{l,m\}$ of the scalar field mode.
Note that the near-horizon limit $r\to r_+$ corresponds to $y\to -\infty$.
Here the integer $n$ is the resonance parameter of the exploding scalar field mode \[see Eq. (\[Eq45\]) below\]. This parameter corresponds to the number of nodes of the radial eigenfunction.
S. Hod and O. Hod, Phys. Rev. D [**81**]{}, Rapid communication 061502 (2010) \[arXiv:0910.0734\].
As we shall explicitly show below, the regime of validity of the final resonance equation \[see Eq. (\[Eq42\]) below\] should be determined with great care in the double limit of small black-hole temperatures and large field masses.
Note that the double asymptotic limit (\[Eq19\]) corresponds to Kerr-Newman black holes in the near-extremal $\tau\ll1$ regime, and to resonant field frequencies near the critical frequency $\omega_{\text{c}}$ [@Notethrs] for the superradiant amplification phenomenon in the black-hole spacetime.
P. M. Morse and H. Feshbach, [*Methods of Theoretical Physics*]{} (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1953).
Note that the strong inequality (\[Eq39\]) corresponds to the regime $\varpi\gg m$.
We shall assume $\delta>0$ without loss of generality.
Here we have used the relation $1=e^{-2i\pi n}$, where the resonance parameter $n$ is an integer.
Here we have used equation 6.1.23 of [@Abram] to infer the facts that $\Gamma(2i\delta)/\Gamma(-2i\delta)=e^{i\phi_1}$ and $\Gamma(1/2-i\delta-\kappa)/\Gamma(1/2+i\delta-\kappa)=e^{i\phi_2}$, where $\{\phi_1,\phi_2\}\in\mathbb{R}$. These relations imply that ${\cal R}\in\mathbb{R}$.
Note that the large-mass $M\mu\gg1$ regime (\[Eq49\]) corresponds to the asymptotic $m\gg1$ regime. This also implies the strong inequalities $\delta\gg1$ and $k\gg1$ \[see Eqs. (\[Eq61\]) and (\[Eq63\]) below\].
Here we have used the approximated relation $[1+e^{-2\pi(k-\delta)}]^{1/2i\delta}=1-ie^{-2\pi(k-\delta)}/2\delta+O[(e^{-2\pi(k-\delta)}/\delta)^2]$ [@Abram] in the asymptotic $k-\delta\gg1$ regime \[see [@Notemmu] and Eq. (\[Eq61\]) below\].
T. M. Zouros and D. M. Eardley, Annals of physics [**118**]{}, 139 (1979).
As shown in [@ZouEar], the specific choice (\[Eq53\]) for the physical parameters of the composed black-hole-field system maximizes the growth rate of the superradiant instabilities in the eikonal large-mass $M\mu\gg1$ regime.
Note that there is a factor $2$ missing (probably due to an accidental typo) in the exponent of [@ZouEar]. This accidental typo was corrected in: A. B. Gaina, Sov. Astron. Lett. [**15**]{}, 243 (1989); A. Arvanitaki and S. Dubovsky, Phys. Rev. D [**83**]{}, 044026 (2011).
Here we have assumed the equality $l=m$ for the harmonic indices of the explosive scalar field, a choice which minimizes the value of $K$ [@Hodpp] and thus maximizes the value of the exponent $\delta-k$ of (\[Eq52\]) \[see Eq. (\[Eq22\])\].
It is worth emphasizing again that we assume the relation $\omega_{\text{R}}\simeq \omega_{\text{c}}$ \[see Eqs. (\[Eq40\]) and (\[Eq43\])\].
Note that, in the eikonal large-mass $M\mu\gg1$ regime (which also corresponds to the $m\gg1$ regime, see [@Notemmu]), one finds the relation $[{{e^{-2\pi(k-\delta)}}/{2\delta}}]'=[{{e^{-2\pi(k-\delta)}}/{2\delta}}]\times
[2\pi(\delta-k)'-\delta'/\delta]=[{{\pi
e^{-2\pi(k-\delta)}}/{\delta}}]\times (\delta-k)'[1+O(m^{-1})]$, where here a prime denotes a derivative with respect to the dimensionless variable $\gamma$. Thus, in the eikonal large-mass $M\mu\gg1$ regime, the location of the maximum of $\delta-k$ corresponds \[up to a small correction factor $1+O(m^{-1})]$ to the location of the maximum of ${{e^{-2\pi(k-\delta)}}/{2\delta}}$ \[see Eq. (\[Eq52\])\].
Note that the exponent of (\[Eq52\]) is characterized by the inequality $2\pi(\delta-k)<0$ in the entire range $s\in (0,1]$ of the dimensionless black-hole rotation parameter (see also [@Notese]).
It is worth emphasizing that, in the [*small*]{} frequency $M\omega\ll1$ and [*small*]{} charge-coupling $qQ\ll1$ regime, Furuhashi and Nambu [@FN] have interestingly found that $\omega_{\text{I}}$ is a monotonically [*decreasing*]{} function of the dimensionless black-hole-field charge coupling parameter $qQ$ \[see Eq. (\[Eq5\])\]. Intriguingly, in the present study we have proved that the opposite regime of [*large*]{} $M\omega\simeq
M\omega_{\text{c}}\gg1$ field frequencies is characterized by a [*non*]{}-monotonic dependence of $\omega_{\text{I}}$ on the dimensionless black-hole-field charge coupling parameter $qQ$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We investigate radio-frequency (rf) reflectometry in a tunable carbon nanotube double quantum dot coupled to a resonant circuit. By measuring the in-phase and quadrature components of the reflected rf signal, we are able to determine the complex admittance of the double quantum dot as a function of the energies of the single-electron states. The measurements are found to be in good agreement with a theoretical model of the device in the incoherent limit. Besides being of fundamental interest, our results present an important step forward towards non-invasive charge and spin state readout in carbon nanotube quantum dots.'
author:
- 'S.J. Chorley'
- 'J. Wabnig'
- 'Z.V. Penfold-Fitch'
- 'K.D. Petersson'
- 'J. Frake'
- 'C.G. Smith'
- 'M.R. Buitelaar'
title: Measuring the complex admittance of a carbon nanotube double quantum dot
---
An important requirement in any quantum information processing scheme is fast manipulation and readout of the quantum system in which the quantum information is encoded. This requires an understanding of the response of the quantum system at finite frequencies which, in the case of an electronic device, involves an understanding of its complex admittance [@Buttiker1; @Buttiker2]. Of particular interest in the context of quantum information processing are double quantum dots which are widely used to define charge and spin qubits [@Loss]. However, while double quantum dots have been investigated in detail over the last decade, experiments to measure and analyze their complex admittance have not yet been performed and this topic has only recently been addressed theoretically [@Cottet]. The admittance of quantum dots at finite frequencies is non-trivial as exemplified by recent experiments on single quantum dots [@Gabelli; @Delbecq]. The physics is even richer for double quantum dots as internal charge dynamics, i.e. charge transfer between the quantum dots, has to be taken into account. However, the dependence of the admittance on the internal charge dynamics also provides a route towards charge and spin state readout [@Petersson].
In this work we present a detailed experimental study of the complex admittance of a carbon nanotube double quantum dot which is measured using rf reflectometry techniques. The measurements are compared with a theoretical model of the device where we use a density matrix approach to calculate the double quantum dot admittance. The good quantitative agreement between the experimental and theoretical results allows us to determine the effective conductance and susceptance of the double dot as a function of the energies of the single-electron states. Our measurements thus present a first quantitative analysis of the complex admittance of a double quantum dot. The demonstrated technique also provides the basis for a simple and fast detection scheme for charge and spin state readout in carbon nanotubes - a material with considerable potential for spin-based quantum information processing [@Kuemmeth; @Galland; @Churchill1; @Churchill2; @Jespersen; @Chorley] - without the need for a separate charge detector [@Biercuk].
![\[Fig1\]**(a)** (color online) Schematic of the carbon nanotube double quantum dot and resonant circuit. The device is connected to a 50 $\Omega$ transmission line for the rf reflectometry measurements. A dc signal is applied via a bias-tee. **(b)** Measured amplitude and phase response for the resonant circuit relative to the transmission line background.](Fig1.eps){width="85mm"}
The device we consider is a carbon nanotube grown by chemical vapour deposition on degenerately doped Si terminated by 300 nm SiO$_2$, see Fig. 1(a). The nanotube is contacted by Au source and drain electrodes which form the outer tunnel barriers of the quantum dots. A capacitively coupled top gate, separated from the nanotube by $\sim$ 3 nm AlO$_x$, is used to define a tunable coupling between the dots while two plunger gates vary the energies of the dots. The nanotube device is embedded in a resonant circuit consisting of a parasitic capacitance $C=2.5$ pF and on-chip inductor $L=180$ nH [@capacitance]. The circuit has a resonance frequency $f_0 \sim
236$ MHz and loaded quality factor $Q \sim 1/Z_0 \sqrt{L/C} \sim
5.4$, where $Z_0 = 50$ $\Omega$ is the characteristic impedance of the transmission lines, see Fig. 1(b). We note that higher quality factors ($Q \sim 30$) were readily obtained on nanotube devices grown on undoped Si and quartz substrates. A highly doped Si substrate is used here because of its convenience as a back gate.
![\[Fig2\]**(a)** Schematic of the carbon nanotube double quantum dot device. The rf signal is applied to the right electrode. **(b,c)** Demodulated response of the resonant circuit as a function of $V_L$ and $V_R$. In each plot the background signal measured inside a stable charge region is subtracted. The top gate voltage is set to $V_t = 0$ V. The back gate voltages are $V_{bg} = 5$ V and $V_{bg} = -0.18$ V in (b) and (c), respectively. **(d)** Measured rf signal (right) and dc current (left) for a triple point pair in the presence of an applied bias $V_{sd} = 1$ mV. The full scale of the dc current represents 150 pA.](Fig2.eps){width="85mm"}
The nanotube device is characterized by dc transport measurements and rf reflectometry in a dilution refrigerator with a base temperature $T \sim 40$ mK. The dc signal is applied via a bias-tee while the rf excitation is directed to the source electrode of the double quantum dot through the coupled port of a directional coupler, connected to the sample holder via a stainless-steel semi-rigid coaxial line, see Fig. 1(a). The reflected signal is sent back via a cryogenic preamplifier which is thermally anchored at 4 K, followed by room temperature amplification and demodulation by mixing with the reference signal. We drive the resonator at its resonant frequency with an amplitude at the double dot $V_{RF} \sim 10$ $\mu$eV. Depending on the energies of the quantum dots, the oscillating potential on the source electrode may induce charge transfer (tunneling) between the electrodes and the quantum dots and/or redistribution of charge between the two dots. The resulting oscillating current will generally have both out-of-phase and in-phase components with respect to the driving voltage which give rise to a resonance frequency shift and damping of the resonator. The response of the double quantum dot is thus characterized by a complex admittance which can be deduced by measuring the phase and amplitude of the reflected rf signal.
We first determine the various energy scales of the double quantum dot by measuring the dc and rf response as a function of the side-gate voltages $V_L$ and $V_R$ which modulate the left and right quantum dot energies, respectively, see Fig. 2. For simplicity in-phase and out-of-phase components of the rf response are shown together here (i.e. the demodulated signal is sensitive to both amplitude and phase). The nanotube device is fully tunable by the top $V_t$ and back gate $V_{bg}$ voltages. The stability diagram of Fig. 2(b), for example, illustrates the situation where the two quantum dots are fully decoupled: no dc current could be detected but a strong rf response is observed at charge transitions of the right quantum dot. For more positive back gate voltages, the stability diagram evolves into a honeycomb pattern that is characteristic of the double quantum dot investigated here. At finite bias $V_{sd} = 1$ mV, bias triangles are observed at the triple points in both the dc and rf response, see Fig. 2(d), which allows us to extract the characteristic energy scales of the double quantum dot. We obtain charging energies $U_L \sim 6.5$ meV and $U_R \sim 5$ meV for the left and right quantum dots, respectively, and an inter-dot electrostatic coupling energy $U'=0.6$ meV. The analysis also allows us to deduce the various geometric capacitances of the device [@Wiel]. We did not observe any obvious four-fold periodicity in the stability diagrams, an indication that the orbital degeneracy of the nanotubes is broken [@Liang; @Buitelaar].
To determine the complex admittance of the nanotube device we measured the in-phase and quadrature components of the reflected signal for the double quantum dot which allows us to extract the amplitude and phase information, see Fig. 3(a) and (b). The observed phase shifts $\Delta \Phi$, relative to the phase measured inside a stable charge region, are strongest at the $(n,m)-(n,m+1)$ charge transition, with a signal of about half the strength observed at the internal $(n+1,m)-(n,m+1)$ charge transition. The amplitude shifts on the other hand are concentrated around the triple points. Using standard circuit analysis [@Pozar], the measured phase signal at resonance can be related to a change in capacitance as $\Delta
\Phi/\Delta C \sim 2Q/C$, where $C = 2.5$ pF for the circuit considered here. At the $(n,m)-(n,m+1)$ charge transition, for example, the measured phase shift of $\sim 0.18$ degrees implies $\Delta C = 0.74$ fF. Note that this is several orders of magnitude larger than the geometric capacitances of carbon nanotube quantum dots which are typically in the aF range. The amplitude modulation is related to the double dot resistance $R$ via $\Delta |\Gamma|
/|\Gamma| = 2Q^2Z_0/R$. The measured damping $\Delta |\Gamma|
/|\Gamma| \sim 0.2 \%$ at the triple points therefore implies $R
\sim 1.5$ M$\Omega$ which is in agreement with dc conductance measurements.
In the following we compare the experimental results with a theoretical model of the device, the full results of which are shown in Fig. 3(c) and (d) which show the real ($R^{-1}_{eff}$) and imaginary ($C_{eff}$) part of the admittance as a function of the energies of the quantum dots’ single-electron states. We model the the admittance measured at the source electrode using a master equation approach similar to Ref. [@Cottet]. We take into account all relevant many body states, i.e. for Fig. 3(c) and (d) the empty state and all one and two electron states. For a given set of gate voltages $V_{L}$ , $V_{R}$ we obtain the steady state density matrix at zero bias. We then calculate the current flowing into the source electrode as a linear response to a periodic driving of the source potential. This enables us to deduce the double quantum dot admittance at the source electrode. We assume that the driving frequency is too small to induce transitions between quantum dot eigenstates and we therefore treat the perturbation as adiabatic. The current into the source has two contributions: the particle current due to tunneling from the source to the left dot and the displacement current induced on the source capacitance by the tunneling induced redistribution of charges on the quantum dot. We include spin relaxation as well as phonon assisted tunneling between the left and the right dot. Overall, we obtain good agreement with the experimental results as demonstrated by Fig. 3.
![\[Fig3\]**(a)** Measured phase shift of the carbon nanotube double quantum dot device.**(b)** Measured amplitude response. **(c)** Calculated effective capacitance and phase shift of the double quantum dot. The parameters used for the model calculations are $T=80$ mK. $U'=0.6$ meV, $t=40$ $\mu$eV, $\omega_0 = 1.2$ GHz, $\gamma_L = 0.15 \gamma_R$. **(d)** Calculated conductance and damping for the same parameters as used in (c).](Fig3.eps){width="85mm"}
For a physical understanding of the results (and the model) it is instructive to consider several limiting cases. Let us first consider transitions between $(n,m)$ and $(n,m+1)$ charge states such that direct charge transfer between the two electrodes (a dc current) and internal transitions of the double quantum dot can be neglected. An oscillating potential $V_{RF}(t)$ on the right electrode modulates the energy difference $\delta\epsilon (t)$ between the right quantum dot states and the Fermi energy of the lead as $\delta\epsilon
(t) = \epsilon_0 -e \alpha V_{RF}(t)$, where $\epsilon_0$ is an offset, tunable with the plunger gates. The constant $e\alpha$ converts between voltage and energy and its value depends on the various geometric capacitances of the device [@Wiel]. As a results of the oscillating potential, charge moves back and forth between the right electrode and right quantum dot. Depending on the ratio of the tunnel rate $\gamma_R$ and angular driving frequency $\omega_0$, the induced current has both in-phase and out-of-phase components with respect to the voltage which can be expressed as a complex admittance $Y(\omega_0)= R_{eff}^{-1} + j \omega_0 C_{eff}$. In the incoherent limit, i.e. for $h
\gamma_R \ll k_B T$ the terms are given by [@Gabelli]: $$\label{Reff}
R_{eff}=\frac{4 k_B T}{e^2 \alpha^2 \gamma_R} \left(1 + \frac{\gamma_R^2}{\omega^2_0}\right)$$ $$\label{Ceff}
C_{eff}=\frac{e^2 \alpha^2}{4 k_B T}\frac{1}{1+\frac{\omega^2_0}{\gamma_R^2}}$$ As expressed by Eqs. (1) and (2), both the conductance and capacitance are dependent on the ratio of the tunnel coupling and angular driving frequency. In the transparent limit ($\gamma \gg \omega_0$), the effective capacitance can be approximated by $C_{eff}
\approx e^2 \alpha^2 / 4 k_B T$. The conductance has a vanishing contribution, i.e. $R^{-1}_{eff}\rightarrow 0$, in both the transparent and opaque limit. This can be understood intuitively as for very large $\gamma$ electrons will tunnel on the quantum dot as soon as this is energetically possible and no energy is dissipated in the process. In the opaque limit, tunneling occurs out of equilibrium. However, as the probability of a tunnel event on the timescale of the driving frequency vanishes for weak coupling, no energy is dissipated either. Damping is therefore strongest in the intermediate regime where $\gamma \sim \omega$, as recently observed for single-electron tunneling devices coupled to electrical [@Persson; @Ferguson] and mechanical [@Jun] resonators.
We can compare these predictions with the experimental data obtained on the carbon nanotube double quantum dot. Using $\alpha \approx 0.35$, as determined from dc transport experiments, we obtain quantitative agreement between the experiment ($\Delta \Phi \sim 0.18$ degrees) and the change in capacitance predicted by Eq. 2 for the $(n,m)$-$(n,m+1)$ transition, if we assume an effective electron temperature $T \sim 80$ mK [@limit]. This is somewhat larger than the base temperature of the dilution fridge, most likely due to heat loading of the device by the coaxial cables. The estimate of the effective capacitance at the $(n,m)$-$(n+1,m)$ transition, i.e. due to charge transfer between the left lead and left dot also follows Eq. 2. However in this case, the prefactor is much smaller $\alpha \sim 0.05$ reflecting the weak coupling between the left quantum dot and the right electrode at which the rf signal is applied. Since the expected phase shift $\propto \alpha^2$ the response along this line is too weak to be detected. We observe a very weak amplitude modulation along the $(n,m)$-$(n,m+1)$ charge transition, $\Delta |\Gamma| /|\Gamma| \sim 0.05 \%$, most clearly observed in the top half of Fig. 3(b). This is consistent with damping due to out-of-equilibrium tunneling and in agreement with the theoretical calculations of the effective conductance shown in Fig. 3(d). The fact that the signal is rather weak implies that $\gamma_R \gtrsim \omega_0$ in our device. Stronger damping is observed at the triple points where the behavior of the device is similar to that of the conventional rf single-electron transistor [@Schoelkopf].
Of particular interest is the phase signal along the polarization line which reflects the movement of electrons between the quantum dots, i.e. transitions between the $(n+1,m)$ and $(n,m+1)$ charge states. In this case, the amplitude and width of the signal is not set by temperature but the tunnel coupling $t$. More precisely, it has been predicted [@Cottet] that, $C_{eff} = e^2 \beta^2/
4t$, where here $\beta \sim 0.6$ converts between $V_{RF}$ and detuning $\epsilon_L - \epsilon_R$. The predictions can be directly verified with our experiments. The tunnel coupling can be deduced from the stability diagram [@Graber], yielding $t \sim 40$ $\mu$eV, and the estimate for $C_{eff} \approx 0.46$ fF therefore has no free parameters. This result is in excellent agreement with the experimental data of Fig. 3(a) where we measure a phase shift of $\sim 0.11$ degrees, roughly a factor $\sim 2$ smaller than that observed at the $(n,m)-(n+1,m)$ transition, as also seen in the model calculation of Fig. 3(c).
We note that we did not observe spin blockade in dc transport experiments on the carbon nanotube double quantum dot studied here and the effect is therefore not taken into account in the analysis. Nevertheless, spin blockade has been observed previously in carbon nanotubes [@Churchill1; @Churchill2; @Chorley]. In the spin blockade regime, transitions between a (1,1) and (0,2) charge state directly depend on whether the (1,1) state is a singlet or triplet. Since the (0,2) charge state is a singlet by virtue of the Pauli principle the (1,1) triplet state will be a blocked state which is reflected in the admittance [@Cottet]. Measurements of the admittance of a carbon nanotube double quantum dot as demonstrated here can therefore also be used for spin state readout [@Petersson].
In conclusion, we have measured the complex admittance of a carbon nanotube double quantum using rf reflectometry. The results are in quantitative agreement with a theoretical model of the device of which several limiting cases are discussed in detail. The demonstrated technique is of particular interest as a tool for fast and sensitive charge and spin state readout of carbon nanotube quantum dots. A further interesting possibility is to extend the measurement to the coherent limit where the nanotubes are more strongly coupled to the leads. This should allow the observation of a quantized charge relaxation resistance [@Gabelli] and possible deviations thereof in long nanotubes for which interactions (Luttinger liquid physics) become important [@Martin; @Burke].
We thank David Cobden and Jiang Wei for the carbon nanotube growth and Andrew Ferguson for useful discussion. This work was supported by the Newton Trust and the Royal Society (M.R.B.).
[10]{}
M. Büttiker, A. Prêtre, and H. Thomas, Phys. Rev. Lett. **70**, 4114 (1993).
A. Prêtre, H. Thomas, and M. Büttiker, Phys. Rev. B **54**, 8130 (1996).
D. Loss and D.P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A **57**, 120 (1998).
A. Cottet, C. Mora, and T. Kontos, Phys. Rev. B **83**, 121311 (2011).
J. Gabelli, G. Fève, J.-M. Berroer, B. Plaçais, A. Cavanna, B. Etienne, Y. Jin, and D.C. Glattli, Science **313**, 499 (2006).
M.R. Delbecq, V. Schmitt, F.D. Parmentier, N. Roch, J.J. Viennot, G. Fève, B. Huard, C. Mora, A. Cottet, and T. Kontos, arXiv:1108.4371.
K.D. Petersson, C.G. Smith, D. Anderson, P. Atkinson, G.A.C. Jones, and D.A. Ritchie, Nano Lett. **10**, 2789 (2010).
F. Kuemmeth, S. Ilani, D.C. Ralph, and P.L. McEuen, Nature (London) **452**, 448 (2008).
C. Galland and A. Imamoǧlu, Phys. Rev. Lett. **101**, 157404 (2008).
H.O.H. Churchill, A.J. Bestwick, J.W. Harlow, F. Kuemmeth, D. Marcos, C.H. Stwertka, S.K. Watson, and C.M. Marcus, Nature Phys. **5**, 321 (2009).
H.O.H. Churchill, F. Kuemmeth, J.W. Harlow, A.J. Bestwick, E.I. Rashba, K. Flensberg, C.H. Stwertka, T. Taychatanapat, S.K. Watson, and C.M. Marcus, Phys. Rev. Lett. **102**, 166802 (2009).
T.S. Jespersen, K. Grove-Rasmussen, J. Paaske, K. Muraki, T. Fujisawa, J. Nyg[å]{}rd, and K. Flensberg, Nature Phys. **7**, 348 (2011).
S.J. Chorley, G. Giavaras, J. Wabnig, G.A.C. Jones, C.G. Smith, G.A.D. Briggs, and M.R. Buitelaar, Phys. Rev. Lett. **106**, 206801 (2011).
M.J. Biercuk, D.J. Reilly, T.M. Buehler, V.C. Chan, J.M. Chow, R.G. Clark, and C.M. Marcus, Phys. Rev. B **73**, 201402(R) (2006).
The main component of the capacitance is the parallel plate capacitor formed by the bond pad and Si back gate.
W.G. van der Wiel, S. De Franceschi, J.M. Elzerman, T. Fujisawa, S. Tarucha, and L.P. Kouwenhoven, Rev. Mod. Phys. **75**, 1 (2002).
W.J. Liang, M. Bockrath, and H. Park, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 126801 (2002).
M.R. Buitelaar, A. Bachtold, T. Nussbaumer, M. Iqbal and C. Schönenberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. **88**, 156801 (2002).
D.M. Pozar, *Microwave Engineering*, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York, 2005).
F. Persson, C.M. Wilson, M. Sandberg, G. Johansson, and P. Delsing, Nano Lett. **10**, 953 (2010).
C. Ciccarelli and A.J. Ferguson, arXiv:1108.3463.
Z. Jun, M. Brink, P.L. McEuen, Nano Lett. **8**, 2399 (2008).
For this temperature $k_B T / h \gamma_R \sim 2$.
R.J. Schoelkopf, P. Wahlgren, A.A. Kozhevnikov, P. Delsing, and D.E. Prober, Science **280**, 1238 (1998).
M.R. Gräber, W.A. Coish, C. Hoffmann, M. Weiss, J. Furer, S. Oberholzer, D. Loss, and C. Schönenberger, Phys. Rev. B **74**, 075427 (2006).
Y. Hamamoto, T. Jonckheere, T. Kato, and T. Martin, Phys. Rev. B **81**, 153305 (2010).
P.J. Burke, IEEE T. Nanotechnol. **1**, 129 (2002).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'L. Foschini, M. Berton, A. Caccianiga, S. Ciroi, V. Cracco, B. M. Peterson, E. Angelakis, V. Braito, L. Fuhrmann, L. Gallo, D. Grupe, E. Järvelä, S. Kaufmann, S. Komossa, Y. Y. Kovalev, A. Lähteenmäki, M. M. Lisakov, M. L. Lister, S. Mathur, J. L. Richards, P. Romano, A. Sievers, G. Tagliaferri, J. Tammi, O. Tibolla, M. Tornikoski, S. Vercellone, G. La Mura, L. Maraschi, P. Rafanelli'
date: 'Received —; accepted —'
title: |
Properties of flat-spectrum radio-loud\
Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies
---
Introduction
============
An important new discovery made with the Large Area Telescope (LAT, Atwood et al. 2009) onboard the [*Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope*]{} (hereafter [*Fermi*]{}) is the high-energy gamma-ray emission from radio-loud narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (RLNLS1s, Abdo et al. 2009a,b,c, Foschini et al. 2010). Narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies (NLS1s) are a well-known class of active galactic nuclei (AGN), but they are usually considered to be radio-quiet (e.g., Ulvestad et al. 1995, Moran 2000, Boroson 2002). Thus, the first discoveries of RLNLS1s (e.g., Remillard et al. 1986, Grupe et al. 2000, Oshlack et al. 2001, Zhou et al. 2003) seemed to be exceptions, rather than the tip of an iceberg. The early surveys revealed only a handful of objects: 11 by Zhou & Wang (2002) and Komossa et al. (2006a), and 16 by Whalen et al. (2006). Williams et al. (2002) analysed 150 NLS1s from the [*Sloan Digital Sky Survey*]{} (SDSS) Early Data Release, and only a dozen (8%) were detected at radio frequencies and only two (1.3%) are radio loud, i.e., with the ratio between radio and optical flux densities greater than 10. One source is also in the present sample (J$0948+0022$, Zhou et al. 2003), while we have discarded the other (J$1722+5654$, Komossa et al. 2006b) because of its steep radio index (see Sect. 2). Most of the mildly radio-loud NLS1 galaxies of Komossa et al. (2006a) are steep-spectrum sources, and do not show indications of beaming, while three sources are more similar to blazars. In terms of their optical emission-line properties and BH masses, the RLNLS1s are similar to the radio-quiet NLS1 (RQNLS1) population as a whole. A larger study by Zhou et al. (2006) based on SDSS Data Release 3 resulted in a sample of 2011 NLS1s, about 14% of all the AGN with broad emission lines. The fraction detected in the radio is $7.1$%, similar to what was found by Williams et al. (2002). From this subsample, Yuan et al. (2008) culled 23 RLNLS1s with radio loudness greater than 100 and found that these sources are characterized by flat radio spectra. Detection of flux and spectral variability and their characteristic spectral energy distributions (SEDs) suggest a blazar-like nature.
In 2009, detection at high-energy $\gamma$ rays by Abdo et al. (2009a,c) revealed beyond any reasonable doubt the existence of powerful relativistic jets in RLNLS1s and brought this poorly known class of AGN into the spotlight (see Foschini 2012a for a recent review). An early survey including gamma-ray detections (after 30 months of [*Fermi*]{} operations) was carried out by Foschini (2011a). Forty-six RLNLS1s were found, of which 7 were detected by [*Fermi*]{}. Of 30 RQNLS1 that served as a control sample, none were detected at $\gamma$ rays. Additional multiwavelength (MW) data, mostly from archives, were employed in this survey; specifically, X-ray data from [*ROSAT*]{} were used, but yielded a detection rate of only about 60%.
To improve our understanding of RLNLS1s, we decided to perform a more extended and detailed study. First, we have revised the sample selection (see Sect. 2), resulting in 42 RLNLS1s. We focus here on the population that is likely beamed (i.e., where the jet is viewed at small angles); a parallel study on the search for the parent population (i.e., with the jet viewed at large angles) is ongoing (Berton et al., in preparation). We therefore exclude from this study RLNLS1s with steep radio spectral indices, although we keep the sources with no radio spectral index information. We requested specific observations with [*Swift*]{} and [*XMM–Newton*]{} to improve the X-ray detection rate, which is now at 90%. Observations with these satellites were also accompanied by ultraviolet observations to study the accretion disk emission. Optical spectra were mostly taken from the SDSS archives and from the literature. For two sources, new optical spectra were obtained at the Asiago Astrophysical Observatory (Italy). New radio observations, particularly from monitoring campaigns on the $\gamma$-ray detected RLNLS1s, supplemented the archival data. More details on radio monitoring programs at Effelsberg/Pico Veleta and Metsähovi will be published separately (Angelakis et al. in preparation, Lähteenmäki et al. in preparation). Some preliminary results from the present work have already been presented by Foschini et al. (2013).
To facilitate comparison with previous work, we adopt the usual $\Lambda$CDM cosmology with a Hubble–Lemaître constant $H_{0}=70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$ and $\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.73$ (Komatsu et al. 2011). We adopt the flux density and spectral index convention $S_{\nu}\propto \nu^{-\alpha_{\rm \nu}}$.
Sample Selection
================
The number of RLNLS1s known today is quite small compared to other classes of AGN. We selected all the sources found in previous surveys (Zhou & Wang 2002, Komossa et al. 2006a, Whalen et al. 2006, Yuan et al. 2008) and from individual studies (Grupe et al. 2000, Oshlack et al. 2001, Zhou et al. 2003, 2005, 2007, Gallo et al. 2006) that meet the following criteria:
- Optical spectrum with an H$\beta$ line width ${\rm FWHM(H}\beta)<2000$ km s$^{-1}$ (Goodrich 1989) with tolerance $+10$%, a line-flux ratio \[O[iii]{}\]/H$\beta<3$, and clear broad Fe[ii]{} emission blends (Osterbrock & Pogge 1985).
- Radio loudness $RL=S_{\rm radio}/S_{\rm optical}>10$, where $S_{\rm radio}$ is the flux density at 5 GHz and $S_{\rm optical}$ is the optical flux density at $440$ nm. In cases where 5 GHz fluxes are not available, we used other frequencies — generally 1.4 GHz — under the hypothesis of a flat radio spectrum, (i.e., $\alpha_{\rm r}\approx 0$).
- Flat or inverted radio spectra ($\alpha_{\rm r}<0.5$, within the measurement errors), in order to select jets viewed at small angles. Sources with steep radio spectra (corresponding to jets viewed at large angles) are the subject of another survey (Berton et al., in preparation). Sources without spectral information and only a radio detection at 1.4 GHz are included in our sample.
Radio loudness was recalculated on the basis of more recent data from Foschini (2011a), leading to some sources from Whalen et al. (2006) being reclassified as radio loud or radio quiet. Given the variability of the radio emission, we decided to keep all the sources which were classified as radio loud at least in one of the two samples. The resulting list of 42 sources studied in the present work is displayed in Table \[tab:sample\]. For each source, we searched all the data available from radio to $\gamma$ rays (see Sect. 3). It is worth noting that in this work we do not make a distinction between quasars and Seyfert galaxies, although most of the sources of the present samples are sufficiently luminous to be classified as quasars. We adopt the general acronym RLNLS1s for all the sources in the sample.
We also note that there has been some doubt about the classification of J2007$-$4434 as NLS1 because of its weak Fe[ii]{} emission: Komossa et al. (2006a) proposed a classification as narrow-line radio galaxy, while Gallo et al. (2006) argued that since there is no quantitative criterion on the intensity of Fe[ii]{}, the source can be considered to be a genuine RLNLS1. We follow the latter interpretation and include J2007$-$4434 in our sample.
To facilitate comparison with blazars, we selected a sample of 57 flat-spectrum radio quasars (FSRQs) and 31 BL Lac objects, all detected by [*Fermi*]{}/LAT (Ghisellini et al. 2009, 2010, Tavecchio et al. 2010 and references therein). This sample was built by selecting all the sources in the LAT Bright AGN Sample (LBAS, Abdo et al. 2009d) with optical-to-X-ray coverage with [*Swift*]{} and information about masses of the central black holes and jet power. However, those works do not contain all the information we need to make a complete broad-band comparison with the present set of RLNLS1s. Therefore, we supplemented the published data in the cited works with information from online catalogs, specifically radio data at 15 GHz from the MOJAVE Project (Lister et al. 2009, 2013), ultraviolet fluxes from [*Swift*]{}/UVOT extracted from the Science Data Center of the Italian Space Agency (ASI-ASDC[^1]), and X-ray fluxes from the [*Swift*]{} X-ray Point Sources catalog (1SXPS, Evans et al. 2014).
Name Alias $\alpha$ $\delta$ $z$ $N_{\mathrm{H}}$ FWHM H$\beta$ $S_{\rm 1.4\,GHz}$
-------------- ---------------------------- --------------- --------------- --------- ------------------ --------------- --------------------
J$0100-0200$ FBQS J$0100-0200$ $01:00:32.22$ $-02:00:46.3$ $0.227$ $4.12$ $920$ $6.4$
J$0134-4258$ PMN J$0134-4258$ $01:34:16.90$ $-42:58:27.0$ $0.237$ $1.69$ $930$ $55.0(^{*})$
J$0324+3410$ 1H $0323+342$ $03:24:41.16$ $+34:10:45.8$ $0.061$ $12.0$ $1600$ $614.3(^{**})$
J$0706+3901$ FBQS J$0706+3901$ $07:06:25.15$ $+39:01:51.6$ $0.086$ $8.27$ $664$ $5.6$
J$0713+3820$ FBQS J$0713+3820$ $07:13:40.29$ $+38:20:40.1$ $0.123$ $6.00$ $1487$ $10.4$
J$0744+5149$ NVSS J$074402+514917$ $07:44:02.24$ $+51:49:17.5$ $0.460$ $4.83$ $1989$ $11.9$
J$0804+3853$ SDSS J$080409.23+385348.8$ $08:04:09.24$ $+38:53:48.7$ $0.211$ $5.26$ $1356$ $2.9$
J$0814+5609$ SDSS J$081432.11+560956.6$ $08:14:32.13$ $+56:09:56.6$ $0.509$ $4.44$ $2164$ $69.2$
J$0849+5108$ SDSS J$084957.97+510829.0$ $08:49:57.99$ $+51:08:28.8$ $0.584$ $2.97$ $1811$ $344.1$
J$0902+0443$ SDSS J$090227.16+044309.5$ $09:02:27.15$ $+04:43:09.4$ $0.532$ $3.10$ $2089$ $156.6$
J$0937+3615$ SDSS J$093703.02+361537.1$ $09:37:03.01$ $+36:15:37.3$ $0.179$ $1.22$ $1048$ $3.6$
J$0945+1915$ SDSS J$094529.23+191548.8$ $09:45:29.21$ $+19:15:48.9$ $0.284$ $2.16$ $<2000$ $17.2$
J$0948+0022$ SDSS J$094857.31+002225.4$ $09:48:57.29$ $+00:22:25.6$ $0.585$ $5.55$ $1432$ $107.5$
J$0953+2836$ SDSS J$095317.09+283601.5$ $09:53:17.11$ $+28:36:01.6$ $0.658$ $1.25$ $2162$ $44.6$
J$1031+4234$ SDSS J$103123.73+423439.3$ $10:31:23.73$ $+42:34:39.4$ $0.376$ $1.01$ $1642$ $16.6$
J$1037+0036$ SDSS J$103727.45+003635.6$ $10:37:27.45$ $+00:36:35.8$ $0.595$ $5.07$ $1357$ $27.2$
J$1038+4227$ SDSS J$103859.58+422742.2$ $10:38:59.59$ $+42:27:42.0$ $0.220$ $1.50$ $1979$ $2.8$
J$1047+4725$ SDSS J$104732.68+472532.0$ $10:47:32.65$ $+47:25:32.2$ $0.798$ $1.31$ $2153$ $734.0$
J$1048+2222$ SDSS J$104816.58+222239.0$ $10:48:16.56$ $+22:22:40.1$ $0.330$ $1.51$ $1301$ $1.2$
J$1102+2239$ SDSS J$110223.38+223920.7$ $11:02:23.36$ $+22:39:20.7$ $0.453$ $1.22$ $1972$ $2.0$
J$1110+3653$ SDSS J$111005.03+365336.3$ $11:10:05.03$ $+36:53:36.1$ $0.630$ $1.85$ $1300$ $18.6$
J$1138+3653$ SDSS J$113824.54+365327.1$ $11:38:24.54$ $+36:53:27.0$ $0.356$ $1.82$ $1364$ $12.5$
J$1146+3236$ SDSS J$114654.28+323652.3$ $11:46:54.30$ $+32:36:52.2$ $0.465$ $1.42$ $2081$ $14.7$
J$1159+2838$ SDSS J$115917.32+283814.5$ $11:59:17.31$ $+28:38:14.8$ $0.210$ $1.70$ $1415$ $2.2$
J$1227+3214$ SDSS J$122749.14+321458.9$ $12:27:49.15$ $+32:14:59.0$ $0.137$ $1.37$ $951$ $6.5$
J$1238+3942$ SDSS J$123852.12+394227.8$ $12:38:52.15$ $+39:42:27.6$ $0.623$ $1.42$ $910$ $10.4$
J$1246+0238$ SDSS J$124634.65+023809.0$ $12:46:34.68$ $+02:38:09.0$ $0.363$ $2.02$ $1425$ $37.0$
J$1333+4141$ SDSS J$133345.47+414127.7$ $13:33:45.47$ $+41:41:28.2$ $0.225$ $0.74$ $1940$ $2.5$
J$1346+3121$ SDSS J$134634.97+312133.7$ $13:46:35.07$ $+31:21:33.9$ $0.246$ $1.22$ $1600$ $1.2$
J$1348+2622$ SDSS J$134834.28+262205.9$ $13:48:34.25$ $+26:22:05.9$ $0.918$ $1.17$ $1840$ $1.6$
J$1358+2658$ SDSS J$135845.38+265808.5$ $13:58:45.40$ $+26:58:08.3$ $0.331$ $1.56$ $1863$ $1.8$
J$1421+2824$ SDSS J$142114.05+282452.8$ $14:21:14.07$ $+28:24:52.2$ $0.538$ $1.28$ $1838$ $46.8$
J$1505+0326$ SDSS J$150506.47+032630.8$ $15:05:06.47$ $+03:26:30.8$ $0.409$ $4.01$ $1082$ $365.4$
J$1548+3511$ SDSS J$154817.92+351128.0$ $15:48:17.92$ $+35:11:28.4$ $0.479$ $2.37$ $2035$ $140.9$
J$1612+4219$ SDSS J$161259.83+421940.3$ $16:12:59.83$ $+42:19:40.0$ $0.234$ $1.29$ $819$ $3.4$
J$1629+4007$ SDSS J$162901.30+400759.9$ $16:29:01.31$ $+40:07:59.6$ $0.272$ $1.06$ $1458$ $12.0$
J$1633+4718$ SDSS J$163323.58+471858.9$ $16:33:23.58$ $+47:18:59.0$ $0.116$ $1.77$ $909$ $62.6$
J$1634+4809$ SDSS J$163401.94+480940.2$ $16:34:01.94$ $+48:09:40.1$ $0.495$ $1.66$ $1609$ $7.5$
J$1644+2619$ SDSS J$164442.53+261913.2$ $16:44:42.54$ $+26:19:13.2$ $0.145$ $5.12$ $1507$ $87.5$
J$1709+2348$ SDSS J$170907.80+234837.6$ $17:09:07.82$ $+23:48:38.2$ $0.254$ $4.12$ $1827$ $1.6$
J$2007-4434$ PKS $2004-447$ $20:07:55.18$ $-44:34:44.3$ $0.240$ $2.93$ $1447$ $791.0(^{***})$
J$2021-2235$ IRAS $20181-2244$ $20:21:04.38$ $-22:35:18.3$ $0.185$ $5.54$ $460$ $24.9(^{**})$
4.85 GHz, Grupe et al. (2000).
VLA/NVSS, Condon et al. (1998).
1.4 GHz, ATCA, Gallo et al. (2006).
\[tab:sample\]
Data Analysis and Software
==========================
We retrieved all the publicly available observations done by [*Swift*]{} (Gehrels et al. 2004) and [*XMM-Newton*]{} (Jansen et al. 2001) on 2013 December 9. Data analysis was performed by following standard procedures as described in the documentation for each instrument.
In the case of [*Swift*]{} we used [HEASoft v.6.15]{} with the calibration data base updated on 2013 Dec 13. We analysed data of the X-Ray Telescope (XRT, Burrows et al. 2005) and the Ultraviolet Optical Telescope (UVOT, Roming et al. 2005). XRT spectral counts were rebinned to have at least 20–30 counts per bin in order to apply the $\chi^2$ test. When this was not possible, we applied the unbinned likelihood (Cash 1979). We adopted power-law and broken power-law models. The need for the latter was evaluated by using the $f-$test (cf. Protassov et al. 2002) with a threshold $>99$%. The observed magnitudes (Vega System) of UVOT were dereddened according to Cardelli et al. (1989) and converted into physical units by using zero points from [*Swift*]{} calibration data base. All the sources are point-like, and therefore we consider the emission from the host galaxy to be negligible; only J0324+3410 in the $V$ filter displayed some hint of host galaxy, which was properly subtracted. We did not analysed the Burst Alert Telescope (BAT, Barthelmy et al. 2005) data because the average fluxes of RLNLS1s in hard X-rays are well below the instrument sensitivity. Indeed, by looking at the two available catalogs built on BAT data, we found only one detection of J0324+3410 in both the 70-month survey of the [*Swift*]{}/BAT team (Baumgartner et al. 2013) and the Palermo 54-month catalog (Cusumano et al. 2010). J0324+3410 was first detected by Foschini et al. (2009) by integrating all the available direct observations performed during the period 2006–2008 (total exposure $\sim 53$ ks). There is also another detection of J0948+0022 in the Palermo catalog, but not confirmed by Baumgartner et al. (2013). We did not include this information in the present work. [*Swift*]{} results are summarised in Tables 5 and 6 of the Online Materials.
In the case of [*XMM–Newton*]{}, we analysed data of the European Photon Imaging Camera (EPIC) pn (Strüder et al. 2001) and MOS (Turner et al. 2001) detectors. We adopted the [Science Analysis Software v.13.5.0]{} with the calibration data base updated on 2013 December 19. We excluded time periods with high-background by following the prescriptions of Guainazzi et al. (2013). The spectral modelling was done as for [*Swift*]{}/XRT. [*XMM-Newton*]{} results are summarised in Tables 5 of the Online Materials.
 
Optical Data
------------
Optical spectra were retrieved for 32/42 sources from SDSS DR9 database (Ahn et al. 2012), downloaded from NED (3/42), or extracted from figures published in the literature (2/43). Two sources, J0324+3410 and J0945+1915, were observed with the $1.22$ m telescope of the Asiago Astrophysical Observatory between 2013 December and 2014 January, using the Boller & Chivens spectrograph with a 300 mm$^{-1}$ grating. The instrumental resolution was $R \approx 700$, and the spectra covered the wavelength range between 3200 and 8000 Å with a dispersion of 2.3 Åpixel$^{-1}$. The slit was oriented at $PA =
90^\circ$, with an aperture of 4.25 arcsec, corresponding to 4.7 kpc for J0324+3410 and to 17.6 kpc for J0945+1915. The exposure time was $3\times1200$ s for the former and $9\times1200$ s for the latter. Data reduction was performed using the standard [IRAF v.2.14.1]{} tasks: the overscan was subtracted instead of the bias in the pre-reduction steps and NeHgAr lamps were used for the wavelength calibration. Finally the extracted spectra were combined together (see Fig. \[fig:asiago\]).
We were unable to find any optical spectral data for three of the sources in our sample.
The optical spectra were corrected for redshift and Galactic absorption and a continuum fit was subtracted. The contribution of the host galaxy in objects at $z > 0.1$ is typically less than 10% (Letawe et al. 2007). Given that the flux calibration uncertainty is typically around 20%, we assume that the host galaxy contribution is negligible. Indeed the spectra, as expected, do not show any sign of stellar absorption features, and the continuum appears to be dominated by the AGN. For objects at $z < 0.1$ (J0324+3410 and J0706+3901), we subtracted a template of a spiral galaxy bulge (Kinney et al. 1996) as a test, even if no stellar features were visible. Since we did not observe any significant change in the shape of H$\beta$, we proceeded without any host-galaxy subtraction. We focused on the H$\beta$ region between 4000 and 5500 Å. To subtract Fe[ii]{} multiplets, we used a template properly created by using the online software[^2] developed by Kovačević et al. (2010) and Shapovalova et al. (2012).
After Fe[ii]{} subtraction, we decompose the H$\beta$ line into narrow and broad components, using the `ngaussfit` task of [IRAF]{}. We used three Gaussians to fit the profile, one to reproduce the narrow component, and two others for the broad component. Following Veron et al. (2001), we fixed the flux of the narrow component to be 1/10 of the \[O[iii]{}\]$\lambda 5007$ line with the same velocity width. However, given that the gas which produces the \[O[iii]{}\] line is often turbulent, its width can lead to an overestimate of the H$\beta$ narrow component. For this reason, when \[O[ii]{}\]$\lambda 3727$ was clearly visible and much narrower than \[O[iii]{}\] lines, we used its FWHM to fix the the width of H$\beta$ (Greene & Ho 2005, Ho et al. 2009). In some case, the low $S/N$ ratio required a fit with just two Gaussians, one narrow and one broad. When necessary we also set the height of the narrow component as a free parameter. The line center was always left as a free parameter.
In the case of J1348+2622, we used the Mg[ii]{}$\lambda2798$ for the black hole mass estimate as the H$\beta$ line it falls outside of the spectral range. As shown by Shen et al. (2008), mass estimates from these two lines are generally consistent.
Finally, we subtracted the narrow component and measuring both FWHM and the line dispersion $\sigma$ for the broad component only. The results are presented in Table \[tab:masses\].
Radio Data
----------
Some of these sources were observed for other programs. 37 GHz data are from the 13.7 m telescope at Metsähovi (Finland), and multiwavelength observations were done at 100-m single dish telescope at Effelsberg (Germany, $2.64-42$ GHz) and 30-m telescope at Pico Veleta (Spain, $86-142$ GHz). More details about the Metsähovi, and Effelsberg/Pico Veleta observations on RLNLS1s will be published by Lähteenmäki et al. (in preparation) and Angelakis et al. (in preparation), respectively. Some of the data have already been published by Abdo et al. (2009a,b), Foschini et al. (2011a, 2012), Fuhrmann et al. (2011), and Angelakis et al. (2012a,b).
We also searched for publicly available observations in the VLBI calibrated data archives. 15 GHz data are from the the MOJAVE database (Lister et al. 2009, 2013)[^3]. VLBI results at frequencies below 15 GHz come from the VLBA and global VLBI astrometric and geodetic experiments (Beasley et al. 2002, Fomalont et al. 2003, Petrov et al. 2005, 2006, 2008, Kovalev et al. 2007, Piner et al. 2012, Pushkarev & Kovalev 2012). Calibrated visibility and image fits files are provided by the authors in the public database[^4].
We performed a standard CLEANing (Högbom 1974) and followed the model-fitting of the calibrated VLBI visibility data in [Difmap]{} (Shepherd 1997). We preferred to use circular Gaussian components unless the use of elliptical components gave a better fit to the data. To ensure the quality of the fit, we compared Gaussian model parameters with the results of CLEAN. The total flux density and residual RMS appeared to be almost identical for the two cases. All of these sources have simple radio structure, so they are well-modeled by Gaussian components. The results are presented in the Online Material (Table 7).
Online Catalogs and Literature
------------------------------
We supplemented these data with information from online catalogs and literature. For $\gamma$ rays, we mainly referred to Foschini (2011a), who reported the detection of 7 RLNLS1s with [*Fermi*]{}/LAT after 30 months of operations. When available, we reported more recent published analyses (Foschini et al. 2012, D’Ammando et al. 2013a,d, Paliya et al. 2014). No new detections have been claimed to date after Foschini (2011a). Therefore, for the non-detected sources in the present sample, we indicated the upper limit of $\sim 10^{-9}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ as from the [*Fermi*]{}/LAT performance web page[^5], which is the minimum detectable ($TS=25$) flux above $100$ MeV over a period of 4 years for a source with a power-law shaped spectrum with a spectral index $\alpha=1$. A summary of $\gamma$ ray characteristics found in literature is shown in the Online Material (Table 4).
For X-rays, we searched for missing sources in the [*Chandra*]{} X-Assist (CXA, Ptak & Griffiths 2003) catalog v.4 and [*XMM–Newton*]{} Slew Survey Clean Sample v.1.5 (XSS, Saxton et al. 2008). The two catalogs provide X-ray detections in different energy bands: 0.5–8 keV for the former, and 0.2–12 keV for the latter. The fluxes were then converted into the 0.3–10 keV band by using [WebPIMMS]{}[^6] and a fixed photon index value $\Gamma =2$ ($\alpha=1$). Some sources were not observed by any of the above-cited satellites. In those cases, we calculated an upper limit by using the detection limit of the [*ROSAT*]{} All-Sky Survey (RASS, Voges et al. 1999, 2000).
At infrared/optical/ultraviolet wavelengths, in addition to the [*Swift*]{}/UVOT data presented here, we used SDSS-III data release 9 (Ahan et al. 2012) and 2MASS (Cutri et al. 2003). Only one source, J2021$-$2235, remained without optical coverage from either [*Swift*]{}/UVOT or SDSS, but we found $B$ and $R$ magnitudes in the US Naval Observatory B1 Catalog (Monet et al. 2003).
We also searched the [*WISE*]{} all-sky catalog (Wright et al. 2010) for photometric data at mid-IR wavelengths (between 3.4 and 22 $\mu$m). In particular, we have used the last version of the catalogue, the [*AllWISE*]{} data release (November 2013). All the RLNLS1s of the sample are detected ($S/N>3$) in the [*WISE*]{} survey at 3.4 and 4.6 $\mu$m (W1 and W2 bands, respectively) while 41 and 37 objects are detected also at 12 $\mu$m (W3 band) and 22 $\mu$m (W4 band) respectively. The observed magnitudes have been converted into monochromatic flux densities assuming a power-law spectrum with $\alpha=2$. For the sources not detected or detected with a $S/N<3$, we have calculated the $3\sigma$ upper limit on the flux density.
At radio frequencies, in addition to the above cited programs (see Sect. 3.2), we have taken all available data from the NED[^7] and HEASARC[^8] archives.
Observational Characteristics
=============================
Gamma Rays
----------
We found in the available literature 7/42 detections at high-energy $\gamma$ rays (17%) sources. Specifically, they are:
- J0948+0022, the first RL-NLS1 to be detected in $\gamma$ rays (Abdo et al. 2009a,b, Foschini et al. 2010).
- J0324+3410, J1505+0326, and J2007$-$4434, which were detected after the first year of [*Fermi*]{} operations (Abdo et al. 2009c).
- J0849+5108, which was detected because of an outburst in 2010 (Foschini 2011a, D’Ammando et al. 2012).
- J1102+2239, J1246+0238 (Foschini 2011a).
The spectral indices are generally steep, with a weighted average of $\alpha_{\gamma}=1.6\pm 0.3$ (median 1.7), but there is one interesting case with harder spectrum: J0849+5108 with $\alpha_{\gamma}=1.0-1.18$ (Online Material Table 4 and 8). The average values for blazars as measured by [*Fermi*]{}/LAT (Ackermann et al. 2011) are $1.4\pm 0.2$ for FSRQs, $\alpha = 1.2 \pm 0.1$ for low-synchrotron peak BL Lacs, $\alpha = 1.1 \pm 0.1$ for intermediate-synchrotron peak BL Lacs, and $\alpha = 0.9\pm 0.2$ for high-synchrotron peak BL Lacs. Therefore, we conclude that the spectral characteristics of RLNLS1s are generally similar to those of FSRQs.
Short timescale variability for factor-of-two flux changes is also reported by some authors. Specifically, Foschini (2011a) reported intraday variability for J0948+0022 and J1505+0326, while Palyia et al. (2014) found 3-hour variability of J0324+3410 during its outburst of 2013 August 28 to 2013 September 1 (see Online Material Table 9).
X-Rays
------
About 90% of the sources in the present sample (38/42) are detected in X-rays (see Table 5). The average spectral index in the 0.3–10 keV energy range is $\alpha_{\rm X}=1.0\pm0.5$, with a median value of $0.8$ (see Online Material Table 8), as compared with the values of $0.58$ (FSRQs), $1.3$ (BL Lac objects), $1.1$ (BLS1s), and $1.7$ (RQNLS1s). These values were calculated from the samples of $\gamma-$ray blazars from Ghisellini et al. (2009, 2010) and Tavecchio et al. (2010) and radio-quiet Seyferts from Grupe et al. (2010). The corresponding distributions are displayed in Fig. \[fig:xraydistrib\]. The average spectral indices for the individual sources (see Online Material Table 8) are $\alpha<1$ in 23/42 cases and $\alpha \geq 1$ in 12/42 cases. In 7/42 cases, the spectral index is near the boundary.
![X-ray (0.3–10 keV) spectral index distributions for the present sample of RLNLS1s; BL Lac objects and FSRQs are from Ghisellini et al. (2009, 2010) and Tavecchio et al. (2010); BLS1s and RQNLS1s are from Grupe et al. (2010).[]{data-label="fig:xraydistrib"}](xray_phidx.eps)
We note that the X-ray spectral indices of RLNLS1s are similar to those of BLS1s, and usually harder than those of RQNLS1s. However, when compared to blazars, RLNLS1s are between the average values of FSRQs and BL Lac objects. From inspection of the SEDs (see Sect. 7), it seems that the X-ray emission of RLNLS1s could be due either to inverse-Compton (IC) radiation from a relativistic jet or from the corona of the accretion disk. This could explain why the average spectral index is softer than that of FSRQs, where the X-ray emission is dominated by the IC from the jet (see, for example, Ghisellini et al. 2010).
In the case of four sources, there were multiple observations with sufficient exposure for individual detections (Online Material Table 5). We therefore searched for any correlation between flux and spectral slope. No significant trend was found. It is interesting to compare with radio-quiet Seyferts, where a correlation between 2–10 keV flux and the spectral index was found, indicating a steepening of the spectral shape as the flux increases (Markowitz et al. 2003). Some interesting episodes were described in the case of J0324+3410 by Foschini et al. (2009), Foschini (2013), and Tibolla et al. (2013): the source has generally a soft spectral index, typical of NLS1s, but sometimes — as the jet became active — the X-ray spectrum displays a break at a 2–3 keV and a hard tail appears (see also Paliya et al. 2014). Similar behaviour has been observed in another RLNLS1, PKS 0558$-$504[^9], where [*ASCA*]{} observed a hardening of the spectral index during an outburst, changing from $\sim 1.2$ to $\sim 0.9$ (Wang et al. 2001).
In the case of J0324+3410, with more data (Online Material Table 5), there is no evident trend to link the change in flux with a change of the spectral slope. Although the epochs with a hard tail are concentrated in a high-flux region, there are also observations with similar fluxes that can be fit satisfactorily by a single power-law model. It is worth noting that there might be an instrumental bias: [*Swift*]{}/XRT has a low effective area at energies $\geq 7$ keV (Romano et al. 2005) and, therefore, the detection of the hard tail could depend on the exposure time at similar flux levels. Indeed, the exposures in the present data set ranged from 1.3 to 8.8 ks (see Online Material Table 5) and the spectral shape at shorter exposures — having low statistics at high energies — could be fit with just a power-law model with an index harder than usual. An observing campaign with a satellite like [*XMM–Newton*]{} for example, carrying X-ray instruments with a larger effective area above 7 keV, could effectively monitor the spectral changes (see below the example of J0948+0022).
Many sources of the present sample were included in previous surveys by Komossa et al. (2006a) and Yuan et al. (2008). In these studies, the X-ray characteristics were measured from [*ROSAT*]{} data. Komossa et al. (2006a) found spectral indices in the range 0.9–3.3, while Yuan et al. (2008) measured values between $0.37$ and $2.36$. Particularly, the spectral index of J0948+0022 was measured as $1.6\pm1.8$ by Zhou et al. (2003), $\sim 1.2$ by Komossa et al. (2006a), and $1.26\pm0.64$ by Yuan et al. (2008). The source is also present in the Williams et al. (2002) sample, who reported $\alpha_{\rm X}=1.8\pm0.5$, again on the basis of [*ROSAT*]{} observations. In our case, both [*Swift*]{} and [*XMM–Newton*]{} indicate a harder spectral index (average $\alpha_{\rm X}\sim 0.56$) that remains unchanged with flux variations (Online Material Table 5). This is in agreement with previous studies and MW campaigns (Abdo et al. 2009a,b, Foschini et al. 2011a, 2012). A study based on a long one-orbit [*XMM–Newton*]{} observation revealed the presence of a soft X-ray excess (D’Ammando et al. 2014, Bhattacharyya et al. 2014), which is confirmed in the present study. The break energy is between $1.72_{-0.11}^{+0.09}$ keV (D’Ammando et al. 2014) and $\sim 1.2$ keV (Bhattacharyya et al. 2014; see also our analysis in the Online Material Table 5). The low-energy spectral index is between $1.1$ and $1.3$, while the high-energy power-law has a slope 0.5–0.6. There is also a [*Swift*]{} observation the same day of that of [*XMM–Newton*]{} (2011 May 28) and we tried also to fit these data with a broken power-law model. We found $\alpha_1=\Gamma_1-1=1.8_{-0.8}^{+1.4}$, $\alpha_2=\Gamma_2-1=0.5\pm0.2$, and $E_{\rm break}=0.9\pm0.3$ keV ($\chi^2=5.4$ for 7 dof, not reported in Online Material Table 5). However, according to our threshold defined in Sect. 3, the broken power-law model is not statistically preferred over the single power-law model (95% vs. a threshold of 99%). Therefore, we conclude that the presence or absence of a soft X-ray excess is related more to an instrumental bias rather than to an effective change of the AGN. [*ROSAT*]{}, having a bandpass of 0.1–2.4 keV, is biased toward soft X-ray sources and therefore captures the soft excess only. [*Swift*]{}, with a larger energy band (0.3–10 keV) and snapshot observations, measured an average of both the soft excess and the hard tail. [*XMM–Newton*]{}, still operating in the 0.3–10 keV band, detected both the soft excess and the hard tail because of the longer exposure and larger effective area. Both D’Ammando et al. (2014) and Bhattacharyya et al. (2014) concluded that the excess at low energies could be due to the accretion disk/corona system, as is the usual case for many RQNLS1s (e.g., Leighly 1999, Foschini et al. 2004, Grupe et al. 2010).
We note that also the blazar 3C 273 displays such a soft excess and there is a correlation between the low activity of the relativistic jet and the emergence of the thermal component in the soft X-rays, which was interpreted as a signature of the jet-disk connection (Grandi & Palumbo 2004, Foschini et al. 2006). In the present case, the instrumental bias prevents any conclusion about the X-ray component, but the optical component offers some hints that support the above hypothesis (see Sect. 7).
The case of J2007$-$4434 is different. The X-ray spectrum as observed by [*XMM–Newton*]{} on 2004 April 11 shows a soft excess and a hard tail. Gallo et al. (2006) favoured the hypothesis of an accretion disk corona to generate the excess low-energy flux, while Foschini et al. (2009), on the basis of different variability characteristics (16% and $<8$% in the 0.2–1 keV and 2–10 keV energy bands, respectively), suggested a similarity with low-energy peaked BL Lac objects (i.e., the low-energy component is the tail of the synchrotron emission). This seems to be confirmed by the analysis and modelling of the SED (Abdo et al. 2009c, Paliya et al. 2013b; see also the Sect. 7). In the present work, we find two more [*XMM–Newton*]{} archival observations performed in 2012 (May 1 and October 18): in both cases, there was no low-energy excess and the spectra were fit with a single power-law model with spectral index $\alpha \approx 0.7$. It is worth noting that the flux was about one third that of the 2004 observation, when the soft excess was detected.
In all the other cases, [*ROSAT*]{} observations reported by Komossa et al. (2006a) and Yuan et al. (2008) are generally confirmed.
The search for variability on short timescales resulted in many significant detections of intraday variability, with flux changes greater than $3\sigma$ (Online Material Table 9). There are hour timescales for J0134$-$4258, J0324+3410, J0948+0022, J1629+4007, and J2007$-$4434. It is worth noting that the measurements reported in Table 9 (Online Material) were made from [*Swift*]{}/XRT data only. We also analysed [*XMM–Newton*]{} data and find variability on minute timescales (down to $\sim 2$ minutes with flux change at the $11\sigma$ level in the case of J0948+0022). However, we note that all [*XMM–Newton*]{} observations are affected by soft-proton flares: although we corrected for both the anomalous particle and photon backgrounds, we noted that minute-scale variability is detected near periods of the light curve that are excised because of high particle background. In addition, there is no confirmation of such short timescale variations in the [*Swift*]{} data, but it is worth noting that Itoh et al. (2013) found similar values from optical observations. These findings therefore require a much more careful dedicated analysis and confirmation with other instruments less affected by grazing-incidence particle background (i.e., from X-ray satellites in low-Earth orbit).
The hour timescales found are much shorter than those expected in case of changing obscuration, which could be $\sim$10 hours in the most extreme case of NGC 1365 (see the review by Bianchi et al. 2012). In addition, fits of X-ray spectra do not require iron lines or obscuration in addition to the Galactic column, as expected from radio-loud AGN, in contrast to radio-quiet AGN (e.g., Reeves et al. 1997). The exception seems to be J0324+341, where Abdo et al. (2009c) reported an unresolved iron line at $E_{\rm Fe}=6.5\pm0.3$ keV with equivalent width of $147$ eV (see also Paliya et al. 2014). By integrating all the available [*Swift*]{} snapshots (with a total exposure time of $2.1\times 10^5$ s), we basically confirm the previous measurements: $E_{\rm Fe}=6.5\pm0.1$ keV, equivalent width $\sim 91$ eV, and $\Delta \chi^2 = 13.1$ for two additional parameters ($E_{\rm Fe}$ and normalisation; we fixed $\sigma_{\rm Fe}$ to 0.1 keV). [*XMM–Newton*]{} observations of J0948+0022 and J1348+2622 show only a hint of an excess above 5 keV.
Ultraviolet/Optical/Infrared
----------------------------
Spectral indices for ultraviolet and infrared frequencies were calculated by means of the two-point spectral index formula
$$\alpha_{\rm 12} = - \frac{\log (S_1/S_2)}{\log (\nu_1/\nu_2)},$$
where $S_1$ and $S_2$ are the observed flux densities at frequencies $\nu_1$ and $\nu_2$, respectively. In the ultraviolet, we use the [*Swift*]{}/UVOT observations, where $\nu_1=1.16\times 10^{15}$ Hz and $\nu_2=1.47\times 10^{15}$ Hz refer to the [*uvw1*]{} ($\lambda=2591$ Å) and [*uvw2*]{} ($\lambda=2033$ Å) bands, respectively. For infrared frequencies, we adopt the extreme filters of [*WISE*]{}: $\nu_1=1.36\times 10^{13}$ Hz and $\nu_2=8.82\times 10^{13}$ Hz, corresponding to $W4$ and $W1$ filters, respectively. When one of the two filters has only an upper limit, we referred to the closest other filter with a detection, either $W2$ ($\nu=2.50\times 10^{13}$ Hz) or $W3$ ($6.5\times 10^{13}$ Hz). Optical spectral indices were measured by fitting the spectra over the range $\sim 3000$–$8000$ Å.
The average ultraviolet spectral index is $\alpha_{\rm uv}=0.7\pm1.4$ (median 0.7), and the values for the individual sources were measured from the integrated flux densities (Online Material Table 6). This spectral index can be compared with the values of $0.79$ (median 0.61) for BLS1, and $0.85$ (median 0.65) for NLS1 in the Grupe et al. (2010) sample, also based on [*Swift*]{}/UVOT observations. Ganguly et al. (2007) observed 14 radio-quiet low redshift ($z<0.8$) quasars with [*Hubble Space Telescope (HST)*]{} in the range 1570–3180 Å and measured an average index of $0.87$. Pian et al. (2005), also with [*HST*]{} over the range $\sim1570$–4780 Å, observed 16 blazars and found $\alpha_{\rm uv}\approx 1.16$. In a previous study on a larger sample of 47 radio-loud AGN observed in the range $1200-3000$ Å with [*International Ultraviolet Explorer (IUE)*]{}, Pian & Treves (1993) found an average $\alpha_{\rm uv}\approx 1$, with strong emission line quasars having $\alpha_{\rm uv}\approx 1.38$, BL Lac objects with $\alpha_{\rm uv}\approx 0.97$, and radio-weak BL Lacs with $\alpha_{\rm uv}\approx 0.66$. For a control sample of 37 objects from the Palomar–Green (PG) bright quasar survey, an average $\alpha_{\rm uv}\approx 0.84$ was found. At the level of average values, the present sample is in agreement with the values for radio-weak blazars, PG quasars, and radio-quiet Seyferts.
The average optical spectral index of the present sample of RLNLS1s is $\alpha_{\rm o}=-1.0\pm0.8$ (median $-0.8$), in agreement with the previous surveys of RQNLS1 (Constantin & Shields, 2003) and RLNLS1s (Komossa et al. 2006a, Yuan et al. 2008). A comparison with the optical slopes measured by Whalen et al. (2006) reveals similar slopes (particularly, Fig. 4 in Whalen et al. 2006), with some exceptions. For J0100$-$0200, Whalen et al. (2006) find $\alpha_{\rm o}\approx -0.25$, while in the present work, we find (from SDSS photometry) $\alpha_{\rm o}\approx 1.18$. Other cases of changes in the sign of the slope were J1159+2838 (from $\alpha_{\rm o}\approx 0.19$ to $-0.04$) and J1421+2824 (from $\alpha_{\rm o}\approx 0.18$ to $-0.19$). Vanden Berk et al. (2001) integrated the SDSS spectra of more than 2200 quasars and found an average $\alpha_{\rm o}\approx -0.44$. They also note that by using only the low-redshift sources, the optical spectral index becomes steeper ($\alpha_{\rm o}\approx -0.65$). Our average value ($\alpha_{\rm o}\approx -1.03$) seems to be in agreement with this trend.
The average infrared spectral index as measured from [*WISE*]{} is $\alpha_{\rm IR}=1.3\pm0.3$ (median 1.3), as expected in the case of synchrotron emission from a relativistic jet (cf. Massaro et al. 2011, D’Abrusco et al. 2012, Raiteri et al. 2014). Fig. \[fig:wise\] shows the distribution of [*WISE*]{} colours of the present sample compared with the blazar strip by Massaro et al. (2011) and the X-ray selected Type 1 and 2 AGN by Mateos et al. (2012, 2013). While most of the RLNLS1s are in the blazar/AGN region, there are also some cases in the starburst region (cf. Fig. 1 of Massaro et al. 2011), suggesting the presence of intense star-formation activity (typical of NLS1s, Sani et al. 2010). Caccianiga et al. (2014) studied a steep-spectrum RLNLS1 (SDSS J143244.91+301435.3, which is not included in the present sample because of its steep radio spectrum), and found significant star-forming activity. In that case, since the jet is likely to be viewed at a large angle, it does not overwhelm the emission from the nearby environment. The RLNLS1s of the present sample were instead selected by their flat radio spectra, to extract the beamed population, and are hence dominated by synchrotron emission. However, one source (J1505+0326) in the starburst region was detected in $\gamma$ rays, and two $\gamma$-ray RLNLS1s have $W2-W3>3$ (in the addition to the one cited earlier, there is also J0948+0022, still around the synchrotron line). Specifically, J0948+0022 and J1505+0326 were among the most $\gamma-$ray active RLNLS1s of the present sample, therefore this result could be counterintuitive (except for J0948+0022, which is still near the synchrotron line). The explanation is in the epochs of the [*WISE*]{} observations, performed between 2010 Jan 7 (MJD $55203$) and Aug 6 (MJD $55414$). Comparing with the $\gamma$-ray light curves displayed in Foschini et al. (2012), it is seen that J0948+0022 was almost undetected during the [*WISE*]{} observations. In the case of J1505+0326, D’Ammando et al. (2013a) detected the source by integrating over three-month time bins, but the flux in the first half of 2010 remained at low level of order $10^{-8}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. Therefore, it is likely that these sources could have strong star-forming activity that is sometimes overwhelmed by synchrotron emission from the jet. We also note that another RLNLS1 of the present sample, J2021$-$2235, is classified as an ultraluminous infrared galaxy (ULIRG) by Hwang et al. (2007), thus supporting the presence of intense star-forming activity.
![[*WISE*]{} colours of the present sample of RLNLS1s (filled orange stars indicated the $\gamma$-ray detected RLNLS1s). Different characteristic regions are also plotted: the blazar “[*WISE*]{} Gamma-ray Strip” (WGS) for BL Lacs (dashed line) and FSRQs (dotted line), as defined by Massaro et al. (2012) and the AGN wedge (dot-dashed line) as defined by Mateos et al. (2012, 2013) for X-ray selected AGNs. The continuous line corresponded to a power-law emission ($S_{\nu}\propto \nu^{-\alpha}$) with $\alpha$ ranging from $\sim -0.5$ to $\sim +2.5$.[]{data-label="fig:wise"}](wise_plot.eps)
A search for the shortest timescale for a factor-of-two change in flux demonstrates intraday variability for 7/42 sources (see Table 10). There is some bias in this case due to the fact that not all [*Swift*]{}/UVOT observations were performed using all six filters. Two sources were extensively observed with almost all the six filters (J0324+3410 and J0948+0022) and displayed intraday variability at all wavelengths. This is in agreement of previous findings of extreme intraday optical variability reported by Liu et al. (2010), Itoh et al. (2013), Maune et al. (2013), and Paliya et al. (2013a). In particular, Itoh et al. (2013) report changes on timescale of minutes in the optical polarised flux of J0948+0022 on 2012 December 20, with a peak degree of polarisation of 36%.
Jiang et al. (2012) examined [*WISE*]{} data in a search for infrared variability among the 23 RLNLS1 of the Yuan et al. (2008) sample. They found three cases, also in the present sample: J0849+5108, J0948+0022, and J1505+0326. The first two sources displayed intraday variability, while the latter showed significant flux changes over $\sim$6 months. The remaining 20 RLNLS1s of the Yuan et al. (2008) sample did not show variability, most likely because of the weakness of the sources.
A more detailed analysis of the characteristics of the optical spectra (line, bumps, blue/red wings) will be presented elsewhere (Berton et al. in preparation).
Radio
-----
About half of the sources (21/42) in the present sample were detected only at $1.4$ GHz so it is not possible to determine a radio spectral index. In the remaining half of the cases, it was possible to estimate a spectral index between two frequencies below $8.4$ GHz (between 1.4 and 5 GHz in 13/21 cases). About 28% of these sources (12/42) were detected at frequencies in the MHz range (74–843 MHz, see Table 9). In 4/42 cases (J0324+3410, J0849+5108, J0948+0022, and J1505+0326), spectral indices between 5–15 and 15–37 GHz are measured, because of the MW campaign of Effelsberg, Metsähovi, and RATAN-600 (Abdo et al. 2009a,b, Foschini et al. 2011a, 2012, Fuhrmann et al. 2011, Angelakis et al. 2012a,b). In only two cases (J0324+3140 and J0948+0022) are there detections up to $142$ GHz at Pico Veleta. The results are summarised in Online Material Table 8. In 7/13 cases, the spectral indices $\alpha_{\rm r}$ were inverted. Three of these cases were of $\gamma-$ray detected RLNLS1s. Two of these cases, J0324+3410 and J0849+5108 (two $\gamma-$ray sources), the average spectral index was inverted at higher frequencies. The weighted mean $\alpha_{\rm r}$ was equal to $0.1\pm0.3$ (median 0.3).
Comparison with blazar samples reveals similar spectral indices. Abdo et al. (2010b) performed a linear regression of all the available data in the 1–100 GHz frequency range of 48 blazars of the [*Fermi*]{} LAT Bright AGN Sample (LBAS) and find an average value of $\alpha_{\rm
1-100\,GHz}=0.03 \pm 0.23$. They found no differences between FSRQs and BL Lac objects. It is worth noting that the RLNLS1 J0948+0022 of the present sample is also in the LBAS list, but it is classified there as a low-synchrotron peak FSRQ. Abdo et al. (2010) find a radio spectral index of $-0.645$.
Another useful comparison is with the jetted AGN of the MOJAVE sample: Hovatta et al. (2014) analyzed the radio data of 191 AGN (133 FSRQs, 33 BL Lac objects, 21 radio galaxies, and 4 unknown-type AGN and calculated the spectral index between 8.1 and 15.4 GHz. Also in this case, there is virtually no difference between FSRQs and BL Lac objects, $-0.22$ and $-0.19$, respectively.
Tornikoski et al. (2000) studied 47 Southern hemisphere sources, mostly FSRQs (38), plus 6 BL Lac objects and 3 radio galaxies (see also Ghirlanda et al. 2010 for a sample of blazars in the Southern hemisphere) over a frequency range spanning 2.3 to 230 GHz. The spectral indices are almost flat below 8.4 GHz, with some differences between BL Lacs and high-polarization quasars on one hand, and low-polarization quasars on the other: while the latter have a somewhat steeper spectral index ($\alpha_{\rm 2.3-8.4\,GHz}\approx
0.05$), the former have an inverted index ($\alpha_{\rm
2.3-8.4\,GHz}\approx -0.13$). For all the sources, the spectral index becomes steeper at higher frequencies ($\alpha_{\rm
90-230\,GHz}\approx0.79$). Nieppola et al. (2007) studied a large sample (398) of only BL Lac objects in the Northern hemisphere and found average values of $\alpha_{\rm 5-37\,GHz}\approx -0.25$ and $\alpha_{\rm 37-90\,GHz} \approx 0.0$.
Our values are in agreement with these results: we find a rather flat or inverted spectrum extending from all the available frequencies (Online Material Table 8), as already found by Fuhrmann et al. (2011) and Angelakis et al. (2012a,b, in preparation). However, we note that most of the radio observations refer to the first $\gamma-$ray RLNLS1s detected, which were immediately monitored with MW campaigns, i.e. J0324+3410, J0849+5108, J0948+0022, and J1505+0326. All the other sources in the present sample have been poorly observed in the radio. There are, however, programs to increase the database on these sources at radio frequencies. The Metsähovi group is performing a multi-epoch variability program at 22 and 37 GHz on more than 150 radio-loud AGN, including 38 RLNLS1s of the present sample (Lähteenmäki et al., in preparation). Richards et al. (2014) is performing a high-spatial resolution study on 15 RLNLS1s of the present sample with the VLBA at 5, 8, 15, and 24 GHz, including polarisation.
Analysis of archival VLBI radio maps provides some further information (see Sect. 3.2 and Online Material Table 7). Again, the earliest $\gamma-$ray detected RLNLS1s were the most heavily observed: J0324+3410, J0849+5108, and J0948+0022. The source J0324+3410 (7 observations at 15 GHz) displayed a small flare in 2011, with compactness — defined as the core to total flux density ratio — of order $0.6$, which increased during the flare to $>0.75$. Polarization is almost stable during these observations, but during the flare there is a marginal change in the position angle of the electric vector (EVPA) with respect to the jet direction (from $87^{\circ}$ to $77^{\circ}$). Also J0849+5108 showed an increase in the compactness (from $0.75$ to $0.9$) with flux density. Between 2013 January and July (MJD $56313-56481$), there was a swing in the EVPA (from $168^{\circ}$ to $24^{\circ}$, with an almost stable jet direction) that preceded a $\gamma-$ray outburst (Eggen et al. 2013), which happened also in J0948+0022 (Foschini et al. 2011a). The latter has been observed 17 times at 15 GHz, and many of these epochs were already studied by Foschini et al. (2011a). The present reanalysis basically confirms and extends the previous studies. It is worth noting that this source is very compact (0.975) as also indicated by previous comparison with single-dish observations (Abdo et al. 2009b, Foschini et al. 2011a, 2012). An exceptional radio core outburst on 2013 May 5 (MJD 56417), when J0948+0022 reached a core flux density of 0.862 Jy. This followed a strong outburst at $\gamma$-rays that occurred on 2013 January 1 (MJD 56293), as reported by D’Ammando et al. (2013c). During the same period there was also a swing of the EVPA, changing from $\sim 82^{\circ}$ on 2012 November 11 to $\sim 125^{\circ}$ on 2013 May 5. Moreover, Itoh et al. (2013) reported strong variability in optical polarisation in the same epoch (see Sect. 4.3).
The only source for which there are multifrequency observations is J1505+0326, from 2 to 43 GHz. A detailed analysis is reported b D’Ammando et al. (2013a). It is very compact (0.95–0.97 at 15 GHz during flares), at level comparable to J0948+0022. A flux density excess ($\sim 0.1$ Jy) outside the core has been measured at 22 GHz in 2002. The EVPA–jet direction angle is quite unstable, changing from $\sim 61^{\circ}$ to $-100^{\circ}$. We observed significant flux density increases only in the VLBI cores of all the observed sources (Table 8), suggesting that the location of the $\gamma$-ray emission should be very close to the central black hole.
Morphological studies of RLNLS1s have been published by Doi et al. (2006, 2007, 2011, 2012), Gu & Chen (2010), Giroletti et al. (2011), and Orienti et al. (2012). The emerging characteristics are (a) compact radio morphology, although there are kiloparsec scale structures in some cases (Doi et al. 2012), (b) high-brightness temperature of the core feature, indicating non-thermal processes, (c) flat or inverted spectra (although the samples included also steep spectrum radio sources, which are excluded from the present work), and (d) possible links with compact steep spectrum (CSS) and gigahertz peaked spectrum (GPS) radio sources, as also suggested by Oshlack et al. (2001) and Gallo et al. (2006) for J2007$-$4434, Komossa et al. (2006a), Yuan et al. (2008), and more recently by Caccianiga et al. (2014). Doi et al. (2012) found that the detection of extended emission is lower than expected from broad-line Seyferts and they suggest it could be due to the lower kinetic power of jets in low-mass AGN, rather than the young age of the source. Interestingly, also the radio core of RQNLS1s and Seyferts display non-thermal characteristics, suggesting some link with jets (Giroletti & Panessa 2009, Doi et al. 2013).
Angelakis et al. (in preparation) have studied the variability of four RLNLS1s detected at $\gamma$ rays (J0324+3410, J0849+5108, J0948+0022, J1505+0326) at different radio frequencies. Brightness temperature measurements indicate minimum Doppler factors from $1.3$ for J0324+3410 to $4.2$ in the case of J1505+0326.
The search for short variability resulted in only one case of variability on timescales of days: we measure an upper limit of $2.6$ days for J0948+0022 at 37 GHz. In the other cases, we find variations on timescales of about one month, but this is likely due to the one-month sampling rate of Effelsberg observations. Metsähovi (37 GHz) observed at a more intense sampling rate during some MW campaigns (e.g., Abdo et al. 2009b, Foschini et al. 2011a, 2012). Nieppola et al. (2007) reported variability on timescales of hours for some BL Lac objects, for example, $\sim$8 hours for S5 $0716+71$, $\sim $1 hour for AO 0235+164, and $\sim$6 hours for OJ 287. In the case of RLNLS1s, clearly higher sampling rate MW campaigns are required.
Source $\sigma_{\rm line}$ FWHM $L_{\rm H\beta}$ M L$_{\rm disk}$ L$_{\rm disk}$/L$_{\rm Edd}$ Method
-------------- --------------------- ------ ------------------ ------ ---------------- ------------------------------ ---------------------------------------
J$0100-0200$ 982 920 $-$ 4.0 $25.2$ 0.49 M
J$0134-4258$ 1632 1241 $2.77$ 7.1 $8.61$ 0.09 L (Grupe et al. 2000)
J$0324+3410$ 1791 1868 $0.53$ 3.6 $1.50$ 0.03 A
J$0706+3901$ 1839 1402 $0.16$ 2.0 $0.43$ 0.02 N
J$0713+3820$ 2041 1901 $9.28$ 21.2 $31.0$ 0.11 N
J$0744+5149$ 2122 1989 $-$ 26.5 $49.2$ 0.14 M
J$0804+3853$ 1588 1523 $2.74$ 6.7 $8.51$ 0.10 S
J$0814+5609$ 2759 2777 $6.10$ 31.0 $19.9$ 0.05 S
J$0849+5108$ 1330 2490 $1.32$ 3.2 $3.94$ 0.09 S
J$0902+0443$ 1491 1781 $2.02$ 5.0 $6.17$ 0.09 S
J$0937+3615$ 1343 2192 $0.59$ 2.1 $1.68$ 0.06 S
J$0945+1915$ 1730 2818 $2.52$ 7.6 $7.80$ 0.08 A
J$0948+0022$ 1548 1639 $3.73$ 7.5 $11.8$ 0.12 S
J$0953+2836$ 2407 2749 $3.14$ 16.6 $9.84$ 0.05 S
J$1031+4234$ 3153 1822 $2.08$ 22.9 $6.37$ 0.02 S
J$1037+0036$ 985 1776 $1.75$ 2.0 $5.31$ 0.20 S
J$1038+4227$ 1615 1917 $2.62$ 6.8 $8.12$ 0.09 S
J$1047+4725$ 1474 2237 $5.80$ 8.6 $18.9$ 0.17 S
J$1048+2222$ 1742 718 $1.39$ 5.7 $4.16$ 0.06 S
J$1102+2239$ 1940 2181 $3.56$ 11.5 $11.2$ 0.08 S
J$1110+3653$ 1230 2081 $1.07$ 2.4 $3.14$ 0.10 S
J$1138+3653$ 1231 1542 $1.29$ 2.7 $3.85$ 0.11 S
J$1146+3236$ 1737 1977 $3.79$ 9.5 $12.0$ 0.10 S
J$1159+2838$ 1907 2728 $0.052$ 1.2 $0.13$ 0.01 N
J$1227+3214$ 694 1567 $0.51$ 0.52 $1.42$ 0.21 S
J$1238+3942$ 940 1229 $1.16$ 1.5 $3.42$ 0.18 S
J$1246+0238$ 1667 1756 $1.80$ 5.9 $5.45$ 0.07 S
J$1333+4141$ 1589 2942 $1.73$ 5.3 $5.25$ 0.08 S
J$1346+3121$ 1074 1503 $0.64$ 1.4 $1.83$ 0.10 S
J$1348+2622$ 2192 3361 $4.09$ 5.3 $13.0$ 0.19 S (based on Mg[ii]{}$\,\lambda2798$.)
J$1358+2658$ 1471 1805 $3.20$ 6.3 $10.1$ 0.12 S
J$1421+2824$ 1589 1724 $7.18$ 11.2 $23.7$ 0.16 S
J$1505+0326$ 1409 1337 $0.41$ 1.9 $1.12$ 0.05 S
J$1548+3511$ 1557 2217 $4.37$ 8.3 $14.0$ 0.13 S
J$1612+4219$ 777 1200 $0.87$ 0.88 $2.53$ 0.22 S
J$1629+4007$ 1246 1410 $2.00$ 3.5 $6.10$ 0.13 S
J$1633+4718$ 945 931 $0.36$ 0.79 $0.98$ 0.10 S
J$1634+4809$ 1856 1763 $1.95$ 7.7 $5.94$ 0.06 S
J$1644+2619$ 1129 1486 $0.51$ 1.4 $1.42$ 0.08 S
J$1709+2348$ 2377 1256 $0.95$ 2.4 $2.79$ 0.09 S
J$2007-4434$ 1869 2844 $0.0081$ 0.43 $0.018$ 0.003 L (Oshlack et al. 2001)
J$2021-2235$ 491 460 $-$ 3.75 $2.91$ 0.60 M
\[tab:masses\]
Estimates of Masses and Accretion luminosities
==============================================
The masses of the central black holes are given by $$M = f \left( \frac{R_{\rm BLR}\sigma_{\rm line}^2}{G}
\right),
\label{eq:mass}$$ where $R_{\rm BLR}$ is the size of the broad-line region (BLR) measured by reverberation or estimated from scaling relations, $\sigma_{\rm line}$ is the line dispersion (or second moment of the line profile), $G$ is the gravitational constant, and $f$ is a dimensionless scale factor of order unity (Peterson et al. 2004). We used the line dispersion, because it is less affected by inclination, Eddington ratio, and line profile (Peterson et al. 2004, Collin et al. 2006). We estimate the BLR radius by using the relationship between the luminosity of the H$\beta$ line and the radius of the BLR ($R_{\rm BLR}$) from the relationship of Greene et al. (2010),
$$\log \left[ \frac{R_{\rm BLR}}{\rm 10\,light\,days}\right] = 0.85 + 0.53\log \left[ \frac{L({\rm H\beta})}{10^{43}\,\rm erg\,s^{-1}}\right].
\label{eq:sizeblr}$$
Following Collin et al. (2006), we adopt $f=3.85$.
![Accretion disk luminosity \[Eddington units\] vs mass of the central black hole \[$M_{\odot}$\]. The orange stars are the RLNLS1s of the present sample (see Table \[tab:masses\]) and filled orange stars indicate those detected at $\gamma$ rays; the red circles are the FSRQs, and the blue squares are the BL Lac objects (blue arrows indicates upper limits in the accretion luminosity) from Ghisellini et al. (2010). We noted some BL Lacs with strong accretion disk, in the region occupied by FSRQs: these are the so-called “intruders” (Ghisellini et al. 2011, Giommi et al. 2012).[]{data-label="fig:massaccretion"}](mass_accretion.eps)
The size of the BLR gives also the luminosity of the accretion disk ($R_{\rm BLR}\propto L_{\rm disk}^{1/2}$, e.g. Ghisellini & Tavecchio 2009; see also Bentz et al. 2013), which in turn has been normalised to the Eddington value $$L_{\rm Edd}= 1.3\times 10^{38}\left(
\frac{M}{M_{\odot}}\right) \, \rm [erg~s^{-1}].$$ By using $L({\rm H\beta})$ — instead of the continuum at $5100\,$Å (or another wavelength), which is more conventional and generally more accurate — to estimate the size of the BLR and the accretion disk luminosity, we avoid the problem of contamination of the flux by either the jet or the host galaxy.
The results are displayed in Table \[tab:masses\]. In three cases (3/42), no optical spectra were found. Therefore, we estimated the line dispersion from the value of FWHM found in literature by using the ratio FWHM/$\sigma_{\rm line}=1.07$, which is the average over the known values of the present sample (39/42). This value is consistent with what expected from NLS1s (cf. Peterson 2011). From the available optical magnitudes near $5100\,$Å$\,$ we estimated the disk luminosity and the size of the BLR and then used eq. (\[eq:mass\]) to estimate the mass. We note that these sources have Eddington ratios slightly greater than the others of the sample: this can be understood by the fact that with the photometry it is not possible to disentangle the contribution of the disk from that of the jet. We note that our values are in agreement with the results available in the vast majority of literature on RLNLS1s (e.g. Komossa et al. 2006, Whalen et al. 2006, Yuan et al. 2006) and on NLS1s in general (e.g. Peterson 2011).
A comparison of these data with the corresponding data for the blazar sample is shown in Fig. \[fig:massaccretion\]. It is evident that RLNLS1s occupy a unique parameter space among AGN with relativistic jets that corresponds to smaller masses and high Eddington rates. It is worth noting one outlier, J2007$-$4434, has a low Eddington rate ($0.003L_{\rm Edd}$): this was also one of the RLNLS1s whose nature is questionable on account of its weak Fe[ii]{} emission (Gallo et al. 2006, Komossa et al. 2006). There is apparently an unoccupied area of parameter space corresponding to small black hole masses and low Eddington ratios. It is not possible to say whether this is real or a selection effect. Possible candidates to occupy this region are low-luminosity AGN (e.g., M81, Alberdi et al. 2013), although there is debate about the nature of their radio emission (see Paragi et al. 2013). Moreover, no low-luminosity AGN have yet been detected in high-energy $\gamma$ rays.
![Gamma-ray luminosity at 100 MeV compared with radio luminosity at 15 GHz ([*top panel*]{}), ultraviolet luminosity at 203 nm ([*mid panel*]{}), X-ray luminosity at 1 keV ([*bottom panel*]{}). The orange stars are the RLNLS1s of the present sample detected in $\gamma$ rays, while upper limits are reported for the others (grey arrows); the red circles are the FSRQs and the blue squares are the BL Lac objects.[]{data-label="fig:monochromo"}](radiogamma.eps "fig:")\
![Gamma-ray luminosity at 100 MeV compared with radio luminosity at 15 GHz ([*top panel*]{}), ultraviolet luminosity at 203 nm ([*mid panel*]{}), X-ray luminosity at 1 keV ([*bottom panel*]{}). The orange stars are the RLNLS1s of the present sample detected in $\gamma$ rays, while upper limits are reported for the others (grey arrows); the red circles are the FSRQs and the blue squares are the BL Lac objects.[]{data-label="fig:monochromo"}](uvgamma.eps "fig:")\
![Gamma-ray luminosity at 100 MeV compared with radio luminosity at 15 GHz ([*top panel*]{}), ultraviolet luminosity at 203 nm ([*mid panel*]{}), X-ray luminosity at 1 keV ([*bottom panel*]{}). The orange stars are the RLNLS1s of the present sample detected in $\gamma$ rays, while upper limits are reported for the others (grey arrows); the red circles are the FSRQs and the blue squares are the BL Lac objects.[]{data-label="fig:monochromo"}](xgamma.eps "fig:")
Monochromatic Luminosities
==========================
Another comparison with blazars can be done via $\nu L_{\nu}-\nu L_{\nu}$ plots in Fig. \[fig:monochromo\]. Starting from the available data, we normalised the fluxes to four reference frequencies or wavelengths or energies: 15 GHz for radio observations, 203 nm for ultraviolet wavelengths, 1 keV for X-rays, and 100 MeV for $\gamma-$rays. While for most blazars, radio observations at 15 GHz were available from the MOJAVE project, the same was not true for RLNLS1s. For half of the RLNLS1s (21/42), there were radio data at 1.4 GHz either from NVSS or FIRST surveys. In some cases, there were also data at 5, 8.4, 17, or 20 GHz (the two latter frequencies are used in the Southern hemisphere). We extrapolated the 15 GHz flux by using the average radio spectral indices in Online Material Table 8.
The situation is slightly better at ultraviolet wavelengths, because of the availability of [*Swift*]{}/UVOT observations, many of them specifically requested for this survey. For those sources with incomplete data, we used the bluest photometric data available and corrected by using the average UV spectral index in Online Material Table 8. We adopted the average spectral indices also to normalise the integrated fluxes or upper limits in the 0.3–10 keV and 0.1–100 GeV bands.
The monochromatic fluxes were then $K$-corrected by $$S_{\rm \nu,rest}=S_{\rm \nu}(1+z)^{\alpha_{\nu}-1},$$ where $S_{\rm \nu,rest}$ is the rest-frame monochromatic flux at the frequency $\nu$, $S_{\rm \nu}$ is the observed monochromatic flux at frequency $\nu$, $z$ is the redshift, and $\alpha_{\nu}$ is the spectral index at the frequency $\nu$. The corrected monochromatic fluxes were then converted into luminosities. The results are displayed in Fig. \[fig:monochromo\].
 
Fig. \[fig:monochromo\] shows that RLNLS1s are the low-luminosity tail of FSRQs, as already noted by Foschini et al. (2013). While at radio and ultraviolet frequencies RLNLS1s share the same region of BL Lac objects, the two populations diverge from each other at 1 keV, where BL Lac objects move to greater X-ray luminosities, indicating a different origin of the emission (synchrotron for BL Lacs, disk corona or inverse-Compton for RLNLS1s).
We noted one possible outlier in the radio–$\gamma$ panel: J1102+2239 was detected at $\gamma$-ray flux above what is expected from the trend of the other sources. There could be several explanations: the $\gamma$-ray activity could be limited to a small time interval, the radio measurements, extrapolated from 1.4 GHz measurements from FIRST and NVSS, were likely done during periods of low activity of the sources, or it could even be an indication of some artefact in the $\gamma$-ray detection. Further studies could solve the conundrum.
There are also two sources with very low X-ray fluxes in the X-ray/$\gamma$-ray panel, J0100$-$0200 and J0706+3901. In both cases, the X-ray flux was measured by [*Chandra*]{} in 2003 and there were no simultaneous data at other wavelengths.
We stress the difference between RLNLS1s and BL Lac objects. Fig. \[fig:monochromo\] shows the observed luminosities at different frequencies: RLNLS1s and BL Lacs occupy similar regions and generally overlap at radio and UV frequencies. However, while BL Lac objects have low power and masses comparable to those of FSRQs, RLNLS1s have low power and smaller masses (see Fig. \[fig:massaccretion\]). Indeed, when normalised for the mass of the central black hole, the jet power of RLNLS1s and FSRQs are of the same order of magnitude, as shown by Foschini (2014) and references therein. It is worth stressing that the normalisation is not linear, but it is necessary to divide the jet power by $M^{1.4}$, according to the theory developed by Heinz & Sunyaev (2003) and confirmed by Foschini (2011b, 2012b,c, 2014).
Spectral Energy Distribution
============================
Fig. \[fig:seds1\]-\[fig:seds6\] display the observed SEDs of all RLNLS1 in the present sample, assembled from data extracted from observations at different epochs and archives, as discussed in Sect. 3. The most complete SEDs are mostly those of the RLNLS1s significantly detected at gamma rays, i.e., J0324+3410, J0849+5108, J0948+0022, J1505+0326, J2007$-$4434. The modelling of these SEDs already has been presented and discussed in other papers (e.g., Abdo et al. 2009b,c, Foschini et al. 2011a, 2012, D’Ammando et al. 2012, 2013a,b, Paliya et al. 2014).
There are also a few more cases (e.g,. J0814+5609, J1047+4725, J1548+3511, J1629+4007) with fairly good sampling because of previous specific interest. For example, J1629+4007 was long observed because it was thought to be an example of a high-frequency peaked FSRQ (Padovani et al. 2002, Falcone et al. 2004). It is evident from the SED (Fig. 15) that the strong X-ray emission is not due to synchrotron radiation, but rather to the disk corona (see also Maraschi et al. 2008). In other cases, it seems simply that the source fell into the field of view of other targets. We noted a strong change in radio flux density at 5 GHz in J1047+4725: early observations performed in 1987 with the Green Bank 91 m telescope ($\sim3.\!'5$ angular resolution) found a flux density of $\sim 0.4$ Jy (Becker et al. 1991, Gregory & Condon 1991), while an observation with the VLA at 8.4 GHz in 1990 ($0\farcs2$ angular resolution) measured a flux density of $\sim 0.3$ Jy (Patnaik et al. 1992). A VLBA observation at 5 GHz with milliarcsecond resolution in 2006 resulted in a flux density of $\sim 33$ mJy (Helmboldt et al. 2007). One explanation for this could be the presence of significant extended emission, which is integrated in the low angular resolution of Green Bank 91 m and VLA telescopes, while is resolved in the milliarcsecond images of VLBA.
Other sources displayed extreme variability, specifically at optical wavelengths: for example, the SDSS optical spectrum of J0849+5108 (observed in 2000) is about one order of magnitude lower than the optical observations made with [*Swift*]{} after the detection at $\gamma$-rays by [*Fermi*]{} (2011–2013). Similar cases are J1159+2838 and J2007$-$4434, while the optical spectrum of J0953+2836 is about two orders of magnitude brighter than in the [*Swift*]{} observations. Spectral changes at optical frequencies, due to the jet activity, are also observed. Just as an example, we focus on the infrared-to-ultraviolet band of J$0948+0022$, which is the best sampled source, being the first to be detected at $\gamma$-rays. Fig. \[fig:zoom0948sed\] displays the two extreme states from the available data: the lowest activity state (LS, 2009 May 15, see also Abdo et al. 2009b, Foschini et al. 2012) and the highest state (HS, 2012 December 30). In both cases, we model the synchrotron emission (dotted grey line) with a power-law model with an exponential cutoff. The disk emission (dashed grey line) is the standard Shakura–Sunyaev model as expected from a black hole of $M=7.5\times 10^7 M_{\odot}$ (see Table \[tab:masses\]). Previous modelling (Abdo et al. 2009b, Foschini et al. 2012) supposed constant disk luminosity equal to $L_{\rm disk}\sim 0.4L_{\rm Edd}$, as measured by fitting the optical/UV emission with a standard Shakura–Sunyaev disk. In the present work, we obtained from the emission lines a value of $L_{\rm disk}\sim 0.12L_{\rm Edd}$. The difference could be due to a contamination of the jet emission in the optical/UV photometry fit, which is removed by using the emission lines. However, since the optical spectrum of SDSS was observed in 2000 and the MW campaign used for the SED modelling were obtained in 2008–2011, it is also possible that the Eddington ratio really changed.
Although the lowest flux points were not simultaneous, since many of them are smoothly connected, it is reasonable to assume that they refer to a common state of low jet activity. Therefore, we modelled them together as low activity state (LS): in this case, the expected peak of the emission from the accretion disk at $12$% of the Eddington luminosity is at $\sim 3.0\times 10^{15}$ Hz. For the high state (HS), we have just one [*Swift*]{}/UVOT observation and we adopted a standard disk at $40$% of the Eddington value, peaking at $\sim 4.1\times 10^{15}$ Hz. The cutoff of the synchrotron emission was set to $8\times 10^{14}$ Hz in the LS and increased to $1.5\times 10^{15}$ Hz in the HS. We underscore that this is just another option, in addition — and not in contrast — to the previous model. As the expected peak of the disk emission in the far UV, outside the range of our observations, we cannot clearly distinguish between different possibilities. We also note that at infrared wavelengths, there is an excess that is likely attributable to the dusty torus and/or the host galaxy, as suggested also by the [*WISE*]{} colours (see Sect. 4.3).
Changes in the activity of a relativistic jet, as for J0948+0022, could explain the differences in the spectral slopes of J0849+5108, J1159+2838, J2007$-$4434. All these sources have an optical spectrum with a slope different from that derived from the optical/UV photometry. Moreover, some sources show optical/UV slopes decreasing with increasing frequencies (e.g., J0804+3853, J0937+3615, J1031+4234, J1038+4227, J1102+2239, J1138+365, J1227+3214), while there were other cases with the opposite trend (e.g., J0134$-$4258, J0324+3410, J0814+5609, J1348+2622, J1548+3511, J1629+400). These also have a flat X-ray slope, with some evidence of a soft-excess. An inspection of their corresponding central black hole masses and Eddington ratios did not reveal any trend. On the basis of the J0948+0022 behaviour, we favour the interpretation of the same central engine observed in a different combination of jet–disk states.
 
Source $\log P_{\rm rad}$ $\log P_{\rm kin}$ $\log P_{\rm tot}$
-------------- -------------------- -------------------- --------------------
J$0100-0200$ 42.88 43.06 43.28
J$0134-4258$ 43.28 43.53 43.72
J$0324+3410$ 43.17 43.40 43.60
J$0706+3901$ 42.22 42.27 42.55
J$0713+3820$ 42.67 42.81 43.05
J$0744+5149$ 43.55 43.86 44.03
J$0804+3853$ 42.59 42.71 42.96
J$0814+5609$ 43.88 44.26 44.41
J$0849+5108$ 44.58 45.09 45.21
J$0902+0443$ 44.33 44.79 44.92
J$0937+3615$ 42.56 42.67 42.92
J$0945+1915$ 43.37 43.64 43.83
J$0948+0022$ 44.72 45.27 45.38
J$0953+2836$ 44.25 44.70 44.83
J$1031+4234$ 43.54 43.85 44.02
J$1037+0036$ 44.00 44.40 44.55
J$1038+4227$ 42.57 42.68 42.93
J$1047+4725$ 44.92 45.50 45.60
J$1048+2222$ 42.59 42.71 42.95
J$1102+2239$ 42.98 43.18 43.40
J$1110+3653$ 43.92 44.31 44.46
J$1138+3653$ 43.41 43.70 43.88
J$1146+3236$ 43.64 43.97 44.14
J$1159+2838$ 42.51 42.61 42.86
J$1227+3214$ 42.58 42.70 42.95
J$1238+3942$ 43.72 44.06 44.22
J$1246+0238$ 43.34 43.61 43.79
J$1333+4141$ 42.51 42.61 42.87
J$1346+3121$ 42.42 42.50 42.76
J$1348+2622$ 43.38 43.65 43.84
J$1358+2658$ 42.76 42.91 43.14
J$1421+2824$ 43.77 44.12 44.28
J$1505+0326$ 44.57 45.08 45.20
J$1548+3511$ 44.10 44.52 44.66
J$1612+4219$ 42.74 42.88 43.12
J$1629+4007$ 43.73 44.07 44.24
J$1633+4718$ 42.76 42.91 43.14
J$1634+4809$ 43.46 43.75 43.93
J$1644+2619$ 43.31 43.57 43.76
J$1709+2348$ 42.42 42.58 42.81
J$2007-4434$ 43.96 44.36 44.50
J$2021-2235$ 42.99 43.19 43.40
\[tab:jetpow\]
There are some cases with only few data points, so that it is not possible to draw useful inferences (e.g., J0100$-$0200, J0706+3901, J1333+4141, J1346+3121, J1358+2658, J1612+4219, J1709+2348). While we have added significantly to the multiwavelength database for many of these objects, the radio observations remained limited to only 1.4 GHz. It is therefore desirable that future observations focus on radio frequencies (e.g., Richards et al. 2014, Lähteenmäki et al., in preparation).
Jet Power
=========
To estimate the jet power, we adopted the relationships based on the radio core measurements at 15 GHz by Foschini (2014), $$\log P_{\rm jet,radiative} = (12\pm2) + (0.75\pm 0.04)\log L_{\rm radio,core}$$ and $$\log P_{\rm jet,kinetic} = (6\pm2) + (0.90\pm 0.04)\log L_{\rm radio,core}.$$ From the values calculated in the Sect. 6, we derived the radiative, kinetic (protons, electrons, magnetic field), and the total jet power for each source. The results are given in Table \[tab:jetpow\].
In some cases, it is possible to test the present results with calculations performed by modelling the SED, with the caveat that we are comparing different epochs of strongly variable sources. For example, J0948+0022 — the first RLNLS1 to be detected at gamma rays — had a radiative jet power of $\log P_{\rm radiative} =45.5$, while the kinetic part was estimated as $\log P_{\rm kinetic} = 46.9$ (Abdo et al. 2009a). During the 2009 MW campaign, these values ranged from 44.9 to 45.54 for the radiative power, and from 45.67 to 46.2 for the kinetic power (Abdo et al. 2009b). During more than three years of monitoring, $\log P_{\rm rad}$ spanned the interval 44.55–45.97, while $\log P_{\rm kinetic}$ was in the range 46.19–47.61 (Foschini et al. 2012). The present estimate (Table \[tab:jetpow\]) is an average of several measurements done directly at 15 GHz (mostly by the MOJAVE project and Effelsberg), and is reasonably consistent with the previously published values (see also Angelakis et al., in preparation). The greater values were recorded during the exceptional 2010 outburst, when J0948+0022 reached an observed luminosity of about $10^{48}$ erg s$^{-1}$ (Foschini et al. 2011a).
In other cases:
- J0324+3410: $\log P_{\rm rad}= 42.8$, $\log P_{\rm kin}= 44.3$ (averaged over one year, Abdo et al. 2009c), and $\log P_{\rm rad}= 41.29$–41.74, $\log P_{\rm kin}= 44.06$–45.14 (different states over five years monitoring, Paliya et al. 2014).
- J0849+5108: $\log P_{\rm rad}= 45.6$ (peak during an outburst), $\log P_{\rm kin}= 45.3$([^10]) (D’Ammando et al. 2012).
- J1505+0326: $\log P_{\rm rad}= 44.0$, $\log P_{\rm kin}= 46.2$ (averaged over one year, Abdo et al. 2009c).
- J2007$-$4434: $\log P_{\rm rad}= 42.9$, $\log P_{\rm kin}= 44.1$ (averaged over one year, Abdo et al. 2009c).
A comparison with the jet power of FSRQs and BL Lac objects (Fig. \[fig:powdistr\]) shows that RLNLS1s have values comparable to BL Lac objects but lower than FSRQs. The mean values are $\log P_{\rm rad}=43.35$ and $\log P_{\rm kin}=43.62$ for RLNLS1s, $\log P_{\rm rad}=45.49$ and $\log P_{\rm kin}=46.78$ for FSRQs, and $\log P_{\rm rad}=44.14$ and $\log P_{\rm kin}=45.01$ in the case of BL Lac objects. Taking into account a mean value for the masses of the central black holes of the three populations ($M_{\rm RLNLS1}=6.8\times 10^{7}M_{\odot}$, $M_{\rm FSRQs}=1.5\times 10^{9}M_{\odot}$, and $M_{\rm BL\,Lacs}=7.2\times 10^{8}M_{\odot}$) and renormalizing by $M^{1.4}$, we obtained $\log P_{\rm rad}=32.38$ and $\log P_{\rm kin}=32.65$ for RLNLS1s, $\log P_{\rm rad}=32.64$ and $\log P_{\rm kin}=33.93$ for FSRQs, and $\log P_{\rm rad}=31.74$ and $\log P_{\rm kin}=32.61$ in the case of BL Lac objects. Thus, the normalised jet power is almost the same for all the three types of AGN, as expected (see Sect. 6), and it is also consistent with the jets from Galactic binaries (Foschini 2014).
Discussion
==========
Since the discovery of NLS1s, there has been debate as to whether they are an intrinsically separate AGN class, or simply the low-mass tail of the distribution of Seyferts (Osterbrock & Pogge 1985). Many authors favoured the latter hypothesis (e.g., Grupe 2000, Mathur 2000, Botte et al. 2004). The same question has been proposed in the case of RLNLS1s (Yuan et al. 2008). The first studies following the detections at $\gamma$ rays suggested a simple mass difference (Abdo et al. 2009a,c, Foschini 2011a, 2012a, Foschini et al. 2011a, 2013). The unification of relativistic jets provided further support for this point of this view (Foschini 2011b, 2012b,c, 2014). On the basis of what we have found in this survey, with more sources and data, we can confirm that, although RLNLS1s show some peculiar observational differences with respect to the other radio-loud AGN (the optical spectrum and the possible starburst activity), the physical characteristics inferred from the data (mass of the central black hole, Eddington ratio, spectrum, jet power) favour the hypothesis that RLNLS1s are the low-mass tail of AGN with jets. This is one more point favouring the Livio (1997) conjecture, according to which the jet engine is the same, but the observational features are different, depending on a number of variables, such as the mass of the central accreting body, the accretion flow, and the local environment.
In the case of RLNLS1s, the relatively smaller mass of the central black hole implies variability on very short timescales, much smaller than expected from Doppler boosting only, which is exactly what is seen when the observational coverage allows it. It is known that the power spectral densities of AGN show a break timescale, $t_{\rm b}$, separating long-term timescales from the shorter ones (McHardy et al. 2006). There are some relationships linking $t_{\rm b}$ with the mass of the central black hole, the bolometric luminosity, or the FWHM of the H$\beta$ (McHardy et al. 2006, González-Martín & Vaughan 2012). By taking as representative values the averages of the selected quantities, it is possible to estimate $t_{\rm b}$, which is expected to be around minutes to hours for RLNLS1s, and hours to a few days for blazars. Indeed, hour timescales at high energies are exceptional events for blazars (e.g., Foschini et al. 2011b,c), but are quite common for RLNLS1s as there are sufficient statistics to allow a meaningful detection (Table 10). As stated in Sect. 4.2, the claim of minute timescale X-ray variability requires further detailed study, but it is worth recalling the 2–3 minute timescale variability in the optical polarisation reported by Itoh et al. (2013).
We have observed not only flux variability, but also spectral changes, suggesting the interplay of jet and disk components (see the case of J0948+0022 in Sect. 7). At a first look, the SEDs suggest two different classes of RLNLS1s, depending on the slope of the optical/UV spectra. However, the spectral variability of some sources (e.g., J0849+5108, J0945+1915, J0948+0022, J1159+2838, J2007$-$4434) simply indicates that we are observing different states of activity of the same central engine. Indeed, the two “classes” do not show any difference in the mass, disk, and jet parameters.
The lower mass of the central black holes in RLNLS1s has an important implication: the observed jet luminosity is lower than that of quasars, but comparable to that of BL Lac objects. Therefore, one could wonder why the RLNLS1s are more difficult to discover than BL Lacs? The latter are generally more luminous at X-rays than RLNL1s because the synchrotron radiation peaks in the UV/X-rays (see Fig. \[fig:monochromo\], [*bottom panel*]{}), and indeed, BL Lac objects are more easily found in X-ray surveys (Padovani & Giommi 1995). At $\gamma$ rays, [*Fermi*]{}/LAT discovered many BL Lac objects because the instrumental characteristics of LAT favour hard sources at low fluxes: this made it easier to detect BL Lacs ($\alpha_{\rm \gamma}<1$), but not RLNLS1s ($\alpha_{\rm \gamma}>1$) (see Sect. 4.1). At radio frequencies, both RLNLS1s and BL Lac objects are weak (see Fig. \[fig:monochromo\], [*top panel*]{}). However, Giroletti et al. (2012) noted that BL Lacs have extended radio emission, which is almost missing in RLNLS1s (e.g,. Doi et al. 2012). One possible explanation, advanced by Doi et al. (2012), is that in the case of RLNLS1s, the jet has low kinetic power because of the small mass and because it has to propagate in a gas-rich environment, while in BL Lacs the jet power is slightly greater and develops in a more rarified medium. Another possibility is to invoke the young age of RLNLS1s (Mathur 2000, Mathur et al. 2012) and, indeed, many authors made the hypothesis of a link with GPS/CSS sources, which in turn are believed to be very young radio galaxies (Oshlack et al. 2001, Komossa et al. 2006a, Gallo et al. 2006, Yuan et al. 2008, Caccianiga et al. 2014). Yet another option has been proposed by Gu & Chen (2010): the jet activity could be intermittent, as observed in other Seyferts (e.g. Brunthaler et al. 2005, Mundell et al. 2009). Therefore, as the technological improvement of radio surveys allows better monitoring of these sources (e.g., Square Kilometer Array, SKA), the rate of detection should increase.
The intermittent jet should not be confused with the outburst/flare activity as observed in blazars. In the case of RLNLS1s, the periods of activity/inactivity might be separated by dramatic changes in flux. Indeed, in addition to the episodes of strong variability already described (see Sect. 7), we also note a couple of sources where the X-ray flux was three-to-four orders of magnitude smaller than the optical/UV emission (J0100$-$0200, J0706+3901). In other cases, although the SED displayed the double-humped shape typical of a domination of a relativistic jet, the lack of $\gamma$-ray detection (no new detection was reported to date) set very stringent constraints (e.g., J0814+5609, J1031+4234, J1421+2824, J1629+4007). This can be compared with the lowest-known state of the BL Lac object PKS 2155$-$304 ($z=0.116$) where the changes in the X-ray flux were of about an order of magnitude and there was a shift of the synchrotron peak at lower frequencies (Foschini et al. 2008). This indicates a jet with a continuous background of emitted radiation, with superimposed outbursts and flares, as new blobs are ejected. The more dramatic changes of three-to-four orders of magnitudes observed in RLNLS1s suggests that the central engine changes its level of activity significantly: not only the jet, but also the corona seems to be strongly reduced.
Czerny et al. (2009), supported by Wu (2009), proposed a radiative instability in the accretion disk to explain the intermittent activity in young radio sources. RLNLS1s have all accretion luminosities sufficiently high to be in the radiation-pressure dominated regime (Moderski & Sikora 1996, Ghosh & Abramowicz 1997; see Foschini 2011b for the application to RLNLS1s), where Czerny’s theory applies. The timescale of the active phase in the case of low-mass AGN, such as NLS1s, could be very small, of the order of tens-to-hundreds of years (Czerny et al. 2009). Therefore, the low kinetic power of the jet due to the small mass of the central black hole, the short periods of activity, and a frustrating nearby environment rich in interstellar gas and photons, are the sufficient ingredients to explain the lack of extended radio relics. As suggested by Doi et al. (2012), such structures might appear only in the sources with largest black hole masses, which in turn might be in the final stages of their cosmological evolution before changing into broad-line AGN.
Another possibility is the aborted jet model proposed by Ghisellini et al. (2004), which in turn could also explain the difference between radio-loud and radio-quiet AGN. In this case, the jet has insufficient power to escape from the central black hole and falls back. The spectral characteristics in the X-ray band could be an index generally steeper than usual for Seyferts (that is $\alpha_{\rm x}\sim 1$), large equivalent-width fluorescent iron lines, and a “steeper when brighter” behaviour of the light curves. J0324+3410 might be a good candidate, being also the only with a detected FeK$\alpha$ line. However, the X-ray flux and spectral index values (Online Material Table 5) do not reveal any significant trend. We note that high-flux periods have both harder and steeper indices. We can speculate that a jet might be sometimes aborted (“steeper when brighter”) or launched (“harder when brighter”). The rather obvious question is then what determines one or the other?
Conclusions
===========
We have presented a survey of 42 RLNLS1s observed from radio to $\gamma$ rays, the largest MW sample to date of this type of source. In addition to previously published data, we present here new analyses of data obtained with [*Swift*]{} and [*XMM–Newton*]{} specifically to address these sources. The main results of the analyses are:
- $\gamma$ rays: 7/42 sources (17%) were detected at high-energy $\gamma$ rays. The average spectral index is $\alpha_{\rm \gamma}\sim 1.6$, consistent with that of FSRQs. Intraday variability has been reported in three sources.
- X-rays: We detected 38/42 sources (90%), with an average spectral index $\alpha_{\rm x}\sim 1.0$ and median $0.8$. We also detected variability on timescales of hours in 6 sources.
- Intraday variability was observed also at ultraviolet/optical wavelengths in those few sources which were targets of MW campaigns. Dramatic changes both in fluxes and spectra were also observed when comparing observations on timescales of years. Infrared colours indicate that RLNLS1s are basically on the line expected from synchrotron emission, but with a significant spread towards the starburst region.
- We observed in some sources changes of the EVPA corresponding to $\gamma$ ray activity. We detected significant changes of radio flux density only in the VLBI-cores, suggesting that the emission of $\gamma$ rays should occur close to the central black hole.
- Comparison of monochromatic luminosities at 15 GHz, 203 nm, 1 keV, and 100 MeV with a sample of blazars (FSRQs, and BL Lac objects) suggest that RLNLS1s are the low-power tail of the quasar distribution.
- Some SEDs confirm the dramatic variability already apparent from the single band analysis. We modelled one case (J0948+0022) to show how the observed spectral variability can be interpreted as the interplay of the jet and accretion disk emission.
The radio coverage are still deficient, but some programs are ongoing (Richards et al. 2014, Angelakis et al. in preparation, Lähteenmäki et al. in preparation).
The main results calculated from the data are:
- The estimated masses of the central black holes ($10^{6-8}M_{\odot}$) and Eddington ratios (0.01–$0.49L_{\rm Edd}$) are in the range typical of NLS1s, with one outlier, J2007$-$4434, at $0.003L_{\rm Edd}$. The masses are smaller than those of blazars ($10^{8-10}M_{\odot}$), indicating that we are studying a new different regime of the mass-accretion parameter space.
- The calculated jet powers ($10^{42.6-45.6}$ erg s$^{-1}$) are generally lower than those of FSRQs and partially overlapping, but still slightly smaller than those of BL Lac objects. Once normalised by the mass of the central black holes, the jet powers of the three populations are consistent with each other, indicating the scalability of the jet.
The inferences that can be drawn from this study are that, despite the observational differences, the central engine of RLNLS1s is quite similar to that of blazars, as indicated by the scalability of the jet emission. The difficulties in finding this type of source might be due to the small observed power and an intermittent activity of the jet. Large monitoring programs with high-performance instruments (e.g., SKA) should allow us to greatly improve our understanding of these sources, which will lead to a better understanding of the more general issue of the physics of relativistic jets and how they are generated.
We would like to thank the members of the Fermi LAT Collaboration – David Thompson, Denis Bastieri, Jeremy Perkins, and Filippo D’Ammando – for a critical review of the manuscript.
Part of the Swift observations have been supported by the contract ASI-INAF I/004/11/0.
The Metsähovi team acknowledges the support from the Academy of Finland to our observing projects (numbers 212656, 210338, 121148, and others)
YYK and MML are partly supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project 13-02-12103). Y.Y.K. is also supported by the Dynasty Foundation.
BMP is supported by the NSF through grant AST-1008882.
This research has made use of data from the MOJAVE database that is maintained by the MOJAVE team (Lister et al. 2009, 2013). The MOJAVE program is supported under NASA Fermi grant NNX12AO87G. JLR acknowledges support from NASA through Fermi Guest Investigator grant NNX13AO79G.
This research has made use of data and/or software provided by the High Energy Astrophysics Science Archive Research Center (HEASARC), which is a service of the Astrophysics Science Division at NASA/GSFC and the High Energy Astrophysics Division of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.
This research has made use of the NASA/IPAC Extragalactic Database (NED) which is operated by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, under contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
This research has made use of the XRT Data Analysis Software (XRTDAS) developed under the responsibility of the ASI Science Data Center (ASDC), Italy.
Funding for SDSS-III has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science. The SDSS-III web site is http://www.sdss3.org/. SDSS-III is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions of the SDSS-III Collaboration including the University of Arizona, the Brazilian Participation Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory, Carnegie Mellon University, University of Florida, the French Participation Group, the German Participation Group, Harvard University, the Instituto de Astrofisica de Canarias, the Michigan State/Notre Dame/JINA Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics, Max Planck Institute for Extraterrestrial Physics, New Mexico State University, New York University, Ohio State University, Pennsylvania State University, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the Spanish Participation Group, University of Tokyo, University of Utah, Vanderbilt University, University of Virginia, University of Washington, and Yale University.
Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. (LAT Collaboration), 2009a, ApJ, 699, 976
Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. (LAT Collaboration), 2009b, ApJ, 707, 727
Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. (LAT Collaboration), 2009c, ApJ, 707, L142
Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., et al. (LAT Collaboration), 2009d, ApJ, 700, 597
Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., Agudo, I., et al. (LAT Collaboration), 2010, ApJ, 716, 30
Ackermann, M., Ajello, M., Allafort, A., et al. (LAT Collaboration), 2011, ApJ, 743, 171
Ahn, C. P., Alexandroff, R., Allende P. C., et al. (SDSS-III Collaboration), 2012, ApJS, 203, 21
Alberdi, A., Martì-Vidal, I., Marcaide, J. M., et al., 2013, EPJ Web of Conf, 61, 08002
Angelakis, E., Fuhrmann, L., Myserlis, I., et al., 2012a, in: Nuclei of Seyfert galaxies and QSOs - Central engine & conditions of star formation, Proceedings of Science (Trieste, Italy), vol. Seyfert2012, id. 58.
Angelakis, E., Fuhrmann, L., Nestoras, I., et al., 2012b, in: Fermi and Jansky: Our evolving understanding of AGN, [eConf C1111101, arXiv:1205.1961]{}
Atwood, W. B., Abdo, A. A., Ackermann, M., et al. (LAT Collaboration), 2009, ApJ, 697, 1071
Barthelmy, S. D., Barbier, L. M., Cummings, J. R., et al., 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 143
Baumgartner, W. H., Tueller, J., Markwardt, C. B., et al., 2013, ApJS, 207, 19
Beasley, A. J., Gordon, D., Peck, A. B., Petrov, L., MacMillan, D. S., Fomalont, E. B., & Ma, C., 2002, ApJS, 141, 13
Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Edwards, A. L., 1991, ApJS, 75, 1
Becker, R. H., White, R. L., & Helfand, D. J., 1995, ApJ, 450, 559
Bentz, M., Denney, K. D., Grier, C. J., et al., 2013, ApJ, 767, 149
Bhattacharyya, S., Bhatt, H., Bhatt, N., & Singh, K. K., 2014, MNRAS, 440, 106
Bianchi, S., Maiolino, R., Risaliti, G., 2012, Advances in Astronomy, 2012, 782030
Boroson, T. A., 2002, ApJ, 565, 78
Botte, V., Ciroi, S., Rafanelli, P., & Di Mille, F., 2004, AJ, 127, 3168
Brunthaler, A., Falcke, H., Bower, G. C., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., & Teräsranta, H., 2005, A&A, 435, 497
Burrows, D. N., Hill, J. E., Nousek, J. A., et al., 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 165
Caccianiga, A., Antón, S., Ballo, L., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 441, 172
Cardelli, J. A., Clayton, G. C., Mathis, J. S., 1989, ApJ, 345, 245
Cash, W., 1979, ApJ, 228, 939
Condon, J. J., Cotton, W. D., Greisen, E. W., et al., 1998, AJ, 115, 1693
Constantin, A., & Shields, J. C., 2003, PASP, 115, 592
Collin, S., Kawaguchi, T., Peterson, B. M., Vestergaard, M., 2006, A&A, 456, 75
Cusumano, G., La Parola, V., Segreto, A., et al., 2010, A&A, 524, 64
Cutri, R. M., Skrutskie, M. F., van Dyk, S., et al., 2003, 2MASS All Sky Catalog of point sources, NASA/IPAC Infrared Science Archive.
Czerny, B., Siemiginowska, A., Janiuk, A., Nikiel-Wroczynski, B., Stawarz, L., 2009, ApJ, 698, 840
D’Abrusco, R., Massaro, F., Ajello, M., et al., 2012, ApJ, 748, 68
D’Ammando, F., Orienti, M., Finke, J., et al. (LAT Collaboration), 2012, MNRAS, 426, 317 D’Ammando, F., Orienti, M., Doi, A., et al. (LAT Collaboration), 2013a, MNRAS, 433, 952 D’Ammando, F., Orienti, M., Finke, J., et al. (LAT Collaboration), 2013b, MNRAS, 436, 191 D’Ammando, F., Orienti, M., et al. (LAT Collaboration), 2013c, ATel 4694 D’Ammando, F., Tosti, G., Orienti, M., et al. (LAT Collaboration), 2013d, in: IV Fermi Symposium, Monterey, CA, USA, 28 Oct - 2 Nov 2012, eConf C121028 D’Ammando, F., Larsson, J., Orienti, M., et al. (LAT Collaboration), 2014, MNRAS, 438, 3521
Doi, A., Nagai, H., Asada, K., et al., 2006, PASJ, 58, 829 Doi, A., Fujisawa, K., Inoue, M., et al., 2007, PASJ, 59, 703 Doi, A., Asada, K., & Nagai, H., 2011, ApJ, 738, 126 Doi, A., Nagira, H., Kawakatu, N., et al., 2012, ApJ, 760, 41 Doi, A., Asada, K., Fujisawa, K., et al., 2013, ApJ, 765, 69
Eggen, J. R., Miller, H. R., & Maune, J. D., 2013, ATel 5007
Evans, P. A., Osborne, J. P., Beardmore, A. P., et al., 2014, ApJS, 210, 8
Falcone, A. D., Bond, I. H., Boyle, P. J., et al., 2004, ApJ, 613, 710
Fomalont, E., Petrov, L., McMillan, D. S., Gordon, D., & Ma, C., 2003, AJ, 126, 2562
Foschini, L., 2011a, in: Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies and Their Place in the Universe, eds L. Foschini, M. Colpi, L. Gallo, D. Grupe, S. Komossa, K. Leighly, & S. Mathur. Proceedings of Science (Trieste, Italy), vol. NLS1, id. 24.
Foschini, L., 2011b, Res. Astron. Astrophys., 11, 1266
Foschini, L., 2012a, in: Nuclei of Seyfert galaxies and QSOs - Central engine & conditions of star formation, Proceedings of Science (Trieste, Italy), vol. Seyfert2012, id. 10.
Foschini, L., 2012b, in: High-Energy Phenomena in Relativistic Outflows (HEPRO III), eds J. M. Paredes, M. Ribò, F. A. Aharonian & G. E. Romero, IJMP Conf. Series, 8, 172.
Foschini, L., 2012c, in: High-Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy: 5th International Meeting on High Energy Gamma-Ray Astronomy, eds F. A. Aharonian, W. Hofmann & F. M. Rieger, AIP Conf. Proc., 1505, 574.
Foschini, L., 2014, in: High-Energy Phenomena in Relativistic Outflows (HEPRO IV), eds F. A. Aharonian, F. M. Rieger, J. M. Paredes, & G. E. Romero, IJMP Conf. Series, 28, 1460188
Foschini, L., Braito, V., Palumbo, G. G. C., et al., 2004, A&A, 428, 51
Foschini, L., Ghisellini, G., Raiteri, C. M., et al., 2006, A&A, 453, 829
Foschini, L., Treves, A., Tavecchio, F., et al., 2008, A&A, 484, L35
Foschini, L., Maraschi, L., Tavecchio, F., et al., 2009, Adv. Space Res., 43, 889
Foschini, L., et al. (LAT Collaboration), 2010, in: Accretion and Ejection in AGNs: A Global View, L. Maraschi, G. Ghisellini, R. Della Ceca, and F. Tavecchio, eds., ASP Conference Series (San Francisco, CA, USA), Vol. 427, p. 243
Foschini, L., Ghisellini, G., Kovalev, Y. Y., et al., 2011a, MNRAS, 413, 1671 Foschini, L., Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Bonnoli, G., Stamerra, A., 2011b, A&A, 530, A77 Foschini, L., Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Bonnoli, G., Stamerra, A., 2011c, in: III Fermi Symposium, Roma, May 9-12, 2011, eConf C110509
Foschini, L., Angelakis, E., Fuhrmann, L., et al., 2012, A&A, 548, A106
Foschini, L., Angelakis, E., Bonnoli, G., et al., 2013, Mem. S.A.It., 84, 731
Fuhrmann, L., Angelakis, E., Nestoras, I., et al., 2011, in: Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies and Their Place in the Universe, eds L. Foschini, M. Colpi, L. Gallo, D. Grupe, S. Komossa, K. Leighly, & S. Mathur. Proceedings of Science (Trieste, Italy), vol. NLS1, id. 26.
Gallo, L. C., Edwards, P. G., Ferrero, E., Kataoka, J., Lewis, D. R., Ellingsen, S. P., Misanovic, Z., Welsh, W. F., Whiting, M., Boller, Th., Brinkmann, W., Greenhill, J., & Oshlack, A., 2006, MNRAS, 370, 245
Ganguly, R., Brotherton, M. S., Arav, N., et al., 2007, AJ, 133, 479
Gehrels, N., Chincarini, G., Giommi, P., et al., 2004, ApJ, 611, 1005
Ghirlanda, G., Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., & Foschini, L., 2010, MNRAS, 407, 791
Ghisellini, G., Haardt, F., & Matt, G., 2004, A&A, 413, 535
Ghisellini, G., & Tavecchio, F., 2009, MNRAS, 397, 985
Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., & Ghirlanda, G., 2009, MNRAS, 399, 2041 Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Foschini, L., Ghirlanda, G., Maraschi, L., & Celotti, A., 2010, MNRAS, 402, 497 Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Foschini, L., & Ghirlanda, G., 2011, MNRAS, 414, 2674
Ghosh, P., & Abramowicz, M. A., 1997, MNRAS, 292, 887
Giommi, P., Padovani, P., Polenta, G., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 420, 2899
Giroletti, M., & Panessa, F., 2009, ApJ, 706, L260 Giroletti, M., Paragi, Z., Bignall, H., et al., 2011, A&A, 528, L11 Giroletti, M., Pavlidou, V., Reimer, A., et al., 2012, Adv Space Res, 49, 1320
González-Martín, O., & Vaughan, S., 2012, A&A, 544, A80
Goodrich, R. W., 1989, ApJ, 342, 224
Grandi, P., & Palumbo, G. G. C., 2004, Science, 306, 998
Greene, J. E. & Ho, L. C., 2005, ApJ, 627, 721
Greene, J. E., Hood, C. E., Barth, A. J., et al., 2010, ApJ, 723, 409
Gregory, P. C., & Condon, J. J., 1991, ApJS, 75, 1011
Grupe, D., 2000, New Astron. Rev., 44, 455 Grupe, D., Leighly, K. M., Thomas, H.-C., & Laurent-Muehleisen, S. A., 2000, A&A, 356, 11 Grupe, D., Komossa, S., Leighly, K. M., Page, K. L., 2010, ApJS, 187, 64
Gu, M., & Chen, Y., 2010, AJ, 139, 2612
Guainazzi, M. on behalf of the EPIC Consortium, 2013, EPIC Status of Calibration and Data Analysis, XMM–Newton Calibration Technical Note n. 18, v. 3.3
Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al., 2001, A&A, 365, L1
Jiang, N., Zhou, H.-Y., Ho, L. C., et al., 2012, ApJ, 759, L31
Heinz, S., & Sunyaev, R. A., 2003, MNRAS, 343, L59
Helmboldt, J. F., Taylor, G. B., Tremblay, S., et al., 2007, ApJ, 658, 203
Ho, L. C., 2009, ApJ, 699, 638
Högbom, J. A., 1974, A&AS, 15, 417
Hovatta, T., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., et al., 2014, AJ, 147, 143
Hwang, H. S., Serjeant, S., Lee, M. G., Lee, K. H., White, G. J., 2007, MNRAS, 375, 115
Itoh, R., Tanaka, Y. T., Fukazawa, Y., et al., 2013, ApJ, 775, L26
Kalberla, P. M. W., Burton, W. B., Hartmann, Dap, Arnal, E. M., Bajaja, E., Morras, R., & Pöppel, W. G. L., 2005, A&A, 440, 775
Kinney, A. L., Calzetti, D., Bohlin, R. C., McQuade, K., Storchi-Bergmann, T., Schmitt, H. R., 1996, ApJ, 467, 38
Komatsu, E., et al., 2011, ApJS 192, 18
Komossa, S., Voges, W., Xu, D., et al., 2006a, AJ, 132, 531
Komossa, S., Voges, W., Adorf, H.-M., Xu, D., Mathur, S., & Anderson, S. F., 2006b, ApJ, 639, 710
Kovačević, J., Popović, L. Č. Dimitrijević, M. S., 2010, ApJS, 189, 15
Kovalev, Yu. Y., Petrov, L., Fomalont, E., & Gordon, D., 2007, AJ, 133, 1236
Leighly, K. M., 1999, ApJS, 125, 317
Letawe, G., Magain, P., Courbin, F., et al., 2007, MNRAS, 378, 83
Lister, M. L., Aller, H. D., Aller, M. F., et al., 2009, AJ, 137, 3718
Lister, M. L., Aller, M. F., Aller, H. D., et al., 2013, AJ, 146, 120
Livio, M., 1997, in: Accretion Phenomena and Related Outflows, IAU Colloquium 163, eds D. T. Wickramasinghe, L. Ferrario, & G. V. Bicknell, ASP Conf. Series, 121, 845
Liu, H., Wang, J., Mao, Y., & Wei, J., 2010, ApJ, 710, L113
Maraschi, L., Foschini, L., Ghisellini, G., Tavecchio, F., Sambruna, R. M., 2008, MNRAS, 391, 1981
Markowitz, A., Edelson, R., & Vaughan, S., 2003, ApJ, 598, 935
Massaro, F., D’Abrusco, R., Ajello, M., Grindaly, J. E., Smith, H. A., 2011, ApJ, 740, L48
Massaro, E., Giommi, P., Leto, C., Marchegiani, P., Maselli, A., Perri, M., & Piranomonte, S., 2012, The Roma BZCAT Multi-frequency Catalogue of Blazars, Edition 4.1.1, (Roma, Italy; Aracne)
Mateos, S., Alonso-Herrero, A., Carrera, F. J., et al., 2012, MNRAS, 426, 3271
Mateos, S., Alonso-Herrero, A., Carrera, F. J., Blain, A., Severgnini, P., Caccianiga, A., Ruiz, A., 2013, MNRAS, 434, 941
Mathur, S., 2000, MNRAS, 314, L17
Mathur, S., Fields, D., Peterson, B. M., & Grupe, D., 2012, ApJ, 754, 146
Mattox, J. R., Bertsch, D. L., Chiang, J., et al., 1996, ApJ, 461, 396
Maune, J. D., Miller, H. R., & Eggen, J. R., 2013, ApJ, 762, 124
McHardy, I. M., Koerding, E., Knigge, C., Uttley, P., & Fender, R. P., 2006, Nature, 444, 730
Moderski, R., & Sikora, M., 1996, MNRAS, 283, 854
Monet, D. G., Levine, S. E., Canzian, B., et al., 2003, AJ, 125, 984
Moran, E. C., 2000, New Astron. Rev., 44, 527
Mundell, C. G., Ferruit, P., Nagar, N., & Wilson, A. S., 2009, ApJ, 703, 802
Nieppola, E., Tornikoski, M., Lähteenmäki, A., et al., 2007, AJ, 133, 1947
Orienti, M., D’Ammando, F., Giroletti, M., on behalf of the Fermi LAT Collaboration, 2012, in: Fermi and Jansky: Our evolving understanding of AGN, [eConf C1111101, arXiv:1205.0402]{}
Oshlack, A. Y. K. N., Webster, R. L.; Whiting, M. T., 2001, ApJ, 558, 578
Osterbrock, D. E., & Pogge, R. W., 1985, ApJ, 297, 166
Padovani, P., & Giommi, P., 1995, ApJ, 444, 567
Padovani, P., Costamante, L., Ghisellini, G., Giommi, P., Perlman, E., 2002, ApJ, 581, 895
Paliya, V. S., Stalin, C. S., Kumar, B., et al., 2013a, MNRAS, 428, 2450
Paliya, V. S., Stalin, C. S. Shukla, A., & Sahayanathan, S., 2013b, ApJ, 768, 52
Paliya, V. S., Sahayanathan, S., Parker, M. L., et al., 2014, ApJ, 789, 143
Paragi, Z., Shen, Z. Q., de Gasperin, F., et al., 2013, in: 11th European VLBI Network Symposium & Users Meeting, October 9-12, 2012, Bordeaux, France. Proceedings of Science (Trieste, Italy), vol. 11th EVN Symposium, id. 8.
Patnaik, A. L., Browne, I. W. A., Wilkinson, P. N., Wrobel, J. M., 1992, MNRAS, 254, 655
Peterson, B. M., 2011, in: Narrow-Line Seyfert 1 Galaxies and Their Place in the Universe, eds L. Foschini, M. Colpi, L. Gallo, D. Grupe, S. Komossa, K. Leighly, & S. Mathur. Proceedings of Science (Trieste, Italy), vol. NLS1, id. 32.
Peterson, B. M., Ferrarese, L., Gilbert, K. M., et al., 2004, ApJ, 613, 682
Petrov, L., Kovalev, Yu. Y., Fomalont, E., & Gordon, D., 2005, AJ, 129, 1163 Petrov, L., Kovalev, Yu. Y., Fomalont, E., & Gordon, D., 2006, AJ, 131, 1872 Petrov, L., Kovalev, Yu. Y., Fomalont, E., & Gordon, D., 2008, AJ, 136, 580
Pian, E. & Treves, A., 1993, ApJ, 416, 130
Pian, E., Falomo, R., & Treves, A., 2005, MNRAS, 361, 919
Piner, B. G., Pushkarev, A. B., Kovalev, Y. Y., et al., 2012, ApJ, 758, 84
Protassov, R., van Dyk, D. A., Connors, A., Kashyap, V. L., Siemiginowska, A., 2002, ApJ, 571, 545
Ptak, A., & Griffiths, R., 2003, in: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems XII, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 295, eds H. E. Payne, R. I. Jedrzejewski, & R. N. Hook, p. 465
Pushkarev, A. B. & Kovalev, Y. Y., 2012, A&A, 544, A34
Raiteri, C. M., Villata, M., Carnerero, M. I., et al., 2014, MNRAS, 442, 629
Reeves, J. N., Turner, M. J. L., Ohashi, T., & Kii, T., 1997, MNRAS, 292, 468
Remillard, R. A., Bradt, H. V., Buckley, D. A. H., et al., 1986, ApJ, 301, 742
Richards, J. L., Lister, M. L., Foschini, L., et al., 2014, American Astronomical Society, AAS Meeting \#223, \#251.01
Romano, P., Cusumano, G., Campana, S., et al., 2005, in: UV, X-Ray, and Gamma-Ray Space Instrumentation for Astronomy XIV, ed O. H. W. Siegmund, Proc. SPIE, 5898, 369
Roming, P. W. A., Kennedy, T E., Mason, K. O., et al., 2005, Space Sci. Rev., 120, 95
Sani, E., Lutz, D., Risaliti, G., et al., 2010, MNRAS, 403, 1246
Shapovalova, A. I., Popović, L. Č., Burenkov, A. N., Chavushyan, V. H., Ilić, D., Kovačević, A., Kollatschny, W., et al. 2012, ApJS, 202, 10
Shen, Y., Greene, J. E., Strauss, M. A., Richards, G. T., Schneider, D. P., 2008, ApJ, 680, 169
Shepherd, M. C., 1997, in: Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems VI, eds G. Hunt & H. E. Payne, ASP Conf. Ser. 125, (San Francisco: ASP), 77
Saxton, R. D., Read, A. M., Esquej, P., et al., 2008, A&A, 480, 611
Strüder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al., 2001, A&A, 365, L18
Tavecchio, F., Ghisellini, G., Ghirlanda, G., Foschini, L., & Maraschi, L., 2010, MNRAS, 401, 1570
Tibolla, O., Kaufmann, S., Foschini, L., et al., 2013, in: ICRC 2013 The astroparticle physics conference, July 2-9, 2013, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, [arXiv:1306.4017]{}
Tornikoski, M., Lainela, M., & Valtaoja, E., 2000, AJ, 120, 2278
Turner, M. J. L., Abbey, A., Arnaud, M., et al., 2001, A&A, 365, L27
Ulvestad, J. S., Antonucci, R. R. J., & Goodrich, R. W., 1995, AJ, 109, 81
Vanden Berk, D. E., Richards, G. T., Bauer, A., et al., 2001, AJ, 122, 549
Voges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, Th., et al., 1999, A&A, 349, 389 Voges, W., Aschenbach, B., Boller, Th., et al., 2000, IAU Circ, 7432, 1
Wang, T. G., Matsuoka, M., Kubo, H., Mihara, T., & Negoro, H., 2001, ApJ, 554, 233
Whalen, D. J., Laurent-Muehleisen, S. A., Moran, E. C., & Becker, R. H., 2006, AJ, 131, 1948
Williams, R. J., Pogge, R. W., & Mathur, S., 2002, AJ, 124, 30429
Wright, E. L., Eisenhardt, P. R., Mainzer, A. K., et al., 2010, AJ, 140, 1868
Wu, Q., 2009, ApJ, 701, L95
Yuan, W., Zhou, H. Y., Komossa, S., Dong, X. B., Wang, T. G., Lu, H. L., & Bai, J. M., 2008, ApJ, 685, 801
Zhou, H., & Wang, T., 2002, Ch. J. A&A, 2, 501 Zhou, H., Wang, T., Dong, X., Zhou, Y., & Li, C., 2003, ApJ, 584, 147 Zhou, H., Wang, T., Dong, X., Li, C., & Zhang, X., 2005, Ch. J. A&A, 5, 41 Zhou, H., Wang, T., Yuan, W., et al., 2006, ApJS, 166, 128 Zhou, H., Wang, T., Yuan, W., Shan, H., Komossa, S., Lu, H., Liu, Y., Xu, D., Bai, J. M., & Jiang, D. R., 2007, ApJ, 658, L13
[^1]: http://www.asdc.asi.it/
[^2]: http://servo.aob.rs/$\sim$jelena/
[^3]: http://www.physics.purdue.edu/MOJAVE/
[^4]: http://astrogeo.org
[^5]: http://www.slac.stanford.edu/exp/glast/groups/canda/lat\_Performance.htm
[^6]: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Tools/w3pimms.html
[^7]: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/
[^8]: http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/
[^9]: This source is not in the present sample because it has a steep radio spectral index. It is included in the sample studied by Berton et al. (in preparation).
[^10]: Electrons and magnetic field only.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We have investigated magnetic field generation in velocity shears via the kinetic Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (kKHI) using a relativistic plasma jet core and stationary plasma sheath. Our three-dimensional particle-in-cell simulations consider plasma jet cores with Lorentz factors of 1.5, 5, and 15 for both electron-proton and electron-positron plasmas. For electron-proton plasmas we find generation of strong large-scale DC currents and magnetic fields which extend over the entire shear-surface and reach thicknesses of a few tens of electron skin depths. For electron-positron plasmas we find generation of alternating currents and magnetic fields. Jet and sheath plasmas are accelerated across the shear surface in the strong magnetic fields generated by the kKHI. The mixing of jet and sheath plasmas generates transverse structure similar to that produced by the Weibel instability.'
author:
- |
K.-I. Nishikawa, P.E. Hardee, I. Duţan, J. Niemiec, M. Medvedev, Y. Mizuno,\
A. Meli, H. Sol, B. Zhang, M. Pohl, D. H. Hartmann
title: |
Magnetic Field Generation in Core-Sheath Jets\
via the Kinetic Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability
---
=1
Introduction
============
Relativistic jets are ubiquitous in astrophysical systems such as Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN), gamma-ray bursts (GRBs), and pulsars. Outflows interact with the ambient medium to produce relativistic shocks where particles are accelerated and radiate in the shock magnetic fields. These shocks are collisionless and on the microscopic level are the result of beam-plasma instabilities: either electrostatic (e.g., two-stream or Buneman modes), quasi-electrostatic (e.g., Bret et al. 2010), or electromagnetic (e.g., filamentation). Numerous particle-in-cell (PIC) simulations have been performed to investigate the microphysics of jet-driven collisionless relativistic shocks. The simulations demonstrate that in shocks propagating in unmagnetized or weakly magnetized plasmas Weibel-type instabilities produce current filaments and associated magnetic fields which lead to particle acceleration and emission (e.g., Weibel 1959; Medvedev & Loeb 1999; Frederiksen et al. 2004; Nishikawa et al. 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2009; Hededal et al. 2004; Hededal & Nishikawa 2005; Silva et al. 2003; Jaroschek et al. 2005; Chang et al. 2008; Dieckmann et al. 2008; Spitkovsky 2008a, 2008b; Martins et al. 2009, Sironi & Spitkovsky 2009a; Haugbo lle 2011; Sironi, Spitokovsky, & Arons 2013).
In addition to producing shocks, outflow interaction with an ambient medium includes velocity shears. In particular, the Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (KHI) has been investigated on the macroscopic level as a mean to generate magnetic fields in the presence of strong relativistic velocity shears in AGN and GRB jets (e.g., D’Angelo 1965; Gruzinov 2008; Mizuno et al. 2007; Perucho & Lobanov 2008; Zhang et al. 2009). Recently PIC simulations have been employed to study magnetic field generation and particle acceleration in velocity shears at the microscopic level using counter-streaming setups. [Here the shear interactions are associated with the kinetic Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (kKHI), also referred to as the electron-scale Kelvin-Helmholtz instability (ESKHI), e.g., Alves et al. 2012; Alves et al. 2014; Grismayer et al. 2013a,b; Liang et al. 2013a,b). ]{}
Alves et al. (2012) found that alternating, hereafter AC, current and magnetic field modulations found in the non-relativistic regime are less noticeable in the relativistic regime because they are masked by strong and relatively steady, hereafter DC, current and associated magnetic field. As the amplitude of the kKHI modulations grows the electrons from one flow cross the shear-surface and enter the counter-streaming flow. In their simulations the protons being heavier ($m_{\rm p}/m_{\rm e} = 1836$) are unperturbed. DC current sheets, which point in the direction of the proton velocity, form around the shear-surface. These DC current sheets induce a DC component in the magnetic field. The DC magnetic field is dominant in the relativistic scenario because a higher DC current is set up by the slowing of electrons relative to the protons and also, because the growth rate of the AC dynamics is lowered by $\gamma_{\rm 0}^{3/2}$ compared to a non-relativistic case. It is important to note here, that this DC magnetic field is not captured in MHD (e.g., Zhang et al. 2009) or fluid theories, because it results from intrinsically kinetic phenomena (currents not captured in single fluid MHD). Furthermore, since the DC field is stronger than the AC field, a kinetic treatment is clearly required in order to fully capture the generated field structure (Alves et al. 2012). [The generated field structure is important because it may lead to a distinct radiation signature (e.g., Medvedev 2000; Sironi & Spitkovsky 2009b; Martins et al. 2009; Frederiksen et al. 2010; Medvedev et al. 2011; Nishikawa et al. 2011, 2012).]{}
[Grismayer et al. (2013a,b) have shown that the generation of DC magnetic fields in unmagnetized electron-ion shear flows is associated to either initial thermal effects (warm shear flow) or the onset of cold shear flow electron-scale shear instabilities, in particular the cold kinetic Kelvin-Helmholtz instability. They have developed a kinetic model which predicts the growth and saturation of the DC field in both scenarios. Their multidimensional PIC simulations for an initial sharp shear confirmed their theoretical results and demonstrated the formation of long-lived magnetic fields that persist up to ion timescales (t $\sim$ 100’s $\omega_{\rm pi}^{-1}$) along the full longitudinal extent of the shear layer, with a typical thickness of $\sqrt{\gamma_{0}}c/\omega_{\rm pe}$, reaching a saturation strength $B_{\rm dc} \sim \sqrt{\gamma_{0}}v_{\rm 0}m_{\rm e}\omega_{\rm pe}/e$ that is set when the Larmor radius becomes comparable to the shear layer thickness (here $\omega_{\rm pe} \equiv (4 \pi n_0e^2/m_{\rm e})^{1/2}$). For smooth shear gradients the value of $B_{\rm dc}$ scales inversely with the initial shear gradient length scale while the layer thickness grows proportionally. Their results make it clear that the generated DC magnetic field will become dynamically important to development of the kKHI on ion time scales.]{}
Liang et al. (2013a,b) have studied the kinetic physics of relativistic shear flows using electron-positron ($e^{\pm}$) plasmas. They have found efficient magnetic field generation and particle energization at the shear boundary, driven by streaming instabilities across the shear interface and sustained by the shear flow. Nonthermal, anisotropic high-energy particles are accelerated across field lines to produce a power-law tail, turning over just below the shear Lorentz factor. Additionally, Liang et al. (2013b) studied relativistic shear flows for hybrid positron-electron-ion ($e^{\pm}$- $i^{+}$) plasmas and compared the results to those for pure $e^{\pm}$ and pure electron-ion ($e^{-}$- $i^{+}$) plasmas. They have shown that kKHI in two different two-dimensional ($P$- and $T$- modes) simulations grows differently. Since they performed simulations using a two-dimensional system ($P$- mode), the transverse mode perpendicular to the counter-streaming plasmas is not included in their simulations. Among the three plasma types of relativistic shear flow, they have found that only the hybrid ($e^{\pm}$- $i^{+}$) plasma shear flow is able to energize the electrons to form a high-energy spectral peak plus a hard power law tail.
[Alves et al. (2014) have extended the theoretical analysis and the simulations of the ESKHI to electron-ion plasmas with various density ratios across the shear surface, with a velocity shear gradient across the shear surface, and to warm as well as cold shear flows. For counter-streaming flows they find that unequal densities lead to “drift when the density symmetry is broken", the most rapid growth occurs for equal densities, that a velocity shear gradient slows the growth rate and, as in Grismayer el al. (2013a,b), they find a persistent equipartition DC saturation magnetic field that “persists longer than the proton time-scale". A saturation electric field with $E_{\rm sat} \sim \sqrt{\gamma_0} c m_e \omega_{\rm pe}/e$ (here $\omega_{\rm pe} \equiv \sqrt{n_{\rm e} e^2/ \epsilon_0m_{\rm e}}$) results in a maximum electron energy gain of $\Delta \mathcal{E}_{\max} \sim E_{\rm sat}c/(k_{\max}\Delta v) \propto \gamma_0^4 m_{\rm e} c^2$ where $\Delta v = v_{\rm e} - v_0$ is the difference between the accelerated electron speed and the flow speed and $1/k_{\max} = \sqrt{8/3} \gamma_0^{3/2}c/\omega_{\rm pe}$.]{}
We have performed three-dimensional PIC simulations to investigate the [cold kKHI]{} using a relativistic jet core and stationary sheath plasma with electron-proton ($e^{-}$- $p^{+}$ with $m_{\rm p}/m_{\rm e} = 1836$) and electron-positron ($e^{\pm}$) compositions. We have compared the different plasma cases for three values of the jet core Lorentz factor: 1.5, 5, and 15. Our more physically realistic jet and stationary sheath setup allows for relativistic motions and provides a proper observer frame view of the shear layer structures. In Section 2 the simulation setup and illustrative results are described and a theoretical analysis of the longitudinal kKHI dispersion relation is presented and compared with the simulations. The non-linear structure of electromagnetic fields and currents are discussed in Section 3. In Section 4 the detailed dynamics of the particle mixing at the velocity shear surface is described. The results are summarized in Section 5, and their applications to AGN and GRBs are briefly discussed.
kKHI Simulation and Theory
==========================
Core-Sheath Jet Setup
---------------------
[In this simulation study we use a core-sheath plasma jet structure instead of the counter-streaming plasma setups used in previous simulations by Alves et al. (2012), Alves et al. (2014), Grismeyer et al. (2013a,b) and Liang et al. (2013a,b).]{} The basic setup and illustrative results are shown in Figure \[setup\]. In our setup a jet core with velocity $v_{\rm core}$ in the positive $x$ direction resides in the middle of the computational box. The upper and lower quarters of the numerical grid contain a sheath plasma that can be stationary or moving with velocity $v_{\rm sheath}$ in the positive $x$ direction (Nishikawa et al. 2013a,b).
This model is similar to the setup in our RMHD simulations (Mizuno et al. 2007) that used a cylindrical jet core. However, here we represent the jet core and sheath as plasma slabs. Initially, the system is charge and current neutral. The simulations have been performed using a numerical grid with $(L_{\rm x}, L_{\rm y}, L_{\rm z}) = (1005\Delta, 205\Delta, 205\Delta)$ (simulation cell size: $\Delta = 1$) and periodic boundary conditions in all dimensions. The jet and sheath (electron) plasma number density measured in the simulation frame is $n_{\rm jt}= n_{\rm am} = 8$. The electron skin depth, $\lambda_{\rm s} = c/\omega_{\rm pe} = 12.2\Delta$, where $\omega_{\rm pe} = (e^{2}n_{\rm am}/\epsilon_0 m_{\rm e})^{1/2}$ is the electron plasma frequency and the electron Debye length for the ambient electrons $\lambda_{\rm D}$ is $1.2\Delta$. The jet-electron thermal velocity is $v_{\rm jt,th,e} = 0.014c$ in the jet reference frame, where $c$ is the speed of light. The electron thermal velocity in the ambient plasma is $v_{\rm am,th,e} = 0.03c$, and ion thermal velocities are smaller by $(m_{\rm i}/m_{\rm e})^{1/2}$. Simulations were performed using an electron-positron ($e^{\pm}$) plasma or an electron-proton ($e^{-}$- $p^{+}$ with $m_{\rm p}/m_{\rm e} = 1836$) plasma for jet Lorentz factors of 1.5, 5.0, and 15.0 with the sheath plasma at rest ($v_{\rm sheath}= 0$).
An illustration of the development of the velocity shear surfaces is also shown in Figure \[setup\] for $e^{-}$- $p^{+}$ and $e^{\pm}$ plasmas with $v_{\rm core} = 0.9978c ~(\gamma_{\rm core}=15)$. For the $e^{-}$- $p^{+}$ case, a nearly DC magnetic field is generated at the shear-surfaces. The $B_{\rm y}$ magnetic field component is generated with negative values (blue) at $z=150\Delta$ and positive values (red) at $z = 50\Delta$. Additionally, a $B_{\rm z}$ (and $B_{\rm x}$) magnetic field component, shown by the small arrows in Figure \[setup\](b,c), is generated at the shear surfaces by current filaments (see Section 3). On the other hand, for the $e^{\pm}$ case a relatively long wavelength ($\sim 100\Delta$) AC magnetic field is generated at the shear surfaces. Note the alternating $B_{\rm y}>0$ (red) and $B_{\rm y}<0$ (blue) in Figure \[setup\]c along the flow direction. These results are similar to those found by Liang et al. (2013a,b). However, due to the two-dimensional nature of their simulations and a counter-streaming setup, there are some differences in the structure.
A Longitudinal kKHI Dispersion Relation
---------------------------------------
[We consider a sharp velocity shear surface at $z = 0$ with “jet" plasma at $z > 0$ and “ambient" plasma at $z < 0$ with flow in jet and/or ambient plasma in the $x$ direction. Here the $y$-direction is infinite. Following Gruzinov (2008), Alves et al. (2012), Alves et al. (2014) and Grismayer et al. (2013b)]{} we assume uniform initial conditions on either side of the velocity shear surface, infinitely massive ions, and perturbations to the initial conditions of the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
n(x,z,t) & = & n_0(z) + n_1(x,z,t) \\
\nonumber
{\bf v}(x,z,t) & = & v_{\rm x0}(z) + {\bf v}_1(x,z,t)\\
\eqnum{1}
{\bf E}(x,z,t) & = & E_{\rm x1}(x,z,t) + E_{\rm z1}(x,z,t)\\
\nonumber
{\bf B}(x,z,t) & = & B_{\rm y1}(x,z,t)\\
\nonumber
{\bf J}(x,z,t) & = & J_{\rm x1}(x,z,t) + J_{\rm z1}(x,z,t)\end{aligned}$$ We extend their results to a non-counter-streaming setup. Here we make the assumption that $v_{\rm x0} > 0$ is constant over the domain $z >0$ but can take any constant positive or negative value $v_{\rm x0} \gtrless 0$ over the domain $z<0$. With these assumptions we look at density, velocity, current and electric field perturbations along the flow, $x$ axis, that are also a function of the normal, $z$ axis, to the velocity shear surface. The magnetic field perturbations are transverse to the flow, $y$ axis, and parallel to the shear surface. It is assumed that perturbations are of the form $$f_1(x,z,t) = f_1(z) e^{i(kx-\omega t)}~,$$ and the wavevector ${\bf k} \equiv k_{\rm x}$ is parallel to the flow direction. Thus we are considering a velocity shear surface that is infinite transverse to the flow direction and perturbations are independent of $y$, i.e., $k_{\rm y} = 0$.
Derivation of the dispersion relation proceeds as in Alves et al. (2014) and the dispersion relation can be written in the following form[[^1]]{} : $$\begin{aligned}
-\left[ k^2 + \omega^2_{\rm p+}/c^2 - \omega^2/c^2 \right]^{1/2} \left[ {\omega_{\rm p+}^2/\gamma_{+}^2 \over (\omega - kv_{+})^2} - 1 \right] \left[ \left( {\omega_{\rm p+}^2 - \omega_{\rm p-}^2 \over c^2} \right)
+ \left({\omega^2 \over c^2} - k^2 - {\omega_{\rm p+}^2 \over c^2}\right) \right]~~~~~\\
\eqnum{3}
+\left[ k^2 + \omega^2_{\rm p-}/c^2 - \omega^2/c^2 \right]^{1/2} \left[ {\omega_{\rm p-}^2/\gamma_{-}^2 \over (\omega - kv_{-})^2} - 1 \right] \left[ \left( {\omega_{\rm p+}^2 - \omega_{\rm p-}^2 \over c^2} \right)
- \left({\omega^2 \over c^2} - k^2 - {\omega_{\rm p-}^2 \over c^2}\right) \right] = 0 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ with velocities $v_{\pm}$, associated Lorentz factors $\gamma_{\pm}$, and plasma frequencies $
\omega_{\rm p\pm}^2 \equiv {4 \pi n_{\pm}e^2 / \gamma_{\pm} m_{\rm e}}$ appropriate to $z_+ > 0$ and $z_- < 0$, respectively.
### Analytic Solutions
Our generalization of previously published work to allow motion of the $z< 0$ plasma in the $\pm x$ direction, i.e., $v_{-} \gtrless 0$, allows comparison with existing velocity shear surface counter-streaming solutions, and also allows for velocity shear surface solutions representing a high speed “jet" plasma moving through an already relativistic “ambient" plasma. In particular, our generalization provides velocity shear surface solutions appropriate to spine-sheath AGN jet scenarios (Mizuno et al. 2007; Hardee et al. 2007; Walg et al. 2013; Clausen-Brown et al. 2013; Murphy et al. 2013, references therein) or the “needles-in-a-jet" or “jet-in-a-jet" scenarios proposed in the blazar AGN context (e.g., Nalewajko et al. 2011, references therein). To avoid confusion we change the notation used in eq.(3) to $n_{\rm jt} = n_+$, $n_{\rm am} = n_-$, $v_{\rm jt} = v_+$, $v_{\rm am} = v_-$, $\gamma_{\rm jt} = \gamma_+$ and $\gamma_{\rm am} = \gamma_-$. We also use the definition $$\omega_{\rm p}^2 \equiv {4 \pi n_{\rm e} e^2 \over \gamma^3 m_{\rm e}}$$ keeping the Lorentz factor cubed in the denominator as this represents the frequency for plasma oscillations parallel to the direction of motion. We make these changes and rewrite eq.(3) more compactly as $$\begin{aligned}
(k^2c^2 + \gamma_{\rm am}^2\omega_{\rm p,am}^2 - \omega^2)^{1/2}(\omega -kv_{\rm am})^2 [( \omega - kv_{\rm jt})^2 - \omega_{\rm p,jt}^2]~~~~~~~~~~~\\
\eqnum{4}
+ (k^2c^2 + \gamma_{\rm jt}^2\omega_{\rm p,jt}^2 - \omega^2)^{1/2}(\omega - kv_{\rm jt})^2 [( \omega - kv_{\rm am})^2 - \omega_{\rm p,am}^2] = 0~.\nonumber
\label{dsp}\end{aligned}$$ For counter-streaming velocities $v_{\rm am} = - v_{\rm jt} = -v_0$ and equal densities $n_{\rm jt} = n_{\rm am} = n_0$ eq.(\[dsp\]) becomes (e.g., Gruzinov 2008) $$(k^2c^2 + \gamma_0^2\omega_{\rm p0}^2 - \omega^2)^{1/2} \{ 2(\omega^2 - k^2v_0^2)^2 - 2\omega_{\rm p0}^2(\omega^2 + k^2v_0^2) \} = 0~,$$ with a solution $\omega^2 = k^2c^2 + \gamma_0^2\omega_{\rm p0}^2$ that can be identified with transverse electromagnetic waves (the electric $E_{\rm z}$ and magnetic $B_{\rm y}$ field components are transverse to the wavevector $k = k_{\rm x}$) and solutions to $$\omega^4 - (2k^2v_0^2 + \omega_{\rm p0}^2)\omega^2 + (k^2v_0^2 - \omega_{\rm p0}^2)k^2v_0^2 = 0~,$$ given by $$\omega^2 = {{\omega_{\rm p0}^2}\over{2}} \left[ \left(1 + 2 {{k^2v_0^2}\over{\omega_{\rm p0}^2}}\right) \pm \left(1 + 8 {{k^2v_0^2}\over{\omega_{\rm p0}^2}}\right)^{1/2} \right]~,
\label{2s}$$ that can be identified with longitudinal electrostatic plasma oscillations (the electric $E_{\rm x}$ field component is parallel to the wavevector $k_{\rm x}$). The purely real solution, “+" sign in eq.(\[2s\]), in the limit $k^2v_0^2/\omega_{\rm p0}^2 \ll 1$ is $\omega^2 \sim \omega^2_{\rm p0}$ and in the limit $k^2v_0^2/\omega_{\rm p0}^2 \gg 1$ is $\omega^2 \sim k^2v^2_0$. The second solution, “$-$" sign in eq.(\[2s\]), is purely imaginary when $k^2v_0^2/\omega_{\rm p0}^2 < 1$, has a maximum growth rate $\omega^2 = - \omega_{\rm p0}^2/8$ when $k^2v_0^2/\omega_{\rm p0}^2 =3/8$, is purely real when $k^2v_0^2/\omega_{\rm p0}^2 > 1$, and in the limit $k^2v_0^2/\omega_{\rm p0}^2 \gg 1$ becomes $\omega^2 \sim k^2v^2_0$. This second solution is identical to the classic electrostatic two-stream instability associated with interpenetrating counter-streaming equal density relativistic plasmas. Note the difference in the “transverse" plasma frequency $\gamma_0^2\omega_{\rm p0}^2 = 4 \pi n_0 e^2/ \gamma_0 m_{\rm e}$ associated with transverse waves and the “longitudinal" plasma frequency $\omega_{\rm p0}^2 = 4 \pi n_0 e^2/ \gamma_0^3 m_{\rm e}$ associated with longitudinal waves. If densities in jet and ambient plasmas are unequal, $n_{\rm jt} \ne n_{\rm am}$, and we normalize by the “longitudinal" plasma frequency $\omega_{\rm p,jt} = 4 \pi n_{\rm jt} e^2/ \gamma_0^3 m_{\rm e}$ and define $\omega{'} \equiv \omega / \omega_{\rm p,jt}$, $k' \equiv kv_0/\omega_{\rm p,jt}$ and $\beta_0 \equiv v_0/c$ eq.(\[dsp\]) reduces to eq.(29) in Alves et al. (2014) $$\begin{aligned}
(\gamma_0^2 {n_{\rm am} \over n_{\rm jt}} + k'^2/\beta_0^2- \omega'^2)^{1/2} \left[ (\omega' + k')^2 - (\omega'^2 - k'^2)^2 \right]~~~~~~~~~~~\nonumber \\
+ ( \gamma_0^2 + k'^2/\beta_0^2 - \omega'^2)^{1/2} \left[ {n_{\rm am} \over n_{\rm jt}}(\omega' - k')^2 -(\omega'^2 - k'^2)^2 \right] = 0~,\end{aligned}$$ albeit with Lorentz factors in the leading terms resulting from our “longitudinal" as opposed to the “transverse" plasma frequency normalization used in Alves et al. (2012) and Alves et al. (2014). Note that the transverse electromagnetic wave solution is not allowed for unequal densities on opposite sides of the velocity shear surface.
Analytic solutions of the dispersion relation, eq.(\[dsp\]), allowing for different densities and velocities on either side of the velocity shear surface, can be found in the low ($kc \ll \omega_{\rm p}$) and high ($kc \gg \omega_{\rm p}$) wavenumber limits. In the low wavenumber limit eq.(\[dsp\]) can be written as $$(\gamma_{\rm am}^2\omega_{\rm p,am}^2 - \omega^2)^{1/2} (\omega^2 - \omega_{\rm p,jt}^2)(\omega- kv_{\rm am})^2
+ (\gamma_{\rm jt}^2\omega_{\rm p,jt}^2 - \omega^2)^{1/2} (\omega^2 - \omega_{\rm p,am}^2)(\omega - kv_{\rm jt})^2 \sim 0~.
\label{lwl}$$ A complex solution to eq.(\[lwl\]) can be written as $$\omega \sim {(\gamma_{\rm am}\omega_{\rm p,jt}kv_{\rm am} + \gamma_{\rm jt}\omega_{\rm p,am}kv_{\rm jt}) \over (\gamma_{\rm am}\omega_{\rm p,jt} + \gamma_{\rm jt}\omega_{\rm p,am})} \pm i {(\gamma_{\rm am}\omega_{\rm p,jt} \gamma_{\rm jt}\omega_{\rm p,am})^{1/2} \over (\gamma_{\rm am}\omega_{\rm p,jt} + \gamma_{\rm jt}\omega_{\rm p,am})}k(v_{\rm jt}-v_{\rm am})~.
\label{cmplx}$$
In eq.(\[cmplx\]) the real part gives the phase (drift) velocity and the imaginary part gives the temporal growth rate and directly shows the dependence of the growth rate on the velocity difference across the shear surface. Note that for counter-streaming $v_{\rm am} = -v_{\rm jt}$ the phase (drift) velocity is zero provided densities are equal on either side of the velocity shear.
In the low wavenumber limit where $v_{\rm am} = 0$ and $\gamma_{\rm am} = 1$ relevant to the numerical simulations eq.(\[cmplx\]) becomes
$$\omega \sim {(\gamma_{\rm jt}\omega_{\rm p,am}/\omega_{\rm p,jt}) \over (1 + \gamma_{\rm jt}\omega_{\rm p,am}/\omega_{\rm p,jt})}kv_{\rm jt} \pm i {( \gamma_{\rm jt}\omega_{\rm p,am}/\omega_{\rm p,jt})^{1/2} \over (1 + \gamma_{\rm jt}\omega_{\rm p,am}/\omega_{\rm p,jt})}kv_{\rm jt}.
\label{lwls1}$$
Here we see that the phase velocity (drift speed) $v_{\rm ph} \equiv \omega/k \rightarrow v_{\rm jt}$ as $\gamma_{\rm jt}\omega_{\rm p,am}/\omega_{\rm p,jt} = \gamma_{\rm jt}^{5/2} (n_{\rm am}/n_{\rm jt})^{1/2}$ increases and the temporal growth rate is maximized when $\gamma_{\rm jt}\omega_{\rm p,am}/\omega_{\rm p,jt} = \gamma_{\rm jt}^{5/2} (n_{\rm am}/n_{\rm jt})^{1/2} = 1$. [In the limit where $\gamma_{\rm jt}\omega_{\rm p,am}/\omega_{\rm p,jt} =\gamma_{\rm jt}^{5/2} (n_{\rm am}/n_{\rm jt})^{1/2} \gg 1$ relevant to the numerical simulations the phase (drift) velocity is comparable to the jet speed and the low wavenumber growth rate scales with $\gamma_{\rm jt}^{-5/4}$.]{} The low wavenumber limit complex solution is similar in form to the hydrodynamic Kelvin-Helmholtz instability solution at low wavenumbers (Hardee 2007). In addition to the complex solution one purely real solution for $v_{\rm am} = 0$ and $\gamma_{\rm am} = 1$ and with $\gamma_{\rm jt}^2\omega_{\rm p,am}^2 > \omega_{\rm p,jt}^2$ relevant to the numerical simulations is given by $$\omega^2 \sim \left[ {
\gamma_{\rm jt}^2\omega_{\rm p,am}^2 - \omega_{\rm p,jt}^2 \over \omega_{\rm p,am}^2 - (2-\gamma_{\rm jt}^2)\omega_{\rm p,jt}^2}\right] \omega_{\rm p,jt}^2~,
\label{lwls2}$$ and in the high jet Lorentz factor limit where $\omega_{\rm p,am}^2 > \gamma_{\rm jt}^2\omega_{\rm p,jt}^2$ (recall that $\omega_{\rm p,jt}^2 \equiv 4 \pi n_{\rm jt} e^2/ \gamma^3_{\rm jt} m_{\rm e}$) becomes $\omega^2 \sim \gamma_{\rm jt}^2 \omega_{\rm p,jt}^2 = 4 \pi n_{\rm jt} e^2/ \gamma_{\rm jt} m_{\rm e}$.
In the high wavenumber limit eq.(\[dsp\]) becomes $$(k^2c^2 - \omega^2)^{1/2}[2(\omega -kv_{\rm am})^2 ( \omega - kv_{\rm jt})^2 - \omega_{\rm p,jt}^2
( \omega - kv_{\rm am})^2 - \omega_{\rm p,am}^2( \omega - kv_{\rm jt})^2] \sim 0~.$$ Here the solution with $\omega^2 \sim k^2c^2$ for electro-magnetic waves formally exists only when the plasma frequencies on either side of the velocity shear are equal, i.e., $\gamma_{\rm am}\omega_{\rm p,am} = \gamma_{\rm jt}\omega_{\rm p,jt}$. Two additional solutions are found from $$2(\omega -kv_{\rm am})^2 ( \omega - kv_{\rm jt})^2 - \omega_{\rm p,jt}^2
( \omega - kv_{\rm am})^2 - \omega_{\rm p,am}^2( \omega - kv_{\rm jt})^2 \sim 0~,$$ where for $v_{\rm am} = 0$, as in the simulations, the solutions become $$\omega \sim kv_{\rm jt} \pm \omega_{\rm p,jt}/ \sqrt 2 ~~{\rm and}~~ \omega \sim \pm \omega_{\rm p,am}/ \sqrt 2~,
\label{hwls}$$ and correspond to electrostatic plasma oscillations on either side of the velocity shear surface.
### Numerical Solution of the Dispersion Relation for ${{\rm}v_{\rm am} = 0}$
Numerical solution to the dispersion relation for the Lorentz factors $\gamma_{\rm jt} =$ (a) 1.5, (b) 5.0, and (c) 15.0 used in the simulations is shown in Figure \[DRS\].
In all cases the jet and ambient medium are assigned equal number densities determined in the ambient (simulation) frame. Thus, the plasma frequency ratios for the three cases are $\omega_{\rm p,am}/\omega_{\rm p,jt} = \gamma^{3/2}_{\rm jt} = $ (a) 1.84, (b) 11.18, and (c) 58.09. At small and large wavenumbers the numerical solutions agree with the analytic low, eqs.(\[lwls1\] & \[lwls2\]), and high, eq.(\[hwls\]), wavenumber solutions almost exactly. The low wavenumber complex solution, eq.(\[lwls1\]), provides an excellent estimate up to wavenumbers within a factor of 2 of the maximally unstable wavenumber, $k \equiv k^*$. The large wavenumber solutions, eq.(\[hwls\]), provide excellent estimates at wavenumbers more than a factor of 2 above the maximum marginally unstable wavenumber, $k \equiv k^{\max}$.
The numerical solutions show that the maximum growth rates are $\omega_{\rm I}^*/\omega_{\rm p,jt} =$ (a) 0.472, (b) 0.934, and (c) 1.464 at wavenumbers $k^*c/\omega_{\rm p,jt} =$ (a) 2.344, (b) 7.079, and (c) 27.542, and wavelengths $\lambda^*(\omega_{\rm p,jt}/c) =$ (a) 2.68, (b) 0.888, and (c) 0.228. The maximum marginally unstable wavenumber is $k^{\max}c/\omega_{\rm p,jt} =$ (a) 3.715, (b) 9.550, and (c) 33.113. If we scale the growth rate and wavelength at maximum growth to the ambient plasma frequency we obtain maximum growth rates $\omega_{\rm I}^*/\omega_{\rm p,am} =$ (a) 0.256, (b) 0.079, and (c) 0.025 at wavelengths $\lambda^* =$ (a) $4.93(c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$, (b) $9.92(c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$, and (c) $13.25 (c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$ and the minimum marginally unstable wavelength is $\lambda^{\min} =$ (a) $3.11(c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$, (b) $7.35(c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$, and (c) $11.0 (c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$.
Numerical solution of the dispersion relation suggests that $$\begin{aligned}
\omega_{\rm I}^* \sim 0.4 \gamma_{\rm jt}^{1/2}\omega_{\rm p,jt}~,~{\rm and}~~~~~\nonumber \\
k^*v_{\rm jt} \sim {(1 + \gamma_{\rm jt}\omega_{\rm p,am}/\omega_{\rm p,jt})\over ( \gamma_{\rm jt}\omega_{\rm p,am}/\omega_{\rm p,jt})^{1/2}} \omega_{\rm p,jt}
\label{mxgrth}\end{aligned}$$ provide an excellent zeroth order estimate for the maximum temporal growth rate and a reasonable zeroth order estimate for the wavenumber at maximum growth. The maximum temporal growth rate estimate using eq.(\[mxgrth\]) lies within 6% of the numerically determined values. The maximally growing wavenumber estimate using eq.(\[mxgrth\]) ranges from (a) 20% above to (c) 5% below the numerically determined values where the eq.(\[mxgrth\]) estimate has been obtained by using $\omega_{\rm I}^* \sim \omega_{\rm p,jt}$ in eq.(\[lwls1\]).
It is important to note that the maximum temporal growth rate $\omega^*_{\rm I} \propto \gamma_{\rm jt}^{-1}$ and does not decrease as rapidly with Lorentz factor as the equal density counter-streaming maximum growth rate for which $\omega^{\max}_{\rm I} \propto \gamma_{\rm jt}^{-3/2}$. It should be noted that this analysis assumes that the ion mass is infinite and thus may not be applicable to electron-positron cases.
Longitudinal Simulation Structure
---------------------------------
Current densities in the flow direction, $J_{\rm x}$, associated with the two velocity shear surfaces are shown in Figure \[JXxz\]. In the $e^-$- $p^+$ cases, $J_{\rm x}$ fluctuates in strength but not direction on either side of the velocity shear surfaces and currents run parallel to the velocity shear surface.
Currents are negative on the ambient side and positive on the jet side of the velocity shear surfaces. The fluctuations are most easily seen in the blue-black on the ambient side of the velocity shear surfaces and the maximum and minimum current amplitude is $J_{\rm x} \sim$ (a) $\pm 6.26$, (c) $\pm 8.53$ (e) $\pm 11.77$. In the $e^{\pm}$ cases, oblique current filaments grow at the velocity shear boundaries, and the maximum and minimum current amplitude is $J_{\rm x} \sim$ (b) $\pm 30.1$, (d) $\pm 94.7$, and (f) $\pm 12.8$. The $e^{\pm}$ current fluctuations lead to much larger variation in the magnetic field component, $B_{\rm y}$, associated with the velocity shear surfaces. These panels make it clear that fluctuations have the shortest spacing for the cases with $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$, fluctuation spacing is about two times larger for the cases with $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$, and also about two times larger for the cases with $\gamma_{\rm jt} =15$. In the $e^{-} - p^{+} $ cases, current filaments are found along the velocity shear in the very early stages and outside the jet at later times (see Figure \[FigT\]d).
In order to make a more exact comparison with dispersion relation solutions, Figure \[By1dZ\] shows fluctuation in
$B_{\rm y}$ relative to the average, $\langle B_{\rm y} \rangle$, along one-dimensional cuts made parallel to the $x$-axis at $y = 100\Delta$ for $z/\Delta =$ 52, 54, & 56. It is important to realize that the computational box is periodic in the $x$-direction and only an integer number of wavelengths can fit in the computational box. In the $e^-$- $p^+$ and $e^{\pm}$ $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ cases, variation in fluctuation spacing along the $x$-axis allows $\lambda \sim 50\Delta \pm 5\Delta$, i.e., $\lambda = 1000\Delta / (20 \pm 1)$. While fluctuation amplitudes are over ten times larger for the $e^{\pm}$ case, to our measurement accuracy the $e^-$- $p^+$ and $e^{\pm}$ fluctuation wavelengths are equal. In the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$ cases we find $\lambda \sim 100\Delta \pm 10\Delta$, i.e., $\lambda = 1000\Delta / (10 \pm 1)$. Again fluctuation amplitudes are over ten times larger for the $e^{\pm}$ case, but to our accuracy $e^-$- $p^+$ and $e^{\pm}$ wavelengths are equal. In the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$ cases we again find that $\lambda \sim 100\Delta \pm 10\Delta$ and fluctuation amplitudes are about ten times larger for the $e^{\pm}$ case.
Comparison of the observed oscillations with the theoretically predicted fastest growing wavelength, and minimum marginally unstable wavelength associated with each Lorentz factor, suggests the following interpretation. The observed oscillation wavelength for the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ cases becomes $\lambda^{obs} \sim (4.1\pm 0.4) (c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$, recall that $c/\omega_{\rm p,am} = 12.2 \Delta$, and the observed wavelength lies between the wavelengths $\lambda^* = 4.93 (c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$ and $\lambda^{\min} = 3.11 (c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$, predicted theoretically. The observed oscillation wavelength for the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$ cases becomes $\lambda^{obs} \sim (8.2 \pm 0.8) (c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$ and also lies between the wavelengths $\lambda^* = 9.92 (c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$ and $\lambda^{\min} = 7.35 (c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$, predicted theoretically. Thus both $e^-$- $p^+$ and $e^{\pm}$ $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ and $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$ cases show compelling evidence for fluctuation wavelengths near to the theoretically predicted fastest growing wavelength. Note that the predicted minimum e-folding time of $\tau_{\rm e}^* \sim 3.9 \omega_{\rm p,am}^{-1}$ allows for $\sim 51$ e-foldings at $t = 200 \omega_{\rm p,am}^{-1}$ for the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ cases. For the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$ cases the predicted minimum e-folding time of $\tau_{\rm e}^* \sim 12.7 \omega_{\rm p,am}^{-1}$ allows for $\sim 20$ e-foldings at $t=250 \omega_{\rm p,am}^{-1}$.
For the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$ cases the theoretically predicted fastest growing wavelength and minimum marginally unstable wavelength are $\lambda^* = 13.25 (c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$ and $\lambda^{\min} = 11.0 (c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$, respectively. The observed oscillation wavelength of $\lambda^{obs} \sim (8.2 \pm 0.8) (c/\omega_{\rm p,am})$ is somewhat shorter than the predicted minimum marginally unstable wavelength but is consistent with wave growth within the predicted unstable wavelength range. We note that the minimum e-folding time of $\tau_{\rm e}^* \sim 40 \omega_{\rm p,am}^{-1}$ has only allowed for $\sim 7$ e-foldings at $t = 300 \omega_{\rm p,am}^{-1}$ for the $\gamma_{\rm jt}=15$ cases. This is likely insufficient time for the electrostatic mode to be fully developed and fluctuation wavelengths in these cases may be influenced by the transverse current filament structure that is discussed in Section 3.
Field Energy Growth and Transverse Shear Surface Structure
==========================================================
Magnetic and Electric Field Growth
----------------------------------
Figure \[EMevol\] shows the time evolution of magnetic and electric field energy for the six simulation cases. In general, total field energy growth appears saturated for the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ cases, is still slowly growing for the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$ cases, and remains more rapidly growing for the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$ cases at the simulation end time. The growth rate clearly decreases as the Lorentz factor increases but the growth time does not appear to have increased by the factor of $\sim 3$ ($\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$) and $\sim 10$ ($\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$) relative to the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ cases as suggested by the maximum growth rate found from the dispersion relation solutions. In the $e^-$- $p^+$ cases the total magnetic field energy exceeds the total electric field energy by factors of $\sim 4$ ($\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$) to $\sim 10$ ($\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$). In the $e^{\pm}$ cases the total electric field energy is more comparable to the magnetic field energy with the total magnetic field energy exceeding the total electric field energy by only factors of $\gtrsim 1$ ($\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$) to $\sim 4$ ($\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$).
In all cases the total magnetic field energy is primarily from the $B_{\rm y}$ magnetic field component. In the $e^-$- $p^+$ cases the total electric field energy is primarily from the $E_{\rm z}$ component and secondarily from the $E_{\rm x}$ component. Field energy associated with the $E_{\rm y}$ and $B_{\rm z} > B_{\rm x}$ field components is from one to three orders of magnitude smaller. In the $e^-$- $p^+$ cases field energy associated with the $E_{\rm z}$ component at first grows rapidly but then is overtaken by the growth of the field energy associated with the $B_{\rm y}$ component with an accompanying slower growth and lesser field energy associated with the $E_{\rm x}$ field component. In the $e^{\pm}$ cases the total electric field energy is now primarily from the $E_{\rm y}$ component, secondarily from the $E_{\rm z}$ component, and only thirdly from the $E_{\rm x}$ component. The electric field energy shows rapid initial growth, much more rapid than for the $e^-$- $p^+$ cases, that is eventually overtaken by the growth in the magnetic energy associated primarily with the $B_{\rm y}$ magnetic field component. Again there is not much energy associated with the $B_{\rm x}$ component, but there is now a significant amount of energy in the $B_{\rm z}$ field component relative to the $B_{\rm y}$ field component, unlike in the $e^-$- $p^+$ cases.
The longitudinal kKHI mode discussed in detail in Section 2.2 would lead to growth in the $E_{\rm x}$, $E_{\rm z}$, and $B_{\rm y}$ field components. At least approximately this is in agreement with what we find for the $e^-$- $p^+$ cases, although the growth time does not increase as rapidly with the Lorentz factor as predicted. On the other hand, in the $e^{\pm}$ cases we find the electric field energy dominated by the $E_{\rm y}$ component and a significant amount of magnetic field energy in the $B_{\rm z}$ component. The fact that the growth of the total magnetic and electric field energies is not decreasing with the Lorentz factor as rapidly as predicted by the longitudinal dispersion relation and that, particularly in the $e^{\pm}$ cases, significant magnetic and electric field components develop that are not described by the analysis in Section 2.2, provides evidence for additional processes operating in the velocity shear region which have not been captured by a longitudinal dispersion relation, and, in particular, the magnetic and electric fields imply the presence of growing transverse modes.
Transverse Magnetic and Current Structure
-----------------------------------------
Figure \[kkhi\] shows the structure of the $B_{\rm y}$ component of the magnetic field in the $y - z$ plane (jet flows out of the page) at the midpoint of the simulation box, $x = 500\Delta$, and 1D cuts along the $z$ axis showing the magnitude and direction of the magnetic field components at the midpoint of the simulation box, $x = 500\Delta$ and $y = 100\Delta$ for the $e^-$- $p^+$ case and the $e^{\pm}$ case at simulation time $t = 300\,\omega_{\rm pe}^{-1}$, both with $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$.
Comparison of the transverse structures in the $y$ direction at the velocity shear surfaces shown in panels (a) and (d) with the parallel structures in the $x$ direction shown in Figure \[setup\] in panels (b) and (c) shows that the fluctuations transverse to the jet in the $y$ direction are much more rapid than fluctuations along the jet in the $x$ direction. In the $e^-$- $p^+$ case, magnetic fields appear relatively uniform at the velocity shear surfaces along the transverse $y$ direction just as was seen at the velocity shear surfaces along the parallel $x$ direction, with almost no transverse fluctuations visible in the magnetic field (small fluctuations in the $y$ direction over distances on the order of $\sim 10\Delta$ are visible in the currents in Figure \[Jxem\]b), whereas small longitudinal mode fluctuations in the $x$ direction occur over distances $\sim 100\Delta$. For the electron-positron case, the magnetic field alternates in both the $y$ and $z$ directions and these transverse fluctuations occur over distances on the order of $\sim 10\Delta$, whereas longitudinal mode fluctuations in the $x$ direction occur over distances $\sim 100\Delta$.
The 1D cuts show that the $B_{\rm y}$ field component dominates in the $e^-$- $p^+$ case, that the $B_{\rm y}$ field component is about an order of magnitude smaller for the $e^{\pm}$ case, and that the $B_{\rm z}$ component is significant for the $e^{\pm}$ case, as already indicated in Figure \[EMevol\]. The 1D cuts also show that there is magnetic field sign reversal on either side of the maximum that is relatively small for the $e^-$- $p^+$ case but is much more significant for the $e^{\pm}$ case, which can be seen also in Figure \[kkhi\]d. More details are revealed by the enlargement of the region contained in the squares. For the $e^-$- $p^+$ case, the generated relatively uniform DC magnetic field is symmetric about the velocity shear surface, e.g., note that $B_{\rm y} >0$ immediately around the shear surface and $B_{\rm y}<0$ in the jet and ambient plasmas at somewhat larger distances from the shear surface. On the other hand, for the $e^{\pm}$ case the generated AC magnetic field resides largely on the jet side of the velocity shear surface.
Figure \[Jxem\] shows how the $J_{\rm x}$ current structure in a small $y-z$ plane, responsible for the magnetic
field structure shown in Figure \[kkhi\]. Motion of electrons and/or positrons across the shear surface produces the electric currents shown also in Figure \[Jxem\] by the arrows. Relativistic jet flow is out of the page and in the $e^-$- $p^+$ case positive (red/orange) and negative (blue/black) current flows along the jet and the sheath side of the velocity shear surfaces, respectively. Positive currents are stronger than the negative currents, leading to the generation of the $B_{\rm y}$ magnetic field component, shown in Figure \[kkhi\]a-c. In the $e^{\pm}$ case, a complex current structure appears on the jet side of the velocity shear surface. The associated magnetic fields are then folded and twisted by vortical plasma motions. The vortices appear like “islands” in the magnetic field. In the currents it is possible to see that the transverse fluctuation scale is similar in the $e^-$- $p^+$ and $e^{\pm}$ cases, but the structures are considerably different.
It seems likely that the development of transverse filamentary structure has influenced the longitudinal structure studied in Section 2. In general, we find that the kKHI grows on timescales $t \propto \gamma_{\rm jt}$, albeit growth also depends on the density ratio across the velocity shear. Once particles have scattered across the velocity shear via kKHI or thermal motions, structure associated with interpenetrating relativistic plasmas can develop. For $k \equiv k_{\rm x}$ there is the beam space charge instability (Bludeman, Watson & Rosenbluth (1960) and see also eqs.(8) & (9) in Hardee & Rose (1978)) with $$\begin{aligned}
\omega = kv_{\rm jt} \pm i {\omega_{\rm p,jt}\over \omega_{\rm p,am}} kv_{\rm jt},~{\rm and}~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \nonumber \\
\omega_{\rm I}^{\max} = 0.69 (\omega_{\rm p,jt}^2 \omega_{\rm p,am})^{1/3}~{\rm at}~ kv_{\rm jt} = \omega_{\rm p,am} - 0.4(\omega_{\rm p,jt}^2\omega_{\rm p,am})^{1/3}~.\end{aligned}$$ For $k \equiv k_{\rm y}$ there is the ordinary mode (filamentation) instability with $$\omega_{\rm R} = 0,~{\rm and}~\omega_{\rm I} = {{\omega_{\rm p,am}}\over {(\omega_{\rm p,am}^2 + \omega_{\rm p,jt}^2)^{1/2}}} (\gamma_{\rm jt} \omega_{\rm p,jt}) {v_{\rm jt} \over c}~.$$ Equation (18) is formally found in the limit $k^2c^2 \gg 2\omega_{\rm p,am}^2 + \gamma_{\rm jt}^2\omega_{\rm p,jt}^2 + \omega_{\rm p,jt}^2$ and is like eq.(11) in Hardee & Rose (1978) which assumed $ \omega_{\rm p,am} \gg \omega_{\rm p,jt}$, but now with $\Omega = eB/m c = 0$ and allowing for $\omega_{\rm p,jt} \sim \omega_{\rm p,am}$ to reveal the density dependence. We have adopted the present notation in equations (17 & 18), and note that they were derived originally in the context of electron-positron jet and ambient plasmas. They should also apply to electron-proton plasmas where the ions are assumed infinitely massive.
We see from the above that the longitudinal beam space charge instability grows on timescales $t \propto \gamma_{\rm jt}$ that are comparable to the kKHI. On the other hand, filamentary structure associated with the transverse ordinary mode instability grows on timescales $t \propto \gamma_{\rm jt}^{1/2}$ and thus can grow faster than kKHI longitudinal structure for large Lorentz factors. While there is excellent agreement between observed longitudinal structure scales and theoretical prediction for the two lower Lorentz factors, such is not the case for the high Lorentz factor simulation. Here we believe that more rapid growth of transverse structure in the high Lorentz factor case has overwhelmed slower growth of the longitudinal kKHI and led to a longitudinal length scale that is less than the minimum unstable wavelength associated with the kKHI.
Lorentz factor Differences at the Shear Surface
-----------------------------------------------
Figure \[JxBem\] shows how the $J_{\rm x}$ current structure in a small $y - z$ plane square around the velocity shear surface (see Figure \[Jxem\] for location) and the magnetic field strength and position relative to the shear surfaces along 1D cuts in the $z$ direction change as a function of the Lorentz factor for the $e^{\pm}$ cases at time $t = 300 \omega_{\rm pe}^{-1}$.
[Not presented here are the $e^-$- $p^+$ cases as they show very little change in the amplitude or the width of the amplified magnetic field region as a function of the Lorentz factor. [This result may indicate a difference from the theory and counter-streaming simulation results (Grismayer et al. 2013a,b; Alves et al. 2014) in which amplitude and width scaled with $\sqrt{\gamma_0}$ or just that our higher Lorentz factor $e^-$- $p^+$ cases have not reached saturation.]{} In the $e^{\pm}$ cases we see that the currents are located on the jet side of the shear surface for Lorentz factors $\gamma_{\rm jt} =$ (a) 15 and (b) 5, but are located on both sides of the shear surface for (c) $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$. The maximum and minimum current density amplitudes are (a) $\pm 6.26$, (b) $\pm77.0$, and (c) $\pm19.5$, and the maximum magnetic field strength is smaller by about an order of magnitude for the (a) $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$ case and smaller by about a factor of 3 for the (c) $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ case compared to the (b) $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$ case. Here we do find an increase in the maximum field strength from the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ case to the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$ case as suggested by the theory and counter-streaming results but with a decrease in the total shear layer width instead of the expected increase in shear layer width. The $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$ simulation is not near saturation so cannot be directly compared to the lower Lorentz factor cases. However, it is clear that the increased inertia of the more relativistically moving jet plasma inhibits motion of jet electrons across the shear surface and affects the shear structure significantly compared to counter-streaming simulations in which both plasmas have the same inertia.]{}
[Temporal development of the total magnetic field energy shown in Figure \[EMevol\] shows that the still slowly growing magnetic field energy for the (b) $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$ case is comparable to the (c) $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ case at time $t = 300 \omega_{\rm pe}^{-1}$ and should become greater at later times. Figure \[EMevol\] also shows a more rapid growth of the total magnetic field energy for the (a) $\gamma = 15$ case at this time. These results suggest that the differences in the current structure and the magnetic field strength and location may indicate a temporal development attributable to growth rate differences in addition to inertial differences. In fact, for the case with $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ at $t = 200 \omega_{\rm pe}^{-1}$ the current filaments with maximum and minimum values $\pm 42.6$ are located nearer to the velocity shear than at the later time of $t = 300 \omega_{\rm pe}^{-1}$ shown in Figure \[JxBem\]c where the maximum and minimum values are $\pm 19.5$. Thus, the differences seen in Figure \[JxBem\] from high to low Lorentz factors may provide an indication of the temporal development of the current structure from fewer ($\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$) to more ($\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$) e-folding times.]{}
Microphysics at the Velocity Shear Surface
==========================================
3D Structure
------------
Figure \[3Disos\] provides a 3D display of the currents and magnetic fields at the velocity shear surface for the $e^{\pm}$ case with $\gamma_{\rm jt} =$ 5 at $t = 250 \omega_{\rm pe}^{-1}$. The 3D display reveals current filaments with length
in the $x$ direction (see Figure \[JXxz\]d) much longer than the spacing in the $y - z$ plane (see Figure \[JxBem\]b). Strong positive (red) and negative (blue) current filaments wrapped by magnetic field lines seen in 3D are seen in a 2D slice shown previously in Figure \[JxBem\]b (albeit here at an earlier time) in the $x$ component of the current density (positive (red) and negative (blue)) and magnetic field (arrows) in the $y-z$ plane. The positive and negative current filaments seen in 2D are now revealed to twist around each other with the longitudinal wavelength $\lambda^{obs} \sim 100 \Delta$ seen in Figure \[JXxz\]d and Figure \[By1dZ\]d. The total magnetic energy isosurface shows a concentration of the magnetic field around the current filaments.
Figure \[FigT\] provides a 3D display of the currents and magnetic fields at the velocity shear surface
for the $e^{\pm}$ cases at the same time, $t = 300 \omega_{\rm pe}^{-1}$, as the 2D slices shown in Figure \[JxBem\], and also shows the current and magnetic field structure at the velocity shear surface for the $e^-$- $p^+$ case with $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$. For the $e^{\pm}$ cases, as indicated by the 2D slices, the 3D structure shows a current carrying region that thickens as the Lorentz factor decreases and at low Lorentz factor appears on both sides of the velocity shear surface. The 3D structure suggests a single layer of current filaments at $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$ that broadens to a dual layer of current filaments at $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$. At $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ current filaments on both sides of the velocity shear layer are much less well defined. A comparison between the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$ $e^{\pm}$ (Fig. \[FigT\]b) and $e^-$- $p^+$ (Fig. \[FigT\]d) cases shows the very different current and magnetic field structures at the velocity shear surface. For the $e^-$- $p^+$case, the magnetic field is very uniform and largely confined to the velocity shear surface just below a strong positive (red) current sheet on the jet side. Outside the velocity shear surface we see a weaker negative (blue/green) current sheet, and further outside a filamented weak negative (blue/green) current region.
The structures shown in Figures \[3Disos\] and \[FigT\] are similar to those produced by the filamentation (Weibel-like) instability, associated with interpenetrating plasmas (see eq.(18)). We note that the change in structure from closely spaced current filaments of smaller diameter in a narrower region in the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$ case to the merged larger-diameter and less closely spaced filaments in a broader region in the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$ case shown in Figures \[JxBem\] and \[FigT\] is like the expected temporal development for the filamentation instability as the number of e-folding times increases. Since in our simulations the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5~\&~15$ cases have not reached saturation, one cannot say with certainty that the instability will not ultimately develop the structures seen in the saturated $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ case, in which the current filaments are probably fully developed by $t = 300 \omega_{\rm pe}^{-1}$. However, it seems more likely that the lack of significant current structure on the outside of the velocity shear surface in the two higher Lorentz factor $e^{\pm}$ cases is a direct result of the increased inertia of the relativistically moving plasma.
Particle Motion
---------------
The observed 2D and 3D structures indicate the development of longitudinal (electrostatic two-stream) and transverse (Weibel-like current filamentation, e.g., Nishikawa et al. 2005, 2006, 2009) plasma instabilities usually associated with interpenetrating relativistic plasmas.
Figure \[phasBy\] shows the magnetic field components and the associated phase-space plots of electron motions in the $z$ direction perpendicular to the velocity shear surface. These motions produce the mixing required to trigger interpenetrating plasma instabilities. Note that in $e^-$- $p^+$ cases, mixing is almost completely associated with the electrons and in $e^{\pm}$ cases both electrons and positrons participate in the mixing.
The $e^-$- $p^+$ $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$ case at two different times illustrates the development of both the dominant $B_{\rm y}$ component of the magnetic field and the plasma mixing process. The magnetic field is initially strongest at the shear surface. The magnetic field strengthens and more deeply penetrates the ambient plasma with time. Slightly deeper penetration into the jet plasma also occurs with time. Ambient electrons (red dots) with $v_z > 0$ are moving towards and into the jet, and become more heated and penetrate deeper into the jet plasma with time. Relatively cold (note a very small thermal spread) jet electrons (blue dots) with $v_z < 0$ are moving outwards and into the ambient plasma. These jet electrons, while remaining cold, penetrate deeper into the ambient plasma with time. At the simulation times presented, the electrons are mixed in space but not yet in velocity. Due to the relatively uniform DC magnetic field generated in the $x$ and $y$ directions, the phase-space plot shows a regular structure.
In the $e^{\pm}$ $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$ case, the dominant $B_{\rm y}$ component of the magnetic field is strongest at the shear surface and more deeply penetrates the jet plasma than the ambient plasma. Note the very different location of the magnetic field in this case versus the $e^-$- $p^+$ case at the same simulation time. The electrons are less mixed spatially on the ambient side of the shear surface but with much more heating of the jet electrons than in the $e^-$- $p^+$ case. Here most of the action resides on the jet side of the shear surface where the filamentation instability dominates the dynamics. Both ambient and jet electrons are accelerated in the strong AC magnetic and electric fields associated with the filamentation instability. Ambient electrons are more strongly heated than the jet electrons, but now there is a significant velocity mixing of the jet and ambient electrons and the ambient electrons penetrate into the jet more deeply than in the $e^-$- $p^+$ case.
Just as Fig. \[phasBy\] shows that the particle behavior near the velocity shear for the $e^{\pm}$ and $e^-$- $p^+$ cases is significantly different, Figure \[phasvx-vy\] shows that electron acceleration at the velocity shear also is significantly different in $e^{\pm}$ and $e^-$- $p^+$ cases.
The $v_{\rm x}-v_{\rm y}$ velocity component plots show that the electrons are accelerated in parallel and perpendicular directions (Figure \[phasvx-vy\]b) in the $e^{\pm}$ case and the electrons are accelerated only in the parallel direction (Figure \[phasvx-vy\]c) in the $e^-$- $p^+$ case.
Similar analysis for the two other jet Lorentz factors (not shown) shows that $e^-$- $p^+$ cases with different Lorentz factor show the same parallel electron acceleration. On the other hand, there are some modest differences in the $e^{\pm}$ cases for the two other jet Lorentz factors studied. These differences occur because in the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ case the ambient and jet electrons are strongly mixed across the velocity shear surface, but in the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$ case, the ambient electrons are strongly mixed into the jet region, but jet electrons are only weakly mixed into the ambient plasma. [This velocity and phase-space result is also revealed in Figures \[JxBem\] and \[FigT\] that show a development of current filament structure on both sides of the velocity shear surface for the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ case but only on one side of the velocity shear surface for the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$ case. In the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 1.5$ case the mixing of jet and ambient electrons on both sides of the velocity shear is accompanied by mixing in $v_{\rm x} - v_{\rm y}$ and acceleration in both parallel and perpendicular directions like the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 5$ case. In the $\gamma_{\rm jt} = 15$ case ambient and jet electrons are accelerated mainly in the perpendicular direction.]{}
[Our simulations do not follow the kKHI significantly past the saturation phase (see Section 3.1) and are thus too short to allow for significant electron acceleration in the self-generated fields of the shear flow instabilities. In fact, the strongest acceleration should occur after the growth of the kKHI fully saturates and electrons can probe the long-lived turbulent electric fields in the shear region. This has been demonstrated by Alves et al. (2014) for the electron-proton plasma, who discuss the acceleration process and estimate the maximum energy gain of an electron interacting in the electric field to be $\Delta \mathcal{E} _{\max} \propto mc^{2}\gamma_{0}^{4}$. Acceleration to super-thermal energies is thus possible for shear flows with relativistic Lorentz factors as shown by the PIC simulations in Alves et al. (2014). In our simulations we trace the initial stages of electron acceleration. We note that the acceleration in the parallel direction observed in our $e^-$- $p^+$ simulations resemble a process of electron surfing on the electric field structures in the shear region that provides acceleration mostly in the direction of the bulk plasma flow, as indicated in Alves et al. (2014).]{}
Summary
=======
We have presented 3D PIC simulations of the kinetic Kelvin-Helmholtz instability for both electron-positron and electron-proton plasmas. The processes studied here are of importance to the jets from AGNs and GRBs that are expected to have velocity shears between faster and slower moving plasmas both within the jet and at the jet external medium interface. In our simulations we have studied large velocity shears with relative Lorentz factors of 1.5, 5, and 15. The simulations are performed in the rest frame of an ambient plasma sheath, and an appropriate Lorentz transformation of the results will extend the analysis to an ambient plasma sheath of arbitrary speed.
Our work goes beyond the scope of earlier 2D simulations performed by Liang et al. (2013a,b) in either the shear momentum parallel plane ($x - y$ referred to as $P$) or the transverse plane ($y - z$ referred to as $T$). The full three-dimensional effects that we find here are not found in their simulations. We show that the kinetic Kelvin-Helmholtz instability depends on the composition of the plasma and the jet Lorentz factor. The electron-proton cases generate a DC magnetic field in the shear plane, perpendicular to the relative velocity ($B_{\rm y}$ with $E_{\rm z}$), while on the contrary, the electron-positron cases generate AC electric and magnetic fields. In the electron-positron cases current filaments are generated similar to those found associated with the filamentation (Weibel-like) instability. In the simulations, initial growth appears in the $E_{\rm z}$ electric field component perpendicular to the velocity shear surface. This growth is followed by growth of the $B_{\rm y}$ magnetic field component in the velocity shear plane transverse to the flow direction in the electron-proton cases. For the electron-positron cases, growth is seen in both $B_{\rm y}$ and $B_{\rm z}$ magnetic field components as current filaments dominate the structure near the velocity shear surface. In all cases, fluctuation structure along the jet is much longer than transverse fluctuation structure. For electron-proton cases interaction and magnetic fields do not extend far from the initial velocity shear surface. For the electron-positron cases, interaction and magnetic fields extend farther from the initial velocity shear surface although they extend mostly into the jet side for higher jet Lorentz factor.
The velocity shear behavior of the magnetic fields should have consequences for the appearance of jets in very-high-resolution radio imaging. For a simple cylindrical geometry velocity shear case, an electron-proton jet would primarily build magnetic field in the toroidal direction at the velocity shear surface. The magnetic field would be quasi-parallel to the line of sight at the limbs of the jet for typical aspect angles $\theta\approx \gamma_\mathrm{jet}^{-1}$. In contrast, a pair-plasma jet would generate sizable radial field components that are only about a factor of 2 weaker than the toroidal field.
The strong electric and magnetic fields in the velocity shear zone will also be conducive to particle acceleration. Our simulations are too short for definitive statements on the efficacy of the process and the resulting spectra. Also, the organization of the field in compact regions will complicate the interpretation of emission spectra, and a spatially-resolved treatment of particle acceleration and transport would be mandatory for a realistic assessment, which is beyond the scope of the present paper. Relativistic electrons, for example, will suffer little synchrotron energy loss outside of the thin layer of strong magnetic field. Thus synchrotron emissivity will be dominated by the shear layer, and in general emissivity will depend on how efficiently electrons can flow in and out of the shear layer and be accelerated in the regions of strong magnetic field. An immediate consequence for radiation modeling is that the energy loss time of electrons cannot be calculated with the same mean magnetic field that is used to compute emission spectra, because the former includes the volume filling factor of the strong-field regions.
[We have extended the stability analysis presented in Gruzinov (2008), Alves et al. (2012) and Alves et al. (2014) to core-sheath electron-proton plasma flows allowing for different jet core and ambient sheath electron densities $n_{\rm jt}$ and $n_{\rm am}$, respectively, and jet core and ambient sheath electron velocities $v_{\rm jt}$ and $v_{\rm am}$, respectively. In this analysis the protons are considered to be infinitely massive and free-streaming, whereas the electron fluid quantities and fields are linearly perturbed. Not unexpectedly we find a smaller temporal growth rate for larger Lorentz factors, although in the simulations the growth rate does not appear to decrease as rapidly with Lorentz factor as the maximum growth rate, $\omega^* \propto \gamma_{\rm jt}^{-1}$ (timescales $t \propto \gamma_{\rm jt}$), obtained from the longitudinal dispersion relation. It is likely that the growth of the transverse structure seen in the 3D simulations, which likely grows on timescales $t \propto \gamma_{\rm jt}^{1/2}$, is responsible for the difference. Fluctuation wavelengths along the flow direction seen in the two lower Lorentz factor simulations are of the order of the predicted fastest growing wavelengths for both electron-proton and electron-positron plasmas suggesting that the dispersion relation applies approximately even for a non-free streaming equal mass positively charged particle. On the other hand, the rate of growth and non-linear structure is very different for electron-proton and electron-positron plasmas.]{}
This work is supported by NSF AST-0908010, and AST-0908040, NASA-NNG05GK73G, NNX07AJ88G, NNX08AG83G, NNX08AL39G, NNX09AD16G, NNX12AH06G, NNX13AP-21G, and NNX13AP14G. The work of JN has been supported by the Polish National Science Centre through projects DEC-2011/01/B/ST9/03183 and DEC-2012/04/A/ST9/00083. YM is supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan under the grant NSC 100-2112-M-007-022-MY3. M.P. acknowledges support through grant PO 1508/1-2 of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Simulations were performed at the Columbia and Pleiades facilities at the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) and Kraken and Nautilus at The National Institute for Computational Sciences (NICS) which is supported by the NSF. This research was started during the program “Chirps, Mergers and Explosions: The Final Moments of Coalescing Compact Binaries” at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics which is supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. PHY05-51164. The first result of the kKHI with mi/me = 1 was obtained during the Summer Aspen workshop “Astrophysical Mechanisms of Particle Acceleration and Escape from the Accelerators” held at the Aspen Center for Physics (September 1 - 15, 2013).
Alves, E. P., Magnetic field generation via the Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability, 2010, Master thesis, Universidade Técnica de Lisboa
Alves, E.P., Grismayer, T., Martins, S.F., Fiúza, F., Fonseca, R.A., & Silva, L.O., 2012, ApJ, 746, L14
Alves, E.P., Grismayer, T., Fonseca, R.A., & Silva, L.O., 2014, NJPh, 16, 035007
Bludeman, S.A., Watson, K.M., & Rosenbluth, M.N., 1960, Phys.Fluids, 3, 747
Clausen-Brown, E., Savolainen, T., Pushkarev, A.B., Kovalev, Y.Y. & Zensus, J.A., 2013, A&A 558, A144
Frederiksen, J. T., Haugbølle, T., Medvedev, M. V., & Nordlund, Å., 2010, ApJ, 722 L114
Giannios, D., Uzdensky, D. A. & Begelman, M. C. 2009, MNRAS, 395, L29
Grismayer, T., Alves, E. P., Fonseca, L.O., & Silva, L., 2013a, PRL, 111, 015005, 2013
Grismayer, T., Alves, E.P., Fonseca, L.O. & Silva, L. 2013b, PPCF, 55, 124031
Gruzinov, A. 2008, arXiv:0803.1182
Hardee, P.E., & Rose, W.K., 1978, ApJ, 219, 247
Hardee, P., Mizuno, Y., & Nishikawa, K.-I., 2007, Astrophys Space Sci, 311, 281
Haugbølle, T., 2011, ApJL, 739, L42
Liang, E., Boettcher, M., & Smith, I., 2013a, ApJL, 766, L19
Liang, E., Boettcher, M., & Smith, I., 2013b, ApJL, 779, L27
Martins, J.L., Martins, S.F., Fonseca R.A., & Silva, L.O., 2009, Proc. of SPIE, 7359, 73590V-1–8
Medvedev, M.V., 2000, ApJ, 540, 704
Medvedev, M.V., Frederiksen, J.T., Haugbølle, T., & Nordlund, A., 2011, ApJ, 737, 55
Mizuno, Y., Hardee, P., & Nishikawa, K.-I. 2007, ApJ, 662, 835
Murphy, E., Cawthorne, T.V., & Gabuzda, D.C., 2013, MNRAS, 430, 1504
Nalewajko, K., Begelman, M.C., Cerutti, B., Uzdensky, D.A., & Sikora, M., 2011, MNRAS, 413, 333
Nishikawa, K.-I., Hardee, P., Richardson, G., Preece, R., Sol, H., & Fishman, G.J., 2005, ApJ, 622, 927
Nishikawa, K.-I., Mizuno, Y., Fishman, G.J., & Hardee, P., 2008, IJMP, D, 17, 1761
\[\[Nishikawa et al.(2009a)\][nishikawa09a]{} Nishikawa, K.-I., Niemiec, J., Hardee, P. Medvedev, M., Sol, H., Mizuno, Y., Zhang, B., Pohl, M., Oka, M., & Hartmann, D.H., 2009a, ApJ, 698, L10
Nishikawa, K. -I., Niemiec, J., Sol, H., Medvedev, M., Zhang, B., Nordlund, A., Frederiksen, J.T., Hardee, P., Mizuno, Y., Hartmann, D. H., & Fishman, G. J., 2009b, AIPCP, 1085, 589
Nishikawa, K.-I., Niemiec, J., Medvedev, M., Zhang, B., Hardee, P., Mizuno, Y., Nordlund, Å., Frederiksen, J., Sol, H., Pohl, M., Hartmann, D.H., Oka, M., & Fishman, J.F., 2010, IJMP. D, 19, 715
Nishikawa, K.-I., Niemiec, J., Medvedev, M., Zhang, B., Hardee, P., Nordlund, Å., Frederiksen, J., Mizuno, Y., Sol, H., Pohl, M., Hartmann, D.H., Oka, M., & Fishman, J.F., 2011, Adv. in Space Res. 47, 1434
Nishikawa, K.-I., Niemiec, J., Zhang, B., Medvedev, M., Hardee, P., Mizuno, Y., Nordlund, Å., Frederiksen, J., Sol, H., Pohl, M., Hartmann, D. H., & Fishman, J.F., 2012, IJMP: Conference Series 8, 259
Nishikawa, K.-I., Hardee, P., Mizuno, Y., Dutan, I., Zhang, B., Meli, A., Medvedev, M., Choi, E.-J., Min, K.W., Niemiec, J., Nordlund, Å., Frederiksen, J., Sol, H., Pohl, M., Hartmann, D.H., Gomez, J., & Marscher, A., IJMP Conference Series, accepted, 2013a
Nishikawa, K.-I., Zhang, B., Dutan, I., Medvedev, M., Hardee, P., Choi, E.-J., Min, K., Niemiec, J., Mizuno, Y., Nordlund, Å., Frederiksen, J., Sol, H., Pohl, M., & Hartmann, D.H., 2013b, Ann. Geophys., 31, 1535
Panaitescu, A., & Kumar, P., 2001, ApJ, 560, L49
Perucho, M., & Lobanov, A.P., 2008, ASP Conference Series, Vol. 386, 381
Silva, L. O., Fonseca, R. A. Tonge, J. W., Dawson, J. M., Mori, W. B., & Medvedev, M. V. 2003, ApJ, 596, L121
Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A., 2009a, ApJ, 698, 1512
Sironi, L., & Spitkovsky, A., 2009b, ApJ, 707, L92
Sironi, L., Spitkovsky, A., & Arons, J., 2013, ApJ, 771, 54
Walg, S., Achterberg, A., Markoff, S., Keppens, R., & Meliani, Z., 2013, MNRAS, 433, 1453
Zhang, W., MacFadyen, A., & Wang, P., 2009, ApJ, 692, L40
[^1]: See eq.(3.28) in Alves dissertation (2010).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Materials with a small superconducting energy gap are expected to favor a high detection efficiency of low-energy photons in superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors. We developed a TaN detector with smaller gap and lower density of states at the Fermi energy than in comparable NbN devices, while other relevant parameters remain essentially unchanged. The observed reduction of the minimum photon energy required for direct detection is in line with model predictions of $\approx1/3$ as compared to NbN.'
author:
- 'A. Engel'
- 'A. Aeschbacher'
- 'K. Inderbitzin'
- 'A. Schilling'
- 'K. Il’in'
- 'M. Hofherr'
- 'M. Siegel'
- 'A. Semenov'
- 'H.-W. Hübers'
title: 'Tantalum nitride superconducting single-photon detectors with low cut-off energy'
---
Superconducting nanowire single-photon detectors [@Semenov01; @*Goltsman01] (SNSPD) are viable detectors for applications where speed is critical, both in terms of small jitter and short reset times. To date the majority of SNSPD have been made from NbN thin films due to their favorable characteristics. Superconducting NbN films with a $T_c\approx 15$ K can be made a few nanometer thin [@Semenov09a] and the resulting films can be structured down to strip widths of a few tens of nanometers [@Bartolf10; @Marsili11a] without destruction of superconductivity. According to simple detection models, [@Semenov03] the threshold energy for direct detection decreases for materials with shorter thermalization time $\tau_{\text{th}}$, small electron-diffusion coefficient $D$, low density of states at the Fermi energy $N_0$ and small superconducting energy gap $\Delta$. Newer results also indicate that a large magnetic penetration depth $\lambda_L$ leading to a larger kinetic inductance $L_k\propto\lambda^2_L$ is beneficial to avoid latching into the normal conducting state.[@Kerman09]
All of these requirements limit the number of superconducting materials that are suitable for SNSPD, and there have been only a few publications about detectors made from alternative materials. Results on Nb-based SNSPD[@Engel04a; @Annunziata09] highlighted the importance of $D$ and $N_0$ and confirmed the importance of $L_k$. Thin films from NbTiN offer advantages in fabrication, and the resulting SNSPD may have lower dark-count rates.[@Dorenbos08] Detectors made from MgB$_2$ still suffer from the low quality of ultra-thin MgB$_2$ films.[@Shibata10] Very recently, two reports with similar objectives have been published. In one work the use of a-W$_x$Si$_{1-x}$ with $T_c\approx3$ K resulted in increased detection efficiencies ($DE$) at lower energies.[@Baek11] The other study compared $DE$ of SNSPD from NbSi ($T_c\approx2$ K) with NbTiN, but although relative $DE$ increased at long wavelengths for NbSi, absolute values of $DE$ were very low. [@Dorenbos11] In this letter we report results on a SNSPD made from ultra-thin TaN films. TaN is chemically and physically very similar to NbN and so are most of the relevant parameters, except for $T_c$ ($\approx6$–$10.5$ K) and the associated energy gap $\Delta$, which both are significantly smaller, and a moderate reduction of $N_0$. Any difference in detector performance can thus be linked to a change in these parameters.
Ultrathin TaN films were grown by DC reactive magnetron sputtering in an Ar/N$_2$ atmosphere on R-plane cut sapphire substrates. The sputter target was pure (99.95%) Ta and the sapphire substrates were heated to 750$^\circ$C. The critical temperature of the as grown films varied between $\approx10.5$ K for film thicknesses $d\geq10$ nm and $6$ K for a thickness of only $2.3$ nm. From these films SNSPD with the typical meander geometry were fabricated using electron-beam lithography and ion milling. More details about the fabrication process have been published elsewhere.[@Ilin11a]
The optical detector-measurements have been performed in a He-3 bath cryostat. The temperature could be stabilized to $\approx\pm10$ mK at $5$ K and $\pm 1$ mK below $2$ K. The detector signal was transmitted to a cryogenic amplifier at the 4 K-stage and then further to a second amplifier at room temperature before fed into a $3.5$ GHz digital oscilloscope or a pulse counter. The amplifier chain had an effective bandwidth of about 40 MHz to 1.9 GHz. The bias current was applied in constant-voltage mode and passed through a series of low-pass filters. The light from a xenon discharge lamp was passed through a grating monochromator and then fed into the cryostat using a free-space setup. Although an absolute calibration of the light intensity was difficult, the lamp spectrum at the detector has been measured and the intensity was monitored during experiments to account for variations in the lamp output. The beam was slightly defocused to obtain a uniform photon-flux density over the meander area (max. $\sim 10^6$ photons $\mu$m$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$). However, the measurements are prone to systematic errors. The given DE should therefore be taken as relative numbers. In another setup with a different TaN SNSPD an absolute DE$\approx20$% has been determined.[@Ilin11a] Complimentary resistance $R$ *vs.* temperature $T$ measurements were performed in a *Quantum Design* PPMS-9.
The detection mechanism of SNSPD relies on the conversion of the energy of the absorbed photon into elementary excitations of the superconducting film.[@Semenov01] Neglecting quasi-particle diffusion, one can estimate the volume of the superconducting film that switches into the normal-conducting state by equating the superconducting condensation energy of that volume to the photon energy that is converted into quasi-particle excitations, $Ad\Delta F=\zeta h\nu$, with $\Delta F$ being the free-energy density difference between the superconducting and normal states, $A$ the normal-conducting hot-spot area, $\zeta\leq1$ the conversion efficiency accounting for losses during the energy conversion process, $h$ the Planck constant and $\nu$ the photon frequency. Depending on the applied bias current $I_b$ with respect to the depairing critical current $I_c$ one can determine a minimum energy (or maximum wavelength) that can be detected.[@Maingault10] Taking also into account quasi-particle diffusion and the reduction of the critical-current density by excess quasi-particles one arrives at a slightly different criterion for direct detection of absorbed photons,[@Semenov05a]
$$\label{Eq.Detection}
h\nu=\frac{hc}{\lambda} \geq \frac{N_0\Delta^2 wd}{\zeta}\sqrt{\pi D\tau_{th}}\left(1-\frac{I_b}{I_c}\right),$$
with $c$ the speed of light, $\lambda$ the photon wavelength and $\tau_{th}$ the time scale of the quasi-particle multiplication process. From Eq. it becomes clear that the most important material parameters are $N_0$ and $\Delta$. From the analysis of $R(T)$ measurements[@Bartolf10] we determined all parameters relevant for the detector presented, except for the time constant $\tau_{th}\approx7$ ps, which we assumed to be similar to NbN films.[@Ilin98] In table \[Tab.Parameters\] we compare our results with parameters for a reference NbN detector with almost the same cross-sectional area of the meander strip. The critical current $I_{c,\mathrm{GL}}$ given in table \[Tab.Parameters\] is the theoretically expected depairing critical current from GL-theory at zero temperature. The experimentally achieved critical currents $I_c$ were $\approx85$% of $I_{c,\mathrm{GL}}$.
----- ------ ------ ---------- ------- ---------------------- ---------- ------------------- --------------------- ------- ----------------
$w$ $d$ $L$ $T_c$ $N_0$ $\Delta$ $D$ $I_{c,\mathrm{GL}}$ $\xi$ $\rho_\square$
(nm) (nm) ($\mu$m) (K) (nm$^{-3}$eV$^{-1}$) (meV) (cm$^2$ s$^{-1}$) ($\mu$A) (nm) ($\Omega$)
TaN 126 3.9 71.4 8.16 44 1.24 0.6 22.4 5.5 590
NbN 80 6.0 120 13.0 51 1.98 0.54 48.2 4.3 380
----- ------ ------ ---------- ------- ---------------------- ---------- ------------------- --------------------- ------- ----------------
Well below the critical temperature ($\lesssim0.5T_c$) and biased with a direct current of 80% to 90% $I_c(T)$ one can observe voltage transients that look very similar to those monitored in NbN detectors. The amplitude of the pulse varies with the applied current, the rise time of about $220$ ps (see Fig. \[Fig.bias\] (b)) is determined by the amplifier and oscilloscope bandwidth, the damped oscillations following the pulse are a consequence of the effective values of inductance, capacitance and resistance in the measuring circuit. In the following we assume that the same single-photon detection mechanism as for NbN SNSPD applies to TaN detectors as well.
![\[Fig.bias\] Detection efficiency ($DE$) as a function of $I_b/I_c$ measured at $2.0$ K and photon wavelengths as indicated. The shift in threshold current with different photon energies is roughly linear as suggested by Eq. . Open symbols show dark-count rates (right axes) as a function of bias current for $2.0$ K. Inset (a) shows a comparison between TaN and NbN detectors for $300$ nm photons and similar operating temperatures. Inset (b): Averaged and normalized traces of single-photon detection events in TaN and NbN.](Figure1){width="\columnwidth" height="\textheight"}
In Fig. \[Fig.bias\] we present measured $DE$ as a function of the applied bias current $I_b/I_c$ for different photon wavelengths at a detector temperature of $2.0$ K. For small wavelengths, *i.e.* high photon energies, a clearly identifiable plateau exists for bias currents above a wavelength-dependent threshold value. Below this threshold value the detection efficiency drops in an approximately exponential way with decreasing bias current. This general behavior is analogous to the typical behavior observed for NbN SNSPD. For comparison, the normalized detection efficiencies for the TaN and a reference NbN detector measured with 300 nm photons at comparable operating temperatures are plotted in the inset of Fig. \[Fig.bias\]. The difference in the threshold current is obvious, despite the roughly equal cross-sectional areas of the two conduction paths. The dark-count rates $R_{dc}$ are shown in the same graph as a function of bias current.
![\[Fig.lambda\] Detection efficiency ($DE$) as a function of $\lambda$ at different bias currents and $T=2.0$ K. The averaged maximum $DE$ is indicated by the horizontal dashed line. Inset (a): Ratio of DE (DE$_\mathrm{TaN}$/DE$_\mathrm{NbN}$) *vs*. $\lambda$. DE$_\mathrm{TaN}$ is significantly increased for long wavelengths and $\lambda_\mathrm{cutoff}$ is easily identified. $\lambda_\mathrm{cutoff}$ for NbN is less clear due to large systematic errors in this wavelength range. Inset (b): relation between minimum photon energy $E_{\mathrm{photon}}=h\nu$ and the threshold current $I_{th}$, error bars are estimates of the accuracy in determining the cut-off criterium. The red line is a least-square fit according to Eq. .](Figure2){width="\columnwidth" height="\textheight"}
Additional measurements were also done as a function of the photon wavelength $\lambda$ for a fixed bias current. The results obtained at $T=2.0$ K are shown in Fig. \[Fig.lambda\] (the $DE$ show a certain repeating noise pattern that is at least partly caused by an elliptical polarization of the incident light). We normalized the $DE$ to the average $DE$ from $300$ nm to $1000$ nm obtained at the highest bias-current.
The $DE$ as a function of bias current and photon wavelength were also measured at temperatures of $0.61$ K and $4.0$ K (not shown). We have observed the same trends that were also reported for NbN[@Yamashita10] and Nb[@Annunziata09] detectors: The detector performance can be significantly improved by lowering the temperature from $4.0$ to $2.0$ K. The cut-off wavelengths are measurably longer at $2.0$ K, and $R_{dc}$ are lower by two orders of magnitude for equal $I_b/I_c$-values. For even lower temperatures ($0.61$ K), the dark-count rates are further reduced by almost two orders of magnitude, whereas we observe only a small change in the detection properties towards a lower cut-off energy.
In the inset (a) of Fig. \[Fig.lambda\] we plot the ratio of normalized DE for the TaN and NbN detectors *vs*. $\lambda$ for roughly equal $I_b/I_c$. It demonstrates the significant increase in DE of the TaN SNSPD for long wavelengths and allows for an easy identification of the cutoff wavelength at around $1100$ nm.
From the data presented in Figs. \[Fig.bias\] and \[Fig.lambda\] we extracted pairs of threshold bias-currents $I_{th}$ and cut-off photon wavelengths $\lambda_{max}$, which we can use to verify the detection criterion given in Eq. . We defined the experimental threshold for direct single-photon detection, for which the relation in Eq. becomes an equality, as that point, where the $DE$ reaches half the maximum $DE$. We repeated this procedure for all the $DE$-measurements as a function of $I_b$ and $\lambda$ at both $0.61$ and $2.0$ K ($4.0$ K data have been excluded, see above). The resulting pairs of threshold currents and minimum photon energies are plotted in the inset (b) of Fig. \[Fig.lambda\] as $(1-I_{th}/I_c)$ *vs*. $E_{min}=hc/\lambda_{max}$. According to Eq. these data should fall onto a single straight line through the origin, which is, within the accuracy of our data, indeed the case. Using the device parameters from Tab. \[Tab.Parameters\] and assuming a thermalization time $\tau_{th}=7$ ps, we can determine the conversion efficiency $\zeta\approx0.12$, which is similar to results obtained on NbN.[@Semenov05a]
With this value for $\zeta$ we may also calculate, using Eq. , the minimum photon energies required for direct detection in TaN and NbN detectors under otherwise equal operating conditions. We obtain a ratio $E_{min}(\mathrm{TaN})/E_{min}(\mathrm{NbN})\approx1/3$, which compares favorably with the observed ratio of $0.4$ to $0.5$. This good agreement also justifies our assumption of roughly equal $\tau_{th}$ in NbN and TaN.
In conclusion, we have presented results on a TaN SNSPD that showed improved detection at longer wavelengths as compared to similar sized NbN detectors. The detector performance in terms of minimum threshold-currents and cut-off wavelengths could be well described within a detection model taking into account quasi-particle multiplication and diffusion. This confirms the importance of the superconducting gap and the density of states for predicting the applicability of a certain superconducting material in SNSPD. With further improvements in TaN-film preparation and nanolithography we expect to reach $DE$ comparable to the best NbN devices without compromises in speed or jitter, but for lower photon energies. Compared to other low-gap materials recently suggested [@Baek11; @Dorenbos11] that work best at sub-Kelvin temperatures, we identify the following advantages. Like the NbN SNSPD, the TaN based devices reach the best, nearly temperature independent performance already at about $2$ K. We also observe a significant increase in DE over NbN SNSPD in the infrared, and not only a slower decrease of DE as in NbSi compared to NbTiN. Beyond the possibility to increase the usable spectral range towards lower photon energies, TaN has also relatively short absorption lengths for X-ray photons of keV-energies.
This research received support from the Swiss National Science Foundation grant No. 200021\_135504/1 and is supported in part by DFG Center for Functional Nanostructures under sub-project A4.3.
[18]{}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 [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.80.054510) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1103/PhysRevB.81.024502) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1021/nl2005143) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1103/PhysRevB.79.100509) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1109/TASC.2009.2018740) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.2990646) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.3518723) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3600793) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.3599712) [ ()](\doibase 10.1007/s10909-011-0424-3) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1063/1.3374636) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1140/epjb/e2005-00351-8) @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase
10.1143/APEX.3.102502)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the present paper derivations and $*$-automorphisms of algebras of unbounded operators over the ring of measurable functions are investigated and it is shown that all $L^0$-linear derivations and $L^{0}$-linear $*$-automorphisms are inner. Moreover, it is proved that each $L^0$-linear automorphism of the algebra of all linear operators on a $bo$-dense submodule of a Kaplansky-Hilbert module over the ring of measurable functions is spatial.'
author:
- 'S. Albeverio $^{1},$ Sh. A. Ayupov $^{2},$ A. A. Zaitov $^3,$ J. E. Ruziev $^4$'
title: '**Algebras of unbounded operators over the ring of measurable functions and their derivations and automorphisms**'
---
$^1$ Institut für Angewandte Mathematik, Universität Bonn, Wegelerstr. 6, D-53115 Bonn (Germany); SFB 611, BiBoS; IZKH; HIM; CERFIM (Locarno); Acc. Arch. (USI), *[email protected]*
$^2$ Institute of Mathematics and information technologies, Uzbekistan Academy of Science, F. Hodjaev str. 29, 100125, Tashkent (Uzbekistan), e-mail: *sh\[email protected], e\[email protected], [email protected]*
$^{3}$ Institute of Mathematics and information technologies, Uzbekistan Academy of Science, F. Hodjaev str. 29, 100125, Tashkent (Uzbekistan), e-mail: *adilbek$_{-}[email protected]*
$^{4}$ Institute of Mathematics and information technologies, Uzbekistan Academy of Science, F. Hodjaev str. 29, 100125, Tashkent (Uzbekistan), e-mail: *[email protected]*
**AMS Subject Classifications (2000): 46L40, 46L57, 46L60, 47L60**
**Key words:** Kaplansky-Hilbert module, $L^0$-linear operator, unbounded operator, $O^*$-algebra, automorphism, derivation.
0. Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}
===============
The theory of derivations and automorphisms of operator algebras is an important branch of the theory of operator algebras and mathematical physics. The present paper is devoted to the study of derivations and automorphisms of the algebras of unbounded operators over the ring of measurable functions. Derivations on the algebras of bounded operators are rather well-investigated \[1\]. A certain method of investigation of derivations was suggested in \[3\], where it was proved that any derivation of a standard algebra of bounded operators on a normed space is inner and any automorphism of such algebra is spatial.
A survey of results and open problems in the theory of derivations on unbounded operators algebras were given in \[2\]. Later the existence of non-inner derivations on the algebra $L(M)$ of measurable operators affiliated with an abelian von Neumann algebra $M$ was established in \[4\]. Recently it was proved \[5\] that in the algebra of (equivalence classes of) measurable complex functions on a locally separable measure space there exist non trivial derivations and non-extendable automorphisms which are not identical.
Derivations and automorphisms of special classes of unbounded operator algebras (so-called $O^\ast$-algebras) were considered in \[6\], in particular it was proved that all derivations and all $*$-automorphisms of the maximal $O^*$-algebra $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D})$ are inner and every automorphism of the algebra $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{D})$ is spatial. In the present paper we study derivations and automorphisms of standard algebras of unbounded $L^0$-linear operators and obtain $L^0$-valued versions of the above results from \[6\].
It should be noted that $L^0$-valued analogues of some classic results become very useful in solving problems of classical operator algebras. For example, in \[7\] the theory of Kaplansky-Hilbert modules over $L^0$ has been applied for the investigation of derivations on algebras of $\tau$-measurable operators affiliated with a type $I$ von Neumann algebra and faithful normal semi-finite trace $\tau.$
The Section 1 contains preliminaries from the theory of Kaplansky-Hilbert modules over $L^{0}$. In Section 2 we develop the theory of unbounded $L^{0}$-linear operators on Kaplansky-Hilbert modules over $L^0$ and introduce and study notions such as $O$-modules, $O^*$-modules, $O$-algebras, $O^*$-algebras for the $L^0$-valued case. Further we show that every $L^0$-linear derivation of the algebra $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D})$ is inner and each automorphism of the algebra $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{D})$ is spatial. We also consider $*$-isomorphisms of $O^*$-algebras over the ring of measurable functions and prove that every $L^0$-linear $*$-isomorphism between $O^*$-algebras is spatial and each $L^0$-linear $*$-automorphism of the algebra $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D})$ is inner.
1. Kaplansky-Hilbert modules over the ring of measurable functions {#kaplansky-hilbert-modules-over-the-ring-of-measurable-functions .unnumbered}
==================================================================
Let $(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ be a space with a complete finite measure, and let $L^0=L^{0}(\Omega)$ be the algebra of all measurable complex-valued functions on $(\Omega,\Sigma,\mu)$ (functions equal almost everywhere are identified).
Consider a vector space $X$ over the field $\mathbb{C}$ of complex numbers. A map $\|\cdot\|:X\longrightarrow L^0$ is called an $L^0$-valued norm on $X$, if for any $\varphi,\psi\in X,$ $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}$ the following conditions are fulfilled:\
$1) \|\varphi\|\geq 0;\\
2) \|\varphi\|=0\Longleftrightarrow \varphi=0;\\
3) \|\lambda \varphi\|=|\lambda|\|\varphi\|;\\
4) \|\varphi+\psi\|\leq\|\varphi\|+\|\psi\|.$
The pair $(X,\|\cdot\|)$ is said to be a *lattice-normed* space (shortly, LNS) over $L^0$. An LNS $X$ is called $d$-decomposable, if for any $\varphi\in X$ and for each decomposition $\|\varphi\|=e_{1}+e_{2}$ into the sum of disjoint elements there exist $\varphi_{1}, \varphi_{2}\in X$ such that $\varphi=\varphi_{1}+\varphi_{2}$ and $\|\varphi_1\|=e_{1},
\|\varphi_2\|=e_{2}$. A $d$-decomposable norm is also called a *Kantorovich norm*. A net $(\varphi_\alpha)_{\alpha\in A}$ of element from $X$ is called $(bo)$-[*convergent*]{} to $\varphi\in
X$, if the net $(\|\varphi_{\alpha}-\varphi\|)_{\alpha\in A}$ $(o)$-converges to zero in $L^0$ (recall that $(o)$-convergence of a net from $L^0$ is equivalent to its convergent almost everywhere). A [*Banach-Kantorovich space*]{} (further, BKS) over $L^0$ is a $(bo)$-complete $d$-decomposable LNS over $L^0$.
Any BKS $X$ over $L^0$ is a module over $L^0$, i. e. for any $\lambda\in L^0$ and $\varphi\in X$ the element $\lambda\varphi\in
X$ is determined and $\|\lambda \varphi\|=|\lambda|\|\varphi\|$ (see \[8, 9\]).
A module $E$ over $L^0$ is said to be *finite-generated,* if there exist $\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},...,\varphi_{n}$ in $E$ such that every $\varphi\in E$ can be decomposed as $\varphi=\alpha_{1}\varphi_{1}+...+\alpha_{n}\varphi_{n}$ where $\alpha_{i}\in L^0, i=\overline{1,n}$. The elements $\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},...,\varphi_{n}$ are called *generators* of the module $E.$ A minimal number of generators of a finite-generated module $E$ is denoted by $d(E).$ A module $E$ over $L^0$ is called *$\sigma$-finite-generated,* if there exists a partition $(\pi_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ of the unit in $\nabla$ ($\nabla$ is the Boolean algebra of all idempotents in $L^0$) such that each $\pi_{n}E$ is finite-generated. A finite-generated module $E$ over $L^0$ is called *homogeneous of type* $n,$ if $n=d(\pi E)$ for every nonzero $\pi\in\nabla$.
Elements $\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},...,\varphi_{n}\in E$ are called *$\nabla$-linear independent*, if for every $\pi\in\nabla$ and any $\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},...,\alpha_{n}\in L^0$ the equality $\pi\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n}\alpha_{k}\varphi_{k}=0$ implies $\pi\alpha_{1}=\pi\alpha_{2}=...\pi\alpha_{n}=0$ (see \[7\]).
If $E$ is module over $L^0$ which is a homogeneous of type $n$ then there exists a basis $\{\varphi_{1},\varphi_{2},...,\varphi_{n}\}$ in $E,$ consisting of $\nabla$-linear independent elements, i. e. each element $\varphi\in E$ can be uniquely represented in the form $\varphi=\alpha_{1}\varphi_{1}+...+\alpha_{n}\varphi_{n}$, $\alpha_{i}\in L^0, i=\overline{1,n}$ (see \[10\], Proposition 6).
Let $X$ and $Y$ be BKS over $L^0.$ An operator $a:X\rightarrow Y$ is $L^0$-[*linear*]{} if $a(\alpha \varphi +\beta \psi )=\alpha
a(\varphi)+\beta a(\psi)$ for all $\alpha,\beta \in L^0 ,\varphi ,
\psi \in X.$ The set of all $L^0$-[*linear*]{} operators is denoted by $\mathcal{L}(X, Y).$ An operator $a\in \mathcal{L}(X, Y)$ is called $L^0$-*bounded*, if there exists $c\in L^0$ such that $\|a(\varphi)\|\leq c\|\varphi\|$ for all $\varphi\in X.$ For an $L^0$-bounded operator $a$ we put $\|a\|=\sup\{\|a(\varphi)\|:\|\varphi\|\leq \textbf{1} \}.$ An $L^0$-linear operator $a:X\rightarrow Y$ is said to be *finite-generated* (respectively, $\sigma$-*finite-generated*, *homogeneous of type* $n$), if $a(X)=\{a(\varphi):\varphi\in X\}$ is a finite-generated (respectively, $\sigma$-finite-generated, homogeneous of type $n$) submodule in $Y.$
It is clear that each $ L^0$-linear $\sigma$-finite-generated operator $a:X\rightarrow Y$ can be represented as $a=\sum\limits_{n=1}^{\infty}\pi_{n}a_{n},$ where $(\pi_{n})_{n\in\mathbb{N}}$ is a partition of the unit $\nabla,$ and $a_n$ are homogeneous operators of finite type. Moreover if $a$ is a finite-generated operator then $(\pi_{n})$ is a finite partition of unit.
Let $a:X\rightarrow Y$ be a homogeneous of type $n$ $ L^0$-linear operator and let $\{\psi_1,..., \psi_n\}$ be a basis in $a(X).$ Denote by $X^{\ast}$ the space of all $ L^0$-bounded $ L^0$-linear functionals from $X$ into $ L^0.$ Then there exists a system $\{f_1,..., f_n\}\subset Y^{\ast}$ such that $f_i(\psi_j)=\delta_{i
j}\textbf{1},$ where $\delta_{i j}$ is Kroenecker symbol (see \[10\], Proposition 2). We define $g_i\in X^{\ast}, i=\overline{1, n}$ as follows $$g_i(\varphi)=f_i(a(\varphi)),\quad \varphi\in X.$$ It is clear that $$a(\varphi)=\sum\limits_{k=1}^{n}g_{k}(\varphi)\psi_{k},\quad \varphi\in X.$$ This formula gives the general form of $L^0$-bounded $ L^0$-linear operators from $X$ into $Y$ which are homogeneous of type $n
(n\in\mathbb{N})$.
If $X$ and $Y$ coincide then $\mathcal{L}(X)$ is used for $\mathcal{L}(X, X).$
An algebra $\mathcal{U}\subset\mathcal{L}(X)$ over $ L^0$ is said to be *standard* if $\mathcal{F}(X)\subset\mathcal{U}$, where $\mathcal{F}(X)$ is the algebra of all finite-generated $
L^0$-linear operators from $\mathcal{L}(X)$. The following algebras over $L^0$ are examples of standard algebras: the algebra $\mathcal{F}(X)$; the algebra $\mathcal{F}_{\sigma}(X)$ of all $\sigma$-finite-generated $L^0$-linear operators from $\mathcal{L}(X)$; the algebra $\mathcal{K}(X)$ of all $L^0$-linear cyclically compact operators from $\mathcal{L}(X)$; the whole algebra $\mathcal{L}(X).$
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a module over $ L^0$. A map $\langle
\cdot,\cdot\rangle:\mathcal{A}\times \mathcal{A}\rightarrow L^0$ is called an $ L^0$-*valued inner product*, if for all $\varphi,\psi,\eta\in \mathcal{A},\,\lambda\in L^0$ the following conditions are fulfilled:\
$1) \langle \varphi,\varphi\rangle\geq0;\\
2) \langle \varphi,\varphi\rangle=0\Leftrightarrow \varphi=0;\\
3) \langle \varphi,\psi\rangle=\overline{\langle
\psi,\varphi\rangle};\\
4) \langle \lambda \varphi,\psi\rangle=\lambda\langle
\varphi,\psi\rangle;\\
5) \langle \varphi+\psi,\eta\rangle=\langle
\varphi,\eta\rangle+\langle \psi,\eta\rangle.$
If $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle:\mathcal{A}\times
\mathcal{A}\rightarrow L^0$ is an $L^0$-valued inner product then the following formula $$\|\varphi\|=\sqrt{\langle \varphi,\varphi \rangle}$$ determines an $L^0$-*valued norm* on $\mathcal{A}.$ A pair $\langle\mathcal{A},\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle)$ is called *Kaplansky-Hilbert module* over $L^0$ or $L^0$-*Hilbert space* if $(\mathcal{A},\|\cdot\|)$ is BKS over $L^0$ (see \[8, 9\]).
Let $X$ be a Kaplansky-Hilbert module over $L^0,$ and $X_0\subset
X.$ Note that $X_0$ is a $bo$-[*closed submodule*]{} of the Kaplansky-Hilbert module $X$ if and only if $X_0$ is a submodule in the usual sense, i. e. $X_0$ is a set containing all sums of the form $bo$-$\sum\limits_{\alpha\in A}\pi_\alpha\varphi_\alpha$, where $(\varphi_\alpha)_{\alpha\in A}$ is any bounded family in $X_0$ and $(\pi_\alpha)_{\alpha\in A}$ is a partition of the unit in $\nabla,$ and it is also closed with respect to the norm of the module $X.$
Let $I$ be an index set. For every $i\in I$ consider a Kaplansky-Hilbert module $X_{i}$ over $L^0.$ Put $X_{I}=\{\varphi\in
\prod\limits_{i\in I} X_{i}: (o)$-$\sum\limits_{i\in
I}\|\varphi_{i}\|^{2}_{i} \in L^0\}.$ Considered with the pointwise operations, $X_I$ forms a module over $L^0.$ The inner product $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle:X_{I}\times X_{I}\rightarrow L^0$ is defined as follows: $$\langle \varphi,\psi\rangle=(o)\mbox{-}\sum\limits_{i\in I}\langle
\varphi_{i},\psi_{i}\rangle_{i},$$ where $\varphi,\psi\in X_{I}$ and $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{i}:X_{i}\times X_{i}\rightarrow L^0$ is the inner product in the corresponding $X_i$. Then $\|\varphi\|=\sqrt{\langle{\varphi,\varphi}\rangle}$ gives an $L^0$-valued norm on $X_I,$ and it clear that $\|\varphi\|=((o)$-$\sum\limits_{i\in I}\langle
\varphi_{i},\varphi_{i}\rangle_{i})^{1/2}.$ Besides $X_{I}$ equipped with this structure forms a Kaplansky-Hilbert module over $L^0.$ We say that $X_{I}$ is the direct sum of the family $(X_{i})_{i\in I}$ and denote it by $\bigoplus\limits_{i\in I} X_{i}$.
Let $X_1,$ $X_2$ be Kaplansky-Hilbert modules over $L^0,$ and let $a$ be an operator from $X_1$ into $X_2$. The domain of the operator $a$ is denoted by $\mathcal{D}(a).$ The set of all pairs $(\varphi,
a\varphi),\ \varphi\in \mathcal{D}(a),$ in the direct sum $X_1\oplus
X_2,$ is called the [*graph*]{} of the operator $a$. The graph of the operator $a$ is denoted by $G(a).$ Thus $$G(a)=\{(\varphi, a\varphi):\ \varphi\in D(a)\}.$$ It is clear that two operators $a$ and $b$ coincide if and only if $G(a)=G(b).$ The set $S\subset X_1\oplus X_2$ is the graph of an appropriate operator if and only if the relations $(\varphi,
\psi)\in S,$ $(\varphi, \psi')\in S$ imply $\psi=\psi'$. An operator $a:X_1\rightarrow X_2$ is $L^0$-linear if and only if $G(a)$ is a submodule of $X_1\oplus X_2.$ An operator $a:X_1\rightarrow X_2$ is called $bo$-[*closed*]{} if its graph $G(a)$ $bo$-closed in $X_1\oplus X_2.$
If an operator $a$ is not $bo$-closed then by the definition its graph $G(a)$ is not $bo$-closed in $X_1\oplus X_2.$ If the $bo$-closure $\overline{G(a)}$ of the set $G(a)$ in $X_1\oplus X_2$ is the graph of some operator, then this operator is denoted by $\widetilde{a}$ and it is called the $bo$-[*closure*]{} of $a$. In this case the operator $a$ is said to be $bo$-[*closable*]{} operator.
Note that $\widetilde{a}$ is the least $bo$-closed extension of the operator $a$. The set $\overline{G(a)},$ which is the graph of the operator $\widetilde{a}:X_1\rightarrow X_2,$ consists of elements of the form $(\varphi, a\varphi),$ $\varphi\in \mathcal{D}(a)$ and their $bo$-limits.
For a Kaplansky-Hilbert module $X$ over $L^0$ an $L^0$-valued version of the Riesz theorem is also true , i. e. for every $L^0$-bounded $L^0$-linear functional $f:X\rightarrow L^0$ there exists a vector $\psi\in X$ such that $f(\varphi)=\langle\varphi,
\psi\rangle$ for all $\varphi\in X$ (see \[9\]).
Let $a:X\rightarrow Y$ be an $L^0$-linear operator. An [*adjoint*]{} operator to $a$ is an operator $a^*: Y\rightarrow X$, satisfying the condition $\langle a\varphi, \psi\rangle=\langle \varphi, a^*
\psi\rangle$ for all $\varphi\in X$ and $\psi\in Y$.
Let $\varphi,\ \psi\in X.$ We define an $L^{0}$-linear operator $\varphi\otimes \psi$ on $X$ by the rule $$(\varphi\otimes \psi)\eta=\langle \eta,\psi\rangle \varphi.$$
An element $\lambda\in L^{0}$ is called *strictly positive* (denoted by $\lambda\gg 0$) if $\lambda(\omega)>0 $ for almost every $\omega\in \Omega$. If $\|\varphi\|\gg 0,\ \|\psi\|\gg 0,$ then the operator $\varphi\otimes \psi$ is homogenous of type one. Moreover, $\varphi\otimes \psi$ is a projection if and only if $\psi=\varphi$ and $\|\varphi\|=\mathbf{1}.$
2. Derivations and automorphisms of $O^\ast$-algebras over $L^0$ {#derivations-and-automorphisms-of-oast-algebras-over-l0 .unnumbered}
================================================================
Let $X$ be a Kaplansky-Hilbert module over $L^0,$ and let $\mathcal{D}\subset X$ be a dense domain. By $I_\mathcal{D}$ we denote the identity map on $\mathcal{D}$.
[**Definition 1.**]{} A set of $bo$-closable $L^0$-linear operators with the domain $\mathcal{D}$ and containing $I_\mathcal{D}$ is said to be an *$O$-family* over $L^0$. In this case $\mathcal{D}$ is called the *domain* of this family.
If $\mathcal{A}$ is an $O$-family over $L^0$ then the domain of this family will be denoted by $\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A}).$ If $a\in
\mathcal{A}$ then according to the definition we have $\mathcal{D(A)}=\mathcal{D}(a)=\mathcal{D}.$
[**Definition 2.**]{} An *$O$-module* over $L^0$ is an $O$-family $\mathcal{A}$ over $L^0$ such that $\alpha a+\beta b \in
\mathcal{A}$ for all $a,\ b \in \mathcal{A}$ and $\alpha,\ \beta \in
L^0$.
Recall that by $ab$ we denote the composition of the operators $a$ and $b$. If $a$ and $b$ are operators on $\mathcal{D}$ and $b\mathcal{D}\subset \mathcal{D}$ then $ab$ is also an operator on $\mathcal{D}$ defined by $ab\varphi=a(b\varphi),$ $\varphi\in
\mathcal{D}$.
[**Definition 3.**]{} An *$O$-algebra* over $L^0$ is an $O$-module $\mathcal{A}$ over $L^0$ such that $b\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A})\subset \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{A})$ and $ab\in \mathcal{A}$ for all $a,\ b \in \mathcal{A}$.
It is easy to see that every $O$-algebra over $L^0$ with the operations of addition, multiplication by elements of $L^0$ and the product defined as the composition of operators, is an algebra over $L^0$. Note also that $I_\mathcal{D}$ is the unit of this algebra.
[**Definition 4.**]{} An *$O^\ast$-family* over $L^0$ on $\mathcal{D}$ is a set $\mathcal{A}$ of $L^0$-linear operators with the domain $\mathcal{D}$ such that $I_\mathcal{D}\in \mathcal{A},$ $\mathcal{D}\subset \mathcal{D}(a^\ast),$ and $a^+\in \mathcal{A}$ for all $a\in \mathcal{A}$, where $a^+=a^\ast|\mathcal{D}$.
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be an $O^\ast$-family over $L^0$ on $\mathcal{D}$. Then $\mathcal{A}$ is an $O$-family over $L^0$ on $\mathcal{D}$. Indeed, each operator $a\in\mathcal{A}$ is $bo$-closable because $\mathcal{D}\subset\mathcal{D}(a^*)$ and $\mathcal{D}$ is dense in $X.$
If $a\in \mathcal{A}$ then $$\langle a\varphi, \psi \rangle=\langle \varphi, a^+\psi \rangle \
\mbox{for all} \ \varphi,\ \psi\in \mathcal{D} \eqno (1)$$ and hence $a=(a^+)^+.$ From the above we obtain, in particular, that $a\rightarrow a^+$ is a bijective map of $\mathcal{A}$ onto itself.
[**Definition 5.**]{} An *$O^\ast$-module* over $L^0$ is an $O$-module over $L^0$ which is an $O^\ast$-family over $L^0$.
If $\mathcal{A}$ is an $O^*$-module over $L^0$ on $\mathcal{D}$ then the map $a\rightarrow a^+,$ $a\in \mathcal{A},$ is an involution on $\mathcal{A}.$
[**Definition 6.**]{} An *$O^\ast$-algebra* over $L^0$ is an $O$-algebra over $L^0$ which is an $O^\ast$-family over $L^0$.
Let $\mathcal{L^+(D)}$ denote the set of all $L^0$-linear operators $a$ on a Kaplansky-Hilbert module $X$ over $L^0$ which satisfy $a\mathcal{D}\subset \mathcal{D},$ $\mathcal{D}\subset\mathcal{D}(a^*)$ and $a^*\mathcal{D}\subset
\mathcal{D}.$
[**Theorem 1**]{}. *$\mathcal{L^+(D)}$ is the largest $O^*$-algebra over $L^0$ with the domain $\mathcal{D}.$*
[*Proof*]{}. At first we check that $\mathcal{L^+(D)}$ is an $O^*$-family over $L^0$. Let $a\in \mathcal{L^+(D)}.$ We have $a^+\mathcal{D} =a^*\mathcal{D} \subset\mathcal{D},$ $(a^+)^*=(a^*|\mathcal{D})^*\supset a^{**}\supset a,$ and hence $(a^+)^*\mathcal{D}=a\mathcal{D} \subset\mathcal{D},$ i. e. $a^+\in
\mathcal{L^+(D)},$ as it was asserted.
Now let us show that $\mathcal{L^+(D)}$ is an $O$-algebra over $L^0$. Let $a, b\in \mathcal{L^+(D)}.$ It is easy to see that $\lambda a\in \mathcal{L^+(D)}$ for all $\lambda\in L^0.$ From $\mathcal{D}\subset\mathcal{D}(a^*)\cap\mathcal{D}(b^*)\subset\mathcal{D}((a+b)^*)$ and $(a+b)^*\mathcal{D}=(a^*+b^*)\mathcal{D}$ it follows that $(a+b)\in\mathcal{L^+(D)}.$
We shall show that $ab\in\mathcal{L^+(D)}.$ Let $\varphi\in
\mathcal{D}$ and $\psi\in \mathcal{D}.$ According to (1) we have $\langle ab\varphi, \psi\rangle = \langle b\varphi, a^+\psi\rangle.$ By virtue of $a^+\mathcal{D} \subset\mathcal{D},$ applying again (1), we obtain $\langle ab\varphi, \psi\rangle = \langle \varphi,
b^+a^+\psi\rangle.$ Besides, $b^+a^+\subset (ab)^*$ and $b^+a^+=(b^*|\mathcal{D})(a^*|\mathcal{D})=(b^*a^*)|\mathcal{D}=(ab)^*|\mathcal{D}=(ab)^+.$ These imply that $\mathcal{D}\subset\mathcal{D}((ab)^*),$ $(ab)^*
\mathcal{D}= b^+a^+ \mathcal{D}\subset \mathcal{D}.$ Thus, $ab\in
\mathcal{L^+(D)}.$
From the above it is clear that $\mathcal{L^+(D)}$ is an $O^*$-algebra over $L^0$.
Now let $\mathcal{A}$ be an arbitrary $O^*$-algebra over $L^0$ with the domain $\mathcal{D}$ and let $a\in \mathcal{A}.$ According to the definition 3 we have $a\mathcal{D} \subset \mathcal{D}$ since $\mathcal{A}$ is an $O$-algebra. The definition 4 yields that $a^+\in\mathcal{A}$ since $\mathcal{A}$ is an $O^*$-algebra. Hence, $a^*\mathcal{D}=a^+ \mathcal{D} \subset\mathcal{D}.$ This means that $\mathcal{A} \subset\mathcal{L^+(D)}.$ Theorem 1 is proved.
Let $X$ be a Kaplansky-Hilbert module over $L^0,$ and let $\mathcal{D}\subset X$ be a $bo$-dense submodule. By the symbol $\mathcal{L(D)}$ we denote the algebra of all $L^0$-linear operators $a:\mathcal{D}\rightarrow\mathcal{D}$. Let $\mathcal{U}$ be a standard algebra in $\mathcal{L(D)}$. Recall that a linear operator $\delta:\mathcal{U}\rightarrow\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{D})$ is said to be a [*derivation*]{}, if $\delta(ab)=\delta(a)b+a\delta(b)$ for all $a, b\in \mathcal{U}.$ If for a derivation $\delta:\mathcal{U}\rightarrow\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{D})$ there exists an element $x\in\mathcal{U}$ such that $\delta(a)=xa-ax $ for all $a\in \mathcal{U}$ then $\delta$ is called an *inner derivation*.
Further in theorems 2 and 3 we suppose that there exists a vector $e$ in the $bo$-dense submodule $\mathcal{D}$ of the Kaplansky-Hilbert module $X$ over $L^0$ such that $\|e\|=\textbf{1},$ where $\textbf{1}$ is the unit in $L^0.$
**Theorem 2.** *Let $\delta:\mathcal{U}\rightarrow\mathcal{L(D)}$ be an $L^0$-linear derivation of a standard algebra $\mathcal{U}.$ Then there exists $x\in\mathcal{L(D)}$ such that $$\delta(a)=xa-ax$$ for all $a\in\mathcal{U}.$*
[*Proof*]{}. At first consider the case $\mathcal{U}=\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{D}),$ where $\mathcal{F(D)}$ is the algebra of finite-generated operators $a:\mathcal{D}\rightarrow\mathcal{D}$.
Fix a vector $e\in \mathcal{D}$ with $\|e\|=\textbf{1}$ and a functional $f:\mathcal{D}\rightarrow L^0$ such that $f(e)=\textbf{1}.$ Define a projection $p\in\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{D})$ by $$p(\varphi)=f(\varphi)e, \quad \varphi\in \mathcal{D}.$$ Since $p^{2}=p$ then $\delta(p)=p\delta(p)+\delta(p)p$ and therefore $p\delta(p)p=0.$ Put $\psi=p\delta(p)-\delta(p)p.$ Then $p\psi-\psi
p=p\delta(p)+\delta(p)p=\delta(p).$
Putting $\delta'(a)=\delta(a)-(a\psi-\psi a)$ we get $\delta'(p)=0$. Thus, one may assume that $\delta(p)=0.$ Then we have $$\delta(ap)=a\delta(p)+\delta(a)p=\delta(a)p. \eqno (2)$$
Consider a vector $\varphi\in \mathcal{D}$ and an operator $a\in\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{D})$ such that $a(e)=\varphi$. Define an operator $x: \mathcal{D}\rightarrow\mathcal{D}$ by the formula $$x(\varphi)=\delta(a)e.$$ The operator $x$ is defined correctly. Indeed, let $\varphi\in\mathcal{D}$ be a vector and let $a_1,\
a_2\in\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{D})$ be operators such that $a_1(e)=a_2(e)=\varphi.$ For each $\eta\in\mathcal{D}$ we have $(a_i
p)\eta=f(\eta)a_i(e),$ $i=1,\ 2,$ i. e. $a_1p=a_2p.$ Therefore by virtue of (2) it follows that $\delta(a_1)(e)=(\delta(a_1)p)(e)=\delta(a_1p)(e)=\delta(a_2p)(e)=(\delta(a_2)p)(e)=\delta(a_2)(e),$ i. e. $\delta(a_1)=\delta(a_2).$
It easy to see that the operator $x$ is $L^0$-linear.
Let $\varphi\in\mathcal{D}$ and $a\in\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{D}).$ Then $(xap)\varphi=x(a(p(\varphi)))=x(f(\varphi)a(e))=f(\varphi)x(a(e))=
f(\varphi)\delta(a)(e)=\delta(a)p(\varphi)=\delta(ap)\varphi.$ Thus, $xap=\delta(a)p$ for all $a\in \mathcal{F(D)}.$ Therefore for $b\in \mathcal{F(D)}$ we have $xabp=\delta(ab)p= a\delta(b)p+\delta(a)bp=axbp+\delta(a)bp,$ i. e. $$\delta(a)bp=xabp-axbp. \eqno (3)$$
Now for an arbitrary $\varphi\in \mathcal{D}$ take $b\in\mathcal{F(D)}$ such that $b(e)=\varphi.$ Then $(bp)(e)=\varphi.$ Hence from (3) we obtain $\delta(a)=xa-ax$ for all $a\in \mathcal{F(D)}.$
Let now $\mathcal{U}\subset \mathcal{L(D)}$ be an arbitrary standard algebra and take $b\in \mathcal{U}.$ Then $ba\in\mathcal{F(D)}$ for all $a\in \mathcal{F(D)}.$ Therefore $$\delta(ba)=xba-bax. \eqno (4)$$ On the other hand according to the definition of derivation we have $$\delta(ba)=\delta(b)a+b\delta(a)=\delta(b)a+b(xa-ax). \eqno (5)$$ From $(4)$ and $(5)$ we obtain $\delta(b)a=xba-bxa=(xb-bx)a.$
Now for an arbitrary $\varphi\in\mathcal{D}$ take $a\in\mathcal{F(D)}$ such that $a(\varphi)=\varphi.$ Then $\delta(b)(\varphi) = \delta(b)(a(\varphi))=(\delta(b)a)(\varphi) =
((xb-bx)a)(\varphi)= (xb-bx)(a(\varphi))=(xb-bx)(\varphi),$ i. e. $\delta(b)(\varphi) = (xb-bx)(\varphi)$ for any $\varphi\in\mathcal{D}.$ This means that $\delta(b)=xb-bx$ for all $b\in \mathcal{U}.$ Theorem 2 is proved.
Replacing $\mathcal{F(D)}$ by $\mathcal{F^+(D)}:=\mathcal{F(D)} \cap
\mathcal{L^+(D)}$ and $\mathcal{L(D)}$ by $\mathcal{L^+(D)},$ we get
**Corollary 1.** *Let $\delta:\mathcal{U}\rightarrow\mathcal{L^+(D)}$ be an $L^0$-linear derivation of the algebra $\mathcal{U}\supset\mathcal{F^+(D)},$ where $\mathcal{D}$ is a $bo$-dense submodule of a Kaplansky-Hilbert module $X$ with a vector $e\in\mathcal{D}$ with $\|e\|=\mathbf{1}.$ Then there exists $x\in\mathcal{L^+(D)}$ such that $$\delta(a)=xa-ax$$ for all $a\in\mathcal{U}.$ In particular each $L^0$-linear derivation of the algebra $\mathcal{L}^+(\mathcal{D})$ over $L^0$ is inner.*
Recall that a bijective linear operator $\alpha:\mathcal{L(D)}\rightarrow\mathcal{L(D)}$ is called *automorphism* if $\alpha(ab)=\alpha(a)\alpha(b)$ for all $a,\ b\in \mathcal{L(D)}.$
**Theorem 3.** *Let $\alpha:\mathcal{F(D)}\rightarrow\mathcal{F(D)}$ be an $L^0$-linear automorphism of the algebra $\mathcal{F(D)}.$ Then there exists $x\in\mathcal{L(D)}$ such that $x^{-1}\in\mathcal{L(D)}$ and $$\alpha(a)=xax^{-1}$$ for all $a\in\mathcal{F(D)}.$*
[*Proof*]{}. Let $e\in\mathcal{D}$ be a vector with $\|e\|=\mathbf{1}$ and let $f:\mathcal{D}\rightarrow L^0$ be an $L^0$-linear functional such that $\|e\|=\textbf{1},\
f(e)=\textbf{1}.$ We define a projection $p\in\mathcal{F(D)}$ as follows $$p(\varphi)=f(\varphi)e, \quad \varphi\in \mathcal{D}.$$ Then obviously $p(e)=e.$ Moreover the projection $\alpha(p)$ is homogeneous of type one because $\alpha$ is an $L^0$-linear automorphism. Now take $e_1\in \mathcal{D}$ such that $\|e_1\|=\textbf{1},\ \alpha(p)(e_1)=e_1.$
We define an operator $x:\mathcal{D}\rightarrow \mathcal{D}$ as follows: for any $\varphi\in \mathcal{D}$ take an operator $a\in\mathcal{F(D)}$ such that $a(e)=\varphi$ and put $$x(\varphi)=\alpha(a)(e_1),\quad \varphi\in \mathcal{D}.$$
Let $\varphi\in \mathcal{D}$ and take $a_1, a_2\in\mathcal{F(D)}$ such that $a_1(e)=a_2(e)=\varphi.$ For each $\psi\in\mathcal{D}$ we have $(a_i p)(\psi)=f(\psi)a_i(e),\ i=1, 2,$ i. e. $a_1p=a_2p.$ Therefore $\alpha(a_1)(e_1)=\alpha(a_1)\alpha(p)(e_1)=\alpha(a_1p)(e_1)=\alpha(a_2p)(e_1)=\alpha(a_2)\alpha(p)(e_1)
=\alpha(a_2)(e_1).$ This means that $x$ is defined correctly.
Obviously $x$ is $L^0$-linear.
Now we shall show that $x$ is a bijection. Let $\varphi_1,\
\varphi_2\in \mathcal{D}$ such that $\varphi_1\neq \varphi_2.$ Choose $a_1,\ a_2\in\mathcal{F(D)}$ such that $a_i(e)=\varphi_i,\
i=1,\ 2.$ Then $a_1\neq a_2,$ and hence $a_1p\neq a_2p.$ Since $a_ip,$ $i=1, 2,$ are one-generated operators and $\alpha$ is an automorphism then $\alpha(a_1)(e_1)= \alpha(a_1)\alpha(p)(e_1) =
\alpha(a_1 p)(e_1) \neq \alpha(a_2 p)(e_1)
=\alpha(a_2)\alpha(p)(e_1)= \alpha(a_2)(e_1).$ Hence, $x(\varphi_1)\neq x(\varphi_2).$ Now take $\psi\in\mathcal{D},$ and $a\in\mathcal{F(D)}$ such that $a(e_1)=\psi.$ Put $b=\alpha^{-1}(a).$ Then for $\varphi=b(e)$ one has $x(\varphi)=\alpha(b)(e_1)=\alpha(\alpha^{-1}(a))(e_1)=a(e_1)=\psi,$ i. e. $x(\varphi)=\psi.$
Let $\varphi\in \mathcal{D}$ and $a\in\mathcal{F(D)}.$ Take $b\in\mathcal{F(D)}$ such that $b(e)=\varphi.$ Then $(xa)(\varphi)=x(a(\varphi))= x(ab(e)) =
\alpha(ab)(e_1)=\alpha(a)\alpha(b)(e_1)=\alpha(a)x(\varphi).$ Thus, $xa=\alpha(a)x,$ i. e. $\alpha(a)=xax^{-1}$ for all $a\in\mathcal{F(D)}.$ Theorem 3 is proved.
**Corollary 2.** *For each $L^0$-linear automorphism of a standard algebra $\mathcal{U}$ there exists $x\in\mathcal{L(D)}$ such that $x^{-1}\in\mathcal{L(D)}$ and $$\alpha(a)=xax^{-1}$$ for all $a\in\mathcal{U}.$ In particular, each $L^0$-linear automorphism of the algebra $\mathcal{L(D)}$ is spatial.*
Let $\mathcal{D}_1$, resp. $\mathcal{D}_2$ be $(bo)$-dense submodules in the Kaplansky-Hilbert modules $X_1$, resp. $X_2$ over $L^0$, and let $\mathcal{A}_1$ and $\mathcal{A}_2$ be $*$-subalgebras respectively in the $O^*$-algebras $\mathcal{L}^+(\mathcal{D}_1)$ and $\mathcal{L}^+(\mathcal{D}_2)$ over $L^0$.
**Definition 7.** An $L^{0}$-linear $*$-isomorphism $\pi:\mathcal{A}_1{\longrightarrow} \mathcal{A}_2$ is said to be *spatial* if there exists an isometry $U:X_1\stackrel{\mbox{on}}{\longrightarrow} X_2$ such that
\(i) $U\mathcal{D}_1=\mathcal{D}_2,$
(ii)$\pi(a)\varphi=UaU^{-1}\varphi \ \mbox{for all} \
\varphi\in\mathcal{D}_2,\ a\in\mathcal{A}_1.$\
Then we say that $\pi$ is *implemented* by the operator $U$.
An $L^0$-linear $\ast$-automorphism of an algebra $\mathcal{A}$ is called *inner*, if it is spatial and it may be implemented by a unitary operator $U$ on a Kaplansky-Hilbert module $X$ over $L^0$ such that $U|\mathcal{D}\in\mathcal{A},$ where $\mathcal{D}$ is a $(bo)$-dense submodule of $X$.
Let $A$ be a module over $L^0$ and a $*$-algebra over $L^0$. The set of all projections in $A$ is denoted by $I_{sa}(A).$ If $p_1,p_2\in
I_{sa}(A)$ then we write $p_1 \leq\ p_2$ if and only if $p_1
p_2=p_1$. The relation $\leq$ is a reflexive, antisymmetric and transitive relation in $I_{sa}(A)$. If there exists an $L^{0}$-linear $*$-isomorphism $\pi$ from the algebra $A$ onto a $*$-subalgebra of $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D})$, and if $p$ is a projection in $A$ then $\widetilde{\pi(p)}$ is also a projection in $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D})$, i. e. $\widetilde{\pi(p)}\in\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D})$ and $\widetilde{\pi(p)}^{2}=\widetilde{\pi(p)}.$ Obviously the relation $p_1\leq\ p_2$ is equivalent to the usual relation $\widetilde{\pi(p_1)}\leq\widetilde{\pi(p_2)}$ between the projections $\widetilde{\pi(p_1)}$ and $\widetilde{\pi(p_2)}$. Let $H_{1}(A)$ denote the set of all homogeneous of type one projections of the algebra $A.$ For $p_1,p_2\in H_{1}(A)$ we shall write $p_1\approx p_2,$ if $p_1 Ap_2\neq \{0\}.$ Further on, the elements of the set $H_{1}(A)$ will be called projections of rank one.
Let $\mathcal{D}_{i}$ be a $(bo)$-dense submodule of a Kaplansky-Hilbert module $X_i$ over $L^0$ such that there exists $\varphi_{i}\in\mathcal{D}_{i},$ $\|\varphi_{i}\|=\mathbf{1},$ $i\in
I.$ By $\mathcal{D}_I$ we denote a $(bo)$-dense submodule of the Kaplansky-Hilbert module $X_I$ over $L^0$, consisting of all vectors $(\varphi_i):=(\varphi_i)_{i\in I},$ which have only finitely many nonzero coordinates $\varphi_i\in\mathcal{D}_i$.
Note that every element $(a_i):=(a_i)_{i\in I}$ of the product $\prod\limits_{i\in I}\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i})$ is an operator on $\mathcal{D}_I$ which acts according to the formula: $$(a_i)(\varphi_i)=(a_i\varphi_i), \qquad (\varphi_i)\in\mathcal{D}_I.$$ The set of all such operators forms an $O^*$-algebra with the domain $\mathcal{D}_I.$ This algebra is denoted by $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I)$
**Lemma 1.** *Let $\mathcal{A}$ be a $*$-subalgebra of the algebra $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_I)$ over $L^0$ and let $M(\mathcal{A})$ be the set of all projections $p\in
H_{1}(\mathcal{A}),$ for which the generators of the images $p\mathcal{D}_{I}$ have a unique nonzero coordinate. Then:*
*(i) The set $M(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I))$ consists of the projections of the form $\varphi_{i}\otimes\varphi_{i}$, where $\varphi_{i}\in\mathcal{D}_{i},$ $\|\varphi_{i}\|=\mathbf{1},$ $i\in
I.$ If $\varphi_{i}\otimes\varphi_{i}$ and $\psi_{j}\otimes\psi_{j}$ are two such operators then $\varphi_{i}\otimes\varphi_{i}\approx
\psi_{j}\otimes\psi_{j}$ if and only if $i=j.$*
*(ii) $M(\mathcal{A})=M(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in
I))$ if and only if $\mathcal{A}\subseteq\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I)$ and $\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{D}_{i})\subseteq\mathcal{A}$ for all $i\in
I$.*
*(iii) If $M(\mathcal{A})=M(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I))$ then *on the set* $M(\mathcal{A})=
M(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I))$ the relation “$\approx$” corresponding to the $*$-algebra $\mathcal{A}$ coincides with the relation “$\approx$” corresponding to the $*$-algebra $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I)$.*
*(iv) The set $H_{1}(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in
I))$ of projections of rank one consists of all $L^{0}$-linear projections of the form $(o)$-$\sum\limits_{i\in
I}\pi_i(\varphi_{i}\otimes\varphi_{i})$, where $\varphi_{i}\in\mathcal{D}_{i},$ $\|\varphi_{i}\|=\mathbf{1},$ and $(\pi_i)_{i\in I}$ is a partition of the unit in $\nabla.$*
*Proof.* (i) From the definition it follows that the operators of the form $\varphi_{i}\otimes\varphi_{i},$ $\varphi_{i}\in\mathcal{D}_{i}$, $\|\varphi_{i}\|=\mathbf{1}$, $i\in
I,$ are projections of rank one.
Let $\varphi_{i}\otimes \varphi_{i}, \psi_{j}\otimes \psi_{j}\in
M(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I)).$ If $i\neq j$ then $\varphi_{i}\otimes\varphi_{i}M(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in
I)) \psi_{j}\otimes \psi_{j}=\{0\} $. This implies that $\varphi_{i}\otimes\varphi_{i}\approx \psi_{j}\otimes\psi_{j}$ if and only if $i=j.$
ii\) Suppose that $M(\mathcal{A})=M(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I)$. At first we shall prove that $\mathcal{A}\subseteq \mathcal{L}^{+}
(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I)$. Fix $i\in I.$ If we prove that $a\varphi\in \mathcal{D}_{i}$ for some $\varphi\in \mathcal{D}_{i}$ then by virtue of the linearity of the operator $a\in \mathcal{A}$ we have $a\psi\in \mathcal{D}_{i}$ for any $\psi\in
\mathcal{D}_{i}.$ Therefore without loss of generality we may suppose that $\|\varphi\|=\mathbf{1}$ and $a\varphi\neq 0$. Then $\varphi\otimes\varphi\in \mathcal{A}$ and hence $a+\varphi\otimes\varphi\in \mathcal{A}.$ Apply the operator $a+\varphi\otimes\varphi$ to the element $\varphi\in
\mathcal{D}_{i}:\ \ \ (a+\varphi\otimes\varphi)
(\varphi)=a(\varphi)+\varphi.$ This implies that $a\varphi\in\mathcal{D}_{i}.$
Now let us show that $\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{D}_{i})\subset\mathcal{A}.$ For this it is enough to prove that $\varphi\otimes\psi\in \mathcal{A}$ for all unit elements $\varphi,\ \psi \in\mathcal{D}_{i}$ since each finite-generated operator from $\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{D}_{i})$ may be represented as a linear combination of operators of rank one. Let $\varphi,\psi \in \mathcal{D}_{i}$ and $\|\varphi\|=\|\psi\|=\mathbf{1}.$ By virtue of (i) we have $\varphi\otimes\varphi, \psi\otimes\psi \in
M(\mathcal{A})=M(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I)).$ From this it follows that the operators $\varphi\otimes\varphi$, $\psi\otimes\psi$ belong to $\mathcal{A}$ and hence $$(\psi\otimes\psi)(\varphi\otimes\varphi)=\langle
\psi,\varphi\rangle (\varphi\otimes\psi)\in \mathcal{A},$$ i. e. $(\varphi\otimes\psi)\in \mathcal{A}.$
The inverse statement is obvious.
\(iii) If $M(\mathcal{A})=M(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I))$ then from (ii) it follows that $\mathcal{A}\subset \mathcal{L}^{+}
(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I).$ Therefore according to (i) it is sufficient to show that $\psi\otimes\psi\mathcal{A}\varphi\otimes\varphi\neq\{0\}$ for all unit elements $\varphi,\psi\in\mathcal{D}_{i}.$ Consider $\xi\otimes\xi\in \mathcal{A},$ where the vector $\xi\in
\mathcal{D}_{i}$ is defined by the formula $$\xi= \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\varphi+\psi) &
\mbox{if}\ \langle\varphi,\ \psi\rangle=0,\\
\ \varphi &\mbox{in other cases.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ Then we have $$(\psi\otimes\psi)(\xi\otimes\xi)(\varphi\otimes\varphi)=\langle\varphi,\xi\rangle
\langle\psi,\xi\rangle \varphi\otimes\psi\neq 0,$$ i. e. $\psi\otimes\psi\mathcal{A}\varphi\otimes\varphi\neq\{0\}$.
\(iv) Let $a=(a_{i})_{i \in I}\in \mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i
\in I)$ be a projection of rank one. Then $a_{i}$ is a projection in $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i})$ for all $i \in I.$ Since $a$ is a projection of rank one there exist a partition $(\pi_i)_{i\in I}$ of the unit in $\nabla$ and a vector $\varphi_{i}\in \mathcal{D}_{i},\
\ \|\varphi_{i}\|=\mathbf{1},$ such that $a_{i}=\pi_i(\varphi_{i}\otimes\varphi_{i}).$ From this we have $a=(o)$-$\sum\limits_{i\in I}\pi_i(\varphi_{i}\otimes\varphi_{i}).$ Lemma 1 is proved.
**Theorem 4.** *Let $\mathcal{D}_i$ and $\mathcal{D}_{j}$ be $(bo)$-dense submodules of Kaplansky-Hilbert modules $X_i$ ($i\in I$) and $X_j$ ($j\in J$) over $L^0,$ respectively, such that for each $i\in I$ and $j\in J$ there exist $e_i\in\mathcal{D}_i$ and $f_j\in\mathcal{D}_{j}$ with $\|e_i\|=\mathbf{1}$ and $\|f_j\|=\mathbf{1}$. Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be $*$-subalgebras of the algebras $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_I)$ and $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_J)$ over $L^0$, respectively, satisfying the following conditions $$M(\mathcal{A})=M(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I)),$$ $$M(\mathcal{B})=M(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{j}:j\in J)).$$ Suppose that there exists an $L^0$-linear $*$-isomorphism $\pi,$ mapping $\mathcal{A}$ onto $\mathcal{B}$. Then $\pi$ is a spatial $L^0$-linear $*$-isomorphism. Moreover, there exist a partition $(\pi_{\alpha})$ of the unit in $\nabla,$ bijective maps $\chi_{\alpha}:I\rightarrow J$ and surjective isometries $U_{\alpha}:X_{I}\rightarrow X_{J}$ such that $U=\sum\limits_{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha}U_{\alpha}$ implements $\pi$ and $U_{\alpha}(\pi_{\alpha}\mathcal{D}_{i})=\pi_{\alpha}\mathcal{D}_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}$ for all $i\in I$.*
*Proof.* Since $\pi$ is a $*$-isomorphism, it preserves the relation $\approx$ and $\pi(M(\mathcal{A}))\subset
H_{1}(\mathcal{B}).$ Hence $$\pi(M(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I)))\subset
H_{1}(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{j}:j\in J)). \eqno(6)$$
From (6) we have $\pi(\varphi_{i}\otimes\varphi_{i})\in
H_{1}(\mathcal{L}^{+} (\mathcal{D}_{j}:j\in J)).$ By virtue of lemma 1, $\pi(\varphi_{i}\otimes\varphi_{i})$ has the form $(o)$-$\sum\limits_{j\in J}\pi_{ij}(\psi_{ij}\otimes \psi_{ij}),$ where $(\pi_{ij})_{j\in J}$ is a partition of the unit in $\nabla$ such that $(\pi_{ij})_{i\in I}$ is also a partition of the unit in $\nabla$.
Since $\pi$ is a $*$-isomorphism the cardinalities of the sets $I$ and $J$ are equal. Let $S(I,J)$ be the set of all bijections from $I$ onto $J.$ For each $\alpha\in S(I,J)$ put $\chi_{\alpha}(i)=\alpha(i)$ and $\pi_{\alpha}=\bigwedge\limits_{i\in I}\pi_{i\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}.$ Then $\pi_{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha^{'}}=0$ at $\alpha\neq\alpha^{'}$ and $\bigvee\limits_{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha}=\mathbf{1}.$ Indeed, if $\alpha\neq\alpha^{'}$ then there exists $i_{0}\in I$ such that $\alpha(i_{0})\neq\alpha^{'}(i_{o}).$ Then $\pi_{i_{0}\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i_{0})}\pi_{i_{0}\chi_{_{\alpha^{'}}}(i_{0})}=0.$ From this it follows that $\pi_{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha^{'}}=0$ at $\alpha\neq\alpha^{'}.$ Further, $\bigvee\limits_{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha}=\bigvee\limits_{\alpha}(\bigwedge\limits_{i\in
I}\pi_{i\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)})=\bigwedge\limits_{i\in
I}(\bigvee\limits_{\alpha\pi_{i\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}})=\mathbf{1}.$
Suppose that $\varphi_{i}\in\mathcal{D}_{i}$, $\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}\in\mathcal{D}_{j}$, are unit elements such that $\pi(\pi_{\alpha}(\varphi_{i}\otimes\varphi_{i}))=\pi_{\alpha}(\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}
\otimes\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}).$ We shall prove that $$\|\pi_{\alpha}x\varphi_{i}\|=\|\pi_{\alpha}\pi(x)\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}\|
\eqno (7)$$ for any $x\in\mathcal{A}.$ From the lemma 1 it follows that $x\varphi_{i}\in\mathcal{D}_{i}$ and hence $\pi_{\alpha}x\varphi_{i}\in\mathcal{D}_{i},$ $\pi_{\alpha}(x\varphi_{i}\otimes x\varphi_{i})\in \mathcal{A}$. One has $$\pi(\pi_{\alpha}(x\varphi\otimes x\varphi))=
\pi_{\alpha}\pi(x(\varphi\otimes\varphi)x^{+})=$$ $$\pi_{\alpha}\pi(x)\pi(\varphi\otimes\varphi)\pi(x)^{+}=
\pi(x)\pi(\pi_{\alpha}(\varphi\otimes\varphi))\pi(x)^{+}=$$ $$=\pi_{\alpha}(\pi(x)\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}\otimes\pi(x)\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}).
\eqno (8)$$ If $\pi(x)\psi=0$ then (7) is true. If $\pi(x)\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}\neq 0$ then $$(\pi(\pi_{\alpha}(x\varphi_{i}\otimes
x\varphi_{i}))^{2}=\pi(\pi_{\alpha}(x\varphi\otimes\
x\varphi)^{2})=\pi_{\alpha}\pi\|x\varphi_{i}\|^{2}(x\varphi_{i}\otimes\
x\varphi_{i})=$$ $$=\|\pi_{\alpha}x\varphi\|^{2}(\pi(x)\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}\otimes\pi(x)\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}).
\eqno (9)$$ On the other hand according to (8) we have $$(\pi(x\varphi_{i}\otimes x\varphi_{i}))^{2}=
\|\pi_{\alpha}\pi(x)\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}\|^{2}(\pi(x)
\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}\otimes \pi(x)\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}).
\eqno (10)$$ From the equalities (9) and (10) we obtain (7). If $i\in I$ then from (7) it follows that the equality $$U_{\alpha
i}(\pi_{\alpha}x\varphi_{i})=\pi_{\alpha}\pi(x)\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)},
\ \ x\in\mathcal{A},$$ defines a unique norm preserving $L^{0}$-linear surjective map $U_{\alpha i}:
\pi_{\alpha}\mathcal{A}\varphi_{i} \rightarrow
\pi_{\alpha}\pi(\mathcal{A})\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)} \equiv
\pi_{\alpha}\mathcal{B}\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}$. By virtue of lemma 1 the inclusions $\mathcal{F}(\mathcal{D}_{i})\subseteq\mathcal{A}|\mathcal{D}_{i}
\subseteq\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i})$ are true. From this it follows that $\pi_{\alpha}\mathcal{A}\varphi_{i}=\pi_{\alpha}\mathcal{D}_{i}.$ Similarly, $\pi_{\alpha}\mathcal{B}\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}=
\pi_{\alpha}\mathcal{D}_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}.$ Thus, $U_{\alpha}(\pi_{\alpha}\mathcal{D}_{i})=\pi_{\alpha}\mathcal{D}_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)},$ where $U_{\alpha}=\bigoplus\limits_{i\in I}U_{\alpha i}.$ Since the index $i\in I$ is arbitrary it follows that $U_{\alpha}(\pi_{\alpha}\mathcal{D}_{I})=\pi_{\alpha}\mathcal{D}_{J}.$ Put $U=(o)$-$\sum\limits_{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha}U_{\alpha}.$ It is clear that $U$ is a surjective isometry from $X_{I}$ onto $X_{J}$. For $a\in \mathcal{A}$ one has $$\pi(a)(\pi_{\alpha}\pi(x)\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)})=\pi_{\alpha}\pi(ax)\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}=
U_{\alpha}\pi_{\alpha}ax\varphi_{i}=\ \
U_{\alpha}aU^{-1}_{\alpha}(\pi_{\alpha}\pi(x)\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)}),$$ i. e. $\pi(a)(\pi_{\alpha}\pi(x)\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)})=U_{\alpha}aU^{-1}_{\alpha}
(\pi_{\alpha}\pi(x)\psi_{\chi_{_{\alpha}}(i)})$ for all $x\in\mathcal{A},$ $\pi_{\alpha}$ and $i\in I$. The latter equality implies $\pi(a)\psi=UaU^{-1}\psi$ for all $\psi\in\mathcal{D}_{J}$ and $a\in\mathcal{A}.$ Thus, $\pi$ is spatial and it is implemented by $U.$ Theorem 4 is proved.
**Corollary 3.** *Let $\mathcal{D}_{i}$ and $\mathcal{D}_{j}$ be $(bo)$-dense submodules of Kaplansky-Hilbert modules $X_i$ ($i\in I$) and $X_j$ ($j\in J$) over $L^{0},$ respectively, such that for each $i\in I$ and $j\in J$ there exist $e_i\in\mathcal{D}_i$ and $f_j\in\mathcal{D}_{j}$ with $\|e_i\|=\mathbf{1}$ and $\|f_i\|=\mathbf{1}$. If $\pi$ is an $L^{0}$-linear $*$-isomorphism from $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I)$ onto a $*$-subalgebra of $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_J)$ such that $M(\pi(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I)))=
M(\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{j}:j\in J))$ then $\pi$ is a spatial $L^{0}$-linear $*$-isomorphism from $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in I)$ onto $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{j}:j\in J)$.*
*Proof.* Assume that $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in {I})$ and $\mathcal{B}=\pi(\mathcal{A}).$ Then according to theorem 4 $\pi$ is spatial. By the properties of the isometry $U$ listed in theorem 4 the map $a\mapsto UaU^{-1}$ is a surjection from $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{i}:i\in{I})$ onto $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{j}:j\in{J})$. The equality $\pi(a)=UaU^{-1}$ implies that $\pi(\mathcal{A})=\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D}_{j}:j\in{J}).$ Corollary 3 is proved.
**Corollary 4.** *Let $\mathcal{D}$ be a $bo$-dense submodule of a Kaplansky-Hilbert module $X$ over $L^{0}$ such that there exists $e\in \mathcal{D}$ with $\|e\|=\mathbf{1}$. Then each $L^{0}$-linear $*$-automorphism of the $O^*$-algebra $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D})$ is inner.*
*Proof.* Put $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{B}=\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D})$ and apply Theorem 4. Then every $L^{0}$-linear $*$-automorphism $\pi$ of the algebra $\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D})$ is spatial. If $\pi$ is implemented by some $U$ then $U\mathcal{D}=\mathcal{D}$ and $U^{*}\mathcal{D}=\mathcal{D}$. So $U|\mathcal{D}\in
\mathcal{L}^{+}(\mathcal{D})$ and therefore by definition 7 $\pi$ is inner. Corollary 4 is proved.
**Acknowledgments.** *The second and third named authors would like to acknowledge the hospitality of the $\,$ “Institut für Angewandte Mathematik”,$\,$ Universität Bonn (Germany). This work is supported in part by the DFG 436 USB 113/10/0-1 project (Germany) and the Fundamental Research Foundation of the Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences.*
[99]{}
S. Sakai, C\*-algebras and W\*-algebras. – Springer-Verlag. – 1971. – 256 p.
Sh. A. Ayupov, Derivations on unbounded operators algebras, Abstracts of the international conference Operators algebras and quantum probability. Tashkent. 2005. P.38-43.
P. Chernoff, Representation, automorpisms and derivation on some operators algebras, J. Functional Analysis. Vol. 12. 1973. P.275-289.
A. F. Ber, V. I. Chilin, F. A. Sukochev, Non-trivial derivation on commutative regular algebras, Extracta mathematicae, 21 (2006), No 2, 107-147.
A. G. Kusraev, Derivations and automorphisms in the algebra of measurable complex-valued functions, Vladikavk. mat. jour. 2005. Vol. 7. Issue 3. P. 45-49 (Russian).
K. Schmüdgen, Unbounded operator algebras and representation theory, – Bikhäuser-Verlag, Basel, 1990.
S. Albeverio, Sh. A. Ayupov, K. K. Kudaybergenov, Derivations on the algebra of $\tau$-compact operators affilated with a type I von Neumann algebra, SFB 611. Universität Bonn. Preprint. No. 324. 2007.
A.G. Kusraev, Vector duality and its applications, – Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1985, – 256 pp(Russian).
A. G. Kusraev, Dominated operators, – Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2000, – 446 pp.
I. G. Ganiev, K. K. Kudaybergenov, Finite dimensional modules over ring measurable functions, Uzb. math. jour. 2004. No 4. P. 3-9(Russian).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'LS I +61 303 is a gamma-ray binary that exhibits an outburst at GHz frequencies each orbital cycle of $\approx$$26.5~\mathrm{d}$ and a superorbital modulation with a period of $\approx$4.6 yr. We have performed a detailed study of the low-frequency radio emission of LS I +61 303 by analysing all the archival GMRT data at 150, 235 and 610 MHz, and conducting regular LOFAR observations within the Radio Sky Monitor (RSM) at 150 MHz. We have detected the source for the first time at 150 MHz, which is also the first detection of a gamma-ray binary at such a low frequency. We have obtained the light-curves of the source at 150, 235 and 610 MHz, all of them showing orbital modulation. The light-curves at 235 and 610 MHz also show the existence of superorbital variability. A comparison with contemporaneous 15-GHz data shows remarkable differences with these light-curves. At 15 GHz we see clear outbursts, whereas at low frequencies we see variability with wide maxima. The light-curve at 235 MHz seems to be anticorrelated with the one at 610 MHz, implying a shift of $\sim$0.5 orbital phases in the maxima. We model the shifts between the maxima at different frequencies as due to changes in the physical parameters of the emitting region assuming either free-free absorption or synchrotron self-absorption, obtaining expansion velocities for this region close to the stellar wind velocity with both mechanisms.'
author:
- |
B. Marcote$^{1,}$[^1], M. Ribó$^{1,}$[^2], J. M. Paredes$^{1}$, C. H. Ishwara-Chandra$^{2}$, J. D. Swinbank$^{3}$, J. W. Broderick$^{4,5}$, S. Markoff$^{6}$, R. Fender$^{4}$, R. A. M. J. Wijers$^{6}$, G. G. Pooley$^{7}$, A. J. Stewart$^{4}$, M. E. Bell$^{8,9}$, R. P. Breton$^{10,5}$, D. Carbone$^6$, S. Corbel$^{11,12}$, J. Eislöffel$^{13}$, H. Falcke$^{14,15}$, J.-M. Grie[ß]{}meier$^{16,12}$, M. Kuniyoshi$^{17}$, M. Pietka$^{18}$, A. Rowlinson$^{8}$, M. Serylak$^{19,20,12}$, A. J. van der Horst$^{21}$, J. van Leeuwen$^{15,6}$, M. W. Wise$^{15,6}$, P. Zarka$^{22,12}$\
$^{1}$Departament d’Astronomia i Meteorologia, Institut de Ciències del Cosmos (ICCUB), Universitat de Barcelona (IEEC-UB), Martí i Franquès 1,\
E08028 Barcelona, Spain\
$^{2}$National Centre for Radio Astrophysics, TIFR, Post Bag 3, Ganeshkhind, 411007, Pune, India\
$^{3}$Department of Astrophysical Sciences, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ08544, USA\
$^{4}$Astrophysics, Department of Physics, University of Oxford, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK\
$^{5}$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK\
$^{6}$Anton Pannekoek Institute for Astronomy, University of Amsterdam, Science Park 904, 1098 XH Amsterdam, The Netherlands\
$^{7}$Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, Cavendish Laboratory, The University of Cambridge, J.J. Thomson Avenue, Cambridge CB3 0HE, UK\
$^{8}$CSIRO Astronomy and Space Science, PO Box 76, Epping, NSW 1710, Australia\
$^{9}$ARC Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO), The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia\
$^{10}$Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, School of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK\
$^{11}$Laboratoire AIM (CEA/IRFU - CNRS/INSU - Université Paris Diderot), CEA DSM/IRFU/SAp, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France\
$^{12}$Station de Radioastronomie de Nançay, Observatoire de Paris, PSL Research University, CNRS, Univ. Orléans, OSUC, 18330 Nançay, France\
$^{13}$Thüringer Landessternwarte, Sternwarte 5, D-07778 Tautenburg, Germany\
$^{14}$Department of Astrophysics/IMAPP, Radboud University Nijmegen, PO Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands\
$^{15}$ASTRON, the Netherlands Institute for Radio Astronomy, Postbus 2, 7990 AA, Dwingeloo, The Netherlands\
$^{16}$LPC2E - Université d’Orléans / CNRS, 45071 Orléans cedex 2, France\
$^{17}$NAOJ Chile Observatory, National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, 2-21-1 Osawa, Mitaka, Tokyo 181-8588, Japan\
$^{18}$Oxford Astrophysics, Denys Wilkinson Building, Keble Road, Oxford OX1 3RH, UK\
$^{19}$Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of the Western Cape, Private Bag X17, Bellville 7535, South Africa\
$^{20}$SKA South Africa, 3rd Floor, The Park, Park Road, Pinelands, 7405, South Africa\
$^{21}$Department of Physics, The George Washington University, 725 21st Street NW, Washington, DC 20052, USA\
$^{22}$LESIA, Observatoire de Paris, CNRS, UPMC, Université Paris-Diderot, 5 place Jules Janssen, 92195 Meudon, France
bibliography:
- 'bibliography.bib'
title: Orbital and superorbital variability of LS I +61 303 at low radio frequencies with GMRT and LOFAR
---
\[firstpage\]
radiation mechanisms: non-thermal – binaries: close – stars: individual: LS I +61 303 – gamma rays: stars – radio continuum: stars.
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Binary systems comprising a young massive star and a compact object can exhibit non-thermal emission from radio to gamma rays. A fraction of these systems displays a spectral energy distribution dominated by the MeV-GeV photons, thus becoming classified as gamma-ray binaries (see @dubus2013 for a review). Only five gamma-ray binary systems are known at present: PSR B1259$-$63 [@aharonian2005psr], LS 5039 [@aharonian2005ls5039], LS I +61 303 [@albert2006], HESS J0632+057 [@hinton2009; @skilton2009], and 1FGL J1018.6$-$5856 [@fermi2012]. PSR B1259$-$63 is the only system which is confirmed to host a pulsar; the natures of the compact objects are currently unknown for the remaining sources.
The multiwavelength emission from these sources can be explained by synchrotron and inverse Compton (IC) emission, within the context of various models. Although the particle acceleration mechanisms remain unclear, two different scenarios have been proposed. On the one hand, the microquasar scenario posits the existence of an accretion disc, corona and relativistic jets in the system, with the particle acceleration driven by accretion/ejection processes [@mirabel2006]. On the other hand, the young non-accreting pulsar scenario establishes the existence of a shock between the relativistic wind of the pulsar and the non-relativistic wind of the companion star, where particles can be accelerated up to relativistic energies [@dubus2013].
The gamma-ray binary LS I +61 303 (also known as V615 Cas) is a system composed of a young main sequence B0 Ve star and a compact object orbiting it with a period $P_{\rm orb} = 26.4960 \pm 0.0028~\mathrm{d}$ [@gregory2002] and an eccentricity $e = 0.72 \pm 0.15$ [@casares2005lsi61303]. The system is located at $2.0 \pm 0.2~\mathrm{kpc}$ according to H I measurements [@frail1991], with coordinates $\alpha_{\rm J2000} = 2^{\rm h} 40^{\rm m} 31.7^{\rm s}$ and $\delta_{\rm J2000} = +61\degr 13' 45.6''$ [@moldon2012thesis]. Assuming the epoch of the first radio observation as the origin of the orbital phase, ${\rm JD_0} = 2\,443\,366.775$, the periastron passage takes place in the orbital phase range $0.23$–$0.28$ [@casares2005lsi61303; @aragona2009]. LS I +61 303 was initially identified as the counterpart of a gamma-ray source detected by [*COS B*]{} [@hermsen1977], and subsequently an X-ray counterpart was also detected [@bignami1981]. X-ray observations with [*RXTE*]{}/ASM revealed an orbital X-ray modulation [@paredes1997]. The system was also coincident with an EGRET source above 100 MeV [@kniffen1997] and finally it was detected as a TeV emitter by MAGIC [@albert2006], which was later confirmed by VERITAS [@acciari2008]. An orbital modulation of the TeV emission was also found by MAGIC [@albert2009]. A correlation between the TeV and X-ray emission was revealed using MAGIC and X-ray observations, which together with the observed X-ray/TeV flux ratio, supports leptonic models with synchrotron X-ray emission and IC TeV emission (@anderhub2009; but see @acciari2009). Finally, [*Fermi*]{}/LAT reported GeV emission, orbitally modulated and anti-correlated with respect to the X-ray/TeV emission [@abdo2009].
The 1–10 GHz radio light-curve of LS I +61 303 is also orbitally modulated, showing a clear outburst each orbital cycle that increases the $\la$50-mJy steady flux density emission up to $\sim$100–200 mJy. These outbursts are periodic, although changes in their shape and intensity have been reported from cycle to cycle (@paredes1990; @ray1997). @strickman1998 studied the evolution of a single outburst with multifrequency observations in the range 0.33–23 GHz. The outburst is detected at all frequencies, but the flux density peaks first at the highest frequencies, and later at the lower ones. A low-frequency turnover was also suggested to be present in the range 0.3–1.4 GHz [@strickman1998].
A long-term modulation is also observed at all wavelengths in LS I +61 303, the so-called superorbital modulation, with a period $P_{\rm so} = 1\,667 \pm 8~\mathrm{d}$ or $\sim$4.6 yr [@gregory2002]. This modulation was firstly found at GHz radio frequencies [@paredes1987; @gregory1989; @paredes1990], affecting the amplitude of the non-thermal outbursts and the orbital phases at which the onset and peak of these outbursts take place, drifting from orbital phases of $\sim$0.45 to $\sim$0.95 [@gregory2002]. The source exhibits the minimum activity at GHz frequencies during the superorbital phase range of $\phi_{\rm so} \sim 0.2$–$0.5$, whereas the maximum activity takes place at $\phi_{\rm so} \sim 0.78$–$0.05$, assuming the same ${\rm JD_0}$ as for the orbital phase. A similar behaviour is also observed in optical photometric and H$\alpha$ equivalent width observations that trace the thermal emission of the source [@paredes-fortuny2015]. The origin of the superorbital modulation could be related to periodic changes in the circumstellar disc and the mass-loss rate of the Be star [@zamanov2013], although other interpretations within the framework of a precessing jet are still discussed [see @massi2014 and references therein].
At milliarcsecond scales LS I +61 303 has been observed and resolved several times [@massi2001; @massi2004; @dhawan2006; @albert2008; @moldon2012thesis]. @dhawan2006 showed a changing morphology as a function of the orbital phase, resembling a cometary tail. @albert2008 observed similar morphological structures at similar orbital phases to those considered in @dhawan2006. Later on, @moldon2012thesis also reported this behaviour: the morphology of LS I +61 303 changes periodically within the orbital phase. These morphological changes have been interpreted as evidence of the pulsar scenario [@dubus2006; @dubus2013], although other interpretations have also been suggested [see @massi2012 and references therein]. It must be noted that radio pulsation searches have also been conducted with unsuccessful results [@mcswain2011; @canellas2012].
At the lowest frequencies ($\la 1~\mathrm{GHz}$), only a few observations have been published up to now. @pandey2007 conducted two observations of LS I +61 303 at 235 and 610 MHz simultaneously with the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT: @ananthakrishnan1995). They observed a positive spectral index of $\alpha \approx 1.3$ (defined as $S_{\nu} \propto \nu^{\alpha}$, where $S_{\nu}$ is the flux density at a frequency $\nu$) in both epochs and reported variability at both frequencies at a 2.5 and 20-$\sigma$ level, respectively. Although @strickman1998 also observed the source at 330 MHz three times during one outburst, given the large uncertainties of the measured flux densities they could not infer variability at more than the $1$-$\sigma$ level. At these low frequencies we should observe the presence of different absorption mechanisms, such as synchrotron self-absorption (SSA), free-free absorption (FFA) or the Razin effect, as found for other gamma-ray binaries (see e.g. @marcote2015ls5039 for the case of LS 5039). In addition, at these low frequencies we should also expect extended emission at about arcsec scales originating from the synchrotron emission from low-energy particles [@bosch-ramon2009ls5039; @durant2011].
In this paper we present the first deep and detailed study of the radio emission from LS I +61 303 at low frequencies through GMRT and LOw Frequency ARray [LOFAR: @vanhaarlem2013] data to unveil its behaviour along the orbit. We compare the results with contemporaneous high-frequency observations conducted with the Ryle Telescope (RT) and the Owens Valley Radio Observatory (OVRO) 40-m telescope. In Sect. \[sec:observations\] we present all the radio data analysed in this work together with the data reduction and analysis processes. In Sect. \[sec:results\] we present the obtained results and in Sect. \[sec:discussion\] we discuss the observed behaviour of LS I +61 303 in the context of the known orbital and superorbital variability. Our conclusions are presented in Sect. \[sec:conclusions\].
Observations and data reduction {#sec:observations}
===============================
To reveal the orbital behaviour of LS I +61 303 at low radio frequencies we have analysed data from different instruments and different epochs. These data include archival GMRT observations from a monitoring programme in 2005–2006, as well as three additional archival observations from 2005 and 2008. They also include a LOFAR commissioning observation in 2011 and five LOFAR observations performed in 2013. RT and OVRO observations at 15 GHz, contemporaneous to these low-frequency observations, have also been analysed to obtain a complete picture of the behaviour of the source. In Fig. \[fig:summary-obs\] we summarize all these observations in a frequency versus time diagram. The first seven columns of Table \[tab:data\] shows the log of the low-frequency observations.
![Summary of all the data presented in this work in a frequency versus time diagram (Modified Julian Date, MJD, on the bottom axis and calendar year on the top axis). The vertical dashed line separates the GMRT data (left) from the LOFAR data (right). Green squares represent the 610-MHz GMRT observations, red circles correspond to the simultaneous GMRT observations at 235 MHz, the orange diamond shows the 154-MHz GMRT data and the blue pentagons represent the LOFAR observations at $\approx$150 MHz. The open pentagon corresponds to the commissioning LOFAR observation, which is not considered in the results of this work. The grey bands indicate the time intervals during which 15-GHz RT and OVRO observations used in this work were conducted.[]{data-label="fig:summary-obs"}](figures/fig-summary-obs.pdf){width="47.50000%"}
[l@c@c@c@c@c@c@r@c@l@r@c@l@r@c@l]{} Facility & Project Code & Date & MJD & $\phi_{\rm orb}$ & $\phi_{\rm so}$ & $t$ & & &\
&&&&&& $(\mathrm{min})$& & &\
Archival GMRT observations
--------------------------
The GMRT monitoring covers the observations performed between 2005 November 24 and 2006 February 7, at 235 and 610 MHz, simultaneously. These data sets include 25 observations spread over this time interval, all of them obtained with a single IF, with single circular polarisation at 235 MHz (LL) and 610 MHz (RR). The 235 and 610 MHz data have bandwidths of 8 and 16 MHz, divided into 64 and 128 channels, respectively. These observations display a wide range of observing times, from 30 min to 11 h (see column 7 in Table \[tab:data\]). 3C 48, 3C 147 and 3C 286 were used as amplitude calibrators, and 3C 119 (0432$+$416) or 3C 48 as phase calibrators.
In addition to the previous monitoring, there are also three isolated archival GMRT observations. Two of these observations were carried out on 2005 January 7 and on 2008 September 20, at 235 and 610 MHz, using the same setup as that described above. The remaining observation was performed at 154 MHz on 2008 February 18, with dual circular polarization (LL and RR) and a bandwidth of 16 MHz divided into 128 channels. 3C 48, 3C 147 and 3C 286 were again used as amplitude calibrators, and 3C 119 was the phase calibrator for the three observations.
The GMRT data were calibrated and analysed using standard procedures within [aips]{}[^3], although [obit]{}[^4] [@cotton2008], [parseltongue]{}[^5] [@kettenis2006] and [spam]{}[^6] [@intema2009] have also been used to develop scripts that call [aips]{} tasks to easily reduce the whole data set.
We loaded and flagged the raw visibilities in [aips]{}, removing telescope off-source times, instrumental problems or radio-frequency interference (RFI). A first calibration using a unique channel, free of RFI, was performed on the data, and after that we bandpass calibrated them. A more accurate flagging process was performed later on and we finally calibrated the full data set in amplitude and phase, taking into account the previous bandpass calibration. The target source was imaged and self-calibrated several times to correct for phase and amplitude errors that were not properly corrected during the previous calibration, using a Briggs robust weighting of zero in the cleaning process [@briggs1995]. As the GMRT field of view at these low frequencies covers a few degrees (between $\sim$5 and $1.5\degr$ at 154 and 610 MHz, respectively), we needed to consider the full $uvw$-space during the imaging process [@thompson1999] and correct the final images for the primary beam attenuation. The GMRT observation performed on 2005 November 28 could not be properly calibrated and hence could not provide results, leading to a total of 24 flux density measurements. In the observations performed on 2005 December 30, 2006 January 19 and 21, the 235 MHz data could not be properly calibrated: the runs were relatively short and a large amount of data had to be flagged, thus providing clean images that were not good enough to self-calibrate the data, preventing the collection of reliable flux densities.
After this data reduction process, we also performed a correction of the system temperature, , for each antenna to subtract the contribution of the Galactic diffuse emission, relevant at low frequencies [see a detailed explanation in the appendix of @marcote2015ls5039]. The obtained corrections were directly applied to the flux densities of the final target images. We note that these corrections imply an additional source of uncertainty that does not affect the relative flux density variations from one epoch to another at a given frequency. The uncertainties introduced in the flux densities are close to the typical rms values obtained at 235 and 610 MHz, but at 154 MHz the uncertainties increased from $\approx$5% to $\approx$20%.
The measurement of the flux densities in each image was done using the [tvstat]{} and [jmfit]{} tasks of [aips]{}, both of them providing consistent values in all cases. We determined the root-mean-square (rms) noise of the images using [tvstat]{} in a region around the source without including it nor any background source.
To guarantee the reliability of the measured flux densities we monitored the flux density values of four background sources detected in the field of view of LS I +61 303. The lack of a similar trend in all sources allows us to be confident that the variability described below is intrinsically related to LS I +61 303 and not due to calibration issues.
LOFAR observations
------------------
{height="0.44\textheight"} {height="0.43\textheight"}
We have also analysed several LOFAR observations conducted with the High Band Antennas (HBAs). First, we conducted a deep 6-h LOFAR observation at 140 MHz during its commissioning stage on 2011 September 30 to test the system and estimate the expected behaviour of LS I +61 303 at these low frequencies. This observation was performed using 23 core stations plus 9 remote stations, with a total bandwidth of 48 MHz divided in 244 subbands. These data show a large rms noise level, with possible large uncertainties in the absolute flux density scale related to the calibration process. Hence we will not use these in this work (see preliminary results of this observation in @marcote2012).
In 2013, we conducted five 3-hr LOFAR observations at around 150 MHz within the Radio Sky Monitor (RSM), which observes regularly several variable or transient radio sources [@fender2008]. The target source was always centred on transit, using 23 core stations plus 13 remote stations. In four of these observations we observed the source at 149 MHz with a total bandwidth of $\approx$$0.8~\mathrm{MHz}$ divided into 4 subbands. 3C 48 or 3C 147 were used as amplitude calibrators, observed in runs of 2 min interleaved in 11-min on-source runs. The observation on 2013 January 17 was conducted with a different setup: 20-min on-source runs centred at 142 MHz and divided into 12 subbands, with a total bandwidth of 2.4 MHz.
The LOFAR data were calibrated using standard procedures within the LOFAR Imaging Tools ([lofim]{}, version 2.5.2, see @heald2010 and @vanhaarlem2013 for a detailed explanation). The data were initially flagged using standard settings of the [aoflagger]{} [@offringa2012], and averaged in time and frequency with the LOFAR New Default Pre-Processing Pipeline ([ndppp]{}) with an integration time of 10 s and 4 channels per subband. In general, very bright sources did not need to be demixed from the target data sets, as they did not contribute significantly to the visibilities[^7].
The calibration was performed on each subband individually with the BlackBoard Selfcal ([bbs]{}) package using standard settings, and the solutions were transferred to the target field. We used an initial sky model for the field of LS I +61 303 based on the VLA Low-Frequency Sky Survey (VLSS, @cohen2007). A manual flagging was performed using the [casaviewer]{} and [casaplotms]{} tasks from [casa]{}[^8] and the imaging process was conducted with a development version of [awimager]{} [@tasse2013]. The resulting model was used in a later phase self-calibration, and we imaged the data again. The last two tasks were performed recursively between 2 and 5 times until the solutions converged. Due to the bright extended emission that is detected in the field of LS I +61 303 (located in the region of the Heart Nebula, see Fig. \[fig:image\]) we only kept baselines larger than $0.2~\mathrm{k\lambda}$ (or 400 m) in subsequent analyses. Although the maximum baseline in the recorded data was $\sim$$85~\mathrm{k\lambda}$ (or 170 km), the baselines $\ga$$8~\mathrm{k\lambda}$ (17 km) were removed during the data reduction (either during the manual flagging or during the self-calibration process). We used a Briggs robust weighting of zero again, because it produced the lowest noise level in the final images, and a pixel size of 10 arcsec. We used the [imstat]{} and [imfit]{} tasks from [casa]{} (both equivalent to the [tvstat]{} and [jmfit]{} tasks from [aips]{} used for the GMRT data) to measure the LS I +61 303 flux densities and the rms of the images. To guarantee the reliability of the measured flux densities in the LOFAR images, we monitored the same four background sources chosen in the GMRT images. The lack of a similar trend in all sources, exhibiting consistent values with the ones inferred from the GMRT images, allows us again to be confident about the absence of flux calibration issues above the noise level in the LOFAR data.
We note that given the large field of view of these low-frequency images (either from the GMRT data or from the LOFAR ones), we detect differences in the ionospheric refractive effects for different regions across the field of view. These effects, in combination with the self-calibration cycles performed during the reduction process, produce slight displacements of the sources from their original positions. In general, it is common to end up with differences of up to the order of the synthesized beam size, although with differences in moduli and direction for different regions of the field.
Complementary 15-GHz observations
---------------------------------
Two complementary observing campaigns that were conducted at the same epochs as the GMRT monitoring and the LOFAR observations have also been included in this work.
The Ryle Telescope [@pooley1997] has observed LS I +61 303 at 15 GHz over many years, with contemporaneous observations during the epoch at which the 2005–2006 GMRT monitoring was performed. The observations are centred at 15.2 GHz, recording Stokes $I+Q$ and a bandwidth of 350 MHz. The four mobile and one fixed antennas were arranged in a compact configuration, with a maximum baseline of 100 m.
The observing technique is similar to that described in @pooley1997. Given that we used baselines up to 100 m, we obtained a resolution in mapping mode of about 30 arcsec. The observations included regular visits to a phase calibrator (we used J0228+6721) to allow corrections for slow drifts of instrumental phase; the flux-density scale was established by nearby observations of 3C 48, 3C 147 or 3C 286.
Observations of LS I +61 303 were also conducted with the OVRO 40-m dish covering the epoch of the 2013 LOFAR observations. These data are part of a long-term monitoring that has been presented in @massi2015. The data were reduced by these authors following the procedures described in @richards2011.
Results {#sec:results}
=======
LS I +61 303 appears as a point-like source in all the images. The resulting synthesized beams for the GMRT data range from $30 \times 14~\mathrm{arcsec^2}$ to $15 \times 5.4~\mathrm{arcsec^2}$, from 154 to 610 MHz, respectively. The synthesized beam for the LOFAR data is about $20 \times 15~\mathrm{arcsec^2}$. The left panel of Fig. \[fig:image\] shows the field of LS I +61 303 obtained from the LOFAR observation conducted on 2013 July 14 without applying any $uv$-cut during the imaging process. The zoomed images (Fig. \[fig:image\], right) show the source as seen from the 154-MHz GMRT observation and from one of the LOFAR runs that we have analyzed in this work. The flux density values of all the GMRT and LOFAR observations are shown in Table \[tab:data\]. In this section we discuss the light-curves obtained from the 235/610-MHz GMRT monitoring and from the $\approx$150-MHz LOFAR observations, including the 154-MHz GMRT data.
Light-curves at 235 and 610 MHz
-------------------------------
![Flux density values of LS I +61 303 as a function of the MJD obtained from all the analysed GMRT data (2005–2008). We show the superorbital phase, $\phi_{\rm so}$, on the top $x$-axis. The green circles represent the 610-MHz data, the red squares the 235-MHz data, and the orange diamond the 154-MHz ones. The grey triangles represent the daily averages of the RT data at 15 GHz. Error bars represent 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties (smaller than the data points when they are not visible). We note that the source exhibits larger flux densities during the isolated GMRT observations (at superorbital phases of $\phi_{\rm so}\approx 0.80$–$0.95$) than during the GMRT monitoring ($\phi_{\rm so} \approx 0.2$).[]{data-label="fig:gmrt-mjd-all"}](figures/fig-gmrt-all-mjd.pdf){width="48.30000%"}
The dual 235/610-MHz mode in the GMRT observations allows us to observe the state of LS I+61 303 and its evolution simultaneously at these two frequencies. Fig. \[fig:gmrt-mjd-all\] shows the flux densities of all the analysed GMRT observations (the GMRT monitoring at 235 and 610 MHz and the three isolated GMRT observations) as a function of the Modified Julian Date (MJD, bottom axis) and the superorbital phase ($\phi_{\rm so}$, top axis). We observe that the flux densities obtained in the GMRT monitoring at 610 MHz (conducted at $\phi_{\rm so} \approx 0.2$, around the minimum activity of LS I +61 303 at GHz frequencies) are significantly lower than the ones obtained in the other two observations (conducted at $\phi_{\rm so} \approx 0.8$–$0.0$, during the maximum activity). We also observe this effect at 235 MHz with respect to the observation at $\phi_{\rm so} \approx 0.8$ (but not at $\phi_{\rm so} \approx 0.0$). This indicates the existence of the superorbital variability at frequencies below 1 GHz.
![Same as Fig. \[fig:gmrt-mjd-all\] but zooming in on the GMRT monitoring observations. In this case we show the orbital phase, $\phi_{\rm orb}$, on the top $x$-axis. The vertical dashed lines show the epochs at which $\phi_{\rm orb} = 0$. We observe the presence of enhanced emission at 610 MHz coincident with the outbursts at 15 GHz but with a slower decay (see MJD 52695–52705, 53720–53725). In contrast, at 235 MHz we observe a smaller degree of variability, with no clear orbital trends. The arrows represent the 3-$\sigma$ upper-limits.[]{data-label="fig:gmrt-mjd"}](figures/fig-gmrt-monitoring-mjd.pdf){width="48.30000%"}
Fig. \[fig:gmrt-mjd\] focuses on the GMRT monitoring, showing the 610 and 235-MHz light-curve of LS I +61 303 along three consecutive orbital cycles. The 610-MHz data exhibit variability with maxima roughly coincident with the outbursts observed in the 15-GHz RT data (e.g. see $\mathrm{MJD} \sim 53720$). However, at 610 MHz we observe that the decay of the emission is slower (e.g. compare the decays in MJD 53695–53705, 53720–53725). The average flux density during the whole monitoring is $70~\mathrm{mJy}$, with a standard deviation of $20~\mathrm{mJy}$ and a significant variability. For these variability analyses (and in the rest of this work) we have taken the most conservative choice to consider the 3-$\sigma$ upper-limits as the possible flux density value of the source, assuming $S_{\nu} \approx 3\sigma \pm \sigma$. At 235 MHz we observe a smaller degree of variability, with no clear correlation with the previous one. In this case we infer an average flux density of $37 \pm 8~\mathrm{mJy}$ and a variability at a 6-$\sigma$ confidence level.
Folding these data with the orbital phase (Fig. \[fig:gmrt-phase\], top), we clearly see that the radio emission is orbitally modulated. At 610 MHz we observe that the enhanced emission takes place in the range of $\phi_{\rm orb} \sim 0.8$–$1.1$, whereas at 15 GHz the maximum occurs at $\phi_{\rm orb} \approx 0.8$ and shows a faster decay. At 235-MHz we observe that the flux density increases between $\phi_{\rm orb} \sim 0.0$ and $0.4$. This phase range is followed by an interval without data between phases 0.4 and 0.6, after which we observe the largest flux density value followed by a fast decrease in the flux density. The increase and decrease of the flux density are traced by 4–5 data points in each case. Therefore, we observe that the maximum emission probably occurs in the range between $\phi_{\rm orb} \approx 0.3$ and $\approx0.7$, which is the location of the minimum at 610 MHz. In fact, the 235 MHz and the 610 MHz light-curves are almost anticorrelated. Fig. \[fig:gmrt-phase\] (bottom) shows the spectral index $\alpha$ (determined from the 235 and 610 MHz data) as a function of the orbital phase. The spectral index is also orbitally modulated, following essentially the 610-MHz flux density emission. From the isolated GMRT observations we obtain a spectral index coincident with the modulation observed from the GMRT monitoring, despite the much larger flux density values (see open hexagons in Fig. \[fig:gmrt-phase\], bottom). We note that Fig. \[fig:gmrt-phase\] shows data from different orbital cycles that have been poorly sampled. In addition, we remark that the outbursts seen at GHz frequencies exhibit changes from cycle to cycle. Therefore, we note that the profile seen in the folded light-curve is different from the one we would obtain in a single orbital cycle.
Light-curve at $\bmath{\approx150}$ MHz
---------------------------------------
![[*Top:*]{} folded light-curve with the orbital period of the data shown in Fig. \[fig:gmrt-mjd\]. The 610 MHz data show a quasi-sinusoidal modulation with enhanced emission at $\phi_{\rm orb} \approx 0.8$–$1.1$, whereas the 15-GHz outbursts take place at $\phi_{\rm orb} \approx 0.8$ with a fast decay. The 235 MHz light-curve is almost anticorrelated with the one observed at 610 MHz. [*Bottom:*]{} spectral index $\alpha$ derived from the GMRT data presented above. Open hexagons represent the spectral index from the isolated GMRT data (not shown on top). Error bars represent 1-$\sigma$ uncertainties and the arrows represent the 3-$\sigma$ upper/lower-limits.[]{data-label="fig:gmrt-phase"}](figures/fig-gmrt-monitoring-phase-spectrum.pdf){width="47.50000%"}
Several data sets at a frequency around 150 MHz have been analyzed: one GMRT observation at 154-MHz, one LOFAR observation at 142 MHz and four LOFAR observations at 149 MHz. In the following, we will refer to all these observations generically as 150-MHz observations. We note that the differences between these frequencies would not imply any significant change in the flux density values of LS I +61 303 for reasonable spectral indices.
The 150-MHz GMRT data (obtained at a superorbital phase of $\phi_{\rm so} \approx 0.69$) reveal for the first time a detection of LS I +61 303 at this frequency[^9], being a point-like source with a flux density of $52 \pm 11~\mathrm{mJy}$.
![Flux density values of LS I +61 303 as a function of the MJD obtained from the 150-MHz LOFAR observations (conducted at $\phi_{\rm so} \approx 0.8$). We show the orbital phase, with labels every $\phi_{\rm orb} = 0$, on the top $x$-axis. We detect variability and a strong increase in the flux density of LS I +61 303 of at least a factor 3 in only 14 d (between MJD 56361 and 56375). The open triangles represent the contemporaneous OVRO data at 15 GHz.[]{data-label="fig:lofar-mjd"}](figures/fig-lofar-mjd.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
The 150-MHz LOFAR observations taken within the RSM in 2013 ($\phi_{\rm so} \approx 0.76$–$0.87$) allow us to obtain a light-curve of the source on week timescales (spread along 7 orbital cycles). These results are shown in Fig. \[fig:lofar-mjd\]. With these data we clearly detect variability and a strong increase in the flux density of at least a factor 3 in only 14 d between MJD 56361 and 56375 (approximately half of the orbital period). Folding these data with the orbital period, and adding the GMRT data at approximately the same frequency, we obtain the light-curve shown in Fig. \[fig:lofar-phase\]. We note that all these observations were conducted at similar superorbital phases. We observe a kind of baseline state with flux densities around $30~\mathrm{mJy}$ on top of which there is a stronger emission between $\phi_{\rm orb} \approx 0.7$–$1.0$ (given the reduced coverage of the orbit, we certainly cannot constrain this range and it could actually be wider). Despite the poor sampling, the onset of the outburst at 150 MHz could take place at the same orbital phase as in the contemporaneous 15-GHz OVRO data, although the maximum of the outburst appears to be delayed at 150 MHz. The average flux density for these 150-MHz observations is $35 \pm 16~\mathrm{mJy}$ (considering the upper-limits as the possible flux density value of the source: $S_{\nu} \approx 3\sigma \pm \sigma$).
![Folded light-curve with the orbital period from the data shown in Fig \[fig:lofar-mjd\] plus the 150-MHz GMRT observation (orange diamonds). The flux density is orbitally modulated, exhibiting an enhanced emission at $\phi_{\rm orb} \approx 0.7$–$1.0$. Despite the poor sampling, this maximum emission appears to be delayed $\sim$$0.3$ orbital phases with respect to the one detected in the contemporaneous OVRO data.[]{data-label="fig:lofar-phase"}](figures/fig-150-phase.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Discussion {#sec:discussion}
==========
We have presented here data of the gamma-ray binary LS I +61 303 at low radio frequencies, from 150 to 610 MHz. This is the first time that a gamma-ray binary is detected at 150 MHz, although previous searches have been performed in other sources [see @marcote2015ls5039 for the case of LS 5039]. A multifrequency monitoring conducted with the GMRT in 2005–2006 (at a superorbital phase of $\phi_{\rm so} \approx 0.2$) shows significant variability at 610 MHz with the maximum emission at orbital phases of $\phi_{\rm orb}\approx 0.8$–$1.1$. This variability is roughly coincident with the outbursts observed at 15 GHz, but with a significantly wider shape, a delay of about 0.2 orbital phases, and a slower decay. However, at 235 MHz we show that the maximum emission of the source occurs in the range between $\phi_{\rm orb} \approx 0.3$ and $\approx0.7$. The light-curve is thus almost anti-correlated with respect to the 610-MHz one. The LOFAR observations were conducted, in contrast, at a superorbital phase of $\phi_{\rm so} \approx 0.8$. In this case we observe a behaviour similar to the one observed at 610 MHz: a large variability with the maximum emission taking place at orbital phases between $0.7$ and $1.0$.
In this section we discuss the observed behaviour at 150, 235 and 610 MHz and its relationship with the superorbital modulation. It must be noted that the compact VLBI radio emission detected at GHz frequencies represents $\gtrsim$90% of the total flux density of LS I +61 303, leaving small room for extended radio emission [@paredes1998]. For that reason, and also because of the limited number of frequencies with available light-curves (and the use of data from different orbital cycles), we assume a one-zone model with an homogeneous emitting region. We consider here the two most probable absorption mechanisms: free-free and synchrotron self-absorption (there are not enough data to consider the Razin effect such as in @marcote2015ls5039). We infer the physical changes required in the system to explain the observed delay between the orbital phases at which the maximum emission takes place at different frequencies.
From Fig. \[fig:gmrt-mjd-all\] we observe that the superorbital phase still has an important role at these low frequencies, as we detect a much larger flux density at high $\phi_{\rm so}$ than at low ones. Given that we only have two isolated observations at high superorbital phases, we cannot determine what was the state of the source during these observations (maximum of the orbital variability, minimum or in between). Therefore, we can not accurately estimate the increase of the emission as a function of the superorbital phase.
A correlation between changes in the thermal emission of the circumstellar disc, observed from optical photometry and H$\alpha$ observations, and the superorbital modulation of the non-thermal emission has been reported [@paredes-fortuny2015 and references therein]. A larger amount of material in the disc (higher values of H$\alpha$ equivalent width) is observed at superorbital phases coincident with the maximum emission at GHz frequencies ($\phi_{\rm so}\sim 0.8$–$0.0$). This larger amount of material in the disc might imply more target material for a shock with the putative pulsar wind. This could potentially lead to a more efficient particle acceleration and stronger emission, but also to a larger absorption at low radio frequencies. The presence of stronger radio emission and a clear variability at 150 MHz at these superorbital phases indicates that the emission increase, probably produced as a result of the more efficient particle acceleration, seems to dominate over the decrease due to enhanced absorption at these low radio frequencies.
The positive spectral indices obtained from the GMRT monitoring (Fig. \[fig:gmrt-phase\], bottom) confirm the suggestion of a turnover between 0.3 and 1.4 GHz made by @strickman1998, and we constrain it to be in the 0.6–1.4 GHz range. Assuming that the spectrum at low frequencies is dominated by FFA we can estimate the radius of the emitting region with the condition that the free-free opacity is $$\tau_{\rm ff} \approx 30 \dot M_{-7}^2 \nu_{\rm GHz, max}^{-2} \ell_{\rm AU}^{-3} v_{\rm W, 8.3}^{-2} T_{\rm W, 4}^{-3/2} = 1,
\label{eq:tauff}$$ where $\dot M_{-7}$ is the mass-loss rate of the companion star in units of $10^{-7}~\mathrm{M_{\sun}\ yr^{-1}}$, $\nu_{\rm GHz, max}$ is the frequency at which the maximum emission takes place (or turnover frequency), in GHz units, $\ell_{\rm AU}$ is the radius in the spherically symmetric case, measured in AU, $v_{\rm W, 8.3}$ is the velocity of the stellar wind, in units of $2 \times 10^{8}~\mathrm{cm\ s^{-1}}$ and $T_{\rm W, 4}$ is the wind temperature, in units of $10^4~\mathrm{K}$ [@rybicki1979]. Assuming a luminosity of $L \sim 4.65~\mathrm{L_{\sun}}$, typical from B0 V stars, we derive a mass-loss rate of $\dot M_{-7} \sim 0.5$ [@howarth1989], for which we will assume reasonable values in the range of $\dot M_{-7} \sim 0.2$–$1$. Considering the effective temperature of $T_{\rm eff} \sim 28\,000~\mathrm{K}$, also expected for this type of star [@cox2000], we deduce a wind velocity of $1\,500 \pm 500~\mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$ (or $v_{\rm W, 8.3} \sim 0.75$, @kudritzki2000). We also expect a wind temperature of $\sim$10000 K at a distance of the order of the apastron [@krticka2001], and a turnover frequency $\nu_{\rm GHz, max} \sim 1$ (as mentioned before). With these values we estimate a radius for the spherically emitting region of $2.4_{-1.1}^{+1.7}~\mathrm{AU}$.
We can compare this result with the displacements of the peak positions obtained with VLBA observations along one orbital cycle by @dhawan2006. From their Fig. 4 we observe displacements as large as $\sim$2.5 and $\sim$2 mas ($\sim$5 and $\sim$4 AU) at 2.2 and 8.4 GHz, respectively, which in our spherically symmetric model imply radii of $\sim$2.5 and $\sim$2 AU. Although we are using a spherical model, we note that the radius that we have derived is clearly compatible with these values, as expected considering that the emission has to be produced far away enough from the massive star to avoid being in the optically thick part of the spectrum due to free-free absorption.
![Shift in orbital phase ($\Delta \phi$) expected for the maxima in the flux density emission between a frequency $\nu$ and 15 GHz for different velocities of expansion of the radio emitting region ($v_{\rm FFA}$) assuming that FFA is the dominant absorption process and following equation (\[eq:phiff\]). The black circles represent the shifts at 235 and 610 MHz with respect to 15 GHz in the folded light-curve considered in the discussion. We fit the data with an expansion velocity of $\sim$$600~\mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$ (dashed line).[]{data-label="fig:shift"}](figures/fig-discussion-shifts.pdf){width="47.50000%"}
On the other hand, we can consider that the emitting region is expanding, and thus the turnover frequency evolves along the time. In this case we consider that the transition from an optically-thick to an optically-thin region would produce the delay between the different maxima observed at 235 and 610 MHz, as previously reported for other binary systems [@ishwarachandra2002]. From equation (\[eq:tauff\]) we can determine the radius of the emitting region when the turnover is located at a frequency $\nu$: $$\ell_{\nu} = 30^{1/3}\, \dot M_{-7}^{2/3}\, v_{\rm W, 8.3}^{-2/3}\, T_{\rm W,4}^{-1/2}\, \nu^{-2/3}.
\label{eq:ellff}$$ With this relation we can infer the velocity of the expanding emitting region, or expansion velocity, assuming it to be constant for simplicity:$$v = \frac{\Delta \ell}{\Delta t} = \frac{\ell_{\nu_2}-\ell_{\nu_1}}{\Delta \phi P_{\rm orb}},
\label{eq:vff}$$ where $\Delta \phi$ is the shift in orbital phase for the maximum at a frequency $\nu_2$ and $\nu_1$, and $P_{\rm orb}$ is the orbital period. We can consider for simplicity the case that $\dot M_{-7}$, $v_{\rm W, 8.3}$ and $T_{\rm W,4}$ remain constant during this expansion. Figs. \[fig:gmrt-mjd\] and \[fig:gmrt-phase\] show that the peak of the emission at 610 MHz is located somewhere between $\phi_{\rm orb} \sim 0.8$ and $1.1$. In parallel, we observe that the flux density at 235 MHz remains increasing at $\phi_{\rm orb} \sim 0.4$, and in the range of 0.6–0.7 the flux density is already decreasing. Therefore, the maximum emission probably takes place in the range of 0.3–0.7. These values imply that the maximum emission exhibits a shift of $\approx$$0.2$–$0.9$ in orbital phase between the two frequencies. Although the uncertainty in this shift is large, we can assume a shift of $\sim$0.5 to provide a rough estimation of the expansion velocity for the radio emitting region. Assuming this value and with all the previously mentioned data, we infer that the emitting region should expand by a factor of $2.0 \pm 0.5$ during this delay of $\approx$0.5 in orbital phase ($\approx$$13~\mathrm{d}$) from 610 to 235 MHz, implying a constant expansion velocity of $v_{\rm FFA} = 400_{-200}^{+300}~\mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$. If we also consider the shifts in orbital phase with respect to the maximum at 15 GHz, we can deduce, from equations (\[eq:ellff\]) and (\[eq:vff\]), the expected delay in orbital phase as a function of the velocity, $v_{\rm FFA}$, and the frequency, $\nu$: $$\Delta\phi_{\rm FFA} = \frac{30^{1/3}\, \dot M_{-7}^{2/3}\, v_{\rm W, 8.3}^{-2/3}\, T_{\rm W,4}^{-1/2}}{v_{\rm FFA} P_{\rm orb}} \left(\nu_{\rm GHz}^{-2/3} - 15^{-2/3} \right).
\label{eq:phiff}$$ Fig. \[fig:shift\] shows the velocity curves derived from this equation, where a fit to the considered shifts at 235 and 610 MHz with respect to 15 GHz produces a constant velocity of $v_{\rm FFA} = 600 \pm 200~\mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$. This velocity is a factor of 2–3 smaller than the one of the stellar wind. However, the derived velocity depends strongly on the assumed mass-loss rate, which is unconstrained from the observational point of view. Fig. \[fig:mdot-velocity\] shows the derived expansion velocity of the emitting region for different values of the mass-loss rate (in Fig. \[fig:shift\] we assumed $\dot M_{-7} = 0.5$). We note that for mass-loss rates of $\dot M_{-7} \approx 1$ (which is still possible) the derived velocities overlap with the range of possible stellar wind velocities. In any case, these velocities are much lower than the relativistic velocity of the putative pulsar wind (see discussion in @bogovalov2012).
![Velocities, $v_{\rm FFA}$, of the expanding emitting region as a function of the mass-loss rate, $\dot M$, derived from the considered delay between the maxima at 235 and 610 MHz with respect to 15 GHz, assuming a free-free absorbed region. The green curve represents the mean derived velocity and the light green shaded region represents the possible velocity values by considering the uncertainties in the orbital phase shifts between different frequencies, and in the stellar wind velocity. The vertical dashed line denotes the derived mass-loss rate. The horizontal lines represent the mean and lower value of the stellar wind velocity (solid and dotted line, respectively).[]{data-label="fig:mdot-velocity"}](figures/fig-mdot-vel.pdf){width="47.50000%"}
@dhawan2006 estimated the outflow velocity along the orbit at 2.2 and 8.4 GHz, obtaining maximum values of $\sim$$7\,500~\mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$ near periastron and $\sim$$1\,000~\mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$ near apastron. Therefore, the expansion velocities derived here are also close to the one derived by these authors near apastron.
If instead of FFA we consider SSA as the dominant absorption process at low frequencies, we can estimate the properties of the emitting region in the optically thick to optically thin transition. In this case, the SSA opacity is $$\tau_{\rm SSA} = 3.354 \times 10^{-11} (3.54 \times 10^{18})^{p} K B^{(p+2)/2} b(p) \nu_{\rm GHz}^{-(p+4)/2} \ell_{\rm AU} = 1,
\label{eq:taussa}$$ where $K$ is the normalization of the accelerated particles, $B$ is the magnetic field, and $b(p)$ is a function that only depends on $p \equiv 1-2\alpha$ [@longair2011]. Assuming $p \sim 2$ (i.e. $\alpha \sim -0.5$ in the optically thin region, similar to the average spectral index observed in LS I +61 303 above $\sim$2 GHz) we would expect that the quantity $K\,B^2\,\ell$ decreases a factor of $\sim$18 during the delay of 0.5 in orbital phase between the maximum emission at 235 and 610 MHz. These three quantities ($K, B, \ell$) are coupled in the equation above and thus we can not estimate them separately. All of them would a-priori change along the orbit, but since we assume an expanding region from the same population of accelerated particles, $K$ should remain constant (provided that losses are not significant). Additionally, one can consider different dependences of $B$ as a function of $\ell$: $B \sim \ell^{-2}$ (as in a spherical expansion) or $B \sim \ell^{-1}$ (as in a conical or toroidal expansion, as it happens either in a relativistic jet from the microquasar scenario or in a cometary tail from the young non-accreting pulsar scenario). With these considerations we expect an expansion factor of $\sim$2.6 (if $B \sim \ell^{-2}$) or $\sim$18 (if $B \sim \ell^{-1}$). To derive the expansion velocity of the emitting region, we can assume the radius of $\ell = 2.4_{-1.1}^{+1.7}~\mathrm{AU}$ that we have obtained at 1 GHz in the FFA case, which is also compatible with the results from @dhawan2006. With these assumptions, and the equations (\[eq:vff\]) and (\[eq:taussa\]), we obtain the shifts in orbital phase between the maximum at a frequency $\nu$ and at 15 GHz: $$\Delta\phi_{\rm SSA} = \frac{\nu_{\rm GHz}^3 - 15^3}{v_{\rm SSA} P_{\rm orb} 3.354 \times 10^{-11} (3.54 \times 10^{18})^{2} K B^{2} b(2)}.
\label{eq:phissa}$$ Fig. \[fig:shiftSSA\] shows the derived velocity curves as a function of the frequency and the orbital phase shift for the SSA case. In the case of $B \sim \ell^{-2}$ we can fit the data with a constant velocity of $v_{\rm SSA} = 1\,000_{-500}^{+600}~\mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$, where the uncertainties result from the propagation of the uncertainties in $\ell$ at 1 GHz. The fitted velocity is also compatible with the one of the stellar wind. In the case of $B \sim \ell^{-1}$ we obtain velocity curves that can not reproduce the considered phase delay between frequencies. A constant velocity of $17\,000_{\ \,-8\,000}^{+12\,000}~\mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$ produces the best fit to the data, although with a reduced $\chi^2$ of 2.6. In any case, these velocities are significantly faster than the stellar wind velocity, but clearly slower than the relativistic velocity of the putative pulsar wind. In conclusion, a dependence of $B \sim \ell^{-2}$ is more plausible in the considered model where SSA dominates. This would suggest a different geometry than the one expected in the considered scenarios, but compatible with our initial assumption of a simple spherically symmetric emitting region. We note that if energy losses were considered, the derived expansion velocities would be even lower than the ones discussed.
![Same as Fig. \[fig:shift\] but assuming that SSA is the dominant absorption process and following equation (\[eq:phissa\]). Two different dependences of $B$ have been considered: $B \sim \ell^{-2}$ (top) or $B \sim \ell^{-1}$ (bottom). The dashed line on the top panel represents the mean value of the derived wind velocity. We note that with the dependence $B\sim \ell^{-2}$ (top) we can easily explain the data with an expansion velocity of $\sim$$1\,000~\mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$, while with the dependence $B \sim \ell^{-1}$ (bottom) the data can not be reproduced with a constant velocity.[]{data-label="fig:shiftSSA"}](figures/fig-shift-freqs-ssa.pdf){width="47.50000%"}
Extrapolating these results to 150 MHz, we infer an orbital phase delay of about 0.9 (assuming FFA) or $\sim$1.0 (assuming SSA). However, these results cannot be directly compared with the obtained light-curves at 150 MHz. These data were taken at different superorbital phases ($\phi_{\rm so} \sim 0.9$ instead of $\sim$0.2), and we observe a larger flux density emission and a larger variability at these 150 MHz data than the ones expected from an extrapolation of the 235 and 610-MHz light-curves. This implies, as mentioned before, that the superorbital phase still plays a significant role at low frequencies. In any case, the shift at 150 MHz with respect to the 15-GHz data is not well constrained and it could be between $\sim$0.0 and $\sim$0.5 orbital phases, with the possibility of observing a full cycle shift (and thus between 1.0 and 1.5). We note that these values are roughly compatible with the ones derived from the 235 and 610-MHz data assuming a one-cycle delay. However, we cannot discard the possibility of being observing a delay of only $\sim$0.0–0.5 orbital phases, as we would expect less absorption at these high superorbital phases, which would also explain why we see a large orbital variability.
Conclusions {#sec:conclusions}
===========
We have detected for first time a gamma-ray binary, LS I +61 303, at a frequency as low as $150~\mathrm{MHz}$. This detection establishes the starting point to explore the behaviour of gamma-ray binaries in the low frequency radio band, which will allow us to unveil the absorption processes that can occur in their radio spectra or light-curves. Additionally, we have obtained light-curves of LS I +61 303 at 150, 235 and 610 MHz, observing orbital and superorbital variability in all cases. In the folded light-curve with the orbital period we observe quasi-sinusoidal modulations with the maxima at different orbital phases as a function of the frequency. The observed delays between frequencies seem to be also modulated by the superorbital phase. The flux density values are also modulated by the superorbital phase, with the source displaying a stronger emission at $\phi_{\rm so} \sim 1$.
Assuming a simple spherically symmetric model we have obtained a coherent explanation for the delays considered between the maxima as a function of the frequency. Within this model, we observe that either FFA or SSA can explain the delays of the low-frequency emission of LS I +61 303. We have also estimated an expansion velocity for the radio emitting region of $\sim$$1\,000\ \mathrm{km\ s^{-1}}$ for both absorption mechanisms, which is close to the stellar wind velocity. The obtained velocity could hardly be obtained if there was a relativistic jet, expected in the microquasar scenario, giving further support to the scenario involving a shock between the relativistic wind of a young non-accreting pulsar and the non-relativistic stellar wind. In the case of SSA, a decay of $B \sim \ell^{-2}$ (as in a spherical expansion) is supported. This is compatible with the geometry of our model, but unexpected considering the possible geometries in the different scenarios. The limited amount of data acquired up to now precludes detailed modelling to establish the origin of the variability at different frequencies and epochs. Further multi-epoch observations of LS I +61 303 with LOFAR are needed. These data would allow us to determine the light-curve of LS I +61 303 folded in orbital phase and study its changes as a function of the superorbital phase. A good coverage of a single orbital cycle is mandatory to obtain a reliable profile of the variability of LS I +61 303 due to the significant differences observed between outbursts at different orbital phases. Future simultaneous multifrequency observations with the GMRT, LOFAR and the VLA at different superorbital phases would allow us to study the light-curve of LS I +61 303 and its dependence with the frequency. These data could unveil the changes in the physical parameters that characterise the emitting region and the absorption processes required to explain the superorbital modulation. Finally, the use of the International stations in LOFAR observations (longer baselines) would allow us to search for the extended emission at arcsec scales that is expected to arise at low frequencies.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We thank the anonymous reviewer for providing comments that helped to improve the original version of the manuscript. We thank the staff of the GMRT and LOFAR who made these observations possible. GMRT is run by the National Centre for Radio Astrophysics of the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research. LOFAR, the Low Frequency Array designed and constructed by ASTRON, has facilities in several countries, that are owned by various parties (each with their own funding sources), and that are collectively operated by the International LOFAR Telescope (ILT) foundation under a joint scientific policy. The Ryle Telescope is operated by the University of Cambridge and supported by STFC. This research has made use of data from the OVRO 40-m monitoring program which is supported in part by NASA grants NNX08AW31G and NNX11A043G, and NSF grants AST-0808050 and AST-1109911. We thank T. Hovatta for providing the OVRO 40-m dish data. B.M., M.R. and J.M.P. acknowledge support by the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad (MINECO) under grants AYA2013-47447-C3-1-P, FPA2013-48381-C6-6-P, MDM-2014-0369 of ICCUB (Unidad de Excelencia ‘María de Maeztu’), and the Catalan DEC grant 2014 SGR 86. B.M. acknowledges financial support from MINECO under grant BES-2011-049886. J.M.P. acknowledges financial support from ICREA Academia. J.W.B. acknowledges support from European Research Council Advanced Grant 267697 ‘4 Pi Sky: Extreme Astrophysics with Revolutionary Radio Telescopes’. R.P.B. has received funding from the European Union Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement PIIF-GA-2012-332393. S.C. acknowledges financial support from the UnivEarthS Labex program of Sorbonne Paris Cité (ANR-10-LABX-0023 and ANR-11-IDEX-0005-02). The financial assistance of the South African SKA Project (SKA SA) towards this research is hereby acknowledged. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at are those of the authors and are not necessarily to be attributed to the SKA SA.
\[lastpage\]
[^1]: E-mail: [[email protected]]([email protected]) (BM); [[email protected]]([email protected]) (MR); [[email protected]]([email protected]) (JMP)
[^2]: Serra Húnter Fellow.
[^3]: The NRAO Astronomical Image Processing System, [aips]{}, is maintained by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). <http://www.aips.nrao.edu>
[^4]: <http://www.cv.nrao.edu/~bcotton/Obit.html>
[^5]: <http://www.jive.nl/jivewiki/doku.php?id=parseltongue:parseltongue>
[^6]: <https://safe.nrao.edu/wiki/bin/view/Main/HuibIntemaSpam>
[^7]: The demixing process consists of removing from the target field visibilities the interference produced by the strongest off-axis sources in the sky, the so-called A-team: Cyg A, Cas A, Tau A, Vir A, Her A and Hyd A.
[^8]: The Common Astronomy Software Applications, [casa]{}, is developed by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO). <http://casa.nrao.edu>
[^9]: We note that LS I +61 303 was inadvertently detected at $\approx$150 MHz in a study of the Galactic emission made by @bernardi2009 with the Westerbork Synthesis Radio Telescope. The source is marginally detected in the Figs. 2 and 3 of @bernardi2009, close to the edge of the primary beam. At these positions the flux density measurements are much less reliable, and thus we will not discuss these data here. We also note that the positions of the sources in the mentioned figures present a general displacement of about 5 arcmin to the East direction with respect to the real positions.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In the past years, a clear picture of the evolution of outbursts of black-hole X-ray binaries has emerged. While the X-ray properties can be classified into our distinct states, based on spectral and timing properties, the observations in the radio band have shown strong links between accretion and ejection properties. Here I briefly outline the association between X-ray timing and jet properties.'
date: '?? and in revised form ??'
---
Fast time variability
=====================
The fast time variability observed in the X-ray emission from Black-Hole Binaries (BHB) can be extremely strong and complex. It is clearly connected to the spectral evolution throughout their outbursts, which can be described through the use of Hardness-Intensity Diagrams (HID; see [@belloni09 Belloni 2009] and references therein). A total fractional ms variability of $\sim$40% is a major “disturbance” of the accretion flow that can hardly be ignored when trying to understand its properties. Concentrating on the most basic properties, we can identify two categories: [*loud*]{} states (LHS and HIMS in [@belloni09]), characterized by strong flat-top noise components in the power spectra, with total fractional variability 10-40%, and [*quiet*]{} states (SIMS and HSS), with less variability in the form of a power law component. Quasi-Periodic Oscillations (QPO) are observed in all states, with a complex phenomenology. However, the HIMS-SIMS transition is very abrupt and involves the interplay between two very different “flavors” of QPO. This transition can be marked in a HID with a [it QPO line]{} (see Fig. \[fig:figure1\]). At the same time, the high-energy part of the X-ray spectrum undergoes abrupt changes through the transition (see [@motta09 Motta et al. 2009]).
Jet ejection
============
The radio properties of BHB display an evident connection with the X-ray states and transitions (see e.g. [@fender06 Fender 2006]). A relation with the states evolution was presented by [@fbg04 Fender, Belloni & Gallo (2004)] on the basis of four well-studied systems. At its basis, the unified picture of disk-jet coupling presented there identifies two regions of the HID: the hard region where a steady, compact and mildly relativistic jet is observed, and the soft region where there is no evidence of nuclear emission from the binary (see Fig. \[fig:figure1\]). The transition between these two regions marks the ejection of a fast relativistic jet, observed as a bright radio flare or, when imaged, as a superluminal jet. The position of this transition was dubbed “jet line”.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[![Left: schematic HID with the two regions identified through time variability and the ‘QPO line’ between them. Right: same HID, with the radio regions and the jet line’. The two fundamental lines do not coincide.[]{data-label="fig:figure1"}](belloni002.eps "fig:"){width="6.5cm"}]{} [![Left: schematic HID with the two regions identified through time variability and the ‘QPO line’ between them. Right: same HID, with the radio regions and the jet line’. The two fundamental lines do not coincide.[]{data-label="fig:figure1"}](belloni003.eps "fig:"){width="6.5cm"}]{}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How do they connect?
====================
[@fbg04 Fender, Belloni & Gallo (2004)] identified the jet line with the QPO line. This identification would lead to the attractive conclusion that the plasma responsible for the noise would be the one ejected inform of a jet. However, [@fhb09 Fender, Homan & Belloni (2009)] recently reported, on the basis of a larger sample of sources, that the two lines do not always coincide, but are close. There seems not to be a direct causal connection, as sometimes one precedes the other and vice versa. However, the close association suggests that both ejection and change in timing properties are the outcome of a complex physical transition that takes place on a longer time scale.
Discussion
==========
The scheme outlined above, based on the HID and fast timing properties can be extended to neutron-star systems and even to white-dwarf binaries (see [@belloni09; @kording08; @fender09; @tudose09 Belloni 2009; K" ording et al. 2008; Fender 2009; Tudose et al. 2009]). It is clear that its properties are intimately connected to the spectral state and to the characteristics of the jet. An important key is the study of the correlated variability at optical wavelengths (see e.g. [@kanbach; @gandhi]), which can shed light on this connection.
2009, in: T.M. Belloni (ed.), *The Jet Paradigm: from Microquasars to Quasars*, Lecture Notes in Physics (Heidelberg: Springer), in press (arXiv:0909.2474)
2006, in: Lewin, W.H.G. & van der Klis, M. (eds.), *Compact stellar X-ray sources*, Cambridge Astrophysics Series, No. 39, Cambridge University Press, p. 381
2009, in: T.M. Belloni (ed.), *The Jet Paradigm: from Microquasars to Quasars*, Lecture Notes in Physics (Heidelberg: Springer), in press (arXiv:0909.2572)
2004, *MNRAS*, 355, 1105
2004, *Nature*, 324, 23
2008, *MNRAS*, 390, L29
2004, *Science*, 320, 1318
2009, *MNRAS* in press (arXiv:0908.2451)
2009, *MNRAS* in press (arXiv:0909.3604)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Using CLEO data collected at 3370 MeV and 4170 MeV, we determine $f_{{D^+}} = (205.8\pm8.5\pm2.5)$ MeV and an interim preliminary value of $f_{{D_s^+}} = (267.9\pm8.2\pm3.9)$ MeV, where both results are radiatively corrected. They agree with the recent most precise unquenched Lattice-QCD calculation for the ${D^+}$, but do not for the ${D_s^+}$. Several consequences are discussed.'
author:
- 'L. M. Zhang'
title: 'Measurements of $D$ and $D_s$ decay constants at CLEO'
---
Introduction
============
Leptonic decay $D_{(s)}^+\to \ell^+ \nu$ is described by the annihilation of the initial quark-antiquark pair into a virtual $W^+$ that materializes as a pair (Fig. \[diagram\]).
{width="40.00000%"} \[diagram\]
The decay rate is give by $$\label{eq:equ_rate}
\Gamma(D_{(s)}^+\to \ell^+ \nu) =
\frac{G_F^2}{8\pi}f_{D_{(s)}^+}m_\ell^2m_{D_{(s)}^+}\left(1-\frac{m_\ell^2}{m_{D_{(s)}^+}^2}\right)|V_{cd(s)}|^2,$$ where $f_{D_{(s)}^+}$ is decay constant [@Rosner-Stone], related to the overlap of the heavy and light quark wave-function at zero spatial separation, $G_F$ is the Fermi constant, $m_{D^+_{(s)}}$ is the $D_{(s)}^+$ mass, $m_\ell$ is the final state charged-lepton mass, and $V_{cd(s)}$ is a CKM matrix element, taken as $V_{cd}=V_{us}=0.2256$ and $V_{cs}=V_{ud}=0.9742$. Thus, measurement of purely leptonic decays allow a determination of the decay constant $f_{D_{(s)}^+}$.
Meson decay constants in the $B$ system are used to translate measurements of $B\bar{B}$ mixing to CKM matrix elements. Currently, it is not possible to determine $f_{B}$ accurately from leptonic $B$ decays, so theoretical calculations of $f_{B}$ are used. Since the $B_s^0$ meson does not have $\ell^+\nu$ decays, it will never be possible to determine $f_{B_s}$ experimentally, thus theory must be relied on. If calculations disagree on $D$ mesons, they may be questionable on $B$ mesons. If, on the other hand new physics is present, we need understand how it effects SM based predictions of the $B$ decay constants. Decay constants can be calculated using lattice quantum-chromodynamics (LQCD). Recent calculation from Follana [[*et al.*]{}]{} using an unquenched LQCD predicts ${f_{{D^+}}}= (207\pm4)$ MeV and ${f_{{D_s^+}}}=(241 \pm 3)$ MeV [@Lat:Follana].
We use the reactions $e^+e^- \to D^-D^+$, and $e^+e^-\to
D_s^{*-}D_s^+$ or $D_s^{-}D_s^{*+}$. The $D^+$ is studied at 3770 MeV using 818 pb$^{-1}$ of data [@prd-fd]. And the ${D_s^+}$ is studied at 4170 MeV, using 424 pb$^{-1}$ for $\mu^+ \nu$ and $\tau^+
\nu$, $\tau^+ \to \pi^+\bar{\nu}$, and 300 pb$^{-1}$ for $\tau^+
\nu$, $\tau^+ \to e^+ \nu \bar{\nu}$. (Eventually CLEO will present results using 600 pb$^{-1}$.)
We fully reconstruct $D^-$ [@cc] as a tag and examine the properties of the other ${D^+}$, which can be found even if there is a missing neutrino in the final state. This method is called as “double tag" technique. To reconstruct $D^-$ tags we require that the tag candidates have a measured energy consistent with the beam energy, and have a “beam constrained mass", ${m_{\rm BC}}$, consistent with the $D^-$ nominal mass [@PDG], where ${m_{\rm BC}}=\sqrt{E_{\rm
beam}^2-\left(\sum_i\mathbf{p}_i\right)^2}$, $E_{\rm beam}$ is the beam energy and $i$ runs over all the final state particles three-momenta. Fig. \[mbc\_all\] shows the $m_{BC}$ distribution summed over all the decay modes we use for tagging. Selecting events in the mass peak we count 460,055$\pm$787 signal events over a background of 89,472 events.
![The beam-constrained mass distributions summed over $D^-$ decay candidates in the final states: $K^+ \pi^- \pi^-$, $K^+ \pi^-
\pi^- \pi^0$, $K_S\pi^-$, $K_S \pi^-\pi^-\pi^+$, $K_S\pi^- \pi^0$ and $K^+K^-\pi^-$.[]{data-label="mbc_all"}](mbc_all.eps){width="45.00000%"}
We then search for signal events with one and only one additional track with opposite sign of charge to the tag, not identified as kaon. The track must make an angle $>25.8^\circ$ with respect to the beam line (90% of the solid angle), and in addition we require that there not be any photon detected in the calorimeter with energy greater than 250 MeV. The latter selection can highly suppress ${D^+}\to \pi^+ \pi^0$ background. We separate these events into two cases, where case (i) refers to muon candidates depositing $<300$ MeV, characteristic of 98.8% of muons and case (ii) is for candidates depositing $>300$ MeV, characteristic of 45% of the pions, those that happen to interact in the calorimeter and deposit significant energy.
We look for $D^+\to\mu^+\nu$ by computing the square of the missing mass $${\rm MM}^2=\left(E_{\rm beam}-E_{\mu^+}\right)^2-\left(-{\bf
p}_{D^-} -{\bf p}_{\mu^+}\right)^2, \label{eq:MMsq}$$ where ${\bf p}_{D^-}$ is the three-momentum of the fully reconstructed $D^-$, and $E_{\mu^+}({\bf p}_{\mu^+})$ is the energy (momentum) of the $\mu^+$ candidate. The signal peaks at zero for $\mu^+\nu$ and is smeared toward more positive values for $\tau^+\nu$, $\tau^+\to\pi^+\overline{\nu}$.
The fit to the case (i) MM$^2$ distribution shown in Fig. \[case1-taunufix\] contains separate shapes for signal, $\pi^+\pi^0$, $\overline{K}^0\pi^+$, $\tau^+\nu$ ($\tau^+\to
\pi^+\bar{\nu})$, and a background shape describing three-body decays. Here we assume the SM ratio of 2.65 for the ratio of the $\tau^+\nu/\mu^+\nu$ component and constrain the area ratio of these components to the product of 2.65 with ${\cal{B}}(\tau^+\to
\pi^+\bar{\nu}$)=(10.90$\pm$0.07)% [@PDG] and the 55% probability that the pion deposits $<$300 MeV in the calorimeter. The $\pi^+\pi^0$ background are fixed at 9.2 events obtained from Monte Carlo (MC) simulation. The normalizations of the signal, $\overline{K}^0\pi^+$, and 3-body background are allowed to float. The $\overline{K}^0\pi^+$ shape is obtained from double tag events of $D^0\to K^-\pi^+, \overline{D}{}^{0} \to K^+\pi^-$ where we ignore one kaon to calculate the MM$^2$. All other shapes are obtained from the MC simulation.
![Fit to the MM$^2$ for case (i). The points with error bars show the data. The black (dashed) curve centered at zero shows the signal $\mu^+\nu$ events. The dot-dashed (red) curve that peaks around 0.05 GeV$^2$ shows the $D^+\to\tau^+\nu$, $\tau^+\to\pi^+\bar{\nu}$ component. The solid (blue) Gaussian shaped curve centered on the pion-mass squared shows the residual $\pi^+\pi^0$ component. The dashed (purple) curve that falls to zero around 0.03 GeV$^2$ is the sum of all the other background components, except the $\overline{K}^0\pi^+$ tail which is shown by the long-dashed (green) curve that peaks up at 0.25 GeV$^2$. The solid (black) curve is the sum of all the components.[]{data-label="case1-taunufix"}](case1-taunufix-log-op.eps){width="50.00000%" height="0.37\textheight"}
The fit yields 149.7$\pm$12.0 $\mu^+\nu$ signal events and 25.8 $\tau^+\nu$, $\tau^+\to\pi^+\bar{\nu}$ events (for the entire MM$^2$ range). We also perform the fit allowing the $\tau^+\nu$, $\tau^+\to\pi^+\bar{\nu}$ component to float. Then we find 153.9$\pm$13.5 $\mu^+\nu$ events and 13.5$\pm$15.3 $\tau^+\nu$, $\tau^+\to\pi^+\bar{\nu}$ events, compared with the 25.8 we expect in the SM. Performing the fit in this manner gives a result that is independent of the SM expectation of the $D^+\to\tau^+\nu$ rate. To extract a branching fraction, in either case, we subtract off 2.4$\pm$1.0 events found from simulations and other studies to be additional backgrounds, not taken into account by the fit.
We find ${\cal{B}}(D^+\to\mu^+\nu)=(3.82\pm 0.32\pm 0.09)\times
10^{-4}.$ The decay constant $f_{D^+}$ is then obtained from Eq. (\[eq:equ\_rate\]) using 1040$\pm$7 fs as the $D^+$ lifetime [@PDG] and 0.2256 as $|V_{cd}|$. Our final result, including radiative corrections is $$f_{D^+}=(205.8\pm 8.5\pm 2.5)~{\rm MeV}~.$$
To reconstruct the tag, the difference here than the $D^+$ case is that we need to include an additional photon from $D_s^{*}$ in the tag. The $D_s^-$ tags we reconstructed can either from directly produced $D_s^-$ mesons or those that result from the decay of $D_s^{*}$ mesons. We calculate the missing mass squared MM$^{*2}$ recoiling against the photon and the $D_s^-$ tag, $${\rm MM}^{*2} = (E_{\rm CM}-E_{D_s}-E_{\gamma})^2-(\mathbf{p}_{\rm
CM}-\mathbf{p}_{D_s}-\mathbf{p}_{\gamma})^2,$$ here $E_{\rm CM}$ (${\bf p}_{\rm CM}$) is the center-of-mass energy (momentum), $E_{D_s}$ (${\bf p}_{D_s}$) is the energy (momentum) of the fully reconstructed $D_s^-$ tag, and $E_{\gamma}$ (${\bf
p}_{\gamma}$) is the energy (momentum) of the additional photon. We determine number of tags by simultaneously fit to the invariant mass ($M_{D_s}$) and MM$^{*2}$, shown in Fig. \[2d\]. The signal is fit to a sum of two Gaussians for the $M_{D_s}$ and a Crystal Ball function for the MM$^{*2}$. The tail parameters of the Crystal Ball function are obtained from fully reconstructed $D_s^*D_s$ events. The background has two components: either comes from the background under the invariant mass peak (fake $D_s$), or is due to random photon combinations. The former background is modeled by linear function for the mass and 5th order Chebyshev polynomial for the MM$^{*2}$. Since the latter background is from a true $D_s$, its mass distribution has the same shape as that from the signal, while its MM$^{*2}$ is modeled by another 5th order Chebyshev polynomial function. The total number of single tags is $30848\pm695\pm925$ in the invariant mass signal region ($\pm17.5$ MeV from the nominal $D_s$ mass) and MM$^{*2}\in$\[3.782, 4.0\] GeV$^2$.
\[2d\] ![Distributions of the invariant mass (left) in MM$^{*2} \in
[3.5, 4.25]$ GeV$^2$ and MM$^{*2}$ (right) in the invariant mass $|M_{D_s}-1968.3$ MeV$|<17.5$ MeV in the final states: $K^+K^-\pi^-
$, $K_S K^-$, $\eta\pi^-$; $\eta\to\gamma\gamma$, $\eta'\pi^-$; $\eta'\to\pi^+\pi^-\eta$, $\eta\to\gamma\gamma$, $\phi\rho^-$; $\phi\to K^+K^-$, $\rho^-\to \pi^-\pi^0$, $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^-$, $K^{*-}K^{*0}$; $K^{*-}\to K_S^0\pi^-$, ${K}^{*0}\to K^+\pi^-$, $\eta\rho^-$; $\eta\to\gamma\gamma$, $\rho^-\to \pi^-\pi^0$, and $\eta'\pi^-$; $\eta'\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$. Data (point) and fit function (red curve) are shown. The dashed (blue) curve corresponds to the fake $D_s$ background, and the dashed (green) curve to the random photon background.](mass38-47_all.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}![Distributions of the invariant mass (left) in MM$^{*2} \in
[3.5, 4.25]$ GeV$^2$ and MM$^{*2}$ (right) in the invariant mass $|M_{D_s}-1968.3$ MeV$|<17.5$ MeV in the final states: $K^+K^-\pi^-
$, $K_S K^-$, $\eta\pi^-$; $\eta\to\gamma\gamma$, $\eta'\pi^-$; $\eta'\to\pi^+\pi^-\eta$, $\eta\to\gamma\gamma$, $\phi\rho^-$; $\phi\to K^+K^-$, $\rho^-\to \pi^-\pi^0$, $\pi^+\pi^-\pi^-$, $K^{*-}K^{*0}$; $K^{*-}\to K_S^0\pi^-$, ${K}^{*0}\to K^+\pi^-$, $\eta\rho^-$; $\eta\to\gamma\gamma$, $\rho^-\to \pi^-\pi^0$, and $\eta'\pi^-$; $\eta'\to\pi^+\pi^-\gamma$. Data (point) and fit function (red curve) are shown. The dashed (blue) curve corresponds to the fake $D_s$ background, and the dashed (green) curve to the random photon background.](mms238-47_sig.eps "fig:"){width="40.00000%"}
Similarly as the $D^+$, we reconstruct the signal side. We veto events with an extra neutral energy cluster $>300$ MeV (it is 250 MeV in the $D^+$ case). It is highly effective in reducing backgrounds, especially for ${D_s^+}\to \pi^+\pi^0$, $\eta\pi^+$ and the processes $D^{(*)}\overline{D}{}^{(*)}$. The missing mass squared, MM$^2$, evaluated by taking into account the observed $\mu^+$, $D_s^-$, and photon should peak at zero; $${\rm MM}^{2} = (E_{\rm
CM}-E_{D_s}-E_{\gamma}-E_{\mu})^2-(\mathbf{p}_{\rm
CM}-\mathbf{p}_{D_s}-\mathbf{p}_{\gamma}-\mathbf{p}_{\mu})^2.$$ We also make use of a set of kinematical constraints and fit each event to two hypotheses one of which is that the $D_s^-$ tag is the daughter of a $D_s^{*-}$ and the other that the $D_s^{*+}$ decays into $\gamma{D_s^+}$, with the ${D_s^+}$ subsequently decaying into $\mu^+\nu$. In addition, we constrain the invariant mass of the $D_s^-$ tag to the know $D_s$ mass. This gives us a total of 7 constraints. The missing neutrino four-vector needs to be determined, so we are left with a three-constraint fit. We perform a standard iterative fit minimizing $\chi^2$. We choose the fitted MM$^2$ from the hypothesis giving the smaller $\chi^2$. The MM$^{2}$ distribution from data is show in Fig. \[mms-fitall\_38-47\]. After fixing the ratio of $\tau^+\nu/\mu^+\nu$ to the SM value we find $f_{{D_s^+}}=(268.2\pm9.6\pm4.4)$ MeV.
![The MM$^2$ distribution. The dashed (grey) Gaussian shaped curve peaked near zero is the $\mu^+\nu$ component, while the dashed (purple) curve that rises sharply from zero and then flattens out shows the $\tau^+\nu$ component. The two lines are background components. The solid curve shows the sum. []{data-label="mms-fitall_38-47"}](mms-fitall_38-47.eps){width="45.00000%"}
We can also use the decay mode $\tau^+\to e^+\nu\overline{\nu}$. This result has already been published. [@CLEOtaunu] The technique here is to use only three tagging modes: $\phi\pi^-$, $K^-K^{*0}$ and $K^0_SK^-$, to ensure that the tags are extremely clean. Then events with an identified $e^+$ and no other charged tracks are selected. Any energy not associated with the tag decay products is tabulated. Those events with small extra energy below 400 MeV are mostly pure $D_s^+\to\tau^+\nu$ events. After correcting for efficiencies and residual backgrounds we find $f_{D_s^+}=(273\pm
16 \pm 8)$ MeV.
Conclusions
===========
The preliminary CLEO average is $f_{D_s^+}=(267.9\pm 8.2 \pm 3.9)$ MeV (radiatively corrected). Averaging in the Belle result [@Belle-munu] $f_{D_s^+}=(269.6\pm 8.3)$ MeV, which differs from the Follana [[*et al.*]{}]{} calculation [@Lat:Follana] by 3.2 standard deviations, while the result for $f_{D^+}=(205.8\pm 8.5 \pm 2.5)$ MeV is in good agreement. This discrepancy could be due to physics beyond the standard model [@Dobrescu-Kron], or systematic uncertainties that are not understood in the LQCD calculation or the experimental measurements, or unlikely statistical fluctuations in the experimental measurements or the LQCD calculation. Fits to the CKM matrix parameters use theoretical predictions of $f_{B_s}$/$_{B_d}$. As similar calculations are used for $f_{B_s}$/$_{B_d}$, we need to be concerned with them.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
I thank the U. S. National Science Foundation for support. Excellent conversations were had with P. Chang, A. Kronfeld and S. Stone.
[9]{} J. L. Rosner and S. Stone, “Decay Constants of Charged Pseudoscalar Mesons," arXiv:0802.1043 \[hep-ex\], also in PDG 2008.
E. Follana [[*et al.*]{}]{} (HPQCD and UKQCD), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 062002 (2008); see also C. Aubin [[*et al.*]{}]{} (FNAL Lattice, HPQCD & MILC), [Phys. Rev. Lett.]{} [**95**]{}, 122002 (2005).
B. I. Eisenstein, [[*et al.*]{}]{} (CLEO), Phy. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 052003 (2008).
For notational convenance, the $D^-$ is referred to for the fully reconstructed tag, although $D^+$ states are also used.
W.-M. Yao [[*et al.*]{}]{}, [Journal of Physics,]{} [**G33**]{}, 1 (2006).
K. M. Ecklund [[*et al.*]{}]{} (CLEO), Phys. Rev. Lett. [**100**]{}, 161801 (2008).
K. Abe [[*et al.*]{}]{} (Belle), \[arXiv:0709.1340\] (2007).
B. A. Dobrescu and A. S. Kronfeld, arXiv:0803.0512 \[hep-ph\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'M. Perucho'
- 'J. M. Martí'
- 'M. Hanasz'
date: 'Received .../ Accepted ...'
title: Nonlinear stability of relativistic sheared planar jets
---
Introduction
============
Transversal structure in extragalactic jets could be the natural consequence of current formation mechanisms (see, e.g., Sol et al. 1989; Celotti & Blandford 2000), in which an ultrarelativistic presumably electron/positron outflow from the high latitude region close to the spinning black hole (and powered by, e.g., the extraction of energy from the hole) is surrounded by a mildly relativistic, electron/proton, hydromagnetic outflow launched from the outer parts of the accretion disk. Recent numerical simulations of jet formation from black hole magnetospheres (Koide et al. 1997) also lead to outflows with [*two-layered shell structure*]{} consisting of inner, fast gas pressure driven jets surrounded by slower, magnetically dominated winds. On larger scales, shear layers (with distinct kinematical properties and magnetic field configurations) have been invoked in the past by several authors (Komissarov 1990, Laing 1996, Laing & Bridle 2002a,b) in order to account for a number of the observational characteristics of FR I radio sources. The model of De Young (1993) to explain the FRI/FRII morphological dichotomy is based on deceleration of the jet flow at the inner galactic core and the subsequent formation of turbulent shear layers in FRIs. Recently, Swain et al. (1998) found evidence of shear layers in FR II radio galaxies (3C353), and Attridge et al. (1999) have inferred a two-component structure in the parsec-scale jet of the source 1055+018. On the other hand, first simulations of radio emission from three-dimensional relativistic jets with shear layers (Aloy et al. 2000) allowed several observational trends in parsec and kiloparsec jets to be interpreted: inhomogeneous distributions of apparent speeds within radio knots (Biretta et al. 1995); rails of low polarization along jets (as in 3C353; Swain et al. 1998); top/down jet emission asymmetries in the blazar 1055+018 (Attridge et al. 1999). Stawarz & Ostrowski (2002) have studied the contribution to the radiative jet output from turbulent shear layers in large-scale jets.
Given all the pieces of theoretical and observational evidence concerning the ubiquity of shear layers in extragalactic jets, it appears natural to analyze their influence on the dynamics and stability of relativistic jets. An attempt to investigate the growth of the Kelvin-Helmholtz (KH) instability in some particular class of sheared, cylindrical relativistic jets was pursued by Birkinshaw (1991). However, this study is limited to the ordinary and low-order reflection modes, and the domain of jet parameters considered involves only marginally relativistic flows (beam flow velocities $\leq 0.1 c$; $c$ is the speed of light) and non-relativistic (jet, ambient) sound speeds ($\leq 0.01c$). Other approaches to linear analysis of the stability of relativistic stratified jets (Hanasz & Sol 1996, Hardee & Hughes 2003) and sheared, ultrarelativistic jets (Urpin 2002) have also been taken. Several recent works combine linear analysis and hydrodynamical simulations in the context of both relativistic jets (Rosen et al. 1999, Hardee 2000, 2001) and GRBs (Aloy et al. 2002).
In this paper, we focus on the study of the evolution of relativistic (planar) flows with shear layers through the linear and non-linear regimes relying on both linear, analytical stability analysis and hydrodynamical numerical simulations. The present work complements the one presented in Perucho et al. (2004a,b; hereafter, Paper I and II, respectively), in which we characterized the effects of relativistic dynamics and thermodynamics in the development of KH instabilities in planar, relativistic jets in the vortex sheet approximation. We used a more general setup for simulations with the inclusion of a set of symmetric (pinching) and antisymmetric (helical) sinusoidal perturbations in two dimensional slab jets and a thicker shear layer ($\simeq 0.2\,R_j$) than that used to mimic vortex sheet evolution. The use of slab jets allows for inclusion of helical perturbations, which are known to be present in extragalactic jets. Moreover, two dimensional simulations provide the possibility of a much larger resolution than three dimensional ones. The aim of this work is to study the stability properties of jets depending on their initial parameters and the effect of shear layers in those properties. We used the temporal approach, which allows for larger resolution, and fixed two different grid sizes, depending on the thermodynamical properties of jets, which are neither directly related nor coupled to the wavelength of a specific mode, as was the case in Papers I and II. Jet parameters are based on those of previous papers for direct comparison. We generalized our results with simulations where only one antisymmetric mode is perturbed (similar to simulations in Paper I), and simulations of cylindrical jets, where several modes are perturbed (as in simulations presented in this paper).
The plan of this paper is as follows. In Sect. \[sect:numsim\] we describe the numerical simulations and present the parameters used in this paper. In Sect. \[sect:results\] we describe our results concerning linear and nonlinear regimes of new simulations; we discuss them in Sect. \[sect:disc\] and present our conclusions in Sect. \[sect:concl\].
Setup for numerical simulations {#sect:numsim}
===============================
$
\begin{array}{|c|cc|ccccccc|cccc|}
\hline
{\rm Model} & \gamma & \varepsilon_j & \varepsilon_a & c_{sj} & c_{sa} &
p & \nu & \eta & M_j & k_0& k_1& k_2& k_3\\
\hline
{\rm A2.5} & 2.5 & 0.08 & 0.008 & 0.18 & 0.059 & 0.0027 & 0.11 & 0.11 & 12.5 & 0.39 & 0.78 & 1.18 & 1.57 \\
{\rm B2.5} & 2.5 & 0.42 & 0.042 & 0.35 & 0.133 & 0.014 & 0.14 & 0.15 & 6.12 & 0.39 & 0.78 & 1.18 & 1.57 \\
{\rm D2.5} & 2.5 & 60.0 & 6.000 & 0.57 & 0.544 & 2.000 & 0.87 & 0.90 & 3.29 & 0.78 & 1.57 & 2.36 & 3.14 \\
{\rm B05} & 5 & 0.42 & 0.042 & 0.35 & 0.133 & 0.014 & 0.14 & 0.15 & 13.2 & 0.39 & 0.78 & 1.18 & 1.57 \\
{\rm D05} & 5 & 60.0 & 6.000 & 0.57 & 0.544 & 2.000 & 0.87 & 0.90 & 7.01 & 0.78 & 1.57 & 2.36 & 3.14 \\
{\rm A10} & 10 & 0.08 & 0.008 & 0.18 & 0.059 & 0.0027& 0.11 & 0.11 & 54.2 & 0.39 & 0.78 & 1.18 & 1.57 \\
{\rm B10} & 10 & 0.42 & 0.042 & 0.35 & 0.133 & 0.014 & 0.14 & 0.15 & 26.9 & 0.39 & 0.78 & 1.18 & 1.57 \\
{\rm D10} & 10 & 60.0 & 6.000 & 0.57 & 0.544 & 2.000 & 0.87 & 0.90 & 14.2 & 0.78 & 1.57 & 2.36 & 3.14 \\
{\rm B20} & 20 & 0.42 & 0.042 & 0.35 & 0.133 & 0.014 & 0.14 & 0.15 & 54.0 & 0.39 & 0.78 & 1.18 & 1.57 \\
{\rm D20} & 20 & 60.0 & 6.000 & 0.57 & 0.544 & 2.000 & 0.87 & 0.90 & 28.5 & 0.78 & 1.57 & 2.36 & 3.14 \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
The equations governing the evolution of a relativistic perfect-fluid jet (see Paper I) are $$\gamma^2 \!\!\left( \rho \!+\! {p\over c^2} \right)\!\! \left[\!
{\partial \vec v \over \partial t}\!+\! (\vec v \cdotp \! \vec\nabla)
\vec v \! \right]
\! + \vec\nabla p + {\vec v \over c^2} {\partial p \over \partial t}
\! = \! 0, \label{eulereq}$$ $$\gamma \!\!\left( {\partial \rho\over \partial t} \!+\! \vec v \cdotp
\vec \nabla\rho \right) \!+\! \left( \rho + {p\over c^2} \right)\!\!
\left[ {\partial \gamma \over \partial t} + \vec\nabla \cdotp (\gamma \vec v)
\right] \!\!= \! 0, \label{conteq}$$ $$\frac{d(p \rho_0^{-\Gamma})}{dt} = 0.
\label{eq:adiabat}$$ In the preceding equations, $c$ is the speed of light, $\rho_0$ the particle rest mass density. $\rho$ stands for the relativistic density which is related to the particle rest mass density and the specific internal energy $\varepsilon$, by $\rho =
\rho_0(1+\varepsilon/c^2)$. The enthalpy is defined as $w = \rho +
p/c^2$, and the sound speed is given by $c_s^2 = \Gamma p/w$, where $\Gamma$ is the adiabatic index. The relation between pressure and the specific internal energy is $p =(\Gamma - 1) \varepsilon \rho_0$. The velocity of the fluid is represented by $\vec v$, and $\gamma$ is the corresponding Lorentz factor. The operator $d\,\,/dt$ appearing in Eq. (\[eq:adiabat\]) is the standard Lagrangian time derivative.
The steady initial flow is 2D-planar and symmetric with respect to the $x=0$ plane. The flow moves in the positive $z$ direction. Our simulations were performed in the so-called temporal approach, as in Papers I and II. In this approach, the evolution of perturbations in a peridiocal slice of an infinite jet is followed along the time. In order to study the effects of shearing in the development of the instability, we assumed a continuous transition between the jet and the ambient (the same as the one considered by Ferrari et al. 1982). The profiles of the axial velocity and proper rest-mass density across this transition layer, $v_z(x)$ and $\rho_0(x)$, respectively, are given by $$\label{sv}
v_z(x)=\frac{v_{z,j}}{\cosh (x/R_j)^m},$$ $$\label{sr}
\rho_0(x)=\rho_{0,a}-\frac{\rho_{0,a}-\rho_{0,j}}{\cosh (x/R_j)^m}.$$ In the previous expressions, $v_{z,j}$ represents the fluid flow velocity in the jet axis, whereas $\rho_{0,j}$ and $\rho_{0,a}$ are the proper rest-mass density at the jet axis and in the ambient, respectively. The exponent $m$ controls the shear layer steepness; in the limit $m \rightarrow \infty$ the configuration tends to the vortex-sheet case. In our present calculations we have used $m = 25$, corresponding to a shear layer of thickness $0.17\,R_j$, about twice that used in Papers I and II, in order to mimic the vortex sheet limit. From now on all quantities representing the jet will be assigned the ’$j$’ subscript and the quantities representing the ambient medium will be assigned the ’$a$’.
Following conclusions given in the Appendices of both Paper I and Paper II, the numerical resolution used was $256\,{\rm cells}/R_j$ in the transversal direction times $32 \,{\rm
cells}/R_j$ in the axial direction. Note that we reduced the transversal resolution with respect to the simulations in Papers I and II. One reason for that were computational time limitations, as now our grids are twice as large in the transversal direction as those used in Paper I, since we are now combining symmetric and antisymmetric structures. However, in the present simulations, transversal resolution is not as critical as in the previous works, since we are not interested in mimicking the evolution of instability in the vortex sheet limit and therefore do not have steep shear layers. The saving in transversal resolution allowed us to double axial resolution, which affects the non-linear results (see Appendix in Paper II). The physical sizes of grids are $8\,R_j$ axially times $6\,R_j$ transversally for hot jets (models D, see Table \[tab:param\]) and $16\,R_j$ axially times $6\,R_j$ transversally for cold jets (models A and B in Table \[tab:param\]). The different axial size is due to hot models having shorter unstable modes; see Sect. \[sect:lin\], where we show linear problem solutions for one cold and one hot jet.
Previous to these simulations, we performed several representative runs (B05, D05, B20, D20) with the aim of studying the evolution of models under single eigenmode perturbations in planar antisymmetric geometry, exciting the first reflection antisymmetric mode at its peak growth rate. These simulations were used to check the consistency of the numerical results in the linear phase with the linear stability analysis for relativistic, sheared flows. Discussion of the evolution of these models through the non-linear regime can be found in Appendix A. Tests were also performed in order to assess the difference in the evolution of linear and non-linear regimes using a general sinusoidal perturbation (to be used in this paper) and a superposition of eigenmodes, as done with the first body mode alone in Paper I. Results showed that structures and qualitative properties of the resulting flow were basically the same. This fact confirms that general perturbations excite eigenmodes of the system.
The parameters used in the simulations are shown in Table \[tab:param\]. We swept a wide range in Lorentz factors (from 2.5 to 20) and in specific internal jet energies (from $0.08 c^2$ to $60
c^2$) in order to obtain a global view of the response of different initial data sets to perturbations. All the models correspond to a single-component ideal gas with adiabatic exponent $\Gamma=4/3$. These parameters were chosen in order to study the stability regions found in Paper II: Class I for cold and slow models, which were deeply mixed and mass loaded; Class II for hot and fast jets, which were slowly mixed in the nonlinear regime, progressively losing their axial momentum; Class III for hot and slow jets, with properties between Classes I and II, and Class IV for cold/warm and fast models, which were the stablest in the nonlinear regime. We performed simulations for models **B05**[^1], **B10**, **B20**, **D05**, **D10**, and **D20** of Paper II, and added **A2.5** (same thermodynamical properties as A05 in Paper II), **A10**, **B2.5**, and **D2.5**. Models **A2.5**, **B2.5**, and **B05** correspond to regions of Class I jets. Models **D10** and **D20** correspond to Class II, **D2.5** and **D05** to Class III, and **A10**,**B10** and **B20** belong to Class IV.
Perturbations we applied adding the following sinusoidal form to transversal velocity, $v_x(x,z)$: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{perts}
\small
v_{x} =\hspace{8cm}\nonumber{} \\
\frac{V_{x1}}{N}
\left(\sum_{n=0}^{N-1}
\sin((n+1)\,k_{n}\,z\,+\,\varphi_n)
\sin^2((n+1)\,\pi\,x) \frac{x}{|x|}\right)+\nonumber{} \\
\frac{V_{x1}}{M}
\left(\sum_{m=0}^{M-1}
\sin((m+1)\,k_{m}\,z\,+\,\varphi_m)\sin^2((m+1)\,\pi\,x)\right),\,\,\,\,\end{aligned}$$ where $V_{x1}(\sim 10^{-4})$ is the amplitude given to the perturbation, $k_{m,n}$ are the wavenumbers of the grid box (so that $(n+1)\,k_n$ and $(m+1)\,k_m$ stand for the harmonics of the symmetric (pinching) and antisymmetric (helical) modes, respectively), and $\varphi_n$ and $\varphi_m$ are random phases given to each mode. In our simulations, four symmetric ($N = 4$) plus four antisymmetric modes ($M = 4$) were excited, i.e., the fundamental mode of the box and the first three harmonics.
Numerical simulations were performed using a finite-difference code based on a high-resolution shock-capturing scheme which solves the equations of relativistic hydrodynamics written in conservation form (Martí et al. 1997 and references therein). Before performing the simulations, several improvements were made in the numerical code. In particular, the relativistic PPM routines (Martí & Müller 1996) were properly symmetrized. The code was recently parallelized using OMP directives. Simulations were performed with 4 processors on SGI 2000 and SGI Altix 3000 machines.
Results {#sect:results}
=======
Linear regime {#sect:lin}
-------------
### Perturbation theory
We introduced an adiabatic perturbation of the form $\propto g(x)
\exp (i(k_z z - \omega t))$ to the flow equations (\[eulereq\]-\[eq:adiabat\]), $\omega$ and $k_z$ ($k_x$) being the frequency and wavenumber of the perturbation along (across) the jet flow. We followed the temporal approach, in which perturbations grow in time, with real wavenumbers and complex frequencies, with the imaginary part being the growth rate. By linearizing the equations and eliminating the perturbations of rest mass density and flow velocity, a second-order ordinary differential equation for the pressure perturbation $P_1$, is obtained (Birkinshaw 1991, Aloy et al. 2002) $$\begin{aligned}
P_1^{\prime\prime} + \left(\frac{2\gamma_0^2v_{0z}^\prime (k_z - \omega
v_{0z})}{\omega -v_{0z}k_z} - \frac{\rho_{e,0}^\prime}{\rho_{e,0} +
P_0}\right)P_1^\prime + & & \label{radial-eq}\\
\gamma_0^2\left(\frac{(\omega -v_{0z}k_z)^2}{c_{s,0}^2} - (k_z - \omega
v_{0z})^2\right)P_1 & = & 0 \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\rho_{e,0}$ is the energy-density of the unperturbed model, $P_0$ the pressure, $v_{0z}$ the three-velocity component, $\gamma_0 = 1/\sqrt{1-v_{0z}^2}$ the Lorentz factor, and $c_{s,0}$ the relativistic sound speed. The prime denotes the $x$-derivative. Unlike the vortex sheet case, in the case of a continuous velocity profile, a dispersion relation cannot be written explicitly. The equation (\[radial-eq\]) is integrated from the jet axis, where boundary conditions on the amplitude of pressure perturbation and its first derivative are imposed $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bcs1}
P_1(x = 0) = 1, & P_1^{\prime}(x = 0) = 0 & \mbox{(sym. modes)},
\\ \nonumber
P_1(x = 0) = 0, & P_1^{\prime}(x = 0) = 1 & \mbox{(antisym.
modes)}.\end{aligned}$$ Solutions satisfying the Sommerfeld radiation conditions (no incoming waves from infinity and wave amplitudes decaying towards infinity) are found with the aid of the numerical method, based on the shooting method (Press et al. 1997) proposed in Roy Choudhury & Lovelace (1984).
Linear stability analysis was performed for all models presented in Sect. \[sect:numsim\], in the symmetric and antisymmetric cases. Figure \[fig:linsol\] shows examples of solutions for the linear problem for sheared jets in models **B05** and **D20**. Top panels in Fig. \[fig:linsol\] show the (real part of) frequency as a function of wavenumber, and bottom panels show the imaginary part of frequency or growth rate, defined as the inverse of the time needed by a given mode to $e$-fold its amplitude, also as a function of wavenumber. Each mode is defined by its wavelength, frequency and growth rate.
From these results, we note that the individual reflection mode solutions of the shear problem present lower growth rates for most wavenumbers, especially in the large wavenumber limit, than do the corresponding solutions in the vortex sheet case. This behaviour was noticed for the first time by Ferrari et al. (1982) for the first and second reflection modes in the non-relativistic limit. The growth rate curves corresponding to a single $n_x$-th reflection mode consists of a broad maximum at higher wavenumbers and a local peak which is placed in the low wavenumber limit, near the marginal stability point of a chosen reflection mode. Regarding the relativistic case, while in the vortex-sheet limit the small wavenumber peaks for individual modes are relatively unimportant (since the maximum growth rates at these peaks are lower than those of other unstable modes), while in the presence of the shear-layer they display high growth rates for high order body modes. Therefore we shall call these peaks [*the shear layer resonances*]{}. In Fig. \[fig:linsol2\] we show the solution for four specific modes of model **D20**, from Fig. \[fig:linsol\]. Low order body modes do not show high peaks at maximum unstable wavelengths, whereas high order body modes show peaks (shear layer resonances) at this maximum wavelength and do not present broad maxima.
From Eq. (\[radial-eq\]) we see that radial structure of perturbations depends on physical parameters of the flow, as well as on the given frequency and axial wavenumber of a given perturbation. Resonances are determined by this transversal structure, and therefore we should expect changes in their characteristics depending on the properties of the shear layer and physical parameters: i) a decrease of the jet Lorentz factor reduces the dominance of the growth rates of resonant modes with respect to ordinary and low order reflection modes; ii) a decrease in the specific internal energy of the jet causes resonances to appear at longer wavelengths; iii) further widening of the shear layer reduces the growth rates and the dominance of the shear-layer resonances, suggesting that there is an optimal width of the shear layer that maximizes the effect for a given set of jet parameters; the largest growth rate of resonant modes moves to smaller wavenumbers and lower order reflection modes; iv) perturbations with wavenumber higher than some limiting value (that decreases with the shear layer width) are significantly diminished (short-wavelength cut-off), consistent with previous non-relativistic results (Ferrari et al. 1982). The discovery of the shear layer resonances and their potential role in the long-term stability of relativistic jets is reported in Perucho et al. (2005).
### Simulations
Table \[tab:t1\] summarizes the properties of the linear phase in our simulations. The left part of the Table (colums 2-9) gives the theoretical growth rates of the perturbed wavelengths, taken at the vertical lines in Fig. \[fig:linsol\]. The last column gives the values of the growth rate corresponding to the dominant wavelength as deduced from Fourier analysis of the transversal profiles of the rest mass density distribution in the jet. Note, however, that Fourier analysis can only give us information about wavelengths, but cannot distinguish between symmetric and antisymmetric modes. The growths of pressure, axial, and transversal velocity perturbations along the simulations are shown in Fig. \[fig:amplitudes\].
---------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- ------------------- ---------------
Model $w_{i,k_0}$ $w_{i,k_1}$ $w_{i,k_2}$ $w_{i,k_3}$ Dominant $w_{i}$
Symm.$\quad $Antis. Symm. $\quad $Antis. Symm.$\quad $ Antis. Symm. $\quad $ Antis.
[A2.5]{} 0.036 $\quad $ 0.032 0.038$\quad $ 0.037 0.034 $\quad $ 0.036 0.031$\quad $ 0.034 $k_0$ 0.030
[B2.5]{} 0.042 $\quad $ 0.056 0.070$\quad $ 0.052 0.066 $\quad $ 0.084 0.073$\quad $ 0.080 $k_1$,$k_2$ 0.070
[D2.5]{} 0.046 $\quad $ 0.160 0.131$\quad $ 0.182 0.210 $\quad $ 0.194 0.142$\quad $ 0.256 $k_2$,$k_1$ 0.200
[B05]{} 0.037 $\quad $ 0.035 0.037$\quad $ 0.044 0.036 $\quad $ 0.038 0.034$\quad $ 0.035 $k_0$,$k_1$ 0.035
[D05]{} 0.068 $\quad $ 0.063 0.085$\quad $ 0.063 0.100 $\quad $ 0.068 0.068$\quad $ 0.110 $k_1$,$k_2$,$k_0$ 0.080
[A10]{} 0.009 $\quad $ 0.009 0.006$\quad $ 0.006 0.005 $\quad $ 0.006 0.006$\quad $ 0.006 $k_0$\* 0.004 (0.005)
[B10]{} 0.022 $\quad $ 0.018 0.019$\quad $ 0.021 0.018 $\quad $ 0.017 0.013$\quad $ 0.013 $k_0$ 0.020
[D10]{} 0.034 $\quad $ 0.038 0.041$\quad $ 0.037 0.044 $\quad $ 0.034 0.051$\quad $ 0.035 $k_1$,$k_2$ 0.040
[B20]{} 0.011 $\quad $ 0.010 0.009$\quad $ 0.010 0.007 $\quad $ 0.007 0.009$\quad $ 0.010 $k_0$\* 0.006 (0.008)
[D20]{} 0.018 $\quad $ 0.018 0.020$\quad $ 0.017 0.022 $\quad $ 0.017 0.027$\quad $ 0.028 $k_1$,$k_0$ 0.016
---------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- ------------------- ---------------
Comparison of the evolution through the linear phase of the different models in the numerical simulations and from the linear stability analysis is summarized as follows:
- **A2.5**: modes with longer wavelengths are faster growing, and their Fourier amplitudes are consistently larger than those for shorter modes in the simulation. Growth rate found in the simulation is close to the one expected from linear stability analysis.
- **B2.5**: first ($k_1$) and second ($k_2$) harmonics of the box have larger amplitudes in the Fourier analysis and, therefore, dominate the linear regime. Linear stability analysis gives $k_1$, $k_2$ and $k_3$ as the fastest growing modes, with a similar growth rate to that found in the simulation. However, $k_3$ modes have smaller amplitudes.
- **D2.5**: found growth rate for the simulation is close to that of $k_1$ and $k_2$ modes, which is confirmed by Fourier analysis. Antisymmetric $k_3$ mode might grow with slower rates than theory predicts due to numerical viscosity that affects shorter modes more than longer ones.
- **B05**: Fourier analysis shows competition between fundamental and first harmonics of the box ($k_0$ and $k_1$, respectively). This, as well as the value of the mean growth rate, is confirmed by the linear stability analysis. The second harmonic of the box ($k_2$) is damped.
- **D05**: according to Fourier analysis, $k_1$ and $k_2$ modes dominate evolution in the linear regime. The growth rate is close to that of the symmetric $k_1$ mode, despite the fact that symmetric $k_2$ and antisymmetric $k_3$ present faster growth rates, so they appear to be damped.
- **A10**: Fourier analysis shows that longer modes dominate, in agreement with linear stability analysis. However, the growth rate in the numerical simulation is two times smaller than predicted. We also observe in Fourier analysis that very short modes, excited as harmonics of perturbed wavelengths, become important by the end of the linear regime.
- **B10**: $k_0$ modes dominate, as predicted by linear stability analysis.
- **D10**: as in models **D2.5** and **D05**, $k_1$ and $k_2$ have larger amplitudes in Fourier analysis, but the smaller wavelength modes ($k_3$) are damped with respect to the predictions of linear stability analysis.
- **B20**: longer modes dominate the linear evolution, in agreement with linear analysis, but the growth rate in the numerical simulation is $1.5$ times smaller than predicted. After some time, short, fast modes, like those appearing in model **A10**, become dominant and lead to a smooth transition to the non-linear regime.
- **D20**: long modes present larger amplitudes with predicted growth rates up to the moment when shorter modes reach larger amplitudes, the same effect as found in models **A10** and **B20**.
It is observed in several simulations (e.g., **B2.5**, **B05**, **D2.5**, **D05**, **D10**) that modes with similar or even slightly higher growth rates than those dominating in simulations present smaller amplitudes in the linear regime. It happens usually for shorter modes (typically $k_2$, $k_3$), so it may be caused by numerical viscosity, for less cells are involved in one wavelength. However, the way in which we perturb the jet may also favor the dominating growth of certain modes starting with a larger amplitude. We added a general sinusoidal perturbation, so the input amplitude of the perturbation at a given wavelength is shared in a random way among all the modes present at that wavelength. This makes some modes start their growths with smaller amplitudes, as we could see in the Fourier analysis of different models. Initial low amplitudes are more probable for short wavelength modes, as more eigenmodes are present at a given wavenumber in this range (see Fig. \[fig:linsol\]). From an initial lower amplitude, and taking into account that they have similar growth rates to other modes, they grow with smaller amplitudes for the rest of the linear phase.
Models **A10** and **B20**, marked with an asterisk in Table \[tab:t1\], have fitted growth rates in the first part of the linear regime below the predicted values. Note that these models have the lower growth rates. After this initial phase, short harmonics start dominating the linear growth.
Model $w_{i,{\rm max}}$ $w_{i,p,v_\perp}$ $w_{i,v_\parallel}$
--------- ------------------- ------------------- ---------------------
[B05]{} 0.052 $-$ $-$
[D05]{} 0.11 $-$ $-$
[A10]{} 0.013 0.017 0.009
[B10]{} 0.035 $-$ $-$
[D10]{} 0.057 $-$ $-$
[B20]{} 0.026 0.036 0.036
[D20]{} 0.035 0.070 0.047
: Growth of resonant modes. Models which present a global maximum growth rate (according to the linear analysis) for all resonant modes (i.e., at any wavelength) above the growth rates of the perturbed modes are listed. $w_{i,max}$: maximum growth rate for all resonant modes from linear analysis; $w_{i,p,v_{\perp}}$: fitted growth rates of pressure and perpendicular velocity perturbations for the fast growth linear regime in the simulation, only for those simulations where it occurs; $w_{i,\parallel}$: same as $w_{i,p,v_{\perp}}$ for axial velocity. All values are in $c/R_j$ units.[]{data-label="tab:t2"}
We have observed the appearance of fast growing, very short modes in models **A10**, **B20**, and **D20**, which are clearly associated to the resonant modes presented above in the previous section and which could have been excited as harmonics of the initially perturbed wavelengths. The same kind of resonant mode might have developed in model C20 of Paper II and caused the irregular linear growth found with respect to the rest of models. These modes generate a rich internal structure in the jet due to their large perpendicular wavenumber or, equivalently, short perpendicular wavelengths (characteristic of high order body modes). A direct comparison between the structure generated by these resonant modes in the numerical simulations and that coming from linear stability analysis can be seen in Fig. \[fig:restheo\]. In this figure, we display one snapshot from model **D20** and the theoretical counterpart using one of those resonant modes. The upper plots correspond to the numerical simulation in the linear regime, where the signature of the initial perturbations ($k_0$,$k_1$,$k_2$ and $k_3$) are the oblique waves seen outside the jet. As seen in these plots, resonant modes grow to amplitudes larger than those of the long waves, as indicated by the black/white scale saturating precisely on the interface. The lower plots represent the theoretical structure that we would find if we had only excited a resonant mode and that is fairly similar to the one appearing in the shear layer of the simulated jet. Let us point out, however, that it is difficult to identify the exact mode in the simulation, as the resonant modes overlap so much (see Fig. 1) and it may happen that what we see is the structure resulting from a combination of competing resonant modes.
According to the linear stability analysis, resonant modes have the highest growth rates in high Lorentz factor jets and, among them, in colder jets. This could be the reason why they only appear in simulations of models **A10**, **B20**, and **D20**. Table \[tab:t2\] collects the models which present maximum growth rate for all resonant modes (i.e., at any wavelength), found in the solutions to the linear problem, above the growth rates of the perturbed modes. Maximum growth rates for resonant modes in those models where they have been found, along with the fitted growth rates in the simulation, are listed. Typically, the growth rates from the numerical simulations are about $1.4-2.0$ times higher. This difference remains unexplained, but it could be caused by second-order effects, like interaction between modes.
Summarizing, two kinds of linear growth are found in these simulations, one dominated by longer modes typical of slower jets and another one where short, fast modes appear. This difference is important, for the transition to the non-linear evolution depends critically on the dominant modes at the end of the linear regime.
Table \[tab:phases\] shows the times at which linear phase ends. As the end of the linear regime we selected the moment when one of the variables (usually axial velocity) changes its slope (departs from the linear growth, see definitions in Paper I). On the other hand, we noticed that the longitudinal velocity perturbation grows linearly up to values close to the speed of light and then beyond the sound speed. This means that shocks should form at the end of linear phase, as it is the case; see Fig. 3 in Paper I, where we observe weak shocks starting to appear as conical structures. We could have selected the end of the linear regime as the moment when these shocks start to appear. This would relate the end of the linear regime directly to the internal sound speed. We see that colder jets have longer linear phases than hot ones, due to smaller typical growth rates in the former. $t_{lin}$ times are larger than those in Paper I, as growth rates are reduced by the presence of the shear layer. Model **A10** presents the longest linear phase.
$
\begin{array}{ccccccc}
\hline {\rm Model} & t_{\rm lin} & t_{\rm mex} & t_{\rm mix} &
t_{\rm sat} & t_{\rm peak} & \Delta_{\rm peak}
\\
\hline
{\rm A2.5} & 225 & 250 & 300 & 340 & 340 & 100 \\
{\rm B2.5} & 110 & 125 & 140 & 150 & 165 & 20 \\
{\rm D2.5} & 40 & 45 & 50 & 50 & 50 & 2 \\
\hline
{\rm B05} & 220 & 275 & 300 & 280 & 330 & 70 \\
{\rm D05} & 105 & 125 & 110 & 130 & 140 & 2 \\
\hline
{\rm A10} & 725 & - & - & - & - & 3 \\
{\rm B10} & 400 & 520 & 500 & 500 & 540 & 100 \\
{\rm D10} & 205 & 260 & 220 & 290 & 300 & 4 \\
\hline
{\rm B20} & 475 & - & 520 & 550 & 590 & 4 \\
{\rm D20} & 275 & 510 & 300 & 275 & 320 & 2 \\
\hline
\end{array}
$
Saturation and transition to nonlinear regime
---------------------------------------------
Saturation of perturbations is reached (see Paper I) when perpendicular velocity cannot grow further in the jet reference frame due to the speed of light limit. Saturation times $t_{\rm sat}$ for the different models are listed in Table \[tab:phases\]. In this phase, structures generated by dominating modes become visible in the deformations of the jet. In Fig. \[fig:fsat\] we show snapshots of three models (**B2.5**, **D05**, and **D10**) at saturation time where mode competition derived from Fourier analysis is clearly observed. Asymmetric structures appear as a result of several symmetric and antisymmetric modes with large amplitudes.
In Paper II we also discussed how at the end of the saturation phase nearly all the simulations lead to a sharp peak in the pressure oscillation amplitude. These peaks are also seen in the present simulations (see Fig. \[fig:amplitudes\]). The relative values of pressure oscillation amplitude at the peak $\Delta_{\rm peak}$ and the corresponding times $t_{\rm peak}$ are listed in Table \[tab:phases\]. The values of $\Delta_{\rm peak}$ were connected with the non-linear evolution of the flow. Those cases in which $\Delta_{\rm peak} > 70$ developed a shock in the jet/ambient interface followed by the sudden disruption of the jet. From Table \[tab:phases\], we see that peak values in the present simulations are in general qualitatively the same as the corresponding ones in Paper I. Colder and slower jets have larger peaks and hence suffer stronger shocks after saturation. The main difference between the values in this paper and those presented in Paper I appears for models **B20** and **D20**, where shock strength is much smaller due to the appearance of resonant, stabilizing modes, as we discuss next.
The parallel and perpendicular wavelengths of the shear-layer resonant modes, $\lambda_z$ and $\lambda_x$, respectively, are both small ($\lambda_z\leq R_j$) with $\lambda_x \ll \lambda_z$. Therefore their wavevectors are almost perpendicular to the jet axis so the waves propagate from the shear layer towards the jet axis. On the other hand, the resonant modes have high growth rates, exceeding the growth rate of other modes, so they start to dominate in the evolution. Subsequently, the resonant modes saturate as soon as the flow velocity oscillation amplitude approaches the speed of light. As the maximum amplitude is reached, the sound waves steepen while travelling towards the jet axis and form shock fronts on the leading edges of wave profiles Dissipation of the oscillation energy of resonant modes in shocks changes the background flow, so that the amplification conditions of the longer wavelength modes change during the course of time, reducing the value of $\Delta_{\rm peak}$ and preventing the formation of a strong shock.
Finally, as found in Paper II, the generation of the shock wave at the jet/ambient interface is imprinted in the evolution of the maxima of the transversal Mach number of the jet with respect to the unperturbed ambient medium. This quantity is defined as $M_{j,\perp}=\gamma_{j,\perp}v_{j,\perp}/(\gamma_{c_{sa}}c_{sa})$, with $\gamma_{j,\perp}$ and $\gamma_{c_{sa}}$ the Lorentz factors associated to $v_{j,\perp}$ and $c_{sa}$, respectively. A value significantly larger than 1 around $t_{\rm peak}$ points towards a supersonic expansion of the jet at the end of the saturation phase. This magnitude is shown in Fig. \[fig:f2\]. We observe a clear inverse tendency of the peak value of this magnitude from colder to hotter and from slower to faster jets, with the exception of **A10** with respect to **B10** and **D10**, due to the presence of the resonant stabilizing modes preventing the formation of a strong shock.
It is important to note that models with $\Delta_{\rm peak}>10$ (**A2.5**, **B2.5**, **B05**, and **B10**) coincide with those developing larger transversal Mach numbers, see top panels of Fig. \[fig:fsat\] for model **B2.5**, where pressure maxima are observed at the jet center and in the interaction of the growing wave with the ambient.
Fully non-linear regime
-----------------------
In Paper II, the non-linear evolution of the instability in the different models was characterized through the processes of jet/ambient mixing and momentum transfer. In Fig. \[fig:f1\] we show the width of the mixing layer as a function of time for all the models. The times at which mixing starts in the different models $t_{\rm mix}$ appear listed in Table \[tab:phases\]. In all cases these times are around $t_{\rm sat}$. Generally, models developing wider shear layers are also more mixed; i.e., the amount of mass in zones with jet mass fraction strictly different from 0 and 1, is higher. We observe that those models with larger values of $\Delta_{peak}$ (lower Lorentz factor and colder jets) develop wider layers ($>5R_j$) soon after saturation due to turbulent mixing induced by the shock, while those models where resonant modes appear do not show strong mixing with the ambient. Models **B10** and **D10** undergo a mixing process, though slower than the former.
Figure \[fig:f3\] shows the fraction of initial axial momentum kept by the jet as a function of time. Axial momentum is lost first through sound waves forming the linear perturbations and second, but more important, through shocks themselves and by subsequent mixing, which implies sharing of momentum with the ambient medium. Correlation with Fig. \[fig:f1\] is remarkable. Models developing wide mixing layers coincide with those losing more than $50\%$ of their initial axial momentum just after saturation; models **B10** and **D10** share their momentum with the ambient medium continuously in the non-linear regime; and models where resonant modes dominate saturation keep almost all their initial momentum by the end of the simulations. Results derived from Fig. \[fig:f3\] are corroborated by Fig. \[fig:f4\]. In the latter we plot the total transversal momentum in the jets normalized to the corresponding longitudinal momentum. Transversal momentum in the jet (initially zero) is generated through turbulent motions and continuous conversion of kinetic into internal energy. The value of the normalized transversal momentum at a given time is an indication of how far from equilibrium the jet is. We observe that colder and lower Lorentz factor models present strong peaks at $t_{\rm sat}$, coincident with the triggering of the shock and the sudden transfer of longitudinal momentum seen in the previous plot: Those models where resonant modes appear barely generate any transversal momentum, and models **B10** and **D10** do not present strong peaks at saturation but display a steady transmission of the transversal momentum through the non-linear regime (see Fig. \[fig:f4\]), implying continuous loss of energy.
Panels showing several physical quantities for all models at the end of simulations are presented in Figs. \[fig:f6\]-\[fig:f15\]. Colder and slower models (**A2.5**, **B2.5**, and **B05**) show turbulent mixing in a wide region and are barely relativistic by the end of the simulations. Models **D2.5** and **D05** have mixed deeply (the jet mass fraction is less than one everywhere) but keep larger Lorentz factors. Moreover, these models seem to have stopped the widening process of the mixing layer as it is deduced from the flattening of the mixing layer width as a function of time in Fig. \[fig:f1\]. Models **B10** and **D10** are also undergoing turbulent mixing. From Figs. \[fig:f1\] and \[fig:f3\], it is deduced that **B10** and **D10** are still mixing and transferring momentum by the end of simulations. These models will eventually lose a large amount of their initial longitudinal momentum, thereby becoming colder and denser due to mass entrainment from the ambient medium. Finally, models **A10**, **B20** and **D20** present a fast core $\sim 1\,R_j$ wide with rich internal structure as a consequence of the resonant modes (see subsection on the linear regime), which is surrounded by a hot and slow shear layer that extends up to $\sim 2\,R_j$ in models **A10** and **B20** or $\sim 4\,R_j$ in model **D20**. Let us point out that model **A10** (Fig. \[fig:f7\]) displays a highly asymmetric structure, resulting from the development of resonant modes only on the upper interface. This is a consequence of the combination of symmetric and antisymmetric modes, and probably of nonlinear interactions between resonant modes, which result in destructive interference on one side of the jet and constructive interference on the other.
Discussion {#sect:disc}
==========
Non-linear stability
--------------------
Simulations presented in Papers I and II, performed for the most unstable first reflection mode of the corresponding models, confirmed the general trends resulting from the linear stability analysis: the faster (larger Lorentz factor) and colder jets have smaller growth rates in the linear regime. In Paper II, the non-linear evolution of the instability in the different models was characterized through the processes of jet/ambient mixing and momentum transfer. The models were then classified into four classes (I to IV) according to the particular nature of these processes in each of the models. Class I models (corresponding to cold and slow jets) were deeply mixed and mass-loaded by the end of the simulation. Models in Class II (hot and fast jets) were slowly mixed in the nonlinear regime, progressively losing their longitudinal momentum. Models in Class III (hot and slow jets) have properties between Classes I and II. Finally, Class IV (containing cold/warm and fast models) appeared as the most stable in the nonlinear regime. Shear layers formed in all the models as a result of the non-linear evolution. Models in Classes I/II developed broad shear layers and appeared totally mixed, cooled, and slowed down. In contrast, models in Classes III/IV have an inner core surrounded by thinner layers and keep a larger amount of their initial longitudinal momentum. We performed a number of additional simulations keeping the properties of the ambient medium fixed and changing the rest-mass density of the jet and the Lorentz factor. Results confirmed that these models behave like previous simulations, and are naturally placed in the classification already defined.
The stability classes considered in Paper II were defined according to the jet response to single modes. In this paper we revisit this classification scheme in the light of the present results based on more general perturbations. From the analysis of Figs. \[fig:f1\], \[fig:f3\], and \[fig:f4\], we classified jets depending on their nonlinear behaviour in three different groups:
- Unstable 1 (UST1) models: jets which are disrupted after a strong shock is formed after the linear regime, enhancing turbulent mixing with ambient medium. It includes models **A2.5**, **B2.5**, **D2.5**, **B05**, and **D05**, i.e., lower Lorentz factor jets. The mixing layer width becomes larger than $5\,R_j$ (Fig. \[fig:f1\]), and they share more than $50\%$ of their initial momentum with the ambient medium (Fig. \[fig:f3\]).
- Unstable 2 (UST2) models: jets which are disrupted in the non-linear phase by a continuous process of momentum transfer to the external medium, like **B10** and **D10**. This is observed in Fig. \[fig:f4\] as a non-decreasing transversal momentum in the nonlinear regime. These models eventually end up sharing a large fraction of initial momentum and developing a wide mixing layer.
- Stable (ST): jets which develop resonant modes and remain collimated for long time, **A10**, **B20**, and **D20**. These models have a thin mixing layer and share a very small fraction of their axial momentum with the ambient medium. They expand, but remain collimated.
In the course of their evolution, the jets develop a rich transversal structure in all the physical variables. This structure is different depending on the non-linear evolution of the jets. Figure \[fig:profs\] displays the transversal profiles of relevant physical quantities averaged along the jet at the end of the simulations for model **A2.5**, representative of models in UST1, **D10** of UST2, and **B20** of ST.
Model **A2.5** shows a totally mixed, mass-loaded flow with averaged maximum speed $0.4c$, i.e., barely relativistic, as these jets are efficiently slowed down by mass entrainment after the disruption. The mass loading is inferred from the low values in the tracer profile ($f<0.3$), which imply a large fraction of ambient medium material inside the jet. The efficient conversion of kinetic energy into internal energy enhanced by the shock triggered in the early post-linear phase causes the jet to increase its specific internal energy.
UST2 jets undergo a slower process of mixing, so they still keep a larger fraction of axial velocity and Lorentz factor by the end of the simulation, even though they appear to be totally mixed ($f<0.7$ everywhere). However, as we have mentioned in the previous section, the mixing and slowing process is still going on in **B10** and **D10**, so it is clear that if the simulation had continued, the longitudinal velocity and Lorentz factor values would be smaller than those found. We also observe that the more mass-loaded parts of the jet (i.e., the region with $-10\,R_j<x<0$) are consistently colder.
Finally, the jet in model **B20** remains very thin. The velocity profile of the model has widened by $2-3\,R_j$ by the end of the simulation, coinciding with the generation of a hot shear layer. This layer is seen in the figure as an overheated and underdense ($\rho<0.1$) region shielding the unmixed core ($f=1.$), which keeps almost all its initial axial momentum and Lorentz factor. The core has a rich internal structure (see the pressure panel in Fig. \[fig:f11\]) that also manifests in the spiky structure of the shows longitudinal momentum profile.
A comparison of the present non-linear evolution classification scheme and that of Paper II (classes I-IV) allows us to conclude that, in general, models in Classes I and III fall into UST1, whereas models in Class II corresponds to UST2 and those in Class IV to ST. The reason models **D2.5** and **D05** (belonging formerly to Class III) move to UST1 may be the inclusion of longer wavelength perturbations, along with the antisymmetric modes, which are more disruptive than the symmetric first reflection mode used in the previous work, and the lack of axial resolution in the latter, as discussed in the Appendix of Paper II. This can be seen by comparing structures and evolution of model **D05** here and in Paper II, in particular the evolution of the mixing and momentum transfer.
Regarding UST2 here compared to former class II, **B10** and **D10** undergo a very similar slow process of momentum transfer to the external medium to that observed for D10 and D20 in Paper II, although their temperatures are very different and the shock in **B10** is much stronger than in **D10** (see Table \[tab:phases\]). The reason for this slow momentum exchange may be the same as proposed in Paper II for models D10 and D20, i.e., a continuous conversion of kinetic into internal energy due to the large initial Lorentz factor, which acts as a source of transversal momentum favoring the process of mixing and mass-loading. Model **B10** changes from Class I in Paper II to UST2 here, meaning that disruption occurs by slow mixing in the new simulation, compared to sudden disruption in the previous one.
Models in Class IV were characterized by a rich internal-structure jet preserving a large fraction of initial momentum and Lorentz factor. ST models share these features, but now we are able to clearly associate them to with the growth of resonant modes, which could be the reason for the breaking of the linear slope in model C20 in Paper I (see Fig. 2 there). Steepening of short wavelength perturbations at the shear layer generates small shocks which favor local mixing and an efficient conversion of kinetic into internal energy. As a result of this process, the shear layer heats up and the jet expands to form a hot and underdense layer around the jet core (see Fig. \[fig:profs\]). It is remarkable that model **A10** is largely asymmetric by the end of the simulation (see Fig. \[fig:f7\]). This is a consequence of the resonant modes only growing on one side of the jet during the linear regime, and it is understood on the basis of asymmetry resulting from mixture of symmetric and antisymmetric modes. This effect, though much less evident, is also observed in model **B20**. Finally, model **D20** has moved from class II in Paper II to ST here, clearly due to the appearance of resonant modes. This fact allows us to conclude that the fate of ST models would be exactly the same as those in UST2, if it were not for the growth of resonant modes; hence, their importance in the long term stability of these jets.
We classified jets depending on their nonlinear behaviour in three different groups, which are clearly separated in a relativistic internal jet Mach number vs. jet Lorentz factor plot (Fig. \[stabplane\]). In this plot, we also include models from Paper II, in order to show the general character of our results and to note that this division of the stability properties of jets is more accurate than in Paper II, with the jet-to-ambient enthalpy ratio instead of the relativistic Mach number. A clear correlation between the two plotted parameters and the non-linear stability properties of the jets is observed. Models **B10** and **D20** are represented with two different symbols to show the change of nonlinear behaviour from Paper II. These are placed in transition regions of the plot, either in Lorentz factor (**B10**) or in relativistic Mach number (**D20**). This fact could explain differences in the non-linear behaviour as caused by changes in the initial jet profiles, what is quite evident in the case of **D20**, for resonant modes appear due to the presence of the shear layer. As in the previous discussion, we have given the same symbols (crosses) as for UST1 jets here to models in Class III of Paper II, as we do not consider that they have different non-linear behaviour in both simulations. Figure \[stabplane\] can be considered as the relativistic counterpart of the $M-\nu$ (Mach number-density ratio) diagram in Bodo et al. (1994); note that the density ratio, $\nu=\rho_a/\rho_j$, is inverted with respect to ours. In our case the Mach number is relativistic; and the density ratio, which stands for the inertia of the flow, is replaced by the Lorentz factor here, as relativistic momentum is $\propto \gamma^2$, so it dominates the inertia of relativistic jets. Our conclusions are similar to theirs, for denser (higher Lorentz factor) and highly supersonic jets (high relativistic Mach number) are the stablest. However, in our case, we found a higher degree of stability due to the growth of resonant, stabilizing modes.
This result agrees with the conclusion of Hardee (2000), where linear stability arguments show that distortions induced by instabilities are smaller for higher Lorentz factor flows, although they were not associated to the shear resonances reported by us.
Finally, simulations discussed in Appendices A (single antisymmetric mode in planar geometry) and B (single symmetric mode in cylindrical geometry) have confirmed general trends of the present clasification scheme, generalizing our results.
Astrophysical implications
--------------------------
One of the current open problems in extragalactic jet research is to understand the morphological dichotomy between FRI and FRII jets. Several possible explanations have been proposed which mainly fall in one of these two general possibilities: either (i) FRI and FRII sources are intrinsically the same, and the morphology and jet evolution depend mainly on the ISM in which they are embedded in the first kiloparsecs, or (ii) they depend on intrinsic differences stemming from the jet formation process (black hole rotation, Blandford 1994; accretion rate, Baum et al. 1995; black hole mass, Ghisellini & Celotti 2001; the so-called magnetic switch, Meier et al. 1998), or (iii) a combination of both (e.g., Snellen & Best 2003). Of course, all the mechanisms could come into play with differing effects and significance depending on the source.
Leaving the basis of the morphological dichotomy aside, current models (Laing & Bridle 2002a,b and references therein) interpret FRI morphologies as the result of a smooth deceleration from relativistic ($\gamma \leq 3$, Pearson 1996) to non-relativistic transonic speeds ($\sim 0.1\,c$) on kpc scales. On the contrary, flux asymmetries between jets and counter-jets in the most powerful radio galaxies and quasars indicate that relativistic motion ($\gamma\sim 2-10$) extends up to kpc scales in these sources, although with smaller values of the overall bulk speeds ($\gamma \sim 2-4$, Bridle et al. 1994). Current models for high energy emission from powerful jets at kpc scales (e.g., Celotti et al. 2001) offer additional support to the hypothesis of relativistic bulk speeds on these scales.
The results concerning the long-term evolution of relativistic jets presented in this paper and summarized in Fig. \[fig:profs\] confirm that slower and smaller Mach number jets (UST1) are entrained by ambient material and slowed down to $v<0.5\,c$ after becoming overpressured (due to conversion of kinetic into internal energy) and being disrupted by nonlinear instabilities effects which cause flaring and rapid expansion of the mixing flow. UST2 jets undergo a smooth slowing down; and though by the end of the simulation jet velocity is $\sim 0.9\,c$, this process is continuous, and eventual loss of velocity to mildly relativistic values is to be expected. Finally, ST jets keep their initial highly relativistic velocities, and their steadiness by the end of simulations makes them firm candidates for remaining collimated over long distances. Hence our results would point to a high Lorentz factor, highly supersonic jets as forming FRII Class, whereas FRI jets would be found in the opposite corner of the diagram (slow, small Mach number jets). The validity of our results extends to models with different jet-to-ambient-density ratios and specific internal energies as seen in Paper II.
Our conclusions point to an important contribution by intrinsic properties of the source to the morphological dichotomy. Nevertheless, the importance of the ambient medium cannot be ruled out on the basis of our simulations, since we consider an infinite jet in pressure equilibrium flowing in an already open funnel and surrounded by a homogeneous ambient medium. Thus our approach does not take into account the consequences of the interaction of the jet with the ambient in order to penetrate it or the effects of a spatially varying atmosphere. Simulations following the spatial approach (perturbations grow with distance) for jets propagating in different ISM profiles and using a more realistic microphysics (allowing for a local mixture of electron, positron, and proton Boltzmann gases) will be performed in order to clarify these points.
As dicussed in the introduction of this paper, there are plenty of arguments indicating the existence of transversal structure in extragalactic jets at all scales. In the simulations presented here, the initial states were defined with a continuous transition layer of thickness $\approx 0.2 R_j$. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, this shear layer has played an important role in the long-term stability of the jet flow. Besides this, thicker shear layers have been generated in the course of the non-linear evolution. Relatively thin ($\approx 2 R_j$), hot shear layers are found in present ST models (the physically meaningful counterparts of the layers found in the three-dimensional, low-resolution simulations of Aloy et al. 1999, 2000), which could explain several observational trends in powerful jets at both parsec and kiloparsec scales (see Aloy et al. 2000 and references therein). Conversely and according to our simulations, these transition layers could be responsible for the stability of fast, highly supersonic jets, preventing the mass-loading and subsequent disruption. Finally, the type of shear layers developed by models UST1/2 could mimic the transition layers invoked in models of FRIs (Laing & Bridle 2002a,b).
Conclusions {#sect:concl}
===========
We performed a number of simulations spanning a wide range of parameters, such as Lorentz factor and specific internal energy, for a general setup where a slab-sheared jet is perturbed with a set of symmetric and antisymmetric sinusoidal perturbations, in order to characterize the stability properties of relativistic jets.
The most remarkable feature regarding the linear evolution of instabilities is the finding of resonant modes in our simulations, which were later confirmed by applying linear stability theory to sheared flows. These modes are important for the long-term stability properties of some jets (ST), for they remain collimated and unmixed, thereby keeping a large amount of initial axial momentum. Jets in which these modes do not grow fast enough with respect to longer modes are disrupted either after a shock or by slow momentum transfer and mixing.
We classified jets depending on their nonlinear behaviour in three different classes, which are clearly separated in a relativistic internal Mach number vs. Lorentz factor plot (Fig. \[stabplane\]). UST1 models are disrupted after a shock forms in the early post-linear phase, and ambient gas penetrates deep into the jet stream, decelerating and cooling the initial flow down. UST2 models are slowly decelerated by an efficient conversion of kinetic energy into internal energy, which causes momentum transfer and mixing. Finally, ST models present little expansion, but remain collimated and isolated from the ambient by a hot shear layer. ST models would fall into UST2, if resonant modes were not present, as occurs for model D20 in Paper II.
Our simulations admit a clear interpretation in the context of the morphological dichotomy of radio jets. Results presented here could point to high Lorentz factor, highly supersonic jets as forming FRII Class, whereas FRI jets would be related to slow, small Mach number jets. In the former, the generation of a hot shear layer surrounding a stable core could be related to the transversal structure observed in several powerful jets.
The authors want to thank J.A. Miralles for clarifying discussions during the development of this work. Calculations were performed on the SGI Altix 3000 computer [*CERCA*]{} at the Servei d’Informàtica de la Universitat de València. This work was supported in part by the Spanish Dirección General de Enseñanza Superior under grant AYA-2001-3490-C02 and by the Polish Committee for Scientific Research (KBN) under grant PB 0656/P03/2004/26. M.H. acknowledges financial support from the visitor program of the Universitat de València. M.P. benefited from a predoctoral fellowship of the Universitat de València ([*V Segles*]{} program).
Aloy, M.A., Gómez, J.L., Ibáñez, J.M$^{\underline{\rm a}}$, Martí, J.M$^{\underline{\rm a}}$, and Müller, E., 2000, ApJL, **528**, 85
Aloy, M.A., Ibáñez, J.M$^{\underline{\rm a}}$, Miralles, J.A., Urpin, V., 2002, A&A, **396**, 693
Attridge, J.M., Roberts, D.H., Wardle, J.F.C., 1999, ApJL, **518**, 87
Baum, S.A., Zirbel, E.L., and O’Dea, C.P., ApJ, 1995, [**451**]{}, 88
Bicknell, G.V., Proc. Astr. Soc. Austr., 1985, [**6**]{}, 130
Biretta, J. A., Zhou, F., Owen, F. N., 1995, ApJ, **447**, 582
Birkinshaw, M., MNRAS, 1991, [**252**]{}, 505
Blandford, R.D., 1994, in [*ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 54, Proc. 1st Stromlo Symp.: The Physics of Active Galaxies*]{}, Bicknell, G.V., Dopita, M.A., Quinn, P.J., eds., 23
Bodo, G., Massaglia, S., Ferrari, A., and Trussoni, E., A&A, 1994, [**283**]{}, 655
Celotti, A., Blandford, R.D., 2001, in Proceedings of *Black Holes in Binaries and Galactic Nuclei*. Kaper, L., van den Heuvel, E.P.J., Woudt, A.P., eds., 206
De Young, D.S., 1993, ApJL, **405**, 13
Ferrari, A., Massaglia, S., Trussoni, E., MNRAS, 1982, [**198**]{}, 1065
Ghisellini, G., and Celotti, A., A&A, 2001, [**379**]{}, L1
Gómez, J.L., Alberdi, A., and Marcaide, J.M., A&A, 1993, [**274**]{}, 55
Hanasz, M., 1995, PhD Thesis, Nicholas Copernicus University, Toru[ń]{}.
Hanasz, M., Sol, H. 1996, A&A, **315**, 355
Hanasz, M., 1997, in [*Relativistic jets in AGNs*]{}, Ostrowski, M., Sikora, M., Madejski, G., Begelman, M., eds., Krak[ó]{}w, p. 85 (astro-ph 9711275)
Hardee, P.E., Rosen, A., Hughes, P.A., Duncan, G.C., 1998, , [**500**]{}, 559
Hardee, P.E. 2000, ApJ, **533**, 176
Hardee, P.E. 2001, in *Gamma-Ray Astrophysics*, Ritz, S., Gehrels, N., Shrader C.R., eds., 276
Hardee, P.E., Hughes, P.A., 2003, Astrophys. J., **583**, 116
Koide, S., Shibata, K., Kudoh, T. 1998, ApJL, **495**, 63
Komissarov, S.S., 1990, Ap&SS, **165**, 313
Laing, R.A., 1996, IAUS, **175**, 147
Laing, R.A., Bridle, A.H. 2002a, MNRAS, **336**, 328
Laing, R.A., Bridle, A.H. 2002b, MNRAS, **336**, 1161
Martí, J.M$^{\underline{\rm a}}$, Müller, E., 1996, JCP, [bf 123]{}, 1
Martí, J.M$^{\underline{\rm a}}$, Müller, E., Font, J.A., Ibáñez, J.M$^{\underline{\rm a}}$, and Marquina, A., 1997, ApJ, [**479**]{}, 151
Meier, D.L., Godon, P., Edgington, S., Payne, D.G., Lind, K.R., 1998, in [*ASP Conf. Ser., Vol. 144, IAU Colloquium 164: Radio Emission from Galactic and Extragalactic Compact Sources*]{}, Zensus, J.A., Taylor, G.B., and Wrobel, J.M., eds., 51
Pearson, T.J., 1996, in [*Energy Transport in Radio Galaxies and Quasars*]{}, Hardee, P.E., Bridle, A.H., and Zensus, J.A., eds., 97
Perucho, M., Hanasz, M., Martí, J.M$^{\underline{\rm
a}}$, and Sol, H., A&A, 2004, [**427**]{}, 415
Perucho, M., Martí, J.M$^{\underline{\rm
a}}$, and Hanasz, M., A&A, 2004, [**427**]{}, 431
Perucho, M., Hanasz, M., Martí, J.M$^{\underline{\rm
a}}$, and Miralles, J.A., 2005, in preparation
Rosen, A., Hughes, P.A., Duncan, G.C., Hardee, P.E. 1999, , [**516**]{}, 729
Roy Choudhury, S., Lovelace, R.V.E., ApJ, 1984, [**283**]{}, 331
Snellen, I., and Best, P., 2003, New Atron. Rev., [**47**]{}, 225
Sol, H., Pelletier, G., Asseo, E., 1989, MNRAS, **237**, 411
Stawarz, L., Ostrowski, M., 2002, ApJ, **578**, 763
Swain, M.R., Bridle, A.H., and Baum, S.A., 1998, ApJ, [**507**]{}, L29
Urpin, V. 2002, A&A, [**385**]{}, 14
Wardle, J.F.C., and Aaron, S.E., 1997, MNRAS, [**286**]{}, 425
[^1]: Boldface will be used for new simulations in order to differentiate them from those in Paper II with the same name.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'SfePy (Simple finite elements in Python) is a software for solving various kinds of problems described by partial differential equations in one, two or three spatial dimensions by the finite element method. Its source code is mostly (85%) Python and relies on fast vectorized operations provided by the NumPy package. For a particular problem two interfaces can be used: a declarative application programming interface (API), where problem description/definition files (Python modules) are used to define a calculation, and an imperative API, that can be used for interactive commands, or in scripts and libraries. After outlining the SfePy package development, the paper introduces its implementation, structure and general features. The components for defining a partial differential equation are described using an example of a simple heat conduction problem. Specifically, the declarative API of SfePy is presented in the example. To illustrate one of SfePy’s main assets, the framework for implementing complex multiscale models based on the theory of homogenization, an example of a two-scale piezoelastic model is presented, showing both the mathematical description of the problem and the corresponding code.'
address:
- 'New Technologies - Research Centre, University of West Bohemia, Univerzitní 8, 301 00, Pilsen, Czech Republic'
- 'NTIS – New Technologies for the Information Society, Faculty of Applied Sciences, University of West Bohemia, Univerzitní 8, 301 00, Pilsen, Czech Republic'
author:
- 'R. Cimrman'
- 'V. Lukeš'
- 'E. Rohan'
bibliography:
- 'sfepy-bibliography.bib'
title: Multiscale finite element calculations in Python using SfePy
---
finite element method ,multiscale simulations , piezoelasticity ,SfePy ,Python
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
(<http://sfepy.org>) is a software for solving systems of coupled partial differential equations (PDEs) by the finite element method (FEM) in 1D, 2D and 3D. It can be viewed both as a black-box PDE solver, and as a Python package which can be used for building custom applications. It is a multi-platform (Linux, Mac OS X, Windows) software released under the New BSD license — the source code hosting, issue tracker and continuous integration tools are available thanks to the GitHub development platform.
has been employed by our group for a range of topics in multiscale modelling in biomechanics and materials science, including multiscale models of biological tissues (bone, muscle tissue with blood perfusion) [@cimrman07:_model; @rohan09:_multis; @cimrman10:_two; @rohan12:_multis_fe; @rohan12:_multis; @rohan12:_hierar], a fish heart model with active contraction [@Kochova_2015], computations of acoustic transmission coefficients across interfaces of arbitrary microstructure geometry [@rohan10:_homog], computations of phononic band gaps [@rohan09:_numer; @rohan11:_band_reiss_mindl], the finite element formulation of the Schroedinger equation [@ptcp; @IGA-FEM-Cimrman-1p; @IGA-FEM-Cimrman-2], and other applications.
In Section \[sec:development\] the programming language choice is discussed and the project development is described. In Section \[sec:description\] an overview of the package is given, and a simple example definition (a heat conduction problem) is presented. Section \[sec:hom\_engine\] introduces the ’s homogenization engine — a sub-package for defining complex multiscale problems using a simple domain specific language, based on Python’s dictionaries. Finally, in Section \[sec:piezo\_example\] a complex example — a multiscale numerical simulation of a piezoelectric structure — is shown as expressed in the homogenization engine syntax.
Development {#sec:development}
===========
The code has been written primarily in the Python programming language[^1]. Python is a very high-level interpreted programming language, that has a number of features appealing to scientists (non-IT), such as: a clean, easy-to-read syntax, no manual memory management, a huge standard library, a very good interoperability with other languages (C, fortran), and a large and friendly scientific computing community. It allows both fast exploration of various ideas and efficient implementation, thanks to many high-performance solvers with a Python interface, and numerical tools and libraries available among open source packages.
There are many finite element packages, commercial or open source, that can be used from Python, and some of them use Python as a primary language, notably Fenics [@fenics] or Firedrake [@firedrake]. This indicates viability of our choice and is in agreement with our positive experience with the language.
The project uses Git [@git] for source code management and GitHub development platform [@github] for the source code hosting and developer interaction, see <https://github.com/sfepy/sfepy>, similarly to many other scientific Python tools. Travis CI [@travis-ci] is used (via GitHub) for running automatic tests after every uploaded commit. The developers and users of the software can communicate using the mailing list “[email protected]”. The source code and the package usage and development are documented with the help of the Sphinx documentation generator [@sphinx] that is also used to generate the pages of the project web-site.
The version 2018.3 has been released in September 17, 2018, and its git-controlled sources contained 897 total files, 721447 total lines (1539277 added, 817830 removed) and 6386 commits done by 24 authors[^2]. About 120000 lines (16 %) are the source code, the other lines belong to the finite element meshes, documentation etc.
Description {#sec:description}
===========
In this section we briefly outline the package implementation, structure and general features. The components for defining a PDE to solve are described using a simple example in Section \[sec:description\_example\].
Performance due to scientific Python ecosystem
----------------------------------------------
Because Python is an interpreted language, and the standard implementation (CPython) has slow loops, several approaches are used in the code to achieve good (C-like) performance. For speed in general, it relies on fast vectorized operations provided by NumPy arrays [@oliphant07:_python_scien_comput], with significant use of advanced features such as broadcasting. C and Cython [@bradshaw:_cython] are used in places where vectorization is not possible, or is too difficult/unreadable.
relies on a number of packages of the scientific Python software stack, namely: SciPy [@jones--:_scipy] for sparse matrices, solvers and algorithms, Matplotlib [@hunter07:_matpl] for 2D plots, Mayavi [@ramachandran11:_mayav] for 3D plots and simple post-processing GUI, PyTables [@pytables] for HDF5 file format support, SymPy [@sympy] for symbolic operations/code generation, igakit (a part of PetIGA [@petiga]) for working with NURBS bases of the isogeometric analysis [@IGA-1; @IGA-2] etc.
Besides the vectorized operations of NumPy, other performance gains are enabled by using very efficient solvers with a Python interface, such as UMFPACK [@davis04:_algor] + scikit-umfpack [@scikit-umfpack], MUMPS [@mumps] or PETSc [@petsc-user-ref]. can run in parallel, using PETSc + petsc4py [@petsc4py] and mpi4py [@mpi4py] packages. We employ the separation of concerns strategy with respect to parallelism: most of the code is serial, and there is a single dedicated module in , that, together with the flexible way of computing weak form integrals on any subdomain (see below), allows parallel assembling of the discrete systems and their subsequent solution.
Design overview
---------------
In , the equations are not given in a fully symbolic way, as in, for example, Fenics or Firedrake projects[^3], but a simpler approach is used: the package comes with a database of predefined terms. A *term* is the smallest unit that can be used to build *equations*. It corresponds to a weak formulation integral over a (sub)domain and takes usually several arguments: (optional) material parameters, a single virtual (or test) function variable and zero or more state (or unknown) variables. The available terms are listed at our web site [@sfepy-web], currently there are 118 terms. The high-level code that handles a PDE discretization in is independent of a method of domain or variable discretization. For each particular method of discretization, there is a sub-package that implements the specific functionality (degrees of freedom management, selection of subdomains, reference domain mappings, etc.). This abstraction allows adding various discretization methods. The following ones are currently implemented:
- the finite element method on 1D line, 2D area (triangle, rectangle) and 3D volume (tetrahedron, hexahedron) finite elements; with two kinds of polynomial bases:
- the classical nodal (Lagrange) basis that can be used with all supported element/cell types;
- the hierarchical (Lobatto) basis [@solin03:_higher_order_finit_elemen_method] that can be used with tensor-product elements (line, rectangle, hexahedron).
The basis function polynomials of an arbitrary order (theoretically, see limitations below) as well as the corresponding quadrature rules are supported. The Lagrange basis is implemented in C/Cython, while the Lobatto basis functions use a C code generated using SymPy.
- the isogeometric analysis [@IGA-1] with a NURBS or B-spline basis, implemented using the Bézier extraction approach [@IGA-2], currently limited to single NURBS patch domains, see [@Cimrman_IGA_2014].
All the basis functions listed above support the $H^1$ function spaces only ($\Hcurl$, $\Hdiv$ spaces are not currently implemented). In addition to the above elements, two structural elements are implemented (using terms): the hyperelastic Mooney-Rivlin membrane [@Wu_Du_Tan_1996], and the shell10x element term based on the Reissner-Mindlin theory [@Zemcik_Rolfes_Rose_Tessmer_2006].
Working with
-------------
can solve many problems described by PDEs in the weak form. For a particular problem, there are two interfaces that can be used:
- a declarative API, where problem description/definition files (Python modules) are used to define a calculation;
- an imperative API, that can be used for interactive commands, or in scripts and libraries.
Both the above APIs closely correspond to the mathematical description of the weak form PDEs. An advanced use of the declarative API is demonstrated in the piezoelectric model example in Section \[sec:piezo\_example\].
The declarative API involves almost no programming besides using basic Python data types (dicts, lists, tuples, strings, etc.) and allows a lazy definition of the problem, called *problem configuration*, as well as a manipulation with the problem configuration. Prior to a problem solution, the problem configuration is automatically translated into a problem object using the imperative API. The package contains several top-level scripts that can be used to run simulations defined using the declarative API. The two common ones are:
- the `simple.py` script that allows running regular calculations of PDEs,
- the `homogen.py` script that allows running the homogenization engine to compute effective material parameters, see Section \[sec:hom\_engine\].
The imperative API allows immediate evaluation of expressions, and thus supports interactive exploration or inspection of the FE data. It is also more powerful than the declarative API as a user is free to perform non-predefined tasks. The problems defined using the imperative API usually have a `main()` function and can be run directly using the Python interpreter.
In the both cases, a problem definition is a Python module, so all the power of Python (and supporting modules) is available when needed for complex problems.
Simple example: heat conduction {#sec:description_example}
-------------------------------
Systems of PDEs are defined using keywords or classes corresponding to mathematical objects present in the weak formulation of the PDEs. Here we illustrate the components of the problem definition using a simple example. We wish to solve a heat conduction problem, that can be written in the weak form as follows: Find the temperature $u \in H^1(\Omega)$ such that for all $v \in
H^1_0(\Omega)$ holds $$\int_{\Omega} v \pdiff{u}{t}
+ \int_{\Omega} c \nabla v \cdot \nabla u
= 0
\;, \forall v \;, u(x, 0) = g(x) \;, u(x, t) =
{\left{\begin{array}{rl}}\{}-2 & x \in \Gamma_{\mathrm{left}} \;, \\ 2 & x \in
\Gamma_{\mathrm{right}} \;, {\end{array}\right.}$$ where $c$ is a material parameter (a thermal diffusivity). Below we show the declarative way of defining the ingredients necessary to solve this problem with . For complete examples illustrating both the declarative and imperative APIs, see the accompanying dataset [@sfepy-examples-zenodo].
- The domain $\Omega$ has to be discretized, resulting in a finite element **mesh**. The mesh can be loaded from a file (generated by external tools) or generated by the code (simple shapes).
- **Regions** serve as domains of integration and allow defining boundary and initial conditions. Subdomains of various topological dimension can be defined. The mesh/domain and region handling uses a C data structure adapted from [@Logg_2009]. The following code defines the domain $\Omega$ and the boundaries $\Gamma_{\mathrm{left}}$, $\Gamma_{\mathrm{right}}$.
- **Fields** correspond to the discrete function spaces and are defined using the *(numerical data type, number of components, region name, approximation order)* tuple. A field can be defined on the whole domain, on a volume (cell) subdomain or on a surface (facet) region.
- The fields (FE spaces) can be used to define **variables**. Variables come in three flavors: `unknown field` for state variables, `test field` for test (virtual) variables and `parameter field` for variables with known values of degrees of freedom (DOFs). The definition items for an unknown variable definition are: *(`’unknown field’`, field name, order in global vector, \[optional history size\])*. In the snippet below, the history size is 1, as the previous time step state is required for the numerical time derivative. For a test variable, the last item is the name of the corresponding unknown variable.
- **Materials** correspond to all parameters defined point-wise in quadrature points, that can be given either as constants, or as general functions of time and quadrature point coordinates. Here we just define the constant parameter $c$, as a part of the material `’m’`.
- Similarly to materials, the Dirichlet (essential) **boundary conditions** can be defined using constants or general functions of time and coordinates. In our case we set the values of $u$ to 2 and -2 on $\Gamma_{\mathrm{left}}$ and $\Gamma_{\mathrm{right}}$, respectively.
- The **initial conditions** can be defined analogously, here we illustrate how to use a function. The conditions are applied in the whole domain $\Omega$. The code assumes NumPy was imported (`import numpy as np`), and `ic_max` is a constant defined outside the function.
- The PDEs can be built as a linear combination of many predefined terms. Each term has its quadrature order and its region of integration. The integral specifies a numerical quadrature order.
- A complete example contains additional information (notably a configuration of solvers), see [@sfepy-examples-zenodo]. There, the above code snippets are used in the `heat_cond_declarative.py` file. The simulation is then launched using the `python <path/to/>simple.py heat_cond_declarative.py` command. In Fig. \[fig:simple-results\], illustrative results of the above computation are shown.
![Initial and final snapshots of the temperature evolution.[]{data-label="fig:simple-results"}](\figdir/Fig1 "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"} ![Initial and final snapshots of the temperature evolution.[]{data-label="fig:simple-results"}](\figdir/Fig2 "fig:"){width="0.48\linewidth"}
FE mesh handling and post-processing {#sec:description_run}
------------------------------------
has no meshing capabilities besides several simple mesh generators (a block mesh generator, an open/closed cylinder mesh generator, a mesh generator from CT image data), but several operations like merging of matching meshes are supported. The FE mesh needs to be provided in a file in one of the supported formats, notably the legacy VTK format [@kitware10:_visual_toolk_users_guide]. The results are stored in legacy VTK files, or in, usually in case of time-dependent problems with many time steps, custom HDF5 [@group10:_hierar] files. Many standard open-source tools can be used to display the VTK files, namely Paraview [@henderson07:_parav_guide_paral_visual_applic], or Mayavi [@ramachandran11:_mayav], see data workflow of a simulation in Fig. \[fig:data\_workflow\]. Mayavi is supported directly within via the `postproc.py` script. The `extractor.py` script is provided to extract/convert the HDF5 file content to VTK.
![Data exchange between and external pre-processing and post-processing tools.[]{data-label="fig:data_workflow"}](\figdir/Fig3){width="0.85\linewidth"}
Solvers
-------
provides and uses a unified interface to many standard codes, for example UMFPACK [@davis04:_algor], MUMPS [@mumps], PETSc [@petsc-user-ref], Pysparse [@geus:_pyspar_docum] as well as the solvers available in SciPy. Various solver classes are supported: time-stepping, nonlinear, linear, eigenvalue problem and optimization solvers. An automatically generated list of all the supported solvers can be found at the web site [@sfepy-web]. Besides external solvers, several solvers are implemented directly in , for example:
- `ts.simple`: Implicit time stepping solver with a fixed time step, suitable also for quasistatic problems.
- `ts.newmark`, `ts.bathe`, `ts.generalized_alpha`: Solve elastodynamics problems by the Newmark, Bathe, generalized-$\alpha$ methods, respectively.
- `nls.newton`: The Newton nonlinear solver with a backtracking line-search.
A typical problem solution, when using the declarative problem definition API, then involves calling a time-stepping solver that calls a nonlinear solver in each time step, which, in turn, calls a linear solver in the nonlinear iterations. A unified approach is used here: for stationary problems, a dummy time-stepping solver (`ts.stationary`) is automatically created. Similarly, a nonlinear solver is used to solve both the linear and non-linear problems. This simplifies imposing non-homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions: in the context of a nonlinear solver, the increment of the constrained DOFs is always zero and the non-zero boundary values can be ignored during the assembling.
Limitations
-----------
The limitations can be split into two groups. The first group is related to limited number of developers and our research focus: certain features are missing, because they do not fall into our field of research (e.g. the vector finite elements). The limitations in the second group are more fundamental. Because the code relies on vectorization provided by NumPy, the code tries to work on all cells in a region in each operation: for example, all local finite element matrices are evaluated in a vectorized way into a single large NumPy array, and then assembled to a SciPy’s sparse matrix. This places a restriction on a practically usable order of the basis function polynomials, especially for 3D hexahedrons, where orders greater than 4 are not practically usable. Using NumPy’s arrays places another restriction: data homogeneity. So, for examples, the FE basis polynomial order has to be uniform over the whole (sub)domain where a field is defined. This is incompatible with an adaptive mesh refinement, especially the $hp$-adaptivity. Note that supports meshes with level-1 hanging nodes, so a limited $h$-adaptivity is partly possible.
Homogenization engine {#sec:hom_engine}
=====================
In this section we briefly outline the approach to solving multiscale problems based on the theory of homogenization [@Allaire1992; @Cioranescu1999book]. The main asset of the homogenization approach is that a homogenized model can take into account various details at the microstructure scale (topology, heterogeneous material parameters, etc.) without actually meshing those detailed features on a macroscopic domain, which would lead to an extremely large problem.
The homogenization engine is a feature that is in our opinion unique to . It has been developed to allow an easy and flexible formulation of problems arising from use of the homogenization theory applied to strongly heterogeneous multiscale material models. Such models, as can be seen in the non-trivial example in Section \[sec:piezo\_example\], can have a complicated data flow and dependencies of various subproblems involved in the definition.
A typical homogenization procedure for a linear problem[^4] involves the following steps:
1. Compute characteristic (corrector) functions by solving auxiliary corrector problems on a reference periodic cell domain that describes the microstructure (exactly or in a statistical sense).
2. Using the corrector functions, evaluate the homogenized coefficients. Those coefficients correspond to effective macroscopic properties of the material with the given microstructure as the microstructure characteristic scale tends to zero.
3. Solve the homogenized model with the obtained effective homogenized coefficients on a macroscopic domain.
There can be a number of the auxiliary corrector problems as well as the homogenized coefficients. The homogenization engine allows to describe their relationships and the dependencies among them and resolves the problems in a correct order automatically. A complete problem is described in one or more problem definition files using the declarative API, and data dependencies are described using Python dictionaries as a small domain-specific language.
The homogenization engine allows to solve microscopic subproblems and evaluate homogenized coefficients in parallel with use of either multithreading or multiprocessing features of a computer system. The distribution of microproblems between multiple threads or CPUs is governed by a function that puts the microproblems with resolved dependencies into the work queue, collects solved microscopic solutions and updates a dependency table according to the obtained results. Workers, i.e. threads or CPU cores, solve tasks from the work queue until it is empty. If the same microproblem needs to be solved multiple times with different parameters, typically for nonlinear problems, the total amount of microscopic tasks is divided into several chunks that are distributed to multiple workers. In the case of multiprocessing, the MPI library is used to communicate between computational nodes.
The parallel computation is crucial for nonlinear problems where microproblems have to be resolved in all macroscopic integration points in many time or iteration steps.
Multiscale numerical simulation of piezoelectric structure {#sec:piezo_example}
==========================================================
The complex multiscale model, solved by the means of the homogenization method, and its implementation in are presented in this section.
Mathematical model of piezoelectric media {#sec:piezo}
-----------------------------------------
We consider a porous piezoelectric medium which consists of a piezoelectric matrix, embedded metallic electrodes (conductors) and void inclusions. These components are arranged in a periodic lattice so that the medium can be generated by copies of the reference unit cell, see Fig.\[fig-mac\_mic\]. The mechanical behavior of such a structure can be described using the two-scale asymptotic homogenization method, see [@Allaire1992; @Cioranescu1999book]. The quantities oscillating within the heterogeneous structure with the period equal to the size of the periodic unit are labelled by the superscript $^\veps$ in the subsequent text.
The mechanical properties of the piezoelectric solid are given by the following constitutive equations $$\label{eq-constitutive}
\begin{split}
\sigma^\veps_{ij}(\ub^\veps,\vphi^\veps) & = A_{ijkl}^\veps e_{kl}(\ub^\veps) - g_{kij}^\veps E_k(\vphi^\veps)\;,\\
D_k^\veps(\ub^\veps,\vphi^\veps) & = g_{kij}^\veps e_{ij}(\ub^\veps) + d_{kl}^\veps E_l(\vphi^\veps)\;,
\end{split}$$ which express the dependencies of the Cauchy stress tensor $\sigmab^\veps$ and the electric displacement $\vec{D}^\veps$ on the strain tensor $\eb(\ub^\veps)
= {1\over2}\left(\nabla\ub^\veps + (\nabla\ub^\veps)^T\right)$, where $\ub^\veps$ is the displacement field, and on the electric field $\vec{E}(\vphi^\veps) = \nabla \vphi^\veps$, where $\vphi^\veps$ is the electric potential. On the right hand side of (\[eq-constitutive\]), we have the fourth-order elastic tensor $A^\veps_{ijkl}$ ($A^\veps_{ijkl} =
A^\veps_{klij} = A^\veps_{jilk}$), the third-order tensor $g^\veps_{kij}$ ($g^\veps_{kij} = g^\veps_{kji}$), which couples mechanical and electric quantities, and the permeability tensor $d^\veps_{kl}$.
The quasi-static problem of the piezoelectric medium is given by the following equilibrium equations $$\label{eq-equilibrium}
\begin{split}
-\nabla\cdot \sigmab^\veps(\ub^\veps,\vphi^\veps) & = \fb^\veps\;, \quad \mbox{ in } \Omega_{mc}^\veps\;, \\
-\nabla\cdot \vec D^\veps(\ub^\veps,\vphi^\veps) & = q_E^\veps\;,\quad \mbox{ in } \Omega_m^\veps\;,
\end{split}$$ and by the boundary conditions $$\label{eq-bc}
\begin{split}
\nb \cdot \sigmab^\veps = \hb^\veps\ \mbox{ on } \Gamma_\sigma^\veps\;,& \qquad
\nb \cdot \vec D^\veps = \vrho_E^\veps\ \mbox{ on } \Gamma_{\vec D}^\veps\;, \\
\ub^\veps = \bar\ub\ \mbox{ on } \Gamma_{\ub}^\veps\;,& \qquad
\vphi^\veps = \bar\vphi\ \mbox{ on } \Gamma_{\vphi}^\veps\;, \\
\end{split}$$ where $\fb^\veps$, $\hb^\veps$ are the volume and surface forces, $q_E^\veps$, $\vrho_E^\veps$ are the volume and surface charges and $\bar\ub$, $\bar\vphi$ are the prescribed displacements and electric potential, respectively. The piezo-elastic medium occupies an open bounded region $\Omega \in \mathbb{R}^3$ which is decomposed into several non-overlapping parts: the piezoelectric elastic matrix $\Omega_m^\veps$, conductive elastic parts $\Omega_c^\veps = \bigcup_k \Omega_c^{k,\veps}$ and isolated void inclusions $\Omega_o^\veps$, see Fig. \[fig-mac\_mic\]. The elastic part, i.e. the matrix and the conductors, is denoted by $\Omega_{mc}^\veps = \Omega_m^\veps \cup \Omega_c^\veps$.
![The scheme of the representative periodic cell decomposition and the generated periodic structure.[]{data-label="fig-mac_mic"}](Fig4){width="0.7\linewidth"}
The weak formulation of the problem stated above can be written as: Given volume and surface forces $\fb^\veps$, $\hb^\veps$ and volume and surface charges $q_E^\veps$, $\vrho_E^\veps$, find $\ub^\veps \in \Uspace(\Omega^\veps_{mc})$, $\vphi^\veps \in {\mathcal V}(\Omega^\veps_{m})$ such that for all $\vb \in \Uspace_0(\Omega^\veps_{mc})$, $\psi \in
{\mathcal V}_0(\Omega^\veps_{m})$ $$\label{eq-waek_form}
\begin{split}
\int_{\Omega_m^\veps} & [\Ab^\veps \eeb{\ub^\veps} - (\gb^\veps)^T\cdot\nabla \vphi^\veps]: \eeb{\vb} \, \dV + \int_{\Omega_c^\veps} [\Ab^\veps \eeb{\ub^\veps}]: \eeb{\vb}\,\dV \\
& = \int_{\Gamma_\sigma^\veps}\hb \cdot \vb\,\dS + \int_{\Omega_{mc}^\veps} \fb^\veps \cdot \vb \,\dV \;, \\
\int_{\Omega_m^\veps} & [\gb^\veps:\eeb{\ub^\veps} + \db^\veps \cdot\nabla \vphi^\veps]\cdot\nabla\psi \, \dV = \int_{\Gamma_{\vec D}^\veps}\vrho_E^\veps \psi\,\dS + \int_{\Omega_m^\veps}q_E^\veps\psi\,\dV \;.\\
\end{split}$$ Symbols $\Uspace$, $\Uspace_0$, ${\mathcal V}$, ${\mathcal
V}_0$ denote admissibility sets, where $\Uspace_0$, ${\mathcal V}_0$ are the sets with zero trace on the Dirichlet boundary. Further details can be found in [@poropiezo2018].
Two-scale homogenization
------------------------
We apply the standard homogenization techniques, cf. [@Allaire1992] or [@Cioranescu1999book], to the problem (\[eq-waek\_form\]). It results in the limit model for $\veps \longrightarrow 0$, where $\veps$ is the scale parameter relating the microscopic and macroscopic length scales. The homogenization process leads to local microscopic problems, defined within a reference periodic cell, and to the global problem describing the behavior of the homogenized medium at the macroscopic level. The global problem involves the homogenized material coefficients which are evaluated using the solutions of the local problems. Due to linearity of the problem, the microscopic and macroscopic problems are decoupled.
As we assume given potentials $\bar\vphi^k$ in each of the electrode networks, the dielectric properties must be appropriately rescaled in order to preserve the finite electric field for the limit $\veps \longrightarrow 0$: $\gb^\veps = \veps \bar\gb$, $\db^\veps = \veps^2 \bar\db$, cf. [@poropiezo2018].
#### Local problems and homogenized coeffficients
The local microscopic responses of the piezoelectric structure are given by the following sub-problems which are solved within the periodic reference cell $Y$, see Fig. \[fig-mac\_mic\], that is decomposed similarly to the decomposition of domain $\Omega$:
- Find $\omegab^{ij}\in \Hspace(Y_{mc})$, $\eta^{ij}\in H_{\#0}^1(Y_m)$ such that for all $\vb \in \Hspace(Y_{mc})$, $\psi \in H_{\#0}^1(Y_m)$ and for any $i, j = 1, 2, 3$ $$\label{eq-mic1}
\begin{split}
\int_{Y_{mc}} \left[\Ab \eeb{\omegab^{ij} + \Pib^{ij}}\right]: \eeb{\vb}\,\dV - \int_{Y_m} \left[\bar\gb^T\cdot\nabla \eta^{ij}\right]: \eeb{\vb} \, \dV &= 0\;, \\
\int_{Y_m} \left[\bar\gb:\eeb{\omegab^{ij} + \Pib^{ij}} + \bar\db \cdot\nabla \eta^{ij}\right]\cdot\nabla\psi \, \dV &= 0\;,\\
\end{split}$$ where $\Pi^{ij}_k = y_j \delta_{ik}$.
- Find $\hat\omegab^k\in \Hspace(Y_{mc})$, $\hat\eta^k\in H_{\#0,k}^1(Y_m)$ such that for all $\vb \in \Hspace(Y_{mc})$, $\psi \in H_{\#0}^1(Y_m)$ and for any $k = 1, 2, \dots, k^c$ ($k^c$ is the number of conductors) $$\label{eq-mic2}
\begin{split}
\int_{Y_{mc}} \left[\Ab \eeb{\hat\omegab^{k}}\right]: \eeb{\vb}\,\dV - \int_{Y_m} \left[\bar\gb^T\cdot\nabla \hat\eta^k\right]: \eeb{\vb} \,\dV &= 0\;, \\
\int_{Y_m} \left[\bar\gb:\eeb{\hat\omegab^k} + \bar\db \cdot\nabla \hat\eta^k\right]\cdot\nabla\psi \,\dV &= 0\;.\\
\end{split}$$
The microscopic sub-problems are solved with the periodic boundary conditions and $\hat\eta^k = \delta_{ki}$ on $\Gamma^i_{mc}$ for $i = 1, 2, \dots, k^c$, $\Gamma^i_{mc} = \overline{Y_m} \cap \overline{Y_c^i}$ is the interface between the matrix part $Y_m$ and $i$-th conductor $Y_c^i$. By $\Hspace$ we refer to the Sobolev space of $Y$-periodic functions, $H_{\#0,k}^1$ reflects the above mentioned interface condition on $\Gamma^i_{mc}$ and $H_{\#0}^1$ is the set of functions which are equal to zero on $\Gamma_{mc}$.
With the characteristic responses $\omegab^{ij}$, $\eta^{ij}$ and $\hat\omegab^{k}$, $\hat\eta^{k}$ obtained by solving (\[eq-mic1\]) and (\[eq-mic2\]), the homogenized material coefficients $\Ab^H$ and $\Pb^{H,k}$ can be evaluated using the following expressions: $$\label{eq-coefs}
\begin{split}
A_{ijkl}^H & = {1\over \vert Y\vert} \left[\int_{Y_{mc}} \left[\Ab \eeb{\omegab^{ij} + \Pib^{ij}}\right]: \eeb{\omegab^{kl} + \Pib^{kl}}\,\dV
+ \int_{Y_m} \bar\db \nabla\eta^{ij} \cdot\nabla\eta^{kl}\,\dV\right]\;,\\
P^{H,k}_{ij} & = {1\over \vert Y\vert} \left[\int_{Y_{mc}} \left[\Ab \eeb{\hat\omegab^k}\right]: \eeb{\Pib^{ij}}\,\dV
- \int_{Y_m} \left[\bar\gb:\eeb{\Pib^{ij}}\right]\cdot\nabla\hat\eta^k\,\dV\right]\;.\\
\end{split}$$
#### Macroscopic problem
The global macroscopic problem is defined in terms of the homogenized coefficients as: Find the macroscopic displacements $\ub^0 \in \Uspace
(\Omega)$ such that for all $\vb^0 \in \Uspace_0(\Omega)$ $$\label{eq-mac}
\int_{\Omega} [\Ab^H \eeb{\ub^0}]: \eeb{\vb}\,\dV
= - \int_{\Omega} \eeb{\vb} : \sum\limits_k \Pb^{H,k} \bar\vphi^k \,\dV\;.$$ We assumed that $\vrho_E = 0$, otherwise we would need an extra coefficient related to the surface charge, see [@poropiezo2018].
Numerical simulation
--------------------
In this section we illustrate the use of ’s homogenization engine in the following setting. The macroscopic problem described by (\[eq-mac\]) is solved in the domain $\Omega$, depicted in Fig. \[fig-ex\_mic\_mac\] right, that is fixed at its left face ($u^0_i = 0$ for $i = 1,2,3$ on $\Gamma_{left}$). No volume and surface forces or charges are applied and the deformation of the macroscopic sample is invoked only by the prescribed electrical potential $\bar\vphi = \pm 10^4$V in the two embedded conductor networks. The geometry of the representative volume element, which is used to solve the microscopic problems (\[eq-mic1\]), (\[eq-mic2\]), is depicted in Fig. \[fig-ex\_mic\_mac\] left. The material parameters of the piezoelectric elastic matrix, made of barium-titanite, and metallic conductors are summarized in Table \[tab-matprop\].
-------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
to 1.1em[**Piezoelectric matrix**]{}
Elasticity – transverse isotropy \[GPa\]: $A_{1111}$ $A_{3333}$ $A_{1122}$ $A_{2233}$ $A_{1313}$ $A_{1212}$
($A_{1111}=A_{2222}$, $A_{2233}=A_{1133}$, 15.040 14.550 6.560 6.590 4.240 4.390
$A_{1313} = A_{2323}$)
Piezo-coupling \[C/m$^2$\]: $g_{311}$ $g_{322}$ $g_{333}$ $g_{223}$
($g_{311}= g_{322}$, $g_{223}= g_{113}$) -4.322 -4.322 17.360 11.404
Dielectricity \[$10^{-8}$ C/Vm\]: $d_{11}$ $d_{33}$
($d_{11} = d_{22}$) 1.284 1.505
to 1.1em[**Metallic conductors**]{}
Elasticity – linear isotropy: E \[GPa\] $\nu$ \[-\]
200.0 0.25
-------------------------------------------- ------------ ------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
: Properties of the piezoelectric matrix and metallic conductors.[]{data-label="tab-matprop"}
![Left: the geometry of the reference periodic cell $Y$; Right: the macroscopic domain $\Omega$.[]{data-label="fig-ex_mic_mac"}](Fig5){width="0.7\linewidth"}
The results of the multiscale numerical simulation are shown in Figs. \[fig-ex\_results1\], \[fig-ex\_results2\]. The macroscopic strain field and the deformed macroscopic sample (deformation scaled by factor 100) are presented in Fig. \[fig-ex\_results1\]. Using the macroscopic solution and the characteristic responses, we can reconstruct the fields at the microscopic level for a given finite size $\veps_0$ in a chosen part of the macroscopic domain. The reconstructed strain field and the deformed microstructure (deformation scaled by factor 10) are shown in Fig. \[fig-ex\_results2\] left, the reconstructed electric field is depicted in Fig. \[fig-ex\_results2\] right. See [@poropiezo2018] for comparison of accuracy of the reconstructed solutions with a full, much more demanding, simulation. In the above article, the full (reference) simulation has approximately $4.5 \times 10^5$ degrees of freedom while the microscopic problem has only 741 DOFs and the macroscopic problem 577 DOFs.
![The deformed macroscopic sample (deformation scaled by factor 100) and the magnitude of macroscopic strain field.[]{data-label="fig-ex_results1"}](Fig6){width="0.44\linewidth"}
![Left: the deformed microscopic structure (deformation scaled by factor 10) and the magnitude of reconstructed strain field; Right: the magnitude of the reconstructed electric field.[]{data-label="fig-ex_results2"}](Fig7 "fig:"){width="0.44\linewidth"} ![Left: the deformed microscopic structure (deformation scaled by factor 10) and the magnitude of reconstructed strain field; Right: the magnitude of the reconstructed electric field.[]{data-label="fig-ex_results2"}](Fig8 "fig:"){width="0.44\linewidth"}\
Multiscale analysis in
-----------------------
The linear multiscale analysis defined above is performed in in two steps:
1. The local microscopic sub-problems (\[eq-mic1\]), (\[eq-mic2\]) are solved using the homogenization engine, see Section \[sec:hom\_engine\]. The engine is also used to evaluate the homogenized coefficients according to (\[eq-coefs\]).
2. The global macroscopic problem (\[eq-mac\]) is solved, the known homogenized coefficients are employed.
The definition of the global problem can be done in the similiar way as in the simple heat conduction example presented in Section \[sec:description\_example\]. The macroscopic equation in the declarative API attains the form
where `hom.A` stands for the homogenized coefficients $\Ab^H$ and `hom.Pf` is equal to $\sum_k \Pb^{H,k} \bar\vphi^k$, i.e. the sum of the coefficients $\Pb^{H, k}$ multiplied by the prescribed electrical potentials $\bar\vphi^k$. The homogenized material `hom` is declared as a function, which calls the homogenization engine (via ’s built-in function `get_homog_coefs_linear()` in the following code) and returns the calculated homogenized parameters. In the case of a linear problem, the same values are valid in all quadrature points of a macroscopic domain (`coors` argument in the function below).
To define the microscopic sub-problems which are solved by the homogenization engine the following fields and variables are needed:
The material parameters of the elastic matrix ($Y_m$) and the metalic conductors ($Y_c$) are defined as follows, see Table \[tab-matprop\]:
The homogenized coefficients $\Ab^H$ can be introduced as
where we follow the expression (\[eq-coefs\]$_1$) which consists of two integrals over domains $Y_{mc}$ (matrix + conductors) and $Y_c$ (conductors). The definition of each coefficient has these parts: `requires` – the names of correctors needed for evaluation, `expression` – the expression to be evaluated, `class` – the coefficient class; it determines the way of evaluation and the resulting matrix/array shape. In our case, the class of `A1` and `A2` is `CoefSymSym`: it means that the resulting coefficients are the fourth-order tensors in the symetric storage, e.g. $sym \times sym$ matrices, where $sym$ is the number of components in a symmetric stress/strain vector. Class `CoefEval` is used to evaluate a simple mathematical expression, in our example, the summation of `A1`, `A2`. In `set_variables` section we say how to substitute the correctors into the variables employed in the expression. For example, the code `(’U1’, (’omega_ij’, ’pis_u’), ’u’)` is interpretted as: $U1 = \omegab^K + \Pib^K$, where $\omegab^K$ is stored in `omega_ij[’u’]`, $\Pib^K$ in `pis_u[’u’]` and $K$ is the multi-index attaining $11, 22, 33, 12, 13, 23$ for a 3D problem because of the used `CoefSymSym` class. In a similar way, the coefficients $\Pb^{H,1}$ can be introduced as
Here, the `CoefSym` class is employed due to the second-order coefficient which can be represented as a vector with dimension $sym$.
The required correctors `omega_ij`, see (\[eq-mic1\]), and `pis_u` are defined as follows:
The class `ShapeDimDim` is used to define the symbol $\Pi^{ij}_k = y_j \delta_{ik}$ and `CorrDimDim` ensures the corrector with $dim \times dim$ components, $dim$ is the space dimension. Note that a corrector can also depend on another corrector as in the code above, where `pis_u` is required to solve `omega_ij`. The correctors introduced in (\[eq-mic2\]) can be defined in as
The class `CoefOne` corresponds to the scalar corrector function. The correctors are solved with the periodic boundary conditions defined in the lines with the keyword `epbcs` and the Dirichlet (essential) boundary conditions defined in the lines with the keyword `ebcs`.
The multiscale simulation can be run by calling the `simple.py` script, see Section \[sec:description\_run\], with the name of the description file for the macroscopic problem as a script parameter. The script runs the simulation at the macroscopic level and invokes the homogenization engine through the material function. The full sources of this example can be found in the package in `examples/multiphysics/`: `piezo_elasticity_macro.py` defines the macroscopic problem, and `piezo_elasticity_micro.py` defines the computations on the reference periodic cell of the microstructure. For the version of the sources used in this article see [@sfepy-examples-zenodo].
Conclusion
==========
We introduced the open source finite element package , a code written (mostly) in Python for solving various kinds of problems described by partial differential equations and discretized by the finite element method. The design of the code was discussed and illustrated using a simple heat conduction example.
Special attention was devoted to the description of the ’s homogenization engine, a sub-package for defining complex multiscale problems. This feature was introduced in a tutorial-like form using a multiscale numerical simulation of a piezoelectric structure.
For the complete code of the examples presented, together with the required FE meshes and the 2018.3 version of , see [@sfepy-examples-zenodo]. Further documentation and many more examples of use can be found on the project’s web site [@sfepy-web].
#### Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the projects GA17-12925S and GA16-03823S of the Czech Science Foundation and by the project LO1506 of the Czech Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports.
[^1]: sources (version 2018.3) GitHub statistics: Python 85.1%, C 14.6%, other: 0.3 %.
[^2]: Most of the authors contributed only one or a few commits.
[^3]: Both use the Unified Form Language from Fenics.
[^4]: The situation is much more complicated for nonlinear problems: a microproblem needs to be typically solved in every macroscopic integration point. This mode is also supported in .
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper provides a short and transparent solution for the covering cost of white–grey trees which play a crucial role in the algorithm of Bergeron [*et al.*]{} to compute the rearrangement distance between two multichromosomal genomes in linear time ([*Theor. Comput. Sci.*]{}, 410:5300–5316, 2009). In the process it introduces a new [*center*]{} notion for trees, which seems to be interesting on its own.'
address:
- 'Alfréd R[é]{}nyi Institute of Mathematics, Budapest, P.O. Box 127, H-1364 Hungary'
- 'Universität Bielefeld, Technische Fakultät, AG Genominformatik, 33594 Bielefeld, Germany'
author:
- 'P[é]{}ter L. Erd[ő]{}s'
- Lajos Soukup
- Jens Stoye
bibliography:
- 'biblio.bib'
title: Balanced Vertices in Trees and a Simpler Algorithm to Compute the Genomic Distance
---
comparative genomics ,genome rearrangement ,combinatorics on trees
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Computational comparative genomics is a subdiscipline of computational biology in which the relationships between two or more genomes are studied by computational means. A highly relevant question in this field is the calculation of the minimum number of rearrangement operations (reversals, translocations, fusions and fissions) that are necessary to transform one given genome into another one, the so-called *genome rearrangement problem* [@hp95].
The *white–grey tree cover problem* studied in this paper (formally defined in Section \[sec:prob\]) arises as a subproblem of the genome rearrangement problem, and so far only an unsatisfactory (and not self-contained) solution exists [@bms09]. The main goal of this paper is to give a short solution of the problem and to correct some omissions and discrepancies of the original formulation. (In Section \[sec:proof\] we point out some cases where the original formulation fails.) Moreover, it gives rise to a combinatorial problem on trees, detailed in Section \[sec:bal\], that seems to be interesting on its own. Since one of our main concerns here is brevity, we (usually) don’t give detailed proofs of easy facts, which are not essential for our main goal.
Problem definition {#sec:prob}
==================
A *white–grey tree* is a rooted tree with (white or grey) colored and uncolored vertices. The $\R$ is uncolored, some children of the $\R$ are grey (some of them can be leaves), all leaves which are not children of the $\R$ are white. All uncolored vertices (with the possible exception of the root) are branching points.
A system of paths in a white–grey tree is a [*colored cover*]{} if:
1. Each path has colored endpoints. One vertex alone may constitute a path.
2. Each colored vertex is covered with path(s).
The [*cost*]{} of a path $P$ is denoted by $\cost(P)$ and is defined as follows:
1. $P$ is [*short*]{} if it has exactly one vertex. Then $\cost(P)=1.$
2. $P$ is [*grey*]{} if its endpoints are grey vertices (then the third vertex is the uncolored $\R$). Then $\cost(P)=1.$
3. $P$ is [*long*]{} otherwise. Its cost is $\cost(P)=2.$
The [*cost of a path system*]{} $\P$ is the sum of the individual costs: $\cost(\P):= \sum_{P\in \P} \cost(P)$. A colored cover $\P$ is an [*optimal*]{} one for a given white–grey tree $T$ if it has minimal cost among all possible colored covers, denoted by $\cost(T)$.
Given a white–grey tree $T$, compute $\cost(T)$.
The main result of this paper is a simple way to calculate the exact cost of an optimal cover. We are not quite ready to formalize the main result (without some further observations it would require a detailed case analysis), but we mention here a well known fact [@hp95]:
\[lm:bounds\] Let $T$ be a white–grey tree with $w$ white and $g$ grey leaves, then: $$\hspace{3cm} w + \lceil g/2 \rceil \;\le\; \cost(T) \;\le\; w + \lceil g/2 \rceil + 1. \hspace{4cm}\Box$$
Balanced vertices in trees {#sec:bal}
==========================
In this section we prove a useful tool for (unrooted) trees which seems to be interesting in its own. In tree $T'$ denote by $P_{u,v}$ the unique path between vertices $u$ and $v$.
\[th:balanced\] Let $T'$ be a tree with $2n$ leaves. Then there exists a vertex $v\in V(T')$ and a bijection among the leaves $\alpha: \mathcal{L} \rightarrow \mathcal{L}$ such that the path system $P_{\ell, \alpha(\ell)}$ (where $\ell \in \mathcal{L}$) covers each vertex in $T'$ and all paths contain $v.$
We offer here two proofs. One gives a very simple algorithm to construct such a cover, but it clearly cannot provide all possible solutions. The second proof is based on a necessary and sufficient reformulation of the statement.
Consider an embedding of our tree into the plane and enumerate the leaves in a counter clockwise fashion. One way to obtain such a numbering is to fix a leaf as a root and take the left-to-right, depth first traversal of the tree which conforms with the embedding.
Now we define our bijection with the formula $\alpha: \ell_i \mapsto \ell_{i+n} \textrm{ mod } 2n$. Considering any two such paths, their endpoints alternate along the circle which contains the leaves in increasing order. Therefore these two paths clearly intersect each other.
As it is well known (its very first proof is due to Gyárfás and Lehel, [@gl70]) if (in a tree) a set of paths does not contain two disjoint paths, then all the paths share a common vertex $v$. And because these paths connect $v$ to the leaves, they cover all edges of the tree.
If $T'$ is a fully balanced tree, then no matter what is the embedding in the previous proof, two close leaves will be paired with two close leaves. Therefore there are clearly solutions which cannot be obtained with the previous method. In the remaining part of this section we sketch a proof which is able to find all possible solutions:
For each vertex-edge pair $(v,e)$ denote by $\delta (v,e)$ the number of leaves $\ell$ in $T'$ such that $P_{v,\ell}$ contains the edge $e$ (where $v\in V(T')$, $e\in E(T')$ and $v \in e$). Furthermore, denote by $E(v)$ the set of edges that contain $v$.
In the configuration required by Theorem \[th:balanced\], vertex $v$ clearly satisfies the inequality: $$\label{eq:bal}
\forall e\in E(v) \quad : \quad \delta(v,e) \le \sum \big\{ \delta(v,f) : f \in E(v), f \ne e \big\}.$$ Such a vertex $v\in T'$ is called a [*balanced*]{} vertex. (If a vertex-edge pair does not satisfy this inequality, then the pair is called [*oversaturated*]{}.) As a matter of fact, this property is just equivalent to the existence of the required cover:
\[lm:path\] Let $T'$ be a tree with $2n$ leaves, $n\geq 1$. Then for any balanced vertex $v$ there exists a bijection $\alpha$ such that the paths $P_{\ell,\alpha(\ell)}$ cover all edges, and all paths contain $v.$
The easy proof is left to the diligent reader. (One can argue, for example, with mathematical induction.) A balanced vertex in a tree is similar to the well-known notion [*center*]{} of the tree, but while a center is usually (almost) unique, there may be several balanced vertices.
The following observation completes our second proof of Theorem \[th:balanced\].
\[lm:bal\] Any tree $T'$ with an even number of leaves contains a balanced vertex.
(Sketch) Assume that a particular vertex $v$ is not balanced. Then there exists an edge $e\in E(v)$ such that the pair $(v,e)$ is oversaturated. We repeat the process with the other end of that edge. If this vertex is not balanced again, then it will provide another oversaturated pair. The finiteness of the graph finishes the proof of the Lemma and this also completes the second proof of Theorem \[th:balanced\].
The flexibility in the pairing algorithm clearly can provide any possible bijection $\alpha$. It is also interesting to recognize that one can find a suitable balanced vertex quickly:
\[lm:fast\] Let $T'$ be a tree with $2n$ leaves. Then there is a linear (in the number of leaves) time algorithm to find a balanced vertex in $T'$.
This proof is left to the reader again. A simple dynamic programming algorithm suffices.
Optimal colored covers {#sec:proof}
======================
We are ready to determine the cost of an optimal cover for the white–grey tree $T.$ We say a path in the cover is a [*mixed*]{} path if it contains at least two colored vertices, exactly one of the colored vertices is a grey leaf. We will use the notation $T_w$ for the subtree derived from $T$ by deleting all grey leaves and their edges, and the $\R$ if it would become a leaf. Furthermore for a path $P$ in $T$ we will use the notation $P\restriction T_w$ to denote the [*trace*]{} of $P$ on $T_w$, i.e. the restriction of $P$ to the nodes of $T_w$ with the extra condition that in the truncated path we delete the starting (if any) uncolored vertices. We extend this notation to the trace of a path system $\P$, $\P\restriction T_w$.
Our general strategy to determine an optimal colored cover is to build it from an optimal colored cover of the subtree $T_w.$ To do that we are going to exploit certain properties – described in the following result – of optimal solutions having a minimum number of mixed paths.
\[tm:nice\] Every white–grey tree $T$ has an optimal colored cover $\P$ such that
(1) $\P$ contains at most $2$ mixed paths,
(2) $\P\restriction T_w$ is an optimal cover of $T_w$,
(3) for each mixed path $P\in\P$, $\cost(P)=\cost(P\restriction T_w)$ and so $P\restriction T_w$ is either a long path, or a short path consisting of a single grey leaf.
\(1) Let $\P$ be an optimal cover with a minimum number of mixed paths. Assume on the contrary that $\P$ contains three mixed paths: $P_1, P_2$ and $P_3$, where $P_i$ is a path from the grey leaf $g_i$ to the colored vertex $c_i\in T_w$. (If two paths cover the same grey leaf then deleting that leaf from one of the paths decreases the number of the mixed paths in the cover. So we may assume that the grey leaves are pairwise distinct.)
Let the path $P$ be the intersection of the paths $P_1,P_2, P_3$. Clearly $P$ is a path from the [**root**]{} to some $c\in T_w$. (It is clear that $c$ may be the $\R$ itself). Since $c$ is the “last” point of the intersection, we can assume that the unique sub-paths $P_{c_1, c}$ and $P_{c_2, c}$ are edge disjoint (and of course vertex-disjoint except vertex $c$). Then replace the paths $\{P_1, P_2, P_3\}$ in $\P$ with the paths $\{ P_{g_1,g_2}, P_{c_1,c_2}, P_3 \}$ to obtain a path cover $\P'$. But $\cost(\P')\le \cost(\P)$ and $\P'$ contains less mixed paths than $\P$ – a contradiction.
\(2) So we have an optimal cover which contains at most two mixed paths. If its trace is not optimal then consider the following cover $\mathcal{Q}$: cover $T_w$ optimally (this has cost at least 1 smaller than the trace of the original cover had), keep the paths from $\P$ which do not intersect $T_w$ and finally cover the (at most two) grey vertices that were covered by the mixed path(s) with a path whose cost is 1. Then the cost of $\mathcal{Q}$ is less than or equal to the cost of $\P$, and $\mathcal{Q}$ does not contain any mixed path.
\(3) Assume that $2 = \cost(P) > \cost(P\restriction T_w) = 1$ for a mixed path $P\in \P$. The restriction $P \restriction T_w$ should be a short white path covering vertex $u$, and $P$ is a path $P_{u,g}=(u,\R,g)$ for a grey leaf $g$. Replacing the path $P$ with two short paths covering $u$ and $g$ resp. keeps the cost of the cover, but decreases the number of mixed paths.
A cover $\P$ is [*nice*]{} iff it satisfies the requirements of Theorem \[tm:nice\]. Let $P$ be a path in $T_w$. We say that path $P$ is [*free*]{} iff $P$ can be extended to path $P'$ such that $P'$ contains a grey leaf while $\cost(P) = \cost(P')$ holds. Theorem \[tm:nice\] implies the following statement:
\[lm:reduction\] Assume that $T$ is a white–grey tree which has $g$ grey leaves. $$\cost(T)= \cost(T_w) + \max\left\{0, \left\lceil \frac{g-f}2 \right\rceil \right\},$$ where $f$ is the maximal number of free paths in a nice optimal cover of $T_w$.
Next we should solve the white–grey tree cover problem for the subtree $T_w.$ Therefore we first solve the problem for trees where (essentially) all leaves are white. In what comes, we will say a leaf is [*short*]{} if it is adjacent to a branching vertex.
\[lm:white-cost\] Let $T'$ be a white–grey tree with $w$ colored leaves but without a grey vertex or with exactly one grey leaf. Then the minimal cost of a colored cover is: $$\label{eq:white-cost}
\cost(T')=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
w+1, & \hbox{if } w \hbox{ is odd and there is no short leaf} ;\\
w, & \hbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.$$
Since we have at most one grey leaf, we can not use a “cheap” grey-grey path to cover it. So we can change the color of that vertex into white without changing the cost of the tree and thus assume that all leaves are white.
If the number of leaves is even, then the result is a direct consequence of Lemma \[lm:bounds\] and Theorem \[th:balanced\]. If the number of leaves is odd, but there is a short leaf, then we cover that leaf with a short path. Deleting it from the tree we are back to the previous case.
Finally assume that $w$ is odd but $\cost(T')=w.$ Then each leaf is covered once in an optimal cover, and one of them is covered by a short path. If this leaf is not a short one, however, then its colored neighbor is not covered, a contradiction. For simplicity we fix: in this case the constructed optimal cover contains a long path which does not cover any branching vertex. This path will be called a [*half–path*]{}.
Let’s remark that Lemma \[lm:white-cost\] for white–only trees is certainly not new: actually it was proved as early as 1995 (see [@hp95]). But the consideration of more general white–grey trees raises several problematic issues. One of them is that in the literature, known to the authors, grey vertices which are not leaves have not been studied. However, the white–grey trees are constructed in connection with the genome rearrangement problem ([@bms09]) and grey vertices can appear in non-leaf positions.
Another problem that paper [@bms09] fails to determine is the exact cost of a minimal colored cover for some cases. Here we give only one of them. (The references relate to the relevant sections of that paper.) Assume that the $\R$ of $T$ has two neighbors: one is a grey leaf ($g=1$), and the other one is a branching vertex. Furthermore assume that $w$ is odd, and no white leaf is short. Then we are in the scope of Theorem 5 of [@bms09]. Since $g$ is odd and $T_c$ is a [*fortress*]{} or [*junior fortress*]{}, we are to apply the case “otherwise” of Theorem 5. That formula now gives: $\cost(T)= w + \lceil g/2 \rceil +1 = w+2$ while the proper cost is only $w + \lceil g/2 \rceil = w+1$.
Before we give our main result we introduce one more notion: when among the children of the $\R$ there is exactly one child that is not a grey leaf, then the (colored) vertices between the $\R$ and the first branching point are called [*dangerous*]{}.
\[tm:counting\] Let $T$ be a white–grey tree with $g$ grey and $w$ white leaves. Let $T_w$ be derived from $T$ by deleting the grey leaves (and the $\R$ if it would become a leaf).\
[(1)]{} If $T$ does not have any dangerous vertex then $$\cost(T)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
w + 1 + \left\lceil\frac{g-1}2 \right\rceil, &\mbox{if $w$ is odd and there is no short leaf in $T_w$;}\\
w + \left\lceil\frac{g}2 \right\rceil, &\mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$\
[(2)]{} If $T$ has some dangerous vertices (and $T_w$ has $(w+1)$ leaves) then $$\cost(T)=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
(w+1) + 1 + \max\left\{ 0, \left\lceil\frac{g-2}2 \right\rceil\right\}, &\mbox{if $(w+1)$ is odd and there is no short leaf in $T_w$;}\\[2pt]
(w+1) + \left\lceil \frac{g}2 \right\rceil, &\mbox{if } \left \{\parbox{7cm}{$(w+1)$ is odd, there is only one short leaf in $T_w$, and that leaf is white and dangerous;}\right. \\[2pt]
(w+1) + \left\lceil\frac{g-1}2 \right\rceil, &\mbox{otherwise}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
\(1) Assume that $w$ is odd and there is no short leaf in $T_w$. Then, due to Lemma \[lm:white-cost\], $\cost(T_w)=w+1$ and the half–path of the solution is clearly free, so $f=1$. Otherwise $\cost(T_w)=w$, but we have no free path at all, so $f=0$. In both cases apply Lemma \[lm:reduction\].
\(2) [**Case 1**]{}: Assume that $(w+1)$ is odd and there is no short leaf in $T_w$. Then $\cost(T_w)=(w+1)+1$. In the derived optimal cover $\P_w$ of $T_w$ a leaf-leaf type long path $P$ covers the dangerous vertices. Then the path $P$ and the half–path of $\P_w$ are free, so $f=2$. Then apply Lemma \[lm:reduction\]
[**Case 2**]{}: Assume now that $(w+1)$ is odd, there is only one short leaf $\ell$ in $T_w$, and that leaf is white and dangerous. Then $\cost(T_w)=w+1$. Moreover, an optimal cover of $\P_w$ should contain the short (non–free) path covering $\ell$, and there is no other free path, thus $f=0$. Lemma \[lm:reduction\] finishes the case.
[**Case 3**]{}: The “otherwise” cases: Assume first that $(w+1)$ is odd, there is only one short leaf $\ell$, and that vertex is a grey (therefore also a dangerous) vertex. Then $\cost(T_w)=w+1$. Moreover, an optimal cover of $T_w$ should contain the short path covering $\ell$. But $\ell$ is grey, so the path covering $\ell$ is free. Thus $f=1$. Then apply Lemma \[lm:reduction\].
Assume now that $(w+1)$ is odd, and there is a short leaf $\ell$ which is not dangerous. Then there is an optimal cover of $T_w$ in which the dangerous vertices are covered by a long path $P$. Then $P$ is free, so $f\ge 1$. Since $\cost(T_w)= (w+1)$, in an optimal cover $\P_w$ of $T_w$ there is only one long path which is free because all long paths in $\P_w$ contain two leaves. So $f\le 1$, i.e. $f=1$. Now apply Lemma \[lm:reduction\].
Assume finally that $(w+1)$ is even. Then $\cost(T_w)=(w+1)$, in an optimal cover of $T_w$ there is only one long path which is free because all long paths in an optimal cover should contain two leaves. So $f\le 1$. However, there is an optimal cover of $T_w$ containing a long path which covers the dangerous vertices. So $f\ge 1$. Thus $f=1$. Now apply Lemma \[lm:reduction\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Motivated by a careful analysis of the Laplacian on the supergroup $\SL21$ we formulate a proposal for the state space of the $\SL21$ WZNW model. We then use properties of $\asl21$ characters to compute the partition function of the theory. In the special case of level $k=1$ the latter is found to agree with the properly regularized partition function for the continuum limit of the integrable $\sl21\ 3-\bar3$ super-spin chain. Some general conclusions applicable to other WZNW models (in particular the case $k=-1/2$) are also drawn.'
author:
- |
Hubert Saleur$^{*}$ and Volker Schomerus$^{**}$\
$^{*}$Service de Physique Théorique, CEA Saclay,\
F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France\
$^{**}$DESY Theory Group, DESY Hamburg\
Notkestrasse 85, D-22603 Hamburg, Germany\
$^{*}$Physics Department\
University of Southern California\
Los Angeles CA 90089-0484, USA\
date: 'Nov. 2006'
title: |
**On the SU(2$|$1) WZNW model\
and its statistical mechanics applications**
---
\
Introduction
============
The $\SL21$ WZNW model is a key example of the sigma models with supergroup targets that appear in the supersymmetric description of non interacting disordered systems in low dimensional statistical mechanics. The first occurrence of this model probably arose via a supersymmetrization of the path integral for two copies of the two dimensional critical Ising model. It was shown in [@Bernard:1995as] how a $\beta\gamma$ system (with central charge $c=-1$) could be introduced to cancel out the pair of free Majorana fermions (regrouped for convenience into a Dirac fermion) path integrals $$Z\ =\ \int [d\psi d\psi^{\dagger}d\beta d\gamma]\,
\exp[S_{0}+\delta S]\ =\ 1 \label{ising}$$ where $$S_{0}\ =\ \int \frac{d^{2}x}{2\pi} \left(\psi^{\dagger}\bar{\partial}\psi
+\bar{\psi}^{\dagger}\partial\bar{\psi}
+\beta\bar{\partial}\gamma+\bar{\beta}\partial\bar{\gamma}\right)\label{isingfree}$$ and $$\delta S\ =\ \int \frac{d^{2}x}{2\pi}~~ i\frac{m(x)}{
2}\left(\bar{\psi}^{\dagger}\psi-\psi^{\dagger}\bar{\psi}+
\bar{\beta}\gamma-\beta\bar{\gamma}\right)\ \ .$$ The theory without random mass $m(x)=0$ is obviously a free OSP(2$|$2) theory, which can be considered as a $\SL21$ WZNW model at level $k=-1/2$ [^1]. Averaging over disorder produces a marginally irrelevant current current perturbation of this WZNW model. This is crucial to understanding the (logarithmic) corrections to pure Ising model scaling. The deep infrared (IR) behavior however is not changed by the disorder, which corresponds to the fact that (\[isingfree\]) is a simple free theory, with pure fermionic correlators identical to those of the usual Ising model.
The second occurrence of the $\SL21$ model is more involved. It arises in the study of $2+1$ dimensional spin-full electrons in the presence of a random (non abelian) gauge potential. The supersymmetrization of the path integral for two copies of the Dirac fermions produces a free OSP(4$|$4) theory which has been argued to flow to the $\SL21$ WZNW model at level one under the action of the disorder [@Bhaseen:2000mi]. The nature of the spectrum and correlation functions play an important role in the description of the electronic wave functions at that fixed point.
Previous works on the $\SL21$ model have focused on some correlation functions [@Maassarani:1996jn],[@Ludwig:2000em] and on the construction of some characters [@Bowcock:1997ce], but a complete picture of the theory has been missing.
Indeed, the analysis of WZNW on supergroups is notoriously difficult, even for the simplest case of $\GL11$ [@Rozansky:1992rx]. In a recent paper [@Schomerus:2005bf], we have shown how a careful study of the particle limit (in particular, of the simultaneous left and right invariant actions on the space of functions on the group) could provide considerable insight into this problem. Combining this insight with some additional input from the representation theory of the current algebras allowed us to formulate a complete proposal for the state space of the theory in the case of $\GL11$. The latter involves a rather intricate mixing of left and right movers that is intimately related to the representation theory of Lie superalgebras, in particular to the importance of indecomposable representations. We were then able to check this proposal through an exact construction of the theory in the continuum formulation.
The aim of this work is to extend the lessons we have learned in [@Schomerus:2005bf] to a non-abelian setup, using $\SL21$ as the simplest non-trivial example.[^2] Once more, the analysis of the particle limit (section 2) along with some input from the representation theory of the $\sl21$ current algebra (section 3) shall provide all the necessary ingredients for the construction of the field theory state space (section 4), in close analogy to our previous investigation of the $\GL11$ model. In the present case we shall not attempt to verify the structure of the state space through calculations of correlators, though this would be possible as well (see [@Gotz:2006qp]). Instead we shall use results on an integrable $\sl21$ spin chain to test our continuum constructions. Such a spin chain was first investigated in [@Essler:2005ag] as a discrete version of the $\SL21$ WZNW model. We shall see that both approaches are consistent. The comparison, however, is a bit subtle, mainly due to the fact that the supergroup $\SL21$ has an indefinite metric. While this poses no problem for the (algebraic) conformal field theory analysis, the computation of the partition function on the lattice suffers from divergencies which need to be regularized. We shall do this through some appropriate analytic continuation. In this sense, our analysis also supports a particular prescription for extracting information from spin chains with an indefinite metric.
The minisuperspace analysis
===========================
The aim of this section is to decompose the space of functions on the supergroup $\SL21$ into (generalized) eigenfunctions of the quadratic Casimir element in the regular representations. Since the Casimir commutes with the generator, the eigenspaces may be decomposed into representation of the Lie superalgebra $\sl21$. It is therefore useful to have some background on the representation theory of $\sl21$. We shall review a few known facts below before addressing the harmonic analysis. More details can be found e.g. in [@Frappat:1996pb; @Gotz:2005jz].
The Lie superalgebra $\sl21$
----------------------------
In this subsection we provide a short overview on finite dimensional representations of $\sl21$. Rather than reproducing a complete list of such representations we shall focus on those that are relevant below, namely on Kac modules and the projective covers of atypicals.
### The defining relations of $\sl21$
The even part ${\mathfrak}{g}^{(0)} =$ gl(1) $\oplus$ sl(2) of the Lie superalgebra ${\mathfrak}{g} =$ $\sl21$ is generated by four bosonic elements $H$, $E^\pm$ and $B$ which obey the commutation relations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sl211}
[H,E^\pm]&\ =\ \pm E^\pm\quad,&
[E^+,E^-]&\ =\ 2H\quad,&
[B,E^\pm]&\ =\ [B,H]\ =\ 0\ \ .\end{aligned}$$ In addition, there exist two fermionic multiplets $(F^+,F^-)$ and $(\bar{F}^+,\bar{F}^-)$ which generate the odd part ${\mathfrak}{g}^{(1)}$. They transform as $(\pm {{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}},{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}})$ with respect to the even subalgebra, i.e.$$\begin{aligned}
\label{sl212}
[H,F^\pm]&\ =\ \pm\frac{1}{2}F^\pm&
[H,\bar{F}^\pm]&\ =\ \pm\frac{1}{2}\bar{F}^\pm\nn\\[2mm]
[E^\pm,F^\pm]&\ =\ [E^\pm,\bar{F}^\pm]\ =\ 0&
[E^\pm,F^\mp]&\ =\ -F^\pm&
[E^\pm,\bar{F}^\mp]&\ =\ \bar{F}^\pm\\[2mm]
[B,F^\pm]&\ =\ \frac{1}{2}F^\pm&
[B,\bar{F}^\pm]&\ =\ -\frac{1}{2}\bar{F}^\pm\ \ .\nn\end{aligned}$$ Finally, the fermionic elements possess the following simple anti-commutation relations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{sl213}
\{F^\pm,F^\mp\}&\ =\ \{\bar{F}^\pm,\bar{F}^\mp\}\ =\ 0&
\{F^\pm,\bar{F}^\pm\}&\ =\ E^\pm&
\{F^\pm,\bar{F}^\mp\}&\ =\ B\mp H\end{aligned}$$ among each other. Formulas to provide a complete list of relations in the Lie superalgebra $\sl21$.
### Kac modules and irreducible representations
Kac modules [@Kac:1977em] are the basic tool in the construction of irreducible representations. In the case of $\g=$ $\sl21$, these form a 2-parameter family $\{b,j\}$ of $8j$-dimensional representations. We may induce them from the $2j$-dimensional representations $(b-{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}},j-{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}})$ of the bosonic subalgebra $\g^{(0)}$ by applying the pair $F^\pm$ of fermionic elements. Our label $b\in{\mathbb{C}}$ denotes a gl(1)-charge and spins of sl(2) are labeled by $j={{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}},1,\dots$. The dual construction which promotes the fermionic generators $\bar{F}^\pm$ to creation operators, yields anti-Kac modules $\{\overline{b,j}\}$ ($b$ and $j$ take the same values as above). The bosonic content of (anti-)Kac modules may be read off rather easily from their construction, $$\label{typdec}
\{b,j\}\bigr|_{{\mathfrak}{g}^{(0)}}
\ \cong \ \{\overline{b,j}\}\bigr|_{{\mathfrak}{g}^{(0)}}
\ \cong \
(b-{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}},j-{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}})\ \oplus \ (b,j) \ \oplus \ (b,j-1)
\ \oplus\ (b+{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}},j-{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}})\ .$$ For generic values of $b$ and $j$, the modules $\{b,j\}$ and $\{\overline{b,j}\}$ are irreducible and isomorphic. At the points $\pm b=j$, however, they degenerate, i.e. the representations are indecomposable and no longer isomorphic. In fact, Kac and anti-Kac modules are then easily seen to possess different invariant subspaces. To be more precise the (anti-)Kac modules $\{\pm j,j\}$ and $\{\overline{\pm j,j}\}$ are built from two atypical representations such that $$\begin{split} \label{Kmdec}
\{\pm j,j\}:&\qquad\{j\}_\pm\ \longrightarrow\ \{j-{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\}_\pm\\[2mm]
\{\overline{\pm j,j}\}:&\qquad\{j-{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\}_\pm\ \longrightarrow\
\{j\}_\pm\ \ .
\end{split}$$ The atypical irreducible representations $\{j\}_\pm$ that appear in these small diagrams are $4j+1$ dimensional. With respect to the even subalgebra they decompose according to $$\label{atypdec}
\{j\}_\pm|_{\g^{(0)}} \ =\ \begin{cases}
(j,j)\oplus(j+{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}},j-{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}})&,\text{ for }+
\text{ and }j={{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}},1,\dots\\[2mm]
(-j,j)\oplus\bigl(-(j+{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}),j-{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\bigr)&,
\text{ for }-\text{ and }j={{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}},1,\dots\ \
\end{cases}$$ For $j=0$, only the trivial representation $(0)$ occurs. It is also useful to introduce the characters of these representations. By definition, these are obtained as $$\chi_{\cal R}(z,\xi) \ = \ \text{str}_{\cal R} \left( \xi^{B}
z ^H\right)$$ where the super-trace extends over all states in the representation ${\cal R}$ of $\sl21$. For Kac modules the character is rather simple. In fact, it factorizes $$\chi_{\{b,j\}}(\xi,z) \ = \ \xi^{b-1/2}\ \chi_f(\xi,z)\
\sum_{l=-j+1/2}^{l=j-1/2}\, z^l$$ with a fermionic contribution $\chi_f$ that is independent of the Kac module under consideration, $$\chi_f(\xi,z) \ = \ 1 - \xi^{1/2}\, z^{1/2} - \xi^{1/2}\, z^{-1/2}
+ \xi \ \ .$$ The characters of atypical representations can be obtained easily form their decomposition formulas (\[atypdec\]). We would like to pursue a rather different route here that uses the decomposition (\[Kmdec\]) of Kac modules into atypicals. The first formula implies that $$\label{chardiff}
\chi_{\{\pm j,j\}}(\xi,z) \ = \ \chi_{\{j\}_\pm}(\xi,z) -
\chi_{\{j-1/2\}_\pm}(\xi,z)\ \ .$$ We can solve these equations for the characters of atypical representations by the following infinite sums $$\label{atypchar}
\chi_{\{j-1/2\}_\pm}(\xi,z) \ = \ - \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}
\chi_{\{\pm j\pm n/2,j+n/2\}}(\xi,z) \ \ .$$ One may check by explicit computation that the contributions from all but two bosonic multiplets cancel each other in the infinite sum through a mechanism that is visualized in Figure 1. The remaining two terms certainly agree with the decomposition formulas (\[atypdec\]). Our derivation here may seem like a rather complicated path for such a simple result, but we shall see later that the same trick works for characters of atypical affine representations which are otherwise difficult to obtain.
### Projective covers of atypical irreducible modules
By definition, the projective cover of a representation $\{j\}_\pm$ is the largest indecomposable representation ${\mathcal}{P}^\pm(j)$ which has $\{j\}_\pm$ as a subrepresentation (its socle). We do not want to construct these representations explicitly here. Instead, we shall display how they are composed from atypicals. The projective cover of the trivial representation is an $8$-dimensional module of the form $${\mathcal}{P}(0):\qquad\{0\}\ \longrightarrow\ \{{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\}_+\oplus\{{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\}_-\
\longrightarrow\ \{0\}\ \ .$$ For the other atypical representations $\{j\}_\pm$ with $j={{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}},1,\dots$ one finds the following diagram, $$\label{P}
{\mathcal}{P}^\pm(j):\qquad\{j\}_\pm\ \longrightarrow\ \{j+{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\}_\pm
\oplus\{j-{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\}_\pm\ \longrightarrow\ \{j\}_\pm\ \ .$$ These representation spaces are $16j+4$-dimensional. Let us agree to absorb the superscript $\pm$ on ${\mathcal}{P}$ into the argument, i.e. ${\mathcal}{P}^\pm(j)= {\mathcal}{P}(\pm j)$, wherever this is convenient.
Functions on the supergroup $\SL21$
-----------------------------------
Now we are prepared to analyze the space of functions on the supergroup $\SL21$. For this purpose, let us introduce coordinates through the following explicit decomposition of elements $U \in \SL21$, $$U \ = \ e^{i\bar \eta_\nu \bar F^{\nu}} \, e^{izB} \ g\
e^{i\eta_\nu F^\nu}$$ Here, the bosonic base SU(2)$\times \mathbb{R}$ is parametrized by an element $g \in $ SU(2) $\cong \text{S}^3$ along with the time-like variable $z$. In these coordinates, the generators of the right regular action read $$\begin{aligned}
R_{F^{\pm}} \ = \ -i\partial_\pm \ \ & , & \ \
R_{E^{\pm}} \ = \ R^0_{E^\pm} + \eta_\mp \partial_\pm
\\[2mm]
R_H = R_H^0 + \frac12 \eta_- \partial_- - \frac12 \eta_+
\partial_+\ \ & , & \ \
R_B \ = \ -i\partial_z - \frac12 \eta_-\partial_- -
\frac12 \eta_+ \partial_+ \ \ , \\[2mm] & &
\hspace*{-6cm} R_{\bar F^{\pm}} \ = \ i e^{-iz/2} \,
D^{1/2}_{\nu (\pm 1/2)} (g) \,
\bar\partial_{-\nu}
+ i \eta_\pm (R^0_{E^\pm} + \eta_\mp \partial_\pm)
- i \eta_\mp ( i \partial_z \mp R^0_H )\end{aligned}$$ where $R^0_X$ are the generators of the right regular representation of SU(2). They act on the matrix elements $D^j_{ab}(g), a,b=-j,-j+1,\dots j,$ according to $$\begin{aligned}
R_H^0 \, D^j_{ab}(g) \ = \ b \, D^j_{ab}(g)\ & , & \
R_{E^+}^0 \, D^j_{ab}(g) \ = \ \sqrt{(j+b+1)(j-b)}
\ D^{j}_{a(b+1)}(g) \ \ , \\[2mm]
R_{E^-}^0 \, D^j_{a(b+1)}(g) & = & \sqrt{(j+b+1)
(j-b)} \ D^j_{ab}(g) \ \ .\end{aligned}$$ Matrix elements with $j=1/2$ appear as coefficients in the differential operators $R_{\bar F^{\pm}}$ and their behavior under the action of $R^0_X$ plays an important role in checking that the above generators of the right regular representation obey the defining relations of $\sl21$. Formulas for the left regular representation may be obtained similarly, $$\begin{aligned}
L_{\bar F^{\pm}} \ = \ -i\bar \partial_\pm \ \ & , & \ \
L_{E^{\pm}} \ = \ L^0_{E^\pm} - \bar \eta_\mp \bar \partial_\pm
\\[2mm]
L_H \ = \ L_H^0 + \frac12 \bar \eta_- \bar \partial_- - \frac12
\bar \eta_+ \bar \partial_+\ \ & , & \ \ L_B \ = \ i\partial_z +
\frac12 \bar \eta_-\bar \partial_- +
\frac12 \bar \eta_+ \bar \partial_+ \ \ , \\[2mm] & &
\hspace*{-6cm} L_{F^{\pm}} \ = \ i e^{-iz/2} D^j_{(\pm
1/2)\nu}(g) \ \partial_{-\nu}
+ i \bar \eta_\pm (L^0_{E^\pm} - \bar \eta_\mp \bar \partial_\pm)
+ i \bar \eta_\mp (i\partial_z \mp L^0_H )\end{aligned}$$ It is probably not necessary to stress that left and right generators (anti-)commute with respect to each other.
By construction (see however [@Gotz:2006qp]), the generators of the left and right regular representation act on the space of all Grassmann valued functions with square integrable coefficients on the bosonic base, i.e. on the space $$L_2(\SL21) \ := \ L_2(SU(2) \times \mathbb{R}) \otimes
\Lambda (\eta_\pm,\bar \eta_\pm)$$ where $\Lambda(\eta_\pm,\bar \eta_\pm)$ denotes the Grassmann algebra that is generated by our four fermionic coordinates $\eta_\pm$ and $\bar \eta_\pm$. With respect to the left regular action, the space of square integrable functions can be shown to decompose as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\label{Ldec}
L_2(\SL21) & \cong_L &
\sum_{j = 1/2}^{\infty}
\sum_{b \neq \pm j} 4j \left( \{-b,j\} \oplus
\{b,j\}' \right) \ \oplus \ \\[2mm]
& & \hspace*{1cm} \oplus \ \sum_j \ (2j+1)\,
\left(\P^+_j \oplus \P^-_j\right) \oplus 2j
\left(\P^+_j \oplus \P^-_j\right)' \ \ . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, the summation runs over $j = 0,1/2,1,\dots$, $\{b,j\}$ denotes the typical representations of $\sl21$ and $\P^\pm_j$ are the projective covers of the atypical representations $\{j\}_\pm$. Most of our conventions can be found e.g. in [@Frappat:1996pb]. A prime $'$ on a representation means that the degree is inverted, i.e. that fermionic vectors become bosonic and vice versa. The result is a special case of the general observation made in [@Huffmann:1994ah] and it generalizes a similar decomposition we described in [@Schomerus:2005bf] for the left regular action of ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}11$. The interested reader can find an explicit proof in Appendix A. Let us comment that the decomposition of the left regular action displays the same violation of the Peter-Weyl theorem as in the case of $\GL11$. In particular, since the quadratic Casimir is not diagonalizable in the projective covers ${\cal P}^\pm_j$, the Laplacian on the supergroup $\SL21$ can only be brought into Jordan normal form. The blocks can reach a rank up to three.
The functions on our supergroup carry another (anti-)commuting action of the Lie superalgebra $\g$ by left derivations. There is a corresponding decomposition which is certainly identical to the decomposition above. A more interesting problem is to decompose the space of functions with respect to the graded product $\g \otimes \g$ in which the first factor acts through the left regular action while for the second factor we use the right regular action. In the typical sector, the $4j|4j$-dimensional multiplicity spaces in the first line of eq. (\[Ldec\]) get promoted to typical representations of the right regular action, i.e.$$\label{LRdec}
L_2(\SL21) \ \cong_{L-R} \
\sum_{j = 1/2}^{\infty}
\sum_{b \neq \pm j} \left( \{b,j\}_L \otimes
\{-b,j\}_R \right) \ \oplus \ {\cal J}$$ where ${\cal J}$ is a single indecomposable, containing all the atypical building blocks. Its structure may be summarized by the following picture [ $$\label{diagram}
\xymatrix{ & \ar[dl] \{{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\}_-\times \{{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\}_+ \ar[dr]\ar[drrr] & & & &
\ar[dl] \ar[dlll] \{0\}\times \{0\} \ar[dr] & \\
\cdot\cdot \{1\}_- \times \{{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\}_+ \ar[dr] & & \{0\}\times \{{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\}_+
\ar[dl]\ar[drrr] &\ \ &
\{{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\}_- \times \{0\} \ar[dr] \ar[dlll] & & \{{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\}_+\times \{0\}
\ar[dl] \cdot\cdot \\
& \{{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\}_-\times \{{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}\}_+ & & & &
\{0\}\times \{0\} &
}$$]{} This diagram is the natural extension of the corresponding picture for $\GL11$. It extends to infinity in both directions and combines all the atypical sectors into a single indecomposable representation. Note that by construction, each projective cover in the decomposition of the right regular representation appears with the correct multiplicity. We shall see below how this picture is modified in the full quantum theory.
Representation theory of the affine algebra
===========================================
The previous analysis of the particle limit applies to all sigma models on $\SL21$, but the information it provides is usually not sufficient in order to reconstruct the entire field theory from it. This is very different for the WZNW model in which the entire spectrum can be generated from particle wave functions through current algebra symmetries. We need some facts on the representation theory of the $\sl21$ current algebra and shall provide them in the following section. All the results we collect here are well known from [@Bowcock:1996tk; @Bowcock:1997ce; @Hayes:1998ku; @Semikhatov:2001qx; @Semikhatov:2003uc]. Their derivation, however, is somewhat original. In particular, we shall use a simple, but highly efficient prescription to construct characters of atypical representations of $\asl21$ through infinite sums over typicals. This extends the formula (\[atypchar\]) we have discussed in section 2 to an infinite dimensional setting, thereby generalizing a trick that has first been proposed in the context of the ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}11$ current algebra [@Rozansky:1992td].
Some basic ingredients
----------------------
Irreducible representations of the affine $\sl21$ algebra can be built over the irreducible typical representations $\{b,j\}$ with $j=1/2,\dots, k/2$ as well as over the atypicals $\{j\}_\pm$ with $j=0,1/2,1,\dots,k/2$. Ground states in the former set of representations possess conformal dimension $$h_{\{b,j\}} \ = \ (j^2-b^2)/(k+1)\ $$ while the conformal dimension for ground states in the latter set vanishes. Following the work [@Bowcock:1996tk] of Bowcock et al. we shall divide these representations into three different classes. The generic class I representations occur for $\{b, j\}$ with $b \neq j_m^{\pm}$ where we defined $$j^\pm_m \ := \ \pm j + m (k+1) \ \ \mbox{ for } \ \ \ m \
\mbox{ integer} \ \ .$$ Class II representations include those erected over $\{b,j\}$ with $b = j_m^\pm, m \neq 0,$ along with the sectors generated from atypicals $\{j\}_\pm, j \neq 0$. The vacuum representation that is generated from the atypical $\{0\}$ is the only member of the final class, which we denote as class IV for historical reasons. Our aim is to describe the singular vectors in the corresponding Verma modules and to provide the associated formulas for the super-characters $$\chi_{{\cal R}}(q,z
,\xi) \ := \ {\text str}_{{\cal R}}
\left(\, q^{L_0-\frac{c}{24}}\, \xi^{B_0}\, z^{H_0}\, \right)$$ of irreducible representations. The results we describe have first appeared in [@Bowcock:1996tk].
Before we start our discussion of characters let us quickly recall that it is possible to construct $\sl21$ currents in terms of decoupled bosonic and fermionic variables. To be more precise, we introduce a set of bosonic currents $e^\pm(z),
h(z),b(z)$ and assume them to satisfy the operator product expansions of an affine sl(2) algebra at level $k-1$. In addition, let us introduce two sets of fermionic fields $p^a$ and $\theta^a$ obeying the canonical relations $$\theta^a(z_1)\ p^b(z_2) \ \sim \ \frac{\delta_{ab}}{z_1-z_2}
+ \dots \ \ .$$ Then we can construct an $\sl21$ current algebra at level $k$ through the following prescription, $$\begin{split} \label{BFdec}
E^+(z) & = \ e^+(z) + :\theta^1 p^2:(z) \ \ , \ \ H(z) \ = \
h(z) + \frac12\, :\left(\theta^1p^1 - \theta^2p^2\right):(z)
\ , \ \ \ \ \\[2mm]
E^-(z) & = \ e^-(z) + :\theta^1 p^2:(z) \ \ , \ \ B(z) \ = \
b(z) - \frac12\, :\left(\theta^1p^1 + \theta^2p^2\right):(z)
\ , \ \ \ \ \\[3mm]
F^+(z) & = \ p^2(z) \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \bar{F}^{+} \ = \
\theta^2 e^+(z) + \theta^1(b + h)(z)\, -
:\theta^1 \theta^2 p^2:(z)\ , \\[3mm]
F^-(z) & = \ p^1(z) \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \bar{F}^{-} \ = \
\theta^1 e^-(z) + \theta^2(b - h)(z)\, +
:\theta^1 \theta^2 p^2:(z)\ . \end{split}$$ Since the fermionic fields $\theta^a$ and $p^a$ are supposed to commute with the bosonic fields $e^\pm(z),h(z)$ and $b(z)$, the characters of typical representations factorize with the factors $\theta_1(y,q)$ arising from the fermionic pairs. The shift $j
\rightarrow j-1/2$ in the bosonic contribution may be traced back to a similar shift in the labeling of typical $\sl21$ representations, see eq. (\[typdec\]).
Typical (class I) representations
---------------------------------
The generic class I representations have no singular vectors except from the ones that arise through the representations of a bosonic su(2) current algebra at level $k-1$. In this sense, they may be considered the typical representations of the affine $\sl21$ algebra. The statement implies a precise expression for the characters of class I representations $$\begin{aligned}
\label{typeI}
\chi^{I}_{\{b,j\}}(q,z,\xi) & = & \frac{ q^{-b^2/(k+1)}}{
\xi^{-b} \eta^{3}(q)} \, \theta_1(z^{1/2}\xi^{1/2},q) \,
\theta_1(z^{-1/2}\xi^{1/2},q) \
\chi^{k-1}_{j-1/2} (z,q) \\[2mm]
& & \hspace*{-3cm} \mbox{ where} \ \ \theta_1(y,q) \ = \
-i y^{1/2} q^{1/8}\ \prod_{n=1}^\infty \,
(1-q^n) (1-yq^n) (1-y^{-1} q^{n-1})\end{aligned}$$ and $b \neq j^\pm_m$ and $1/2 \leq j \leq k/2$. We also recall that the su(2) characters are given by $$\chi^{k-1}_{j-1/2} (z,q)\ = \
q^{\frac{j^2}{k+1}-\frac{1}{8}} z^{j-1} \frac{
\sum_a \, q^{(k+1)a^2+2aj} \left(z^{a(k+1)}-z^{-a(k+1)-2j}
\right)}
{\prod_{n=1}^\infty (1-zq^n)(1-z^{-1}q^{n-1})(1-q^n)}\ \ .$$ We shall use the symbol $\{ {b,j}\}^\wedge$ for these irreducible representations of the affine algebra. The formulas are easy to understand: they follow directly from the representation (\[BFdec\]) of the $\sl21$ current algebra. In fact, each pair of fermionic fields contributes a factor $\theta_1/\eta$ while the bosonic sl(2) and u(1) current algebras are responsible for the characters $\chi^{k-1}$ and an additional factor $\eta^{-1}$, respectively.
Atypical (class II) representations
-----------------------------------
Nothing prevents us from evaluating the previous character formulas at the points $b = j^\pm_m$. But the resulting functions turn out to be the characters of indecomposable representations $\{j^\pm_m,j\}^\wedge$ which contain one fermionic singular multiplet. In order to state this more precisely, let us consider in more detail the set of atypical labels, $$A \ :=\ \{\ \{j^\pm_m,j\}\ |\
1/2 \,\leq\, j \,\leq\, k/2\ ;\ m \, \in\,
\mathbb{Z}\ \}\ \ .$$ The set $A$ is visualized in Figure 2. Our picture shows clearly that the projection to the $b$-coordinate of each element in $A$ is injective and hence it can be used to enumerate our atypical labels. Note, however, that values $b \in (k+1)/2 \, \mathbb{Z}$ are omitted. This motivates to introduce an improved enumeration map $\hat\nu$ from $A$ to non-zero half-integers which is defined by $$\begin{aligned}
\hat\nu (\{j^+_m,j\}) \ = \ j^+_m - m \ \ \mbox{ for } \ \ m\
\geq 0 \ \ & , & \ \ \hat\nu (\{j^-_m,j\}) \ = \ j^-_m - m + 1/2 \
\ \mbox{
for } \ \ m > 0 \\[2mm]
\hat\nu (\{j^-_m,j\}) \ = \ j^-_m + m \ \ \mbox{ for } \ \ m\
\leq 0 \ \ & , & \ \ \hat\nu (\{j^+_m,j\}) \ = \ j^+_m + m - 1/2 \
\ \mbox{ for } \ \ m < 0\ \ .\end{aligned}$$ By construction, $\hat\nu$ is not only an injection but its image now also consists of all nonzero half-integers. We may view $\hat
\nu$ as an affine version of the enumeration map $\nu(\{\pm j,j\})
= \pm j$ for representations of $\sl21$.
At first sight, the enumeration of atypical labels for our $\sl21$ current algebra may seem like a rather technical device. But there is more to it. We recall that atypical labels $\{\pm j,j\}$ can also be enumerated by non-zero half-integers, i.e. $\nu(\{\pm
j,j\}) = \pm j$. Our claim now is that the atypical class I representation with label $\{ j^\pm_m,j\}$ behaves very similarly to its finite dimensional counterpart $\nu^{-1} \circ \hat\nu (\{
j^\pm_m,j\})$ in the sense that $$\label{classI/II}
\chi^{I}_{\{ j^\pm_m,j\}}(q,z,\xi) \ = \
\chi^{II}_{\{\hat\nu(\{j^\pm_m,j\})\}}(q,z,\xi)
- \chi^{II}_{\{\hat\nu(\{\pm j_m,j\}) -
1/2 {\text sgn}j^\pm_m\}}
(q,z,\xi)\ \ .$$ This formula is a rather central result for the representation theory of our current algebra. Let us stress that it is the affine version of a corresponding equality (\[chardiff\]) between characters of $\sl21$ representations. As in the finite dimensional setup, eq. (\[classI/II\]) emerges from the existence of fermionic singular vectors in atypical class I representations. In the case $m=0$, it claims that the only such singular vectors are those that appear in the atypical Kac-module spanned by the ground states. When $m \neq 0$, however, the ground states form a typical representation and the singular vectors appear only on the $|m|^{th}$ level of the class I module.
At first it may seem a bit surprising that affine representations $\{j_m^\pm,j\}$ and $m\neq 0$ behave so similarly to the Kac modules of $\sl21$. In the next subsection we shall understand this behavior in terms of spectral flow symmetries in the representation theory of the current algebra. Before any study of spectral flow automorphisms, it might be useful to illustrate the similarity between atypical representations of the current algebra and their finite dimensional counterpart more explicitly, at least for one example. To this end, let us focus on the representation $\{k/2+1,k/2\}^\wedge$ which we claim to be a close cousin of the $\sl21$ representation $\{k/2+1/2,
k/2+1/2\}$. By construction, the ground states of the current algebra representation transform in the typical multiplet $\{k/2+1,k/2\}$ and they possess conformal weight $h = -1$. From these vectors we can generate states with vanishing conformal weight with the help of modes in the current algebra. Such modes transform in the 8-dimensional adjoint representation $\{0,1\}$ of $\sl21$. Through decomposition of the tensor product between $\{k/2+1,k/2\}$ and $\{0,1\}$ one finds that the Verma module over $\{k/2+1/2,k/2+1/2\}$ contains an atypical $\sl21$ multiplet with conformal weight $h=0$. In fact, the results of [@Gotz:2005jz] imply that the latter transforms according to the projective cover ${\mathcal}{P}(k/2+1/2)$, see eq. (\[P\]). Not all of these states survive when we descend from the Verma module to the class I representation. This step involves removing bosonic singular vectors and a moment of reflections shows that such vectors with $h=0$ exist and that they transform in the submodule $\{k/2+1,k/2+1\}$ of ${\mathcal}{P}(k/2+1/2)$. Hence, the states with $h=0$ in our class I representation decompose into the Kac-module $\{k/2+1/2,k/2+1/2\}$ plus a bunch of typical representations. The fermionic singular vectors that are responsible for eq. (\[classI/II\]) transform in the subrepresentation $\{k/2,k/2\}$ of $\{k/2+1/2,k/2+1/2\}$, giving rise to the identity (\[classI/II\]) with $j^-_1 = k/2+1$ and $j=k/2$.
Before we draw some conclusions from eq. (\[classI/II\]), let us quickly comment on our notations. Note that for $j=1/2$ and $m = 0$ the above formula involves the character $\chi^{II}_{\{0\}}$ of a representation which has a somewhat special status. In fact, it cannot be obtained as quotient of one of the indecomposable representations $\{j^\pm_m,j\}^\wedge$, unlike the representations with characters $\chi^{II}_{\{n/2\}}, n \neq 0,$. Instead, it arises as a submodule of the representations $\{\pm 1/2,1/2\}^\wedge$. Our discussion suggest that $\chi^{II}_{\{0\}}$ must be the character of the vacuum representation. In the terminology of Bowcock et al. the latter is a class IV representation. Thus, we shall also write $\chi^{IV}_{\{0\}}$ for this quantity.
Even though equation (\[classI/II\]) is not a closed formula for the characters of class II representations, we can now use the same trick as in section 2.1.2 and write characters of class II representations as an infinite sum of class I characters, $$\label{classIIchar}
\chi^{II}_{\{\pm j\mp 1/2\}}(q,\xi,z) \ = \ - \sum_{n=0}^\infty
\chi^I_{\hat\nu^{-1}(\pm j \pm n/2)}(q,\xi,z) \ $$ for $j =1/2,1,3/2, \dots$. Note that the map $\hat\nu$ is invertible on all non-zero half-integers and it furnishes the label of the Kac module that sits at the bottom of the corresponding class I representation. By inserting our explicit formulas for class I characters we find $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{II}_{\{j\}_\pm} (q,z,\xi) & = & - i\, \frac{
\theta_1(z^{1/2}\xi^{-1/2},q) \,
\theta_1(z^{1/2}\xi^{1/2},q)} { \eta^{3}(q) \,
\theta_1(z,q)}\ \times \\[2mm] & & \hspace*{1cm}
\times \ \sum_{a \in \mathbb{Z}} \ q^{(k+1)a^2 \mp 2aj} \, \xi^{\pm j}\,
\left(\frac{z^{-a(k+1) \pm j}}{1+q^a z^{-1/2}\xi^{-1/2}}
- \frac{z^{a(k+1) \mp j }} {1 + q^a z^{1/2}\xi^{-1/2}}
\right) \ \ . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Character formulas of this type have to be used with some care: Before the denominators are expanded, one should spit the summation over $a$ into two parts. The one arising from positive values of $a$ can be converted into a power series right away. In all terms with non-negative $a$, however, one must first reduce the fraction by $q^a$ such that the subsequent expansion contains only non-negative powers of $q$. In the end, we recover the known results on the representation theory of the affine $\sl21$ algebra [@Bowcock:1997ce; @Semikhatov:2003uc]. Our derivation was based on three ingredients: the decoupling formulas (\[BFdec\]) for bosonic and fermionic generators, the structure (\[Kmdec\]) of atypical Kac modules for $\sl21$ and the fact that atypical class I representations with $m\neq 0$ decompose in the same way as in the case of $m=0$. We shall argue now that the last ingredient emerges from spectral flow symmetries in the representation theory of affine $\sl21$.
Spectral flow symmetries
------------------------
The affine $\sl21$ algebra admits several interesting automorphisms. We shall be mainly concerned with two such spectral flow automorphisms $\gamma_\pm$. By construction, $\gamma_\pm$ are defined on the entire current algebra, but for our purposes it is sufficient to know how they act on the generators $B_0,H_0,L_0$, $$\gamma_\pm(B_0) \ = \ B_0 \pm k/2 \ \ \ , \ \ \ \
\gamma_\pm(H_0) \ = \ H_0 + k/2 \ \ \ , \ \ \
\gamma_\pm(L_0) \ = \ L_0 + H_0 \mp B_0 \ .$$ From these formulas we may infer how (super-)characters behave under the action of $\gamma_\pm$ and this in turn is sufficient to determine how spectral flow automorphisms map representations of the current algebra onto each other. Along with $\gamma_\pm$ we shall also be interested in the composite automorphism $\gamma =
\gamma_+ \gamma_-^{-1}$ which acts as $$\gamma(B_0) \ = \ B_0 + k \ \ \ , \ \ \ \
\gamma(H_0) \ = \ H_0 \ \ \ , \ \ \
\gamma(L_0) \ = \ L_0 - 2 B_0 - k \ \ .$$ Any automorphisms of the current algebra gives rise to a map between representations and hence to a map between characters. From the action on the zero modes $B_0, H_0$ and $L_0$ we can easily read off that $$\label{gchi}
\gamma_\pm \chi(q,\xi,z) \ = \ \xi^{\pm k/2} z^{k/2}
\, \chi(q,q^{\mp 1}\xi, qz)
\ \ \ , \ \ \ \gamma \chi(q,\xi,z) \ = \
\xi^k q^{-k}\, \chi(q,q^{-2}\xi,z) \ $$ for all characters $\chi$ of the $\sl21$ current algebra. If ${\cal R}$ is any representation of $\asl21$ and $\chi_{\cal R}$ is its character, then the image $\sigma {\cal R}$ of ${\cal R}$ under an automorphism $\sigma$ obeys $$\sigma \chi_{\cal R} (q,\xi,z) \ = \ \chi_{\sigma
{\cal R}} (q,\xi,z)\ \ .$$ Given the character $\chi_{\cal R}$ of some representation ${\cal R}$, we can use eqs. (\[gchi\]) to compute its image under the above automorphisms $\sigma =
\gamma_\pm, \gamma$. This in turn allows us to recover uniquely the representations $\gamma_\pm {\cal R}$ and $\gamma {\cal R}$.
In the following we shall spell out the action of our spectral flow automorphisms on the class I and II representations we have studied above. Our rather compact notations allow us to summarize the results for the spectral flow automorphisms $\gamma_\pm$ in a single line $$\gamma_\pm(\{ {b,j}\}^\wedge) \ = \ \{b\pm k/2 \pm {{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}, k/2 +
{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}- j\}^\wedge\ \ , \ \
\gamma_\pm(\{n/2\}^\wedge) \ = \ \{n/2\pm k/2\}^\wedge\ \ .$$ To verify our assertions, the reader is invited to convert them into identities between super-characters and to check these identities by direct computation. The formulas become somewhat more explicit if we label irreducible representations according to the representation their ground states transform in, $$\begin{split}
\{ b,j\} & \stackrel{\gamma_\pm}{\longrightarrow} \
\{b\pm k/2\pm {{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}},k/2 + {{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}-j\}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \mbox{ for } \ \ b \neq \pm (j - k - 1)\\[2mm]
\{ b,j\} & \stackrel{\gamma_\pm}{\longrightarrow} \
\{k/2 +{{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}- j \}_\mp
\hspace*{2.5cm}\ \ \ \mbox{ for } \ \ b = \pm(j - k - 1)\\[2mm]
\{j\}_\pm & \stackrel{\gamma_\pm}{\longrightarrow} \
\{\pm(j + k/2 + {{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}),k/2 + {{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}-j\} \ \ \ \mbox{ for } \ \
j \neq 0 \\[2mm]
\{j\}_\mp & \stackrel{\gamma_\pm}{\longrightarrow} \
\{k/2 -j\}_\pm \ \ \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \ \ \
\{0\} \ \stackrel{\gamma_\pm}{\longrightarrow} \
\{ k/2\}_\pm \ \ .\end{split}$$ The third line, for example, tells us that the image of the irreducible representation generated from the atypical representation $\{j\}_+$ under the action of $\gamma_+$ is an irreducible representation whose ground states transform in the typical representation $\{ j + k/2 + {{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}},k/2 + {{\scriptstyle\frac{1}{2}}}-j\}$. The latter may be obtained from the corresponding Verma module by removing singular vectors on some excited levels.
We also want to spell out analogous formulas for the automorphism $\gamma = \gamma_+ \circ \gamma_-^{-1}$. In the compact notation, its action is given by $$\gamma(\{ {b,j}\}^\wedge) \ = \ \{b + k + 1, j\}^\wedge\ \ , \ \
\gamma(\{n/2\}^\wedge) \ = \ \{n/2 + k\}^\wedge\ \ .$$ Note that the symmetry $\gamma$ maps sectors whose ground states transform in an atypical representation $\{j\}_\pm$ of the Lie superalgebra $\sl21$ into sectors with typical spaces of ground states according to the following rules, $$\begin{aligned}
\{j\}_\pm & \stackrel{\gamma^m}{\longrightarrow} &
\{j_m^\pm,j\} \ \ \ \mbox{ for }
\ \ \ \pm m \ > \ 0 \\[2mm]
\{j\}_\pm & \stackrel{\gamma^m}{\longrightarrow} &
\{j_m^\pm \pm 1/2,j + 1/2\}
\ \ \ \mbox{ for } \ \ \ \pm m \ < \ 0 \ \ .\end{aligned}$$ Hence, the existence of the spectral flow symmetries explains why the representations $\{j_m^\pm,j\}$ behave like atypical representations of the affine $\sl21$ algebra: they are simply related to the sectors erected over atypical $\sl21$ representations by an automorphism.
Modular transformation and S-matrix
-----------------------------------
We would like to conclude this section on the representation theory of the $\sl21$ current algebra with a few comments on modular properties of the characters. In the following we shall consider the characters as functions of $\tau, \sigma$ and $\nu$. They are related to the variables we used above through $q= \exp
2\pi i \tau, z=\exp 2\pi i\sigma$ and $\xi=\exp 2\pi i \nu$, as usual. From our explicit formula (\[typeI\]) for characters of class I representations it is easy to infer the auxiliary formula $$\chi_{\{b=0,j\}}^{I}(-\frac{1}{\tau},\frac{\sigma}{\tau},\frac{\nu}{\tau})\ =\ -
\frac{1}{\sqrt{-i\tau}}
e^{\frac{i\pi k}{ 2\tau}
\sigma^{2}}e^{\frac{i\pi}{
2\tau}\nu^{2}}\sum_{j' =1/2}^{\frac{k}{2}}\sqrt\frac{2}{k+1}\sin
\frac{4\pi jj'}{k+1}\chi^{I}_{\{b=0,j'\}}(\tau,\sigma,\nu)\ .$$ Note that the right hand side contains an explicit $\tau$ dependence which, if we demand that the modular transform be interpreted in a conventional sense and closes onto characters, suggests the contribution of a continuous spectrum of exponents. The need is confirmed by the modular transformation of the character for $\{b,j\}$ representations with $b\neq 0$, which require an integral representation of $e^{2i\pi\tau b^{2}/(k+1)}$ etc. After some Gaussian integration, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_{\{b,j\}}^{I}(-\frac{1}{\tau},\frac{\sigma}{\tau},
\frac{\nu}{\tau})\ =\ i
e^{\frac{i\pi k}{2\tau}
(\sigma^{2}-\nu^{2})}
\sum_{j' =1/2}^{\frac{k}{2}}\frac{2}{k+1}\sin
\frac{4\pi jj'}{k+1}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}db'\,
e^\frac{4i\pi bb'}{k+1}
\chi^{I}_{\{b',j'\}}(\tau,\sigma,\nu)
\end{aligned}$$ where we formally evaluated integrals of the type $\int \exp (
-i\tau x^{2})=\sqrt{\pi/i\tau}$ \[of course, the integrals are naively divergent as $\hbox{Im }\tau>0$.\]
Modular transformations of the type II and IV characters are a bit more cumbersome to work out. It can be attacked rather efficiently using our representations (\[classIIchar\]) as infinite sums of class I characters. Here we shall content ourselves with the example of the class IV representation at $k=1$. If we also set $\sigma=\nu=0$ we find that $$\chi^{IV}_{\{0\}}(-1/\tau)\ =\ -\frac{i}{2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\ \frac{db'}{\cos\pi b'}\ \chi^{I}_{\{b',1/2\}}(\tau)$$ where the contour has to avoid the poles. Rotating into the purely imaginary direction gives a contribution from poles which is easily identified with $\chi^{IV}_{\{0\}}$. The remaining integral can be factored in terms of $\chi^{I}_{\{0,1/2\}}$, $$\chi^{IV}_{\{0\}}(-1/\tau)\ =\ -\chi^{IV}_{\{0\}}(\tau)\, +\, \int\ d\alpha
\ \frac{q^{\frac{\alpha^{2}}{{2}}}}{\cosh\pi\alpha}
\ \chi^{I}_{\{0,1/2\}}(\tau)\ \ .$$ We thus recover by this very elementary means the results of [@Bowcock:1997ce] obtained through use of the Mordell integral [@Mordell]. The construction of modular invariants using these transformation formulas is a complex problem, which we shall address later in the case $k=1$.
The state space and partition functions
=======================================
Our aim now is to formulate a proposal for the states space of the $\sl21$ WZNW model. We shall then verify our claim in the special case $k=1$ through a free field representation of the model. The third subsection is devoted to the partition function of the theory. The latter forgets all information about the complicated way in which irreducible blocks are glued together to build ${\cal
J}$. We then specialize once more to $k=1$ and comment on the global topology of the target space.
The proposal for integer level $k$
----------------------------------
It is now rather straightforward to come up with a proposal for the state space of the WZNW model on $\SL21$. In fact, we can simply depart from formula (\[LRdec\]) and make it symmetric with respect to the action of our spectral flow symmetry. The invariance under the action of $\gamma$ should be considered as an additional input. In principle, the spectral flow symmetry of the $\sl21$ current algebra could be broken by the physical couplings of the theory. Since this did not happen for the $\GL11$ WZNW model, it seems natural to propose $$\label{HCFT}
{\cal H}_{CFT}\ = \ \sum_{j=1/2}^{k/2} \sum_{b\neq j^\pm_m} \
\{b,j\}^\wedge_L \otimes \{-b,j\}^\wedge_R \ \oplus \
{\cal J}^\wedge$$ where ${\cal J}^\wedge$ is a single indecomposable representation of the two (anti-)commuting super current algebras that contains all the atypical contributions. It is composed from the atypical building blocks $\{l_1\} \otimes \{l_2\}$ in the same way as in the minisuperspace theory. To obtain the corresponding diagram one simply has to replace $\{j\}_\pm = \{\pm j\}$ with $\{\pm
j\}^\wedge$.
By construction, all the $\sl21$ currents act on the state space (\[HCFT\]) and they obey periodic boundary conditions. This applies in particular to the fermionic fields. One can find a second, closely related theory in which only bosonic fields are periodic. In order to construct its state space, we need to revisit our discussion of spectral flow symmetries. As we have mentioned above, the automorphisms we have investigated in the previous section all extend to the entire current algebra. In particular, they map fermionic modes with integer mode numbers onto each other, i.e. they respect periodic boundary conditions on the fermionic currents. There exists yet another important isomorphism that intertwines between integer and half-integer mode numbers for the fermionic generators. It can be considered as the square root of the automorphism $\gamma$. On the bosonic zero modes, the new isomorphism $\vartheta$ is given by $$\vartheta(B_0) \ = \ B_0 + k/2 \ \ \ , \ \ \ \
\vartheta(H_0) \ = \ H_0 \ \ \ , \ \ \
\vartheta(L_0) \ = \ L_0 - B_0 - k/2 \ \ .$$ $\vartheta$ extends to the full current algebra such that it acts trivially on the bosonic sl(2) currents and it shifts modes of the fermionic currents by $\pm 1/2$, as usual.
Our isomorphism $\vartheta$ induces a map between representations of the current algebra with integer fermionic modes and a new type of representations in which fermionic generators have half integer mode numbers. According to the usual terminology, the former class of representations form the R sector while the latter belong to the NS sector of the theory. The theory with state space (\[HCFT\]) includes exclusively R sector representations in which all currents obey periodic boundary conditions. Another option is to consider a theory that encompasses both R and NS sector with the state space given by $$\tilde {\cal H}_{CFT} \ = \ {\cal H}_{CFT}^{R} \oplus
{\cal H}_{CFT}^{NS} \ = \ {\cal H}_{CFT} \oplus
\vartheta {\cal H}_{CFT} \ \ .$$ Note that the NS sector has exactly the same intricate structure as the R sector since the former is the image of the latter under the action of $\theta$. In the following we shall refer to both models as WZNW model on $\SL21$. Even though it seems natural to include the NS sector, it is not required by all applications.
Free field representation at $k=1$
----------------------------------
So far, the main motivation for our proposal (\[HCFT\]) came from the harmonic analysis on $\SL21$. By construction, we are guaranteed to recover the correct state space of the particle limit when we send the level $k$ to infinity. Our formula (\[HCFT\]) applies to finite $k$ and it suggest that field theory effects would merely truncate the spin $j$ to an value $j
\leq k/2$ and then make the whole theory symmetric with respect to spectral flow. We are now going to test this proposal in the extreme quantum case, namely at $k=1$. At this point, the WZNW model admits a free field representation that we are going to spell out momentarily. It involves a pair of symplectic fermions $\eta_{1},\eta_{2}$, and a pair of bosons $\phi,\phi'$. While the boson $\phi$ comes with the usual metric, $\phi'$ is assumed to be time-like. For their propagators this means $$\begin{aligned}
\langle\, \eta_{1}(z,\bar{z})\, \eta_{2}(w,\bar{w})\, \rangle &=&
-\ln|z-w|^{2}\nonumber\\
\langle\ \phi(z,\bar{z})\ \phi(w,\bar{w})\ \rangle&=&
-\ln|z-w|^2\nonumber\\
\langle\, \phi'(z,\bar{z})\, \phi'(w,\bar{w})\, \rangle&=&
\ln|z-w|^2\ \ . \end{aligned}$$ Note that the central charge of this free field theory is $c=-2+1+1=0$ and hence it agrees with the central charge of $\SL21$ WZNW models. We shall begin our discussion of the WZNW model with explicit formulas for the currents. In order to construct the four bosonic currents, we need to split the space-like bosonic field $\phi(z,\bar{z}) = \varphi(z) +
\bar{\varphi}(\bar{z})$ into its chiral components. Our bosonic currents then read, $$\begin{aligned}
E^{+}(z)\ = \ e^{\sqrt{2}i\varphi(z)} \ \ \ & , & \ \ \
E^{-}(z) \ = \ e^{-\sqrt{2}i\varphi(z)}\nonumber\\[2mm]
H (z)\ = \ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, i\partial\phi(z) \ \ \ & , & \ \ \
B (z)\ = \ -\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\, i\partial\phi'(z)\ \ .
\end{aligned}$$ The necessity to split $\phi$ into its chiral components means that the boson $\phi$ is compactified to the so-called self-dual radius, as usual in the free field representation of the SU(2) WZNW model at level $k=1$. In addition, the following expressions for the four fermionic currents also involve the chiral components $\varphi'$ and $\bar \varphi'$ of the time-like bosonic field $\phi'(z,\bar z) = \varphi'(z) + \bar \varphi'(\bar z)$, $$\label{Fcurrents}
V^{\pm}(z) \ =\ e ^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}i(\pm
\varphi(z)+\varphi'(z))}\partial\eta_{1}(z)\ \ \ , \ \ \
W^{\pm}(z) \ = \ e^{\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}i(\pm
\varphi(z)-\varphi'(z))}\partial\eta_{2}(z)\ \ .$$ Similarly, one may spell out the anti-holomorphic generators of the $\sl21$ current algebra. It is rather easy to check that the above expressions give rise to fields with the correct operator product expansions. Let us note that the free field representation we consider in this section has to be distinguished clearly from the Kac-Wakimoto type construction (\[BFdec\]) we have used earlier to construct the characters at integer levels $k$. We shall comment on this a bit more later on.
It is possible to check that fields of dimension zero can be organized exactly as it is suggested by our diagram (\[diagram\]). We shall just sketch the relevant arguments because a full proof is rather laborious to write down. Let us consider the left part of the diagram only and identify the fields that make up the various blocks of the composition series. Clearly, the $\{0\}\times \{0\}$ representation at the top corresponds to the field $\eta_{1}\eta_{2}$. From here we can act with the fermionic currents $W^\pm, \bar V^\pm$ and arrive at expressions for the two blocks on the intermediate level of the diagram, $$\begin{aligned}
\{1/2\}_{-}\times \{0\}\ : \ \ & & e^{\pm
i\varphi/\sqrt{2}}\, e^{-i\varphi'/\sqrt{2}}\, \eta_2 \ \ \ , \ \ \
e^{-i\sqrt{2}\varphi'}\ \eta_2 \partial\eta_{2} \ \ ,
\nonumber\\[2mm]
\{0\}\times\{1/2\}_{+}\ : \ \ & & e^{\pm
i\bar{\varphi}/\sqrt{2}}\, e^{i\bar{\varphi}'/\sqrt{2}}\,
\eta_{1}\ \ \ , \ \ \
e^{i\sqrt{2}\bar{\varphi}'}\, \eta_{1}\bar{\partial}\eta_{1}
\ \ . \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ From the previous formulas we can read off the fields that make up the topmost representation $\{1/2\}_{-}\times \{1/2\}_{+}$ in our diagram, $$\{1/2\}_{-}\times
\{1/2\}_{+} \ : \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left\{\begin{array}{c}
e^{\pm i\varphi/\sqrt{2}}\, e^{-i\varphi'/\sqrt{2}}\,
\eta_{2}\\[1mm]
e^{-i\sqrt{2}\varphi'}\, \eta_{2}\partial\eta_{2}\end{array}
\right. \ \times \
\left\{\begin{array}{c}
e^{\pm i\bar{\varphi}/\sqrt{2}}\, e^{i\bar{\varphi}'/\sqrt{2}}\,
\eta_{1}\\[1mm]
e^{i\sqrt{2}\bar{\varphi}'}\, \eta_{1}\bar{\partial}\eta_{1}
\ \ . \end{array}\right. \label{bigie}$$ Acting with the holomorphic fermionic currents $V^\pm(z)$ we arrive at the following formulas for fields that belong to the multiplet $$\{1\}_{-}\times \{1/2\}_{+}\ : \ \ \ \ \ \left\{\begin{array}{c}
(\pm \partial\phi+\partial\phi')\, \eta_{2}\partial\eta_{2}
\, e^{\pm i\varphi/\sqrt{2}}\, e^{-3i\varphi'/\sqrt{2}}\\[1mm]
\eta_{2}\, e^{\pm i\sqrt{2}\varphi}\,
e^{-i\sqrt{2}\varphi'}\\[1mm]
\eta_{2}\partial\phi \, e^{-i\sqrt{2}\varphi'}
\end{array}
\right.\ \times\
\left\{\begin{array}{c}
e^{\pm i\bar{\varphi}/\sqrt{2}}\,
e^{i\bar{\varphi}'/\sqrt{2}}\, \\[1mm]
e^{i\sqrt{2}\bar{\varphi}'}\, \bar{\partial}\eta_{1}
\ \ .. \end{array}\right.$$ on the intermediate level of the diagram. Our notation means that every product of the three holomorphic fields on the left hand side with the three anti-holomorphic fields on the right hand side is part of this 9-dimensional block. Similarly, we can now descend to the bottom of the diagram, $$\{1/2\}_{-}\times \{1/2\}_{+} \ : \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \left\{\begin{array}{c}
e^{\pm i\varphi/\sqrt{2}}\, e^{-i\varphi'/\sqrt{2}}\\[1mm]
\eta_{2}\partial \phi'\,
e^{-i\sqrt{2}\varphi'} \end{array}\right.\ \times\
\left\{\begin{array}{c}
e^{\pm i\bar{\varphi}/\sqrt{2}}\,
e^{i\bar{\varphi}'/\sqrt{2}}\, \\[1mm]
e^{i\sqrt{2}\bar{\varphi}'}\, \bar{\partial}\eta_{1}
\end{array}\right.$$ Finally, the representation $\{0\}\times \{0\}$ in center bottom position is represented by the identity field. It is easy but laborious to check that the different representations are connected by the action of the left and right generators as indicated in the diagram. In checking this, notice that $\eta_{2}\partial\phi' e^{-i\sqrt{2}\varphi'}\equiv
\partial\eta_{2}e^{-i\sqrt{2}\varphi'}$ up to a total derivative.
There are a number of interesting further comments and observations that we would like to make. Let us begin with a brief comment on the relation with Kac-Wakimoto like representations of the form (\[BFdec\]). As discussed in [@Gotz:2006qp], a naive evaluation of the action of the latter on vertex operators leads to a much simpler picture in which the atypical sector is a smooth deformation of the typical part. In particular, there is no mixing between left- and right movers as in the case of the representation ${\cal J}^\wedge$. In order to see the latter, the screening charge of the Kac-Wakimoto representation must be taken into account (see [@Gotz:2006qp] for details). The free field representation we have employed in this subsection is much simpler to use, but it is restricted to $k=1$.
The free field representation also allows us to illustrate very explicitly how atypical fields of dimension $h=0$ are embedded into sectors with ground states in typical multiplets once their spin exceeds $k/2$. Take, for instance, the field $O=e^{i\sqrt{2}(\varphi-\varphi')}\eta_{2}$ from the $\{1\}_{-}$ representation and observe that $$E^{-}(z)\ e^{i\sqrt{2}(\varphi-\varphi')}\, \eta_{2}(w)\ =\
\frac{1}{ (z-w)^{2}} \ :e^{-i\sqrt{2}\phi(z)}\,
e^{i\sqrt{2}(\varphi-\varphi')}\, \eta_{2}(w): \ + \dots \ \ .$$ Thus $O$ is not a highest weight of the current algebra, and applying a current operator can give rise to a field of dimension $h=-1$, namely the field $P = e^{-i\sqrt{2}\varphi'}\eta_{2}$. This field belongs to the typical representation $\{-3/2,1/2\}$ in the sector $\{1\}_-$ with affine highest weight $Q =
e^{i(\varphi-3\varphi')/\sqrt{2}}\eta_{2}\partial\eta_{2}$. One may easily generalize these observations to all representations in the complex, hence confirming our analysis based on spectral flow.
Let us finally come to the most important point, which concerns the possible construction of consistent theories[^3] that are realized on a subspace of our state space (\[HCFT\]). Note that ${\cal H}$ does contain a large number of fermionic singular vectors that we decided not do decouple, partly because the minisuperspace analysis suggested that it was unnatural to do so. But to a certain extend one should consider (\[HCFT\]) as some kind of maximal choice from which other models can be obtained by consistent decoupling of singular vectors. In general there can be several such reduced theories. Once more we may use our free field representation for the $k=1$ model to illustrate nicely how this works. Note that the expressions (\[Fcurrents\]) for the currents only contain derivatives of the fermionic fields. Hence, we do not spoil the $\sl21$ current algebra symmetry if we decide to work with a model in which the fundamental fields are e.g.$\phi, \phi', \eta_2$ and $\partial \eta_1$. Since $\eta_1$ is not part of this model, some of the sectors we discussed above do no longer appear. This concerns the sectors $\{0\} \times \{0\}$ and $\{1/2\}_-\times \{1/2\}_+$ on the top floor of ${\cal J}^\wedge$ and the sector $\{0\} \times \{1/2\}_+$ on the intermediate floor. In the resulting model, there is still a single atypical sector that comprises all the irreducible atypicals, but it is reduced to two floors and has the shape of a saw blade. Obviously, a similar analysis applies to the theory that contains $\partial \eta_2$ instead of $\eta_2$. But we can even go one step further and drop both $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ so that only fermionic derivatives remain. What results is a model whose atypical sector decomposes into an infinite sum of irreducibles. The latter are the sectors that appear on the bottom floor of ${\cal J}^\wedge$, i.e. $\{0\}
\times \{0\}$ and $\{1/2\}_- \times \{1/2\}_+$ from our list above. All others need either $\eta_1$ or $\eta_2$. Similar phenomena are possible at other levels. We shall see another explicit example in section 5.2. Let us stress, however, that the free field construction at $k=1$ does not include the “defining” $\{0,1/2\}$ field of the WZNW model. A careful study of the Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equations [@Maassarani:1996jn; @Bhaseen:2000mi] shows that consistency in the presence of the $\{0,1/2\}$ sector requires the identity field to be embedded into an indecomposable sector. In this sense, the fully truncated atypical sector we have just described cannot be embedded into the $\sl21$ WZNW model.
Partition functions
-------------------
We now go back to the full theory based on our proposal (\[HCFT\]). We would like to compute the partition function of the model, with and without inclusion of the NS sector. Since partition functions are obtained by taking the trace over the state space, the details of the action of fermionic generators in the atypical sector ${\cal J}^\wedge$ do not show up in the result. In other words, the contribution from the indecomposable ${\cal J}^\wedge$ is the same as if we would take the trace over a sum of its irreducible components. The latter can be resumed as follows, $$\begin{aligned}
\text{str}_{{\cal J}^\wedge}\ q^{L_0 + \bar L_0} & = &
\sum_{\nu \in \mathbb{Z}/2} \, 2 \chi^{II}_{\{\nu\}}(\bar q)\,
\chi^{II}_{\{-\nu\}}(q) - \chi^{II}_{\{\nu+1/2\}}(\bar q)\,
\chi^{II}_{\{-\nu\}}(q) - \chi^{II}_{\{\nu-1/2\}}(\bar q) \,
\chi^{II}_{\{-\nu\}}(q) \\[2mm]
& = & \sum_{\nu \in \mathbb{Z}/2} \, \left( \chi^{II}_{\{\nu\}}(\bar q)
- \chi^{II}_{\{\nu-1/2\}}(\bar q)\right) \left(
\chi^{II}_{\{-\nu\}}(q) -
\chi^{II}_{\{-\nu+1/2\}}(q)\right) \\[2mm]
& = & \sum_{\nu = 1/2,1,\dots} \, \left( \chi^{II}_{\{\nu\}}(\bar q)
- \chi^{II}_{\{\nu-1/2\}}(\bar q)\right) \left(
\chi^{II}_{\{-\nu\}}(q) -
\chi^{II}_{\{-\nu+1/2\}}(q)\right) \\[2mm]
& & + \ \sum_{\nu = 1/2,1,\dots} \, \left( \chi^{II}_{\{-\nu\}}(\bar q)
- \chi^{II}_{\{-\nu+1/2\}}(\bar q)\right) \left(
\chi^{II}_{\{\nu\}}(q) -
\chi^{II}_{\{\nu-1/2\}}(q)\right) \\[2mm]
& = & \sum_\pm \sum_{m \in \mathbb{Z}} \sum_{j=1/2}^{k/2} \,
\chi^I_{\{j^\pm_m,j\}}(\bar q)\, \chi^I_{\{-j^\pm_m,j\}}(q)\ \ . \end{aligned}$$ In the last step we have inserted the relation (\[classI/II\]) between characters of class I and class II representations and we used the isomorphism $\hat \nu$ to convert the sum over non-zero half-integers into a sum over $m$ and $j$. Our result shows that the contribution from the atypical representations agrees exactly with the part that we omitted from the typical sector of the theory. Hence, the full partition function becomes $$\label{PFH}
Z(q) \ = \ \sum_{j=1/2}^{k/2} \sum_{b\in \mathbb{R}}
\chi^I_{\{b,j\}}(\bar q) \chi^I_{\{-b,j\}}(q)\ \ .$$ Let us also briefly discuss how the partition functions is modified when we want to include the NS sector. In that case, the trace extends over both ${\cal H}_{CFT}$ and its image under the spectral flow $\vartheta$. The modular invariant partition function $\tilde Z(q)$ of this theory contains four different terms, two in which $(-1)^F$ is inserted and two in which it is not. It is customary to label the corresponding contributions with $R$, $sR$, $NS$ and $sNS$ where the small $s$ signals the insertion of $(-1)^F$. With these notations, the standard super-characters we have discussed throughout the previous section should all carry a superscript $sR$. It is easy to find explicit formulas for the other three sets of (super-)characters using the relation $$\chi^{sNS}(q,\xi,z) \ = \ \vartheta \chi^{sR}(q,\xi,z) \ = \
\xi^{k/2} q^{-k/2} \chi^{sR}(q,q^{-1} \xi, z) \ $$ to convert $sR$ characters into $sNS$ super-characters. The same prescription is used when we construct $NS$ characters from the R sector, only that we have to replace the $R$ super-characters $\chi$ by ordinary characters. The partition function $\tilde
Z(q)$, finally, has the same form as eq. (\[PFH\]) with an additional summation over all four types of terms.
Let us illustrate the previous results in the case of $k=1$ again. The ($sR$) characters of this theory take a particularly simple form, as was first observed by Bowcock et al. in [@Bowcock:1997ce], $$\chi_{\{b,1/2\}}^{I}(q,z,\xi)\ =\ \frac{q^{-b^{2}/2}\xi^{b}}{\eta(q)}
\left[\chi_{1/2}(q,\xi)\chi_{0}(q,z)-\chi_{0}(q,\xi)\chi_{1/2}(q,z)\right]$$ where $\chi_{0}$ and $\chi_{1/2}$ are $SU(2)$ level one characters for spin $0$ and $1/2$ respectively. This expression allows us to determine the modular invariant physical partition function $\tilde Z$ involving periodic or antiperiodic boundary conditions for the fermions along both periods of the torus. The doubly periodic sector ($\chi^{sR}$) gives a vanishing contribution for characters $\chi_{\{b,1/2\}}$ since the super-dimension of the horizontal Kac modules vanishes. We are left with three contributions, which read respectively $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{R}_{\{b,1/2\}}(q)&=&2\frac{q^{-b^{2}/2}}{\eta(q)}\
\chi_{1/2}(q)\chi_{0}(q)\\
\chi^{NS}_{\{b,1/2\}}(q)&=&\frac{q^{-b^{2}/2}}{
\eta(q)}\ \left[\chi_{0}^{2}(q)+\chi_{1/2}^{2}(q)\right]\\
\chi^{sNS}_{\{b,1/2\}}(q)&=&\frac{q^{-b^{2}/2}}{
\eta(q)}\ \left[\chi_{0}^{2}(q)-\chi_{1/2}^{2}(q)\right]\ \ .
\end{aligned}$$ Their modular transformations are easy to obtain for $b=0$ $$\begin{aligned}
\chi^{R}_{\{0,1/2\}}(-1/\tau)&=&\frac{1}{
\sqrt{-i\tau}}\ \chi^{sNS}_{\{0,1/2\}}(\tau)\nonumber\\
\chi^{NS}_{\{0,1/2\}}(-1/\tau)&=&\frac{1}{
\sqrt{-i\tau}}\ \chi^{NS}_{\{0,1/2\}}(\tau)\\
\chi^{sNS}_{\{0,1/2\}}(-1/\tau)&=&\frac{1}{
\sqrt{-i\tau}}\ \chi^{R}_{\{0,1/2\}}(\tau)\ \ .
\nonumber \end{aligned}$$ Obviously, the $\tau$ dependence of these formulas originates in the $1/\eta$ term in the characters, and has to be compensated by a similar factor coming from the $b$ sum in order to obtain a modular invariant quantity.
The question we want to ask now is what kind of sum over $b$ one should consider. It seems at first sight that, since we are dealing with $\SL21$, the $b$ number should be discrete, in agreement with the imaginary exponential appearing in section 2.2 (note that this is also compatible with invariance under action of the spectral flow). It is likely that such a theory would make sense in genus zero. Difficulties arise, however, when we try to establish modular invariance of the partition function, i.e.consider the theory in genus one. Indeed, even if $b$ is discretized, there is no reason to truncate its range, and thus the naive spectrum of conformal weights is unbounded from below, and exhibits arbitrarily large negative dimensions. This should not come as a surprise since the metric on the group is not positive definite, and thus the naive functional integral in the WZNW model is divergent. What is required to obtain a physical partition function on the torus - one that could be compared with the spectrum of some lattice Hamiltonian say - is some sort of analytic continuation.
This raises some interesting questions on which we would like to digress briefly. For a compactified time-like boson, partition functions would involve sums of the form $$\sum_{n}\ e^{\lambda n^{2}},~~~\hbox{Re }\lambda>0\ \ .$$ This sum is obviously divergent, but one could be tempted to give it a meaning by analytical continuation from a similar sum with $\hbox{Re }\lambda<0$. An equivalent problem arises when we try to continue a theta function such as $$\theta(\tau)\ =\ \sum_{n}e^{i\pi\tau n^{2}}$$ into the lower half plane $\hbox{Im }\tau<0$. It is known that this continuation is not possible, since the $\theta$ function has singularities which are [*dense*]{} on the real axis (a quick proof is obtained by first observing that $\theta$ is singular for $\tau$ an even integer, and then using modular transformations). Theta functions have a natural boundary, and are simple examples of lacunary functions, i.e. “almost all” their Fourier coefficients are zero [@Apostol:1997]. The partition function of a compactified time-like boson is thus a formal object from which it is hard to extract physical meaning. On the other hand, without compactification, the partition function can easily be analytically continued. Indeed, replacing the discrete sum by an integral we have $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dx e^{i\pi\tau x^{2}}\ =\ \frac{1}{
\sqrt{-i\tau}}$$ which can be continued in the lower half plane since it has a single cut along the negative imaginary axis.
We thus restrict to the theory with continuous spectrum of $b$, and propose the simplest partition function $$Z_{k=1}\ =\ \left(|\chi^{R}_{\{0,1/2\}}|^{2}+|\chi^{NS}_{\{0,1/2\}}|^{2}
+|\chi^{sNS}_{\{0,1/2\}}|^{2}\right)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}db
(q\bar{q})^{-b^{2}/2}$$ which we interpret through analytic continuation, up to an irrelevant phase, as $$\begin{aligned}
Z^{phys}_{k=1} & = &
\left(|\chi^{R}_{\{0,1/2\}}|^{2}+|\chi^{NS}_{\{0,1/2\}}|^{2}
+|\chi^{sNS}_{\{0,1/2\}}|^{2}\right)\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\alpha
(q\bar{q})^{\alpha^{2}/2} \\[2mm]
& = & \left(|\chi_{0}|^{2}+|\chi_{1/2}|^{2}\right)^{2}\times \frac{1}{
\eta\bar{\eta}}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}d\alpha
(q\bar{q})^{\alpha^{2}/2}\label{conj}\ \ .\end{aligned}$$ This object is obviously modular invariant since, from a direct calculation of the integrals, $$\int d\alpha (q\bar{q})^{\alpha^{2}/2}\ =\ \frac{1}{
\sqrt{\tau\bar{\tau}}}\int d\alpha
(\tilde{q}\bar{\tilde{q}})^{\alpha^{2}/2}$$ hence compensating the factors coming from the $\eta$ functions in the characters. We note that the spectrum of conformal weights in the periodic sector is a continuum starting at $h=1/8$. The field with $h=0$ does not appear.
In conclusion, the requirement for our theory to possess a “physical partition function” has forced us to let $b$ be continuous. Geometrically, this amounts to a decompactification of the time-like circle. Hence we are led to consider the universal cover of $\SL21$ so that we can perform an analytical continuation on the number $b$. One may interpret the prescription that leads to the physical partition function as an effective change of the target space along the lines advocated in [@bocquet-2000-578]. Let us also stress that, while our arguments were based on the $k=1$ theory, it is clear that a similar reasoning can be carried out for other levels.
The argument leading to $b$ being continuous also seems to exclude the smaller theories where part of the complex ${\cal J}$ is dropped, at least for general values of $k$. We shall see an exception in the case $k=-1/2$ later.
Some selected applications
==========================
This following section contains some selected applications of our general analysis. In the first subsection we shall compare our results with studies of the continuum limit of the integrable $\sl21\ 3 -\bar 3$ spin chain [@Essler:2005ag]. The agreement we find supports a new interpretation of lattice results. The second subsection is devoted to the $k=-1/2$ theory which was not included above, but we shall see that it shares many of the structures we uncovered throughout the last few sections.
The $3-\bar{3}$ super-spin chain revisited.
-------------------------------------------
In [@Essler:2005ag] an integrable $\sl21$ invariant super-spin chain was studied using both analytical and numerical techniques. Its Hamiltonian acts on the tensor product $(3\otimes \bar{3})^{\otimes L}$ where $3$ and $\bar 3$ stand for the representations $\{ 1/2\}_{\pm}$ in our previous terminology. It was argued that in the continuum limit this chain flows to a $\SL21$ WZNW model at level $k=1$. At the time, the WZNW model on the supergroup $\SL21$ had not been constructed and it seems instructive to revisit the issue now on the basis of our improved understanding of the continuum field theory. We shall see that the suggested identification with the continuum limit of the spin chain can be maintained, but some of the lattice results receive an interesting reinterpretation.
Let us begin by reviewing briefly some results on the spectrum of the lattice model. In [@Essler:2005ag] it was found analytically that this spectrum exhibits a unique ground state at $h=\bar{h}=0$, which lies in the single “true singlet” of the model, i.e. it is a $\sl21$ invariant state that is not part of a larger indecomposable representation. This ground state corresponds to an extremely degenerate solution of the Bethe ansatz equations where all roots collapse to the origin. Besides the ground state, many excited states were also found. The lowest lying state above the ground state corresponds to a filled sea of some (non complex conjugate) string complexes. The rest of the spectrum is given by excitations obeying the usual pattern of holes and shifts of the sea. The scaled energies of these excitations over the ground state were found analytically to be $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\frac{L}{2\pi v}\Delta E & = & \frac{1}{ 4} +
\frac{1}{2}\left(\Delta N_{+}+\Delta
N_{-}\right)^{2}+\frac{1}{ 8}\left(D_{+}+D_{-}\right)^{2} + \\[2mm]
& & \ \ + \ C_N(L)\, \left(\Delta N_{+}-\Delta N_{-}\right)^{2} +
C_D(L)\, \left(D_{+}-D_{-}\right)^{2} \label{gaps}\\[3mm]
\mbox{where} & & \ \ C_N(L) \ \rightarrow\ 0 \ \ , \ \
C_D(L)\ \rightarrow \ \infty \ \ \mbox{for} \ \
\ \ \ L\rightarrow\infty\nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\Delta N_{\pm},D_{\pm}$ are quantum numbers characterizing the Bethe ansatz solution. In the continuum limit, the quantity (\[gaps\]) is expected to converge to $x=h+\bar{h}$ (all weights in the $c=0$ theory), as usual. Formula (\[gaps\]) indicates an infinite degeneracy of the level $h=\bar{h}=1/8$ (obtained with $\Delta N_{+}=\Delta N_{-}=D_{+}=
D_{-}=0$ say) in the limit $L\rightarrow\infty$. Numerical studies confirm this behavior: Indeed, they show that that an infinite number of levels converges to $h=\bar{h}=1/8$ as $L$ increases. This was already interpreted in [@Essler:2005ag] as indicating the existence of a continuum of conformal weights starting at $h=\bar{h}=1/8$ in the thermodynamic limit.
Although an analytical study of the asymptotic corrections to (\[gaps\]) seems still out of reach, numerical studies in a closely related model suggest that the leading contributions to $C_N$ and $C_L$ can be well fitted by the formulas $$\label{gapsfit}
C_N(L) \ \sim \ \frac{c}{\ln L} + \dots \ \ \ \ , \ \ \ \
C_D(L) \ \sim \ \frac{4}{c}\, \ln L + \dots$$ for large number $2L$ of lattice sites. When these leading terms are plugged back into the formula (\[gaps\]) for the spectrum of the lattice model, we see that the second line resembles very much the spectrum of a free boson which has been compactified to a circle with radius square of the order $\ln L$. In other words, if we assume that eqs. (\[gapsfit\]) are correct, the contribution from the “antisymmetric sector” (i.e. form excitations for which $\Delta N_{+}-\Delta N_{-}$ or $D_{+}-D_{-}$ are non zero) to the partition function can be estimated as $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{anti} & = & \frac{1}{ \eta\bar{\eta}}\ \sum_{e,m}\
q^{(e/R+mR/2)^{2}}\ \bar{q}^{(e/R-mR/2)^{2}}\nonumber\\[2mm]
& = &
\frac{R}{ \sqrt{2}}\frac{1}{
\sqrt{\hbox{Im }\tau}\ \eta\bar{\eta}}\ \sum_{m,m'}
\ \exp\left(-\frac{\pi
R^{2}|m\tau-m'|^{2}}{ 2\hbox{Im }\tau}\right)
\nonumber\\[2mm]
&\approx& \frac{R}{ \sqrt{2}}
\frac{1}{
\sqrt{\hbox{Im }\tau}\eta\bar{\eta}}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\eta(q)$ is Dedekind’s eta function, as before. The divergence is proportional to $R$, i.e. to the size of the target space, as expected. We conclude that in the lattice model, the contribution from the antisymmetric sector to the partition function multiplies the contribution from the symmetric sector in eq. (\[gaps\]) by a term of the order of $\sqrt{\ln L}$. The ground state meanwhile, being a very degenerate Bethe ansatz solution, does not come with such an extra factor. The generating function of levels in the periodic sector will therefore have the form $$Z^{R}\ =\ 1+\hbox{cst}\sqrt{\ln L}\ \left[ \frac{1}{
\sqrt{\hbox{Im }\tau}\ P\bar{P}} (q\bar{q})^{1/8}+\ldots\right]$$ where the dots represent excitations from the symmetric sector in (\[gaps\]).
The first conclusion we draw is that the contribution of the continuum completely overrides the one from the discrete state (as would be the case in any quantum mechanics problem with discrete states and a continuum with delta function normalizable states), and that a properly normalized partition function does not see the singlet with $h=\bar{h}=0$. The resulting object is in good agreement with our conjectured partition function (\[conj\]).
Reference [@Essler:2005ag] contained various failed attempts to build a conformal field theory containing both the continuum of representations $\{b,j=1/2\}$ and a single identity field associated with the representation $\{0\}$. Given our new insight into the continuum model, the problems to incorporate the singlet state may not come as a complete surprise. Although the free field construction at $k=1$ suggests the possibility of smaller theories, the study of modular invariants (as well as of four point functions, as we mentioned above) seems to preclude the appearance of the singlet representation on its own - i.e. without being part of a big indecomposable with vanishing super-dimension. In addition all the states we found in the continuum approach were non normalizable. Both observations lead us to speculate that eq. (\[conj\]) represents the full operator content of the continuum limit, and that there is no discrete state associated with a true singlet. Put differently, the new investigation suggests that the true singlet observed on the lattice is an artifact of the regularization and does not belong to the continuum limit. Our new interpretation of the lattice results receives additional support from the very singular nature of the Bethe ansatz solution that corresponds to the singlet state. It would be interesting to check further the decoupling of the true singlet by studying the scaling behavior of matrix elements of lattice regularized current algebra generators.
There is one more potential objection one might raise. Note that in our continuum theory fermionic and bosonic states are perfectly paired so that the Witten index of the $\SL21$ WZNW model is guaranteed to vanish. Meanwhile, for our lattice spin chain on the space $(3\otimes \bar{3})^{\otimes L}$ one finds an excess by one for the number of bosonic states over the number of fermionic ones. Hence, the Witten index is non-zero on the lattice and one would naively expect the same to be true for the continuum limit, in conflict with what we have proposed above. In order to resolve this issue, we suggest that there exist different spin chains which give rise to the same continuum limit while possessing an excess of fermionic states over bosonic. More concretely, while we do not understand the whole structure yet, we have found [^4] that the ground states of integrable chains of the type $(3\otimes \bar{3})^{\otimes L}
\otimes 3$ and $\bar{3}\otimes (3\otimes \bar{3})^{\otimes L}$ scale to conformal weight $h=0$ as well (in fact the ground state energy is given exactly by $E_{0}=-\hbox{length}\times
~ e_{0}$ where $e_{0}$ has no finite size correction and is the same for all chains), but this time they come in the representation $3$ (resp. $\bar{3}$). Once we sum over the various lattice models, the balance between bosonic and fermionic states may be restored even before taking the continuum limit.
The WZNW model at $k=-1/2$
--------------------------
Our investigation above was restricted to integer level $k$. But as we have mentioned before, these are some fractional values of $k$, in particular $k=-1/2$, which play an important role for applications. While we are not prepared to give a systematic account on fractional level theories, we would like to discuss briefly a model with $k=-1/2$. Our analysis will lead to the remarkable conclusion that the basic structure of this model is essentially the same as for integer $k$, only that there exist several components within the atypical sector, each of them being modeled after ${\cal J}$.
In this case $k=-1/2$, the relevant representation theory of the $\sl21$ current algebra is particularly simple. In fact, all relevant representations can be obtained from the vacuum sector $\{0\}^\wedge$ through application of spectral flow symmetries. It is not difficult to show that at $k=-1/2$ the automorphism $\gamma^2$ is inner, i.e. $\gamma^2 \sim id$. This means that application of $\gamma^2$ does not lead to any new representations. The remaining nontrivial automorphisms are of the form $\gamma^n_+ \gamma^\sigma$ with $n \in \mathbb{Z}$ and $\sigma = 0,1$. We shall denote the corresponding irreducible representations of the $\sl21$ current algebra by $$\{(n,\sigma)\} \ \cong \ \gamma^n_+\, \gamma^\sigma\{0\}^\wedge
\ \ \ .$$ By construction, this set closes under fusion. In fact, the fusion product simply amounts to a composition of the associated automorphism.
With the exception of the sectors labeled by $n=0,\pm 1$, the representations $\{(n,\sigma)\}$ do not contain a highest or lowest weight. The representation $\{(0,0)\}$ is to be identified with the vacuum representation. $\{(0,1)\} = \{0,1/2\}^\wedge$ is the only other admissible representation at $k=-1/2$. It is generated from the 4-dimensional typical multiplet $\{0,1/2\}$ of ground states with conformal weight $h = 1/2$. In addition, there are four more highest/lowest weight weight representations which are erected over the atypical discrete series representations $\{(-1,\sigma_\pm)\} = \{(-,-1/4)\}^\wedge_\pm$ and $\{(1,\sigma_\pm\} = \{(+,-1/4)\}^\wedge_\pm$ corresponding to a negative spin $j=-1/4$. The choice of the sign in the first argument of the bracket determines on whether the representation is highest $(-)$ or lowest $(+)$ weight. The subscript, on the other hand corresponds to the two different choices of the parameter $b$ that make these representations atypical. All four representations possess ground states of conformal weight $h=0$. In all other representations $\{(n,\sigma)\}$ with $|n| \geq 2$, the conformal weight is unbounded from below.
Since we can generate every representations from $\{ 0\}^\wedge$, is suffices to display the character of the vacuum representation, $$\chi_{\{0\}}(q,z,\xi) \ = \ \frac12 \left[
\frac{\vartheta_3(q,\xi^{1/2})}{\vartheta_4(q,z^{1/2})} +
\frac{\vartheta_4(q,\xi^{1/2})}{\vartheta_3(q,z^{1/2})} \right] \
\ .$$ We shall explain the origin of this formula in a moment. Characters of all the other representations are obtained from the vacuum character $\chi_{\{0\}}$ through $$\chi_{\{(n,\sigma)\}}(q,z,\xi)\ = \ \gamma^n_+\, \gamma^\sigma\,
\chi_{\{0\}}(q,z,\xi) \ = \ \xi^{-\frac{n}{4} -\frac{\sigma}{2}}
\, z^{-\frac{n}{4}}
q^{\frac{n+1}{2}\sigma}\,
\chi_{\{0\}}(q,q^{-n-2\sigma}\xi,q^{nz}z)\ \ .$$ To derive the above character formula and for the subsequent discussion we note that the $\sl21$ current algebra at level $k=-1/2$ possesses a free field representation which employs the same free fields as in the case of the $k=1$ theory, i.e. two free bosonic fields $\phi$ and $\phi'$ with space-like and time-like signature, respectively, and a pair of symplectic fermions $\eta_1,\eta_2$. The bosonic $\sl21$ currents read $$\begin{aligned}
E^{+}(z) \ =\ \frac12 \, e^{-2i\varphi'(z)}\, \partial^{2}\eta_{1}(z)
\, \partial\eta_{1}(z) \ \ \ & , & \ \ \ \ H(z) \ = \
\frac{i}{2}\,
\partial\phi'(z) \\[2mm]
E^{-}(z)\ =\ \frac12\, e^{2i\varphi'(z)}\, \partial^{2}\eta_{2}(z)\,
\partial\eta_{2}(z) \ \ \ & , & \ \ \ \ B(z) \ = \ \frac{i}{2}\,
\partial \phi(z)\ \ \ .\end{aligned}$$ Note that, unlike in the case of $k=1$, the bosonic currents involve the symplectic fermions and the time-like free boson. For the fermionic currents one finds $$\begin{aligned}
V^{-}(z)\ =\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \,
e^{-i(\varphi(z)-\varphi'(z))}\, \partial\eta_{2}(z) \ \ \ \ & , &
\ \ \ \
V^{+}(z)\ =\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,
e^{-i(\varphi(z)+\varphi'(z))}\, \partial\eta_{1}(z) \nonumber\\[2mm]
W^{-}(z) \ =\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,
e^{i(\varphi(z)+\varphi'(z))}\, \partial\eta_{2}(z) \ \ \ \ & , &
\ \ \ \ W^{+}(z)\ =\ \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\,
e^{i(\varphi(z)-\varphi'(z))}\, \partial\eta_{1}(z) \ \ . \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ As in the case of the $k=1$ theory, the free field construction determines a consistent model with a $\sl21$ current algebra symmetry. If we do not include the symplectic fermions (note that once more the currents only involve derivatives), but only their derivatives then the state space reads $${\cal H}_{k=-1/2} \ = \ \bigoplus_{n,\sigma} \
\{(n,\sigma)\}^\wedge \times \{(-n,\sigma)\}^\wedge\ \ .$$ Since the spectral flow automorphisms $\gamma_\pm$ and $\gamma$ correspond to multiplication with the fields $$\gamma_\pm \ \leftrightarrow \ e^{-\frac{i}{2}(\phi'\pm\phi)}
\ \ \ , \ \ \ \gamma \ \leftrightarrow \ e^{- i \phi } \ $$ is is fairly easy to write down at least one field in each sector of the model, $$\{(n,\sigma)\}^\wedge \times \{(-n,\sigma)\}^\wedge
\ \ \ \mbox{contains} \ \ \ e^{-i\frac{n}{2}\phi' -
i\frac{n+2\sigma}{2}\phi} \ \ .$$ The space ${\cal H}_{k=-1/2}$ contains R sector representations only, but it is certainly possible to include the NS sector by adding the image under the spectral flow $\vartheta$. Since this works just in the same way as above, we shall not repeat the discussion here.
Even though all the representations we are working with are atypical, the state space decomposes into irreducible building blocks. This is quite different from the structure of the atypical sectors ${\cal J}^\wedge$ we described above. On the other hand, is is very similar to one of the consistent theories with $k=1$ that we described at the end of section 4.2. In the $k=1$ theory, the singular vectors of the indecomposable block ${\cal J}^\wedge$ were decoupled by restricting to a theory that contained only derivatives of the fermionic fields. Conversely, the experience from $k=1$ suggest that in the $k=-1/2$ case we may be able to construct a theory with a more complicated atypical sector by including one or both of the symplectic fermion fields $\eta_1$ and $\eta_2$ [@Rasmussen].
We claim that in case we include both fermionic zero modes we end up with an atypical structure that decomposes into four different blocks, each of them being built in the same way as our sector ${\cal J}^\wedge$. We shall present the analysis only for the block that contains the vacuum sector $\{ 0 \}^\wedge$. The other three sectors are obtained by acting with $\gamma, \gamma_+$ and $\gamma_+ \circ \gamma$. Let us start our discussion with the field $\eta_1 \eta_2$. Any action with $V^\pm, W^\pm$ and $E^\pm$ will remove one of the two fermionic zero modes and hence $\eta_1
\eta_2$ sits at the top of a sector $\{ 0 \}^\wedge$. The action of $V^+,W^+$ and $E^+$ takes us from here into a set of fields which all contain a factor $\eta_1$. These fields can be shown to belong to a sector that is isomorphic to $\{(2,0)\} \cong
\gamma_+^2 \{0\}^\wedge$. Further application of $V^-,W^-$ and $E^-$ bring us to a set of fields that contain only derivatives of fermions. These form a subrepresentation $\{0\}^\wedge$ at the bottom of our atypical representation. A similar analysis applies if we act with $V^-,W^-$ and $E^-$ first. This time, we descend to $\{0\}^\wedge$ via the sector $\{(-2,0)\} \cong
\gamma_+^{-2}\{0\}^\wedge$. Continuing along this line of thoughts, one can see that the sectors $\{(2n,0)\}, n \in
\mathbb{Z},$ form the composition series for an indecomposable representation ${\cal J}^\wedge$ with $\{(2n,0)\}$ in place of $\{n/2\}$. The state space of the maximal theory therefore decomposes into four indecomposable blocks. Once more, there are two intermediate theories, each of which has four saw-blade shaped atypical sectors. They are obtained if we omit either $\eta_1$ or $\eta_2$ (but not their derivatives, of course) from the above maximal theory.
Even though we are not prepared to analyze WZNW models for generic fractional levels, it is remarkable that the structure we have first uncovered in our minisuperspace limit, re-appears even for $k = -1/2$. It seems very likely that the same is true for a generic choice of the level.
Conclusions and Outlook
=======================
An obvious conclusion of our study is that WZNW models on supergroups are interesting examples of logarithmic CFTs, much richer than it has been anticipated in earlier works. Gurarie (see [@Gurarie:2004ce] and references therein), for instance, argued that super WZNW models with $c=0$ could be considered as made of two “decoupled” component theories with opposite values of the central charge, an observation justified in part by the fact that in the GL(1$|$1) WZNW model, the stress energy tensor belongs naturally to a four dimensional GL(1$|$1) multiplet in which $L_{0}$ is diagonalizable, and hence $T$ has no “non trivial logarithmic partner”. The SU(2$|$1) WZNW clearly does not obey any such decoupling. In fact, restricting to the right moving current algebra as in [@Gurarie:2004ce] we see that the identity field belongs to a projective representation of the zero mode algebra on which the Casimir - and hence $L_{0}$ - is not diagonalizable. Applying $L_{-2}$ to this representation produces a Virasoro Jordan cell at level $h=2$ and a non trivial logarithmic partner of the stress energy tensor. This can be seen quite explicitely in the case $k=1$ where, within the free field representation (and similarly to the case of symplectic fermions), the field $$t(z) \ := \ :\eta_{1}(z)\eta_{2}(z) T(z):$$ is a logarithmic partner of $$T\ :=\ :\partial\eta_{1}(z)\partial\eta_{2}(z): -
\frac{1}{ 2}:(\partial\phi(z))^{2}:
+\frac{1}{ 2}:(\partial\phi'(z))^{2}: \ \ .$$ Note that the whole structure of indecomposables is in fact much more complicated than envisioned in [@Gurarie:2004ce] when the interplay of left and right current algebras is taken into account.
Even though the structure of the state space is rather difficult when analyzed with respect to the combined left and right action, it is surprisingly simple once we restrict to either the left or the right action alone. Note that the Lie superalgebra $\sl21$ has a large number of indecomposables (see e.g. [@Gotz:2005jz]) from which only a very distinguished sub-class does actually occur within the state space of our model. In fact, we have seen above that all states (both in the minisuperspace theory and the full field theory) transform according to the so-called projective representations of $\sl21$, i.e. either in typicals and projective covers of atypicals. This is not to say, however, that other representations of $\sl21$ have no relevance for sigma models on supergroups. In addition to the left and right regular representation there is yet one more important symmetry that arises from the adjoint action of $\sl21$ on the state space. With respect to the latter, states can transform in other indecomposables. The underlying mathematical structure turns out to be quite intriguing and will be described elsewhere. Since the adjoint action is left unbroken by maximally symmetric boundary conditions, the resulting decomposition should have applications, in particular to the study of boundary conditions for sigma models on supergroups.
As a final comment let us point out one generic feature we have encountered in both $\GL11$ and $\SL21$, namely that the contribution of the indecomposable sector ${\cal J}$ simply makes up for the subtractions in the atypical sectors of the theory, so that the partition function sees only contributions from Kac modules, and has a simple factorized form. This behavior is sufficient for a modular invariant partition function but it is not necessary. The potential existence of different versions of the theory where only parts of the complex ${\cal J}$ appear, requires more study. We note that some hints in this direction are provided by the study of four point functions. In the case $k=1$, the four point function of the fields in the $\{0,1/2\}$ representation has been studied in detail. It turns out that the KZ equations factorize, and that it is possible to decouple one conformal block. Two blocks remain, leading to logarithmic dependence, and indicating that the identity field remains part of an indecomposable representation. This suggests that the smallest theory, where the complex ${\cal J}$ is reduced to an infinite sum of irreducibles, cannot appear in the $\sl21$ WZNW model. In the case $k=-1/2$ meanwhile it is possible to decouple two conformal blocks, leaving only the identity field, and indicating that the smallest theory does make sense this time - a feature consistent with the free field representation and the modular invariant. The $\sl21$ WZNW model at fractional level and the explicit construction of consistent theories with a truncated atypical sector certainly deserve a more systematic investigation.
[**Acknowledgments:**]{} We thank Fabian Essler, Gerhard Götz, Thomas Quella and Anne Taormina for interesting conversations. V.S. would like to thank the SPhT for the warm hospitality during several stays. This work was partially supported by the EU Research Training Network grants “Euclid”, contract number HPRN-CT-2002-00325 and “ForcesUniverse”, contract number MRTN-CT-2004-005104.
Appendix A: The right regular representation
============================================
In this appendix we would like to prove the decomposition formula for the right regular representation. We shall use the same notations that were introduced in section 2.2. In order to analyze the decomposition of the space of functions under the right regular action of $\sl21$, we shall first study its restriction to the Lie sub-superalgebra ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}11$. More precisely, we shall make use of the following embedding $$\e(\psi^+) \ = \ F^+ \ \ , \ \ \e(\psi^-) \ = \ \bar F^- \ \ , \ \
\e(E) \ = \ B-H \ \ , \ \ \e(N) \ = \ B+H\ \ .$$ The main technical Lemma of this section implies that under the action of ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}11$, the space ${\cal H}$ of functions on the supergroup $\SL21$ decomposes into projectives only.
[**Lemma:** ]{} [*Under the action of $R_X \equiv
R_{\e(X)}$ of the generators $X \in$ ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}11$, the space ${\cal H}$ of functions of $\SL21$ decomposes according to $${\cal H} \ \cong \ \bigoplus_j \bigoplus_{b=-j}^j
{\cal P}(2b+1) \oplus 2 \cdot {\cal P}(2b) \oplus {\cal
P}(2b-1) \oplus \ {\cal T} \ .$$ Here, ${\cal T}$ is a direct sum of typical ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}11$ representations and $\P(a)$ denotes the projective cover of the atypical irreducible $\langle a\rangle$.*]{}
Before we prove this statement, let us formulate two consequences for the right regular representation of $\sl21$. To begin with, let us recall from [@Gotz:2005jz] that an $\sl21$ representation $\pi$ descends on a projective representation of the embedded ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}11$ algebra if and only if $\pi$ is projective. Our lemma claims that the ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}11$ action on [H]{} contains only projectives. Hence, the same must be true for the right regular action of $\sl21$.
[Proof of Lemma:]{} For the proof it will be useful to introduce the following odd functions $$\bar\theta_\pm \ := \ e^{\mp i z/2} D^{1/2}_{(\pm 1/2)\nu}(g^{-1})
\ \bar \eta_\nu \ \ \ , \ \ \ \tilde \eta_- \ = \ e^{iz
}
\eta_- \ \ .$$ It is not difficult to see that the space ${\cal H}$ is spanned by functions of the form $$F^{n,j}_{ab} \Lambda \ = \ e^{inz} \ D^j_{ab}(g) \
\Lambda(\tilde\eta_-,\eta_+,\bar\theta_\pm)
\ \ ,$$ where $\Lambda(\tilde\eta_-,\eta_+,\bar\theta_\pm)$ is an arbitrary element in the algebra generated by the arguments. It is very easy to describe explicitly the space of functions which are organized in atypicals of ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}11$. The latter is characterized by the vanishing of $R_E$, $${\cal A}_R \ = \ \{ \Phi \in {\cal H} \ | \
\left(i\partial_z + R^0_h + \eta_- \partial_-\right)\Phi \ = \ 0
\} \ \ .$$ We can easily solve the equation for $\Phi$ and describe the space ${\cal A}_R$ explicitly. In fact, it is spanned by the functions $$F^{b,j}_{ab} \Lambda \ = \ e^{ibz} D^j_{ab}(g) \
\Lambda(\tilde\eta_-,\eta_+,\bar\theta_\pm) \ \ .$$ On the subspace ${\cal A}^R$ the other generators of ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}11$ simplify to $$\begin{aligned}
R_N \Phi & = & \left( -2i\partial_z -\eta_- \partial_-
-\eta_+ \partial_+ \right) \Phi \\[2mm]
R_{\Psi^+} \Phi \ = \ -i \partial_+ \Phi\ \ &,& \ \ R_{\Psi^-}
\Phi \ = \ i e^{-iz/2} \,
D^{1/2}_{\nu (- 1/2)} (g)\ \bar \partial_{-\nu}
- i \eta_- R^0_{E^-} \ .\end{aligned}$$ for all $\Phi \in {\cal A}_R$. The representation of ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}11$ can be restricted to the space ${\cal A}'_R$ of all elements $\Phi \in {\cal A}_R$ such that $\eta_-\partial_- \Phi =
\Phi$. A short look on the action of the ${{\mathfrak{gl}}}11$ generators reveals that $${\cal A}'_R \ = \ \bigoplus_j \bigoplus_{b=-j}^j
{\cal P}(2b+1) \oplus {\cal P}(2b) \ \ .$$ Similarly, we see that $${\cal A}_R/{\cal A}'_R \ = \ \bigoplus_j \bigoplus_{b=-j}^j
{\cal P}(2b) \oplus {\cal P}(2b-1)\ \ .$$ Since all representations are projective we conclude that $${\cal A}_R \ = \ \bigoplus_j \bigoplus_{b=-j}^j
{\cal P}(2b+1) \oplus 2 \cdot {\cal P}(2b) \oplus {\cal
P}(2b-1)\ \ .$$ This concludes the proof of our Lemma.
\[2\][\#2]{}
[10]{}
D. Bernard, [*[(Perturbed)]{} conformal field theory applied to [2D]{} disordered systems: [An]{} introduction*]{}, [[hep-th/9509137]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9509137). M. J. Bhaseen, J. S. Caux, I. I. Kogan and A. M. Tsvelik, [*Disordered dirac fermions: the marriage of three different approaches*]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [**B618**]{} (2001) 465–499 \[[[ cond-mat/0012240]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0012240)\]. Z. Maassarani and D. Serban, [*Non-unitary conformal field theory and logarithmic operators for disordered systems*]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [**B489**]{} (1997) 603–625 \[[[ hep-th/9605062]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9605062)\]. A. W. W. Ludwig, [*A free field representation of the [$osp(2|2)$]{} current algebra at level [$k=-2$]{}, and [Dirac]{} fermions in a random [$SU(2)$]{} gauge potential*]{}, [[ cond-mat/0012189]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0012189). P. Bowcock, M. Hayes and A. Taormina, [*Characters of admissible representations of the affine superalgebra [$sl(2|1)$]{}*]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [**B510**]{} (1998) 739–764 \[[[ hep-th/9705234]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9705234)\]. L. Rozansky and H. Saleur, [*Quantum field theory for the multivariable [Alexander-Conway]{} polynomial*]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [**B376**]{} (1992) 461–509. V. Schomerus and H. Saleur, [*The [$GL(1|1)$]{} [WZW]{} model: [From]{} supergeometry to logarithmic [CFT]{}*]{}, [[hep-th/0510032]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0510032). G. Gotz, T. Quella and V. Schomerus, [*The [WZNW]{} model on [PSU]{}(1,1$|$2)*]{}, [[hep-th/0610070]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610070). F. H. L. Essler, H. Frahm and H. Saleur, [*Continuum limit of the integrable [$sl(2|1)$]{} [$3-\bar{3}$]{} superspin chain*]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [**B712**]{} (2005) 513–572 \[[[ cond-mat/0501197]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0501197)\].
L. Frappat, P. Sorba and A. Sciarrino, [Dictionary on [Lie]{} algebras and superalgebras]{}. Academic Press Inc., San Diego, CA, 2000. Extended and corrected version of the E-print \[hep-th/9607161\]. G. [Götz]{}, T. Quella and V. Schomerus, [*Representation theory of [$sl(2|1)$]{}*]{}, [[ hep-th/0504234]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0504234). V. G. Kac, [*Lie superalgebras*]{}, [Adv. Math.]{} [**26**]{} (1977) 8–96. A. [Hüffmann]{}, [*On representations of supercoalgebras*]{}, [J. Phys.]{} [**A27**]{} (1994) 6421–6432 \[[[ hep-th/9403100]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9403100)\]. P. Bowcock and A. Taormina, [*Representation theory of the affine lie superalgebra [$sl(2|1,C)$]{} at fractional level*]{}, [Commun. Math. Phys.]{} [**185**]{} (1997) 467–493 \[[[ hep-th/9605220]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9605220)\].
M. Hayes and A. Taormina, [*Admissible [$sl(2|1,C)(k)$]{} characters and parafermions*]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [**B529**]{} (1998) 588–610 \[[[hep-th/9803022]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9803022)\]. A. M. Semikhatov and A. Taormina, [*Twists and singular vectors in [$\widehat{sl}(2|1)$]{} representations*]{}, [Theor. Math. Phys.]{} [**128**]{} (2001) 1236–1251 \[[[ hep-th/0311166]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0311166)\]. A. M. Semikhatov, A. Taormina and I. Y. Tipunin, [*Higher level [Appell]{} functions, modular transformations, and characters*]{}, [Comm. Math. Phys.]{} [**255**]{} (2005) 469–512 \[[[ math.qa/0311314]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/math.qa/0311314)\]. L. Rozansky and H. Saleur, [*[S]{} and [T]{} matrices for the [$U(1|1)$]{} [WZW]{} model: [Application]{} to surgery and three manifolds invariants based on the [Alexander-Conway]{} polynomial*]{}, [Nucl. Phys.]{} [**B389**]{} (1993) 365–423 \[[[hep-th/9203069]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/9203069)\].
L. J. Mordell, Acta Math. 61 (1933) 323.
T. Apostol, [Modular Functions and Dirichlet Series in Number Theory]{}, vol. 41. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York, 1997.
M. Bocquet, D. Serban and M. R. Zirnbauer, [*Disordered 2d quasiparticles in class d: Dirac fermions with random mass, and dirty superconductors*]{}, [ Nuclear Physics B]{} [**578**]{} (2000) 628.
F. Lesage, P. Mathieu, J. Rasmussen and H. Saleur, Nucl. Phys. B686 (2004) 313.
V. Gurarie and A. W. W. Ludwig, [*Conformal field theory at central charge [$c=0$]{} and two-dimensional critical systems with quenched disorder*]{}, [[hep-th/0409105]{}](http://arXiv.org/abs/hep-th/0409105).
[^1]: Our conventions are such that the sub SU(2) algebra has level $k$. In part of the literature, the level is defined as $-2\times \hbox{ ours}$, so the free system in (\[ising\]) has $k=1$ there.
[^2]: To be more precise, we shall consider the universal cover of $\SL21$ in which the abelian, time-like circle is replaced by the real line. We shall comment on this in much more detail in section 4.
[^3]: Consistency in this paragraph refers to the existence of genus zero correlators obeying the usual factorization constraints. The construction and behavior of torus amplitudes is not addressed.
[^4]: We thank F. Essler for kindly exploring this question numerically.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present the first Open Gravitational-wave Catalog (1-OGC), obtained by using the public data from Advanced LIGO’s first observing run to search for compact-object binary mergers. Our analysis is based on new methods that improve the separation between signals and noise in matched-filter searches for gravitational waves from the merger of compact objects. The three most significant signals in our catalog correspond to the binary black hole mergers GW150914, GW151226, and LVT151012. We assume a common population of binary black holes for these three signals by defining a region of parameter space that is consistent with these events. Under this assumption, we find that LVT151012 has a 97.6% probability of being astrophysical in origin. No other significant binary black hole candidates are found, nor did we observe any significant binary neutron star or neutron star–black hole candidates. We make available our complete catalog of events, including the sub-threshold population of candidates.'
author:
- 'Alexander H. Nitz'
- Collin Capano
- 'Alex B. Nielsen'
- Steven Reyes
- Rebecca White
- 'Duncan A. Brown'
- Badri Krishnan
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: '1-OGC: The first open gravitational-wave catalog of binary mergers from analysis of public Advanced LIGO data'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
The Advanced LIGO gravitational wave observatories [@Martynov:2016fzi] performed their first observing run (O1) from September 12, 2015 to January 19, 2016. This provided a total of 51.5 days of coincident observations from the two detectors located in Hanford, WA and Livingston, LA. The binary black hole mergers observed in this observing run have been reported by the LIGO and Virgo Collaborations (LVC) in [@Abbott:2016blz; @Abbott:2016nmj; @TheLIGOScientific:2016pea]. These binary black hole detections have been independently studied by [@Green:2017voq; @Roulet:2018jbe; @Antelis:2018smo].
Since the publication of the results by [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea; @Abbott:2016ymx], improvements to the data-analysis methods used [@TheLIGOScientific:2016qqj] have been implemented [@Nitz:2017svb; @Nitz:2017lco; @DalCanton:2017ala]. Using these improvements, we re-analyze the O1 data and provide—for the first time—a full catalog of candidate events from a matched filter search for compact binary coalescences using the O1 data, which we call 1-OGC. This catalog provides estimates of the significance of previously known events and a ranked list of sub-threshold candidates. Although not significant by themselves, these sub-threshold candidates can be correlated with archival data or transient events found by other astronomical observatories to provide constraints on the population of compact-object mergers [@Ashton:2017ykh; @Burns:2018pcl].
Our catalog is based entirely on public, open data and software. We use the LIGO data available from the Gravitational Wave Open Science Center [@Vallisneri:2014vxa], and analyze the data using the open source PyCBC toolkit [@Usman:2015kfa; @Canton:2014ena; @pycbc-github].This toolkit was also used by one of the two analyses described in [@TheLIGOScientific:2016qqj]. The lowest mass sources targeted in our search are neutron star binaries with total mass $m_1 + m_2 = 2\, M_\odot$. The search space extends to binary black hole systems that produce gravitational waveforms longer than $0.15$ s from $20$ Hz. This corresponds to a total mass up to $500 M_{\odot}$ for sources with high mass ratios and spins where the component aligned with the orbital angular momentum is positive and large. For binaries with negligible spin, this corresponds to total mass $\lesssim 200 M_{\odot}$. The search space also includes neutron star–black hole binaries. After applying cuts for data quality [@TheLIGOScientific:2016zmo; @TheLIGOScientific:2017lwt], a total of 48.1 days of coincident data are searched for signals.
The three most significant signals in the catalog correspond to GW150914 [@Abbott:2016blz], LVT151012 [@Abbott:2016blz; @TheLIGOScientific:2016pea], and GW151226 [@Abbott:2016nmj], respectively. No other astrophysically significant signals are observed. In the analysis of [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea], LVT151012 was the third-most significant event, but it was not sufficiently significant to be labeled as an unambiguous detection. With the improved methods employed here, the false alarm rate of this candidate improves by an order of magnitude and it should be considered a true astrophysical event. The analyses of [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea; @Abbott:2016ymx] restricted the astrophysical search space to binaries with a total mass less that $100\,M_\odot$. Our analysis extends this target space to higher mass signals. No additional signals are detected in this region of parameter space, consistent with the results of [@Abbott:2017iws].
A second observing run (O2) of the Advanced LIGO detectors took place from November 30, 2016 to August 25, 2017 [@Aasi:2013wya]. The Virgo gravitational wave detector also collected data for part of this period, starting from August 1, 2017. The detections reported in this second observing run thus far include three additional binary black hole coalescence events [@Abbott:2017vtc; @Abbott:2017gyy; @Abbott:2017oio], and a binary neutron star merger [@TheLIGOScientific:2017qsa]. However, the full O2 data set has not yet been released. The catalog presented here is therefore restricted to the first observing run, O1.
Our paper is organized as follows: In Sec. \[sec:search\] and Sec. \[sec:tdr\], we summarize our analysis methods, including the parameter space searched, the detection statistic used for ranking candidate events, and our method for calculating the statistical significance of events. The search results are summarized in Sec. \[sec:results\]. Our full catalog and released data are described in Sec. \[sec:datarelease\] and are available online as supplementary materials ([`www.github.com/gwastro/1-ogc`]{}). In this paper, we focus on the detection of compact objects. Since no new astrophysical events have been observed, we do not consider measurement of the signals’ parameters and refer to [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea; @Biwer:2018osg] for discussion of the detected events’ source-frame properties. Consequently, we quote binary mass parameters in the detector frame in this work.
Search Methodology {#sec:search}
==================
To search for gravitational waves from compact-object mergers, we use matched filtering [@Allen:2005fk] implemented in the open-source PyCBC library [@Usman:2015kfa; @Canton:2014ena; @pycbc-github]. Our methods improve on the analyses of [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea; @Abbott:2016ymx; @TheLIGOScientific:2016qqj] by imposing a phase, amplitude and time delay consistency on candidate signals, an improved background model, and a larger search parameter space [@Nitz:2017svb; @Nitz:2017lco; @DalCanton:2017ala].
![The component masses and spins of the templates used to search for compact binary mergers. Due to the exclusion of short duration templates, there is a dependency on the total mass searched and its effective spin. For binary black holes with negligible spin, this implies that this study only probes sources with total mass less than $200\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$. Visible artifacts due to the procedure for constructing the template bank do not impact performance. Templates which we conservatively consider to produce binary black hole (BBH) candidates consistent with known observations are shown in red as discussed in Sec. \[sec:tdr\]. The upper mass boundary of the analysis performed by the LVC in [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea] is shown as a black dotted line.[]{data-label="fig:bank"}](bank.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Target Search Space
-------------------
A discrete bank of gravitational-wave template waveforms [@Owen:1995tm; @Owen:1998dk; @Brown:2012qf] is used to target binary neutron star, neutron star–black hole, and binary black hole mergers with total mass from $2-500 M_{\odot}$ [@DalCanton:2017ala]. The templates are parameterized by their component masses $m_{1,2}$ and their dimensionless spins $\vec{\chi}_{1,2} = c \vec{S}_{1,2}/G m_{1,2}^2$, where $\vec{S}_{1,2}$ are the spin vectors of each compact object. For compact objects with component masses greater than $2 M_{\odot}$, the template bank covers a wide range of spins, with $\chi_{(1,2)z} \in [\pm 0.998]$, where $\chi_{(1,2)z}$ are the components aligned with the orbital angular momentum. For compact objects with masses less than $2 M_{\odot}$, the spin is restricted to $\chi_{(1,2)z} \in [\pm 0.05]$ [@Brown:2012qf]. Templates that correspond to sources with a signal duration less than 0.15 seconds (starting from $20\,$Hz) are excluded due to the difficulty in separating candidates arising from these templates from populations of instrumental glitches [@DalCanton:2017ala]. Consequently, the total mass boundary of the search depends strongly on the “effective spin" [@Racine:2008qv; @Ajith:2009bn], $${\ensuremath{\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}}}= \frac{\chi_{1z} m_1 + \chi_{2z} m_2}{m_1+m_2}.$$ This dependence is visible in the distribution of the approximately $400,000$ templates required to cover the space shown in Fig. \[fig:bank\]. A dotted line in Fig. \[fig:bank\] denotes the upper boundary of the O1 analysis performed in [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea]. For binaries with total mass greater than $4\,M_\odot$, we use the spinning effective-one-body model (SEOBNRv4) [@Taracchini:2013; @Bohe:2016gbl] as template gravitational waveforms. For sources with total masses less than $4M_{\odot}$ we use TaylorF2 post-Newtonian waveforms with phasing accurate to 3.5 post-Newtonian order and the dominant amplitude evolution [@Sathyaprakash:1991mt; @Droz:1999qx; @Blanchet:2002av; @Faye:2012we]. Our choice of template bank discretization causes less than a $10\%$ loss in detection rate for any source within the boundaries of the template bank. Our search assumes that the source can be adequately described by only the dominant gravitational-wave mode, two component masses, non-precessing spins, and negligible eccentricity.
Creation and Ranking of Candidate Events
----------------------------------------
For each template and each detector, we calculate the matched filter signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) as a function of time $\rho(t)$ [@Allen:2005fk]. The template bank is divided into 15 equal sized sub-banks based on the chirp mass $\mathcal{M} = (m_1m_2)^{3/5} / (m_1+m_2)^{1/5}$ of each template. A single-detector “trigger" is a peak in the SNR time series that is greater than 4 and larger than any other peaks within 1s. For each sub-bank, the loudest 100 triggers (by $\rho$) are recorded in $\sim1$s fixed time windows. This method has been shown to improve search sensitivity, while making the rate of single-detector triggers manageable [@Nitz:2018rgo]. We have found this choice of sub-banks to be an effective method to ensure the analysis can concurrently record triggers from separate regions of parameter space that respond differently to instrumental noise. Other choices are possible.
We use the data-quality segments provided by the Gravitational-Wave Open Science Center to exclude triggers that occur in times when there are problems with the detectors’ data quality [@TheLIGOScientific:2016zmo; @TheLIGOScientific:2017lwt]. In addition, very loud transient glitches, corresponding to $>100\sigma$ deviations from Gaussian noise, are excised from the strain data according to the procedure of [@Usman:2015kfa] before calculation of the SNR time series. However, there remain many types of transient non-Gaussian noise in the LIGO data which produce triggers with large values of SNR [@Nuttall:2015dqa; @TheLIGOScientific:2016zmo; @TheLIGOScientific:2017lwt].
For every trigger with $\rho > 5.5$ we calculate the signal consistency test, $\chi^2_r$, introduced in [@Allen:2004gu]. The statistic $\chi^2_r$ divides the matched filter into frequency bands and checks that the contribution from each band is consistent with the expected signal. The statistic takes values close to unity when the data contains either Gaussian noise or the expected signal and larger values for many types of transient glitches. We impose the SNR limit as the $\chi^2_r$ test is generally non-informative when $\rho < 5.5$. The $\chi^2_r$ value is used to re-weight the SNR $\rho$ as [@Babak:2012zx] $$\tilde{\rho} = \begin{cases}
\rho & \mathrm{for}\ \chi^2_r \leq 1 \\
\rho\left[ \frac{1}{2} \left(1 + \left(\chi^2_r\right)^3\right)\right]^{-1/6}, &
\mathrm{for}\ \chi^2_r > 1.
\end{cases}$$ For single-detector triggers from templates with total mass greater than 40$M_{\odot}$ we apply an additional test, $\chi^2_{r,sg}$, that determines if the detector output contains power at higher frequencies than the maximum expected frequency content of the gravitational-wave signal [@Nitz:2017lco]. This test is only applied for higher mass systems, since these templates are shorter in duration and more difficult to separate from instrumental noise. For other systems, we set $\chi^2_{r,sg} = 1$. Using this statistic, we apply a further re-weighting as $$\label{eq:sg}
\hat{\rho} = \begin{cases}
\tilde{\rho} & \mathrm{for}\ \chi^2_{r,sg} \leq 4 \\
\tilde{\rho} (\chi^2_{r,sg} / 4)^{-1/2}, &
\mathrm{for}\ \chi^2_{r,sg} > 4.
\end{cases}$$
Candidate events are generated when single-detector triggers occur in both the LIGO Hanford and Livingston data within $12$ ms (the light-travel time between the observatories extended by $2$ ms for signal time-measurement error) and if the triggers are recorded in the same template in each detector [@Usman:2015kfa]. Following the procedure of [@Nitz:2017svb], we model the distribution of single detector triggers from each template as an exponentially decaying function, $\lambda(\hat{\rho}, \vec{\theta}^N)$, where $\vec{\theta}^N$ allows the parameters of the exponential to vary as a function of total mass, symmetric mass ratio $\eta=m_1m_2/M^2$, and ${\ensuremath{\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}}}$. This fitted model allows us to rescale $\hat{\rho}$ to better equalize the rate of triggers from each template.
We improve upon the ranking of candidates in [@Abbott:2016ymx; @TheLIGOScientific:2016pea] by also taking into account $p^S(\vec{\theta}^S)$, which is the expected distribution of SNR $\rho_H$ and $\rho_L$, phase difference $\phi_{c, H} - \phi_{c, L}$, and arrival time delay $t_{c,H} - t_{c,L}$ between the two LIGO instruments for an astrophysical population [@Nitz:2017svb]. No assumption is made about the distribution of intrinsic source parameters in this term. The primary benefit arises from assuming the population of sources is isotropically distributed in orientation and sky location. The final ranking statistic [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} is then calculated as $$\label{eq:genstat}
{\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}\propto \left[ \log p^S(\vec{\theta}^S) - \log \left(\lambda_H(\hat{\rho}_{H},\vec{\theta}^N) \lambda_L(\hat{\rho}_{L}, \vec{\theta}^N)\right)
\right] + \mathrm{const.}$$ This expression is normalized so that [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} approximates the standard network SNR $\rho_c = (\rho_L^2 + \rho_H^2)^{1/2}$ for candidates from regions of parameter space that are not affected by elevated rates of instrumental noise. Candidates from regions affected by elevated rates of noise triggers are down-weighted and assigned a smaller statistic value by this method. As multiple candidates, which arise from different template waveforms, may occur in response to the same signal, we select only the highest ranked candidate within ten seconds. A simpler version of this statistic where the single-detector exponential noise model is only a function of the template duration has also been employed in the analysis of data from LIGO’s second observing run [@GW170104; @GW170814; @Abbott:2017gyy].
Statistical Significance
------------------------
The statistical significance of candidate events is estimated by measuring empirically the rate of false alarms (FAR). To measure the noise background rate, we generate additional analyses by time shifting the data from one instrument with respect to the other by multiples of 100 ms. Since this time shift is greater than the maximum astrophysical time of flight between observatories, any candidates produced in these analyses are false alarms. This time shift is much greater than the auto-correlation length of our template waveforms of $\mathcal{O}$(1ms). The time-slid analyses are produced following the same procedure as the search; This is a key requirement for our analysis to produce valid statistical results [@TheLIGOScientific:2016qqj]. The equivalent of more than 50,000 years of observing time can be generated from 5 days of data.
To provide an unbiased measure of the rate of false alarms at least as significant as a potential candidate, the single-detector triggers that compose the candidate event should be included in the background estimation [@2017PhRvD..96h2002C]. However, when a real signal with a large [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} is present in the data, the rate of false alarms for candidate events with smaller [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} tends to be overestimated. This is due to the fact that the loud single-detector triggers from the real event in one detector form coincidences with noise fluctuations in the other detector, producing loud coincident background events. As in [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea], an unbiased rate of false alarms can be achieved by a hierarchical procedure whereby a candidate with large [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} is removed from the estimation of background for candidates with smaller [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{}; we use this procedure here.
Evaluating Candidates based on the Astrophysical Population {#sec:tdr}
===========================================================
We find two candidate events with FAR $< 1$ per $50\,000$ years, corresponding to GW150914 and GW151226. Although FAR does not give the probability that an event is an astrophysical signal, we can be confident that these events were not caused by chance coincidence between the detectors. It is possible that these events were caused by a correlated source between the detectors. However, detailed followup studies of GW150914 and GW151226 found no correlated noise sources between the detectors that could be mistaken for a gravitational wave [@TheLIGOScientific:2016zmo; @Abbott:2016nmj].
We conclude that GW150914 and GW151226 are astrophysical in origin and use them to constrain the rate of real signals. A “true discovery rate" ([$\mathrm{TDR}$]{}) can be constructed for less significant events. The [$\mathrm{TDR}$]{} is defined as: $${\ensuremath{\mathrm{TDR}}}({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}) = \frac{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}})}{{\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}) + {\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}})},$$ where ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}})$ is the rate that signals of astrophysical origin are observed with a ranking statistic $\geq {\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}$ (the “true alarm rate") and ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{F}}}({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}})$ is the false alarm rate.
The true discovery rate is the complement of the false discovery rate [@Benjamini:1995ram], and can be used to estimate the fraction of real signals in a population. For example, if ${\ensuremath{\mathrm{TDR}}}({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}) = 0.9$, it means that $90\%$ of events with a ranking statistic $\geq {\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}$ are expected to be real signals. The [$\mathrm{TDR}$]{} is also independent of the observation time.
Note that [$\mathrm{TDR}$]{} is not the probability that a particular event is a signal of astrophysical origin [$P_{\mathrm{astro}}$]{}. For that, one needs to model the distribution of signals and noise at a given [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{}. In this work, we use a simple model of these distributions as functions of the ranking statistic [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{}. Models incorporating additional parameters are also possible, but we do not consider them here. As a function of [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{}, [$P_{\mathrm{astro}}$]{} can be computed as $${\ensuremath{P_{\mathrm{astro}}}}({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}) = \frac{\Lambda_S P_S({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}})}{\Lambda_S P_S({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}) + \Lambda_N P_N({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}})},$$ where $P_S({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}})$ and $P_N({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}})$ are the probabilities of an event having ranking statistic [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} given the signal and noise hypotheses respectively [@2009MNRAS.396..165G; @Farr:2015; @Abbott:2016nhf]. $\Lambda_S$ and $\Lambda_N$ are the rates of signal and noise events.
Since no binary neutron star or neutron star–black hole candidates are obtained from a search of the O1 data, here we restrict the calculation of both the [$\mathrm{TDR}$]{} and [$P_{\mathrm{astro}}$]{} to binary black hole (BBH) observations. We include signals with total mass $M \geq 10\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$, mass ratio $m_1/m_2 < 5$ (where $m_1 \geq m_2$), and dimensionless spins $|\chi_{(1,2)z}| <
0.5$. These choices are based on a combination of what has been observed [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea; @GW170104; @GW170814; @Abbott:2017gyy] and what is expected from models of isolated binary-star evolution (“field" binaries). The mass distribution of field binaries is dependent on a number of unknown parameters, such as the metallicity of the environment [@Belczynski:2014iua]. Generally, it is expected that most binaries are close to equal mass, as typically less than 1 in $\mathcal{O}(10^{3})$ simulated binaries have mass ratio $> 5$ in models of field-binary evolution [@Dominik:2014yma]. The majority of observations of nearby X-ray binaries have yielded black holes with masses greater than $5\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$, which has led to speculation of a “mass gap" between 3–5$\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$ [@Ozel:2010su; @Farr:2010tu; @Kreidberg:2012ud]. The signals detected so far by LIGO and Virgo are consistent with this: the smaller component mass in the lowest-mass system known to date, GW170608, has an estimated mass of $7^{+2}_{-2}\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$ [@Abbott:2017gyy].
The spin distribution of black holes is not well constrained [@Reynolds:2013qqa]. The component spins of the most significant binary black holes detected by LIGO and Virgo are only weakly constrained [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea]. The best measured quantity related to spin is [$\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{}. All of the BBH gravitational-wave signals detected so far have $|{\ensuremath{\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}}}| \lesssim 0.2$. A binary with low [$\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} may still have component masses with large spin magnitudes, if the spins are anti-parallel or are purely in the plane of the binary. However, it seems unlikely that this would be the case for all of the detections made so far. Hence we include signals that have component spins with $|\chi_{(1,2)z}| < 0.5$. This is consistent with recent population synthesis models, which indicate that black holes must have low natal spin in order to obtain a distribution of [$\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}$]{} that satisfies gravitational-wave observations [@Belczynski:2017gds; @Wysocki:2017isg].
To estimate the rate and distribution of false alarms that arise only from the region consistent with this selected population of binary black hole mergers, we must determine which templates are sensitive to these sources. It is necessary to analyze a simulated set of signals since the template associated with a particular event is not guaranteed to share the true source parameters. We find that the region of the template bank defined by $M > 8.5\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$, $m_{1,2} > 2.7\,{\ensuremath{\mathrm{M}_{\odot}}}$, and ${\ensuremath{\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}}}< 0.9$ is effective at recovering this population of sources. This region is shown in Fig. \[fig:bank\] in red.
To estimate the true rate [$\mathcal{T}$]{}, we use the two significant events observed during O1, GW150914 and GW151226. We do not use any of the O2 events because the full data is not yet available for analysis, making it difficult to obtain a consistent rate estimate. The total analysis time in O1 was $\sim48$ days, giving ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}\approx 15 \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. Given the uncertainty in this estimate based on only two events, we take the rate of observations as a Poisson process, and choose the lower 95% bound on [$\mathcal{T}$]{}. This yields a ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{T}}}\approx 2.7 \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. For the calculation of the [$\mathrm{TDR}$]{} we use this value for all events, independent of their ranking statistic. This means we likely underestimate the [$\mathrm{TDR}$]{} for events quieter than GW151226 and GW150914, but this is a conservative bias.
To estimate the probability that a given event is astrophysical in origin [$P_{\mathrm{astro}}$]{}, we model the distribution of signals and noise as a function of [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{}. It is reasonable to approximate the signal probability distribution $P_S({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}})$ as $\propto {\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}^{-4}$ [@Schutz:2011tw; @Chen:2014yla]. We normalize the signal number density $\Lambda_S P_S({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}})$ so that the number of signals with ${\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}$ greater than or equal to some threshold ${\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}^{\dagger}$ is $\approx 2.7 \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$. We make the conservative choice to place ${\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}^{\dagger}$ at the value of the next largest [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} value after GW150914 and GW151226.
To approximate the noise number density $\Lambda_N P_N({\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}})$, we make a histogram of the [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} values of false alarms arising from our selected BBH region. We use only the false alarms which are uncorrelated with possible candidate events to ensure an unbiased estimate of the mean false alarm rate [@2017PhRvD..96h2002C]. We fit an exponential decay to this histogram from $8<{\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}<9.2$. For [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} much less than $8$, $\Lambda_N P_N$ is not well modeled by an exponential due to the effects of applying a threshold to single-detector triggers. We note, however, there is only a $ 50 \%$ chance that an event is astrophysical at [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} $\sim 8.6$, and this chance quickly becomes negligible with decreasing [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{}. The result of this procedure is shown in Fig. \[fig:pastro\]. We caution that [$P_{\mathrm{astro}}$]{} for candidates with [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} $>9.2$ will be sensitive to the form of the model chosen since it is not constrained by empirically measured false alarms.
While we do not assess the astrophysical probabilities of sources outside our selected BBH region, we are not precluding that such sources exist. Our [$P_{\mathrm{astro}}$]{} is compatible with any model of the true BBH source distribution that allows for a signal rate to be at least as high as our estimate within the chosen region. This holds irrespective of whatever other kinds of sources may also be permitted.
![The scaled probability distributions of assumed signals and noise as a function of the ranking statistic [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} for the analysis containing LVT151012. Blue shows the normalized histogram of empirically measured false alarms that are within our selected BBH region of the template bank, $P_N$. Red is the exponential decay model that has been fitted to this set of false alarms, $P_S \Lambda_S / \Lambda_N$, normalized so that the counts can be directly compared to the noise distribution](pastro.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
. Orange shows the signal model based on our conservative rate of detections. The value of [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} for LVT151012 is shown as a dotted green vertical line. The ratio of signal to noise at this value of [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} strongly favors the signal model. \[fig:pastro\]
![Candidate events with a ranking statistic ${\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}>7.5$ from the full search for compact binary mergers in O1 data. The colorbar is capped at 9. The three BBH mergers are clearly visible in the plots, while the remaining events are largely distributed according to the density of the template bank.[]{data-label="fig:bankcandidates"}](candidates.pdf){width="\columnwidth"}
Designation Julian Date $FAR^{-1} (yr)$ [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} $\rho_H$ $\rho_L$ $m_1$ $m_2$ ${\ensuremath{\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}}}{}$
-------------------- ---------------- ----------------- ---------------------- ---------- ---------- -------- ------- ----------------------------------------
150914+09:50:45UTC 2457279.910665 $>$66000 18.45 19.67 13.38 44.21 32.16 0.09
151226+03:38:53UTC 2457382.652426 $>$59000 11.62 10.73 7.43 14.83 8.50 0.24
151012+09:54:43UTC 2457307.913420 24 9.06 6.96 6.71 30.75 12.89 -0.05
151019+00:23:16UTC 2457314.516585 0.060 8.39 6.81 5.47 14.93 1.27 0.11
150928+10:49:00UTC 2457293.951122 0.042 8.37 6.05 6.34 2.53 1.02 -0.70
151218+18:30:58UTC 2457375.271929 0.029 8.24 7.11 5.38 31.29 2.35 -0.00
160103+05:48:36UTC 2457390.742504 0.026 8.22 6.01 6.60 9.75 7.29 0.49
151202+01:18:13UTC 2457358.554740 0.025 8.23 6.54 5.73 40.42 1.77 -0.26
160104+03:51:51UTC 2457391.661424 0.021 8.19 5.80 6.39 6.76 1.10 -0.51
151213+00:12:20UTC 2457369.508985 0.019 8.22 5.70 7.24 11.12 3.30 -0.79
150923+07:10:59UTC 2457288.799711 0.014 8.20 6.78 5.84 2.14 1.08 0.65
151029+13:34:39UTC 2457325.066149 0.014 8.21 6.83 5.23 2.19 1.07 -0.27
151206+14:19:29UTC 2457363.097291 0.013 8.17 5.80 6.37 100.60 1.64 0.98
151202+15:32:09UTC 2457359.147751 0.012 8.14 5.93 6.41 6.33 1.18 -0.59
151012+06:30:45UTC 2457307.771774 0.011 8.19 6.74 5.70 3.16 1.73 -0.15
151116+22:41:48UTC 2457343.446120 0.010 8.14 5.79 6.64 2.00 1.04 -0.45
151121+03:34:09UTC 2457347.649138 0.010 8.12 6.48 5.78 7.43 1.00 -0.86
150922+05:41:08UTC 2457287.737317 0.010 8.16 6.05 6.34 2.78 1.02 0.17
151008+14:09:17UTC 2457304.090202 0.008 8.16 5.84 6.10 46.38 1.19 0.38
151127+02:00:30UTC 2457353.584101 0.008 8.10 6.28 5.44 39.12 2.01 0.99
Results {#sec:results}
=======
The results presented here are generated using the data from the first observing run of Advanced LIGO which ran from September 12, 2015 to January 19, 2016. We divide the 16 kHz LIGO open data into 9 consecutive periods of time and search each time period independently so that each analysis contains roughly five days of observing time. This time interval is set by the disk and memory requirements of the search pipeline, but it is sufficient to estimate the FAR of candidate events to better than 1 in 50,000 years. It is possible to combine these time intervals during the analysis to improve this limit, but we have not done so here. Our analysis is restricted to times marked as observable by the metadata provided by the Gravitational-Wave Open Science Center. After accounting for times which are marked as not analyzable, there remain $\sim48.1$ days of data when both the Hanford and Livingston LIGO instruments were operating.
The top candidate events by FAR from the full search are given in Table \[table:complete\]. There are three candidates which are statistically significant. These are the binary black hole mergers GW150914, LVT151012, and GW151226, which were previously reported in [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea; @Abbott:2016blz; @Abbott:2016nmj]. The false alarm rates for GW150914 and GW151226 of 1 per 66,000 and 1 per 59,000 years, respectively, are limits based on the amount of background time available in their respective analysis. These limits are less stringent than those reported in [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea] as we have created less background time. There are no other individually convincing candidates. Fig. \[fig:bankcandidates\] shows candidate events with ${\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}> 7.5$. The three binary black hole mergers stand out from the other candidate events and are clustered in a portion of the parameter space that is analyzed with relatively few template waveforms.
Designation Julian Date ${\ensuremath{P_{\mathrm{astro}}}}{}$ TDR $FAR^{-1} (yr)$ [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} $\rho_H$ $\rho_L$ $m_1$ $m_2$ ${\ensuremath{\chi_{\mathrm{eff}}}}{}$
-------------------- ---------------- --------------------------------------- ------- ----------------- ---------------------- ---------- ---------- ------- ------- ----------------------------------------
150914+09:50:45UTC 2457279.910665 - - $>$66000 18.45 19.67 13.38 44.21 32.16 0.09
151226+03:38:53UTC 2457382.652426 - - $>$59000 11.62 10.73 7.43 14.83 8.50 0.24
151012+09:54:43UTC 2457307.913420 0.976 0.999 446 9.06 6.96 6.71 30.75 12.89 -0.05
160103+05:48:36UTC 2457390.742504 0.061 0.517 0.396 8.22 6.01 6.60 9.75 7.29 0.49
151213+00:12:20UTC 2457369.508985 0.047 0.455 0.309 8.22 5.70 7.24 11.12 3.30 -0.79
151216+18:49:30UTC 2457373.284799 0.017 0.223 0.106 8.09 6.10 6.01 13.92 5.03 -0.41
151222+05:28:26UTC 2457378.728506 0.012 0.169 0.075 8.03 5.67 6.46 6.86 3.26 -0.74
151217+03:47:49UTC 2457373.658627 0.006 0.088 0.036 7.96 6.69 5.57 40.02 14.77 0.84
151009+05:06:12UTC 2457304.713060 0.005 0.087 0.035 7.99 5.66 5.90 25.55 2.73 -0.05
151220+07:45:36UTC 2457376.823761 0.003 0.053 0.021 7.87 6.55 5.39 17.50 6.17 0.82
151104+04:12:55UTC 2457330.676062 0.003 0.053 0.021 7.91 5.94 6.33 19.25 7.22 0.71
151120+16:20:06UTC 2457347.181049 0.003 0.047 0.018 7.86 6.11 5.44 5.49 3.10 0.79
151216+09:24:16UTC 2457372.892271 0.003 0.045 0.017 7.86 5.76 5.66 58.56 20.84 0.66
151128+14:37:02UTC 2457355.109478 0.003 0.040 0.016 7.83 6.79 5.02 9.25 6.22 -0.87
160109+08:08:42UTC 2457396.839798 0.003 0.035 0.014 7.82 5.24 6.23 24.29 3.45 -0.98
160111+22:49:34UTC 2457399.451507 0.003 0.035 0.013 7.82 5.10 6.55 5.75 3.43 0.23
151124+11:25:19UTC 2457350.976339 0.002 0.033 0.013 7.81 5.65 6.27 98.89 3.89 0.45
150912+15:39:02UTC 2457278.152523 0.002 0.032 0.012 7.84 6.23 5.23 9.86 5.33 -0.01
151006+06:06:50UTC 2457301.755168 0.002 0.031 0.012 7.89 6.77 5.47 11.59 5.31 -0.05
151015+01:40:52UTC 2457310.570466 0.002 0.029 0.011 7.85 5.37 5.92 87.87 12.52 0.75
Binary Black Hole Candidates
----------------------------
Given that there are two binary black hole mergers (GW150914 and GW151226 ) that are well established from their statistical significance, we can estimate the rate of detecting binary black hole mergers by this analysis. Candidate events that are consistent with our selected binary black hole population are listed in Table \[table:bbh\]. We estimate the false alarm rate of events for just this region of the analysis, and using our estimate of the true rate of detections, calculate the true discovery rate as a function of ranking statistic. The [$\mathrm{TDR}$]{} at the ranking statistic of the fourth most significant candidate is 0.52. This means that only 52% of candidates with [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} at least as large are expected to be of astrophysical origin. For each candidate we estimate its individual probability of being astrophysical in origin, [$P_{\mathrm{astro}}$]{}. The fourth event has only a 6$\%$ chance of being astrophysical. We do not report [$P_{\mathrm{astro}}$]{} and [$\mathrm{TDR}$]{} values for the top two events since these events are assumed to be signals in the construction of these statistics.
Revisiting LVT151012
--------------------
LVT151012 was first announced in [@TheLIGOScientific:2016qqj], with a FAR of 1 per 2.3 years. Our improved methods yield a false alarm rate for LVT151012 of 1 per 24 years. Restricting attention to our selected BBH region, which is consistent with the other observed binary black hole mergers, gives a FAR for LVT151012 in this region alone of 1 per 446 years. We combine this FAR with our conservative estimate of the rate of detections to estimate that 99.92% of binary black hole merger candidates at least as significant as LVT151012 are astrophysical in origin. We also estimate the probability that specifically LVT151012 is astrophysical in origin to be 97.59$\%$.
These measures both depend on our selected region of binary black hole sources and our estimate of the rate of true detections, but we believe our choices for both of these to be conservative. The FAR of 1 per 446 years is not a statistical statement about the search as a whole and is used only in comparison against the rate of real signals within this same region. Selecting different boundaries for this region would yield a different FAR. However, assuming that the false alarm rate and true alarm rate are both approximately uniform in this region, then [$P_{\mathrm{astro}}$]{} and [$\mathrm{TDR}$]{} will not change.
As data from future observing runs becomes available, it will be possible to more precisely estimate this rate in a consistent way, and improve our estimate of this event’s significance. We have modeled our signal distribution and population of false alarms as being characterized by the ranking statistic [$\tilde{\rho}_c$]{} alone. An improved model could take into account the variation over the parameter space and in time. Fig. \[fig:pastro\] shows the probability distribution of our noise and signal models for the analysis which contains LVT151012. Compared to the [$P_{\mathrm{astro}}$]{} reported in [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea] of 87%, our analysis has improved the ranking of candidate events, the boundaries of our selected BBH distribution differ from what was used there, and we use a more conservative estimate of the signal rate. Given a [$P_{\mathrm{astro}}$]{} value of 97.6$\%$ we conclude that LVT151012 is astrophysical in origin. For comparison, if we had chosen the rate of observed mergers to be $\approx 15 \mathrm{yr}^{-1}$, which is the linear extrapolation of two detections in 48 days, we would find that LVT151012 had a $99.6\%$ probability of astrophysical origin.
Data Release {#sec:datarelease}
============
The 1-OGC catalog contains $\sim 150,000$ candidate events. Our supplemental materials online provide the complete combined set of binary neutron star, neutron star–black hole, and binary black hole candidates [@1-OGC]. A separate listing of the candidates from our selected BBH region is also made available. Each candidate is assigned an identifying name constructed from the date and UTC time. The vast majority of these candidates are not astrophysical in origin. To help distinguish between possible sources we provide our ranking statistic ${\ensuremath{\tilde{\rho}_c}}$ along with our estimate of the false alarm rate for each candidate. We also provide information such as the SNR observed by each instrument, the time of arrival, measured phases, and the results of our set of signal consistency tests. The periods of time that were analyzed are also provided. We also provide the PyCBC pipeline configuration files that allow our analysis to be reproduced.
Discussion
==========
We present a full catalog of gravitational-wave events and candidates from a PyCBC-based, templated, matched-filter search of the LIGO O1 open data. Our analysis represents an improvement over that of [@TheLIGOScientific:2016pea; @Abbott:2016ymx] by using improved ranking of candidates by considering phase, amplitude and time delay consistency, an improved background model and a template bank targeting a wider range of sources [@Nitz:2017svb; @Nitz:2017lco; @DalCanton:2017ala]. We independently verify the discovery of GW150914 and GW151226 and report an improved significance of the candidate event LVT151012, which we claim should be viewed as a confident detection. Apart from these three signals, none of the other candidate events are individually significant in our analysis. All of these candidates are listed in our catalog available at [`www.github.com/gwastro/1-ogc`]{}, along with tools for exploring and using it. Complete gravitational-wave event catalogs of this nature will become important tools in multi-messenger astronomy.
A larger data set from the second observing run of LIGO and Virgo already exists. Individual detections have been published, and short periods of data around the detections are available publicly. However, the bulk of this data has not yet been released publicly. It will be possible to create a similar open catalog with the most up-to-date analysis tools when these data are released.
We thank Thomas Dent and Sumit Kumar for useful discussions and comments. We thank Stuart Anderson, Jonah Kannah, and Alan Weinstein for help accessing data from the Gravitational-Wave Open Science Center. We acknowledge the Max Planck Gesellschaft for support and the Atlas cluster computing team at AEI Hannover. Computations were also supported by Syracuse University and NSF award OAC-1541396. DAB acknowledges NSF awards PHY-1707954, OAC-1443047, and OAC-1738962 for support. SR acknowledges NSF award PHY-1707954 and OAC-1443047 for support. RW acknowledges NSF award OAC-1823378 for support. This research has made use of data, software and/or web tools obtained from the Gravitational Wave Open Science Center (https://www.gw-openscience.org), a service of LIGO Laboratory, the LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo Collaboration. LIGO is funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation. Virgo is funded by the French Centre National de Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), the Italian Istituto Nazionale della Fisica Nucleare (INFN) and the Dutch Nikhef, with contributions by Polish and Hungarian institutes.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'This paper is the basis paper for the accepted IJCNN challenge One-Minute Gradual-Emotion Recognition (OMG-Emotion) [^1] by which we hope to foster long-emotion classification using neural models for the benefit of the IJCNN community. The proposed corpus has as novelty the data collection and annotation strategy based on emotion expressions which evolve over time into a specific context. Different from other corpora, we propose a novel multimodal corpus for emotion expression recognition, which uses gradual annotations with a focus on contextual emotion expressions. Our dataset was collected from Youtube videos using a specific search strategy based on restricted keywords and filtering which guaranteed that the data follow a gradual emotion expression transition, i.e. emotion expressions evolve over time in a natural and continuous fashion. We also provide an experimental protocol and a series of unimodal baseline experiments which can be used to evaluate deep and recurrent neural models in a fair and standard manner.'
author:
-
bibliography:
- 'references/citations.bib'
title: ' The OMG-Emotion Behavior Dataset'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Affective systems have been used to categorize emotion expressions for the past two decades. Most of these systems are based on Paul Ekman’s categorization scheme, known as the six universal emotions: “Disgust”, “Fear”, “Happiness”, “Surprise”, “Sadness”, and “Anger” [@Ekman1971]. Although Ekman shows in his studies that these emotional categories are most commonly inferred from facial expressions, the way we express ourselves is more fluid and is, therefore, more difficult to categorize [@Hamann2012]. Humans usually express themselves differently, sometimes even combining one or more characteristics of the so-called universal emotions [@Izard1992]. This is somehow embedded in the dimensional emotion representation, usually described as arousal and valence spaces [@Thompson2011].
Dealing with a set of restricted emotions, or a single instantaneous emotion description, is a serious constraint for most computational applications focused on any kind of human interaction [@Rani2006]. Humans have the capability of adapting their internal emotion representation to a newly perceived emotional expression on the fly and use the representation to obtain a greater understanding of another person’s emotional behavior. This mechanism is described as a developmental learning process and after participating in different interactions, humans can learn how to describe traits of complex emotional behaviors such as sarcasm, trust, and empathy [@Thompson2011].
Recent research trends in artificial intelligence and cognitive systems have approached computational models as a human-like perception categorization task. However, most of the research in the area is still based on instantaneous expression categorization where the task is to classify a single emotion expression using features from different modalities [@Soleymani2017]. This diverges from the developmental aspect of emotional behavior perception and learning, as instantaneous categorization lacks the contextual aspect of the data that comes from the continuous analysis of emotion expressions [@Ochsner2008].
In recent years many corpora on what is known as emotion recognition “in-the-wild" were released. All of these datasets, although very challenging, are focused on instantaneous emotion categorization. This means that a specific label is set for a short-term (usually a couple of seconds) emotion expression. There are corpora which have annotated interactions [@Iemocap2008; @mosi2016; @emoreact2016], they are however limited to restricted and limited-context scenarios, which do not allow the development of naturalistic emotion description models.
Researchers have previously performed studies on emotional behavior categorization and learning but most of them faced the problem of lacking a challenging and real-world-based corpus with long-term emotional relations that were annotated using a rigorous methodology. Thus, this paper proposes a dataset with richly annotated gradual emotional behavior categorization.
Our One-Minute-Gradual Emotion Dataset (OMG-Emotion Dataset) is composed of 567 relatively long emotion videos with an average length of 1 minute, collected from a variety of Youtube channels. The videos were selected automatically based on specific search terms related to the term “monologue”. Using monologue videos allowed for different emotional behaviors to be presented in one context and that changes gradually over time. Videos were separated into clips based on utterances, and each utterance was annotated by at least five independent subjects using the Amazon Mechanical Turk tool. To maintain the contextual information for each video, each annotator watched the clips of a video in sequence and had to annotate each video using an arousal/valence scale and a categorical emotion based on the universal emotions from Ekman.
Each annotator was also given the full contextual information of the video up to that point when annotating the dataset. That means that each annotator could take into consideration not only the vision and audio information but also the context of each video, i.e. what was spoken in the current and previous utterances through the context clips provided by the annotation tool. In this manner, each annotation is based on multimodal information, different from most recent datasets on emotion recognition. This gives our corpus an advantage when used in cross-modal research, especially when analyzing the audio, vision, and language modalities.
We also present baseline emotion recognition results for the dataset. As our annotations are based on multimodal cues, we designed three experiments, one for each individual modality (vision, audio, and text). The baseline uses state-of-the-art neural models, based on deep learning architectures. Our initial results show that the corpus is very challenging and it is difficult for models to recognize emotions using an individual modality, and that there is space for improvement in future work that uses multimodal architectures.
By making our dataset publicly available, we intend to contribute to the neural network community to foster the development of neural models which can take into consideration multimodal contextual information, using techniques based on deep, recurrent and self-organizing networks.
Related Work
============
Dataset Modalities Annotation Domain Samples Annotation Level Annotators Annotation Strategy Scenario
-------------------------------- ------------ -------------------------- --------- ------------------ ---------------- --------------------- ----------
IEMOCAP [@Iemocap2008] A, V, L Dimensional, 9 Emotions 6000 Utterance 5 Contextual Indoor
MOSI [@mosi2016] A, V, L Head gestures, Sentiment 2199 Video Clip 5 per video Instance Wild
EmoReact [@emoreact2016] A, V 17 Emotions 1102 Video Clip 1 per video Instance Wild
GIFGIF+ [@Chenetal2017] V 17 Emotions 25.544 Video Clip 500+ per video Instance Wild
Aff-Challenge [@Zafeiriou2017] A, V Dimensional 400 videos 1 Contextual Wild
EMOTIW [@Dhall2017] A, V 7 Emotions 1809 Videos 3 Instance Wild
OMG-Emotion A, V, L Dimensional, 7 Emotions 2400 Utterance 5 per video Contextual Wild
\[tab:datasetsComparison\]
In recent years, there has been an increased research interest in emotion expression corpora. This increase was mostly caused by advances in deep neural networks, and their applicability to real-world information. The new range of possible application areas also explains the increased popularity for datasets and solutions based on “in-the-wild” information, i.e. data that is extracted from scenarios which are very similar to, or directly from, the real world. Table \[tab:datasetsComparison\] exhibits some of the most recent and popular corpora on emotion expression recognition.
The Interactive Emotional Dyadic Motion Capture (IEMOCAP) [@Iemocap2008] dataset is one of the most used corpora for training emotion recognition systems. It contains 12 hours of audiovisual recordings of dialogue sessions between two actors. Each dialogue session is split into utterances and each utterance is annotated by five different annotators. Annotators evaluated the arousal/valence and categorical emotion (Neutral, Happiness, Sadness, Anger, Surprise, Fear, Disgust, Frustration and Excitement) of each utterance. The annotators were instructed to watch and annotate the entire dialogue in sequence, in order to keep the contextual information in their annotations. This avoids improbable transitions in one dialogue (from frustrated to satisfied in a single sentence). Although this dataset is used by many researchers, it is heavily limited by the data collection method: The recordings happened in an indoor scenario, and although the subjects performed scripted and non-scripted dialogues, the instructions given to the subjects limited the types of emotions that can be expressed.
In the related field of sentiment analysis, the Multimodal Corpus of Sentiment Intensity and Subjectivity Analysis in Online Opinion Videos (MOSI) [@mosi2016] has in-the-wild data. This corpus contains 2199 video segments obtained from Youtube by a data crawler for the purpose of sentiment analysis. The authors of this corpus provide extensive annotations based on sentiment analysis of visual gestures and verbal information. The dataset was annotated using the Amazon Mechanical Turk tool, and for each video segment, five different annotators evaluate the video based on a scale from strongly positive to strongly negative, and four head gestures (smile, head nod, frown and head shake). Although a very challenging dataset, it does not contain contextual information, unlike the IEMOCAP, and thus cannot be used to train emotional models that make use of changes in contextual information. The use of real-world information makes it more suitable for generalized emotion recognition, but the lack of emotional annotation, be it categorical or dimensional, reduces the applicability of the corpus for training automatic emotion recognition systems.
Similar to the MOSI dataset, the EmoReact [@emoreact2016] also contains videos from Youtube. The special feature of this dataset is that it contains videos from children of the Kids React Youtube channel. The dataset is annotated with 17 different affective states: the six basic emotions (Happiness, Sadness, Surprise, Fear, Disgust and Anger), neutral, valence intensity, curiosity, uncertainty, excitement, attentiveness, exploration, confusion, anxiety, embarrassment and frustration. This dataset was also annotated using the Amazon Mechanical Turk tool, with the annotators using a 1-4 Likert scale for each emotion, where 1 shows the absence of emotion and 4 shows the intense presence of the emotion. This dataset presents a general annotation scheme, and although it does not have a dimensional annotation, it has the intensity of different emotion categories. The videos contain children only, and thus this corpus is highly biased to how children express emotions. Also, the lack of contextual information makes it more suitable to be used on instance-based emotion classification.
Using a similar approach to collect data as the MOSI and EmoReact corpora, the GIFGIF+ dataset [@Chenetal2017] has video clip segments of emotional expressions. The difference between this dataset and others is that it provides only vision information of the expressions. Annotation was performed using an online self-developed platform in a crowd-sourced manner and currently, the dataset boasts more than 3 million annotations. The data is available in GIF format and not as videos which, according to the authors, provides a challenge on different frame rates per sequence. This dataset presents an impressive number of annotations per video clip, which contributes to the universal opinion on the annotation categories. However, the dataset presents unrealistic frame rates within their video clips, with the highest frame rate being 40 times more than the slowest one. Also evident is that, for only providing one modality, this dataset is restricted to vision-only applications.
The development of challenges based on automatic emotion recognition is also on the rise. Two of the most difficult of these challenges are the Emotions in the Wild (EMOTIW) [@Dhall2017] and Aff-Challenge [@Zafeiriou2017]. Both datasets are composed of videos which are considered “in-the-wild”: the EMOTIW has clips from movies and the AFF-Challenge has different Youtube videos. There are some differences in how they were annotated: while the AFF-Challenge was annotated based on a dimensional arousal/valence scale, the EMOTIW was annotated based on the six universal emotions and neutral. The annotations on the AFF-challenge were made with a mechanical joystick which the annotator had to move while watching the video clip, determining the arousal and valence individually for each video clip. Although both datasets have many “in-the-wild” samples, most of them were not composed of contextual information. The AFF-challenge dataset annotates the videos in a way that the contextual information is taken into consideration, but the low number of annotators and the nature of the videos itself makes it difficult for an emotion recognition model to learn continuous information. This happens because the videos present in this dataset are mostly from people reacting to different things shown in the video such as other video clips, movies, and announcements. This means that there is little contextual information available and annotators must rely on vision as little emotion through and language in a consistent fashion.
Our dataset was designed based on the strengths of each of these corpora: it contains in-the-wild videos, a large number of different annotators and, most importantly, it contains videos where emotion expressions emerge and develop over time based on the monologued scenarios.
Data Acquisition and Pre-processing {#sec:arch}
===================================
Youtube was used as a source for dataset samples and a special crawler was developed to filter potential video candidates. Since the goal was to have candidates with emotional content, several Youtube channels were manually preselected with collections of recorded monologues and acting auditions. Our hypothesis was that dataset samples selected from Youtube should contain ample variety in recording conditions, speakers and expressed emotions. Acted monologues are likely to have utterances displaying both neutral and salient emotions, depending on the setting of the monologue itself.
Several filtering steps were performed to select candidates (see Figure \[fig:crawler\]). Firstly, the OpenSMILE toolkit [@eyben2013recent] was used to find regions with a high speech probability and a 0.5 probability value was used as the activation threshold. Voiced regions with a gap of less than 600 milliseconds between them were merged together, but maximum length of the utterance was capped at 10 seconds to prevent very long samples with many short pauses between sentences. Utterances were merged together if both were less then 500 milliseconds long. After the merging procedure utterances were discarded if they were shorter than one second.
Video chunks were extracted according to the voiced regions using the ffmpeg[^2] tool. Dlib[^3] was used to extract faces from each video frame. The volume of an utterance was normalized to 0 dB using SoX[^4] and transcribed using the Google Speech Recognition system. Utterances were filtered out where multiple speakers were present in the video or if the transcribed spoken text was empty. Furthermore, we clustered together utterances in which the same person appeared sequentially, as this person was likely in the same context. Dlib was used to extract 128-dimensional facial embeddings and if the L-2 distance between two embeddings was greater than 0.6, faces were treated as if they came from different speakers. Finally, if the duration of the sequence exceeded 15 seconds and contained at least 3 utterances it was considered as a candidate for annotation.
![Flow chart illustrating the process of filtering and selecting of video samples.[]{data-label="fig:crawler"}](figures/crawler_scheme){height="10cm"}
Annotation Strategy
===================
To annotate the collected data we built our own annotation tool, the KT Annotation Tool. This tool was designed to be a modular solution for media annotation, developed as a web platform. It was used with the Amazon Mechanical Turk solution and allowed us to collect a large number of unique annotations per video. In the following sessions, we describe the KT Annotation tool and our annotation procedure.
KT Annotation Tool
------------------
The KT-Annotation Tool is designed as a dynamic tool for collecting dataset annotations. It provides researchers with a web-based interface that can be tailored to the requirements of each dataset that needs to be annotated. A customizable front-end developed using the Django[^5] framework with a secure back-end built using SQLite[^6] allows users to annotate images, text, audio samples or audio-visual content. The tool can be easily modified for different datasets using the administrative interface allowing researchers to easily collect corresponding annotations in a crowd-sourced manner. The ability to modify the front-end as well as the back-end functionality based on requirements posed by the dataset to be annotated provides an improvement over using pre-made non-modifiable templates provided by various existing annotation services. Furthermore, it provides a user-friendly alternative to writing a customized tool from scratch every time a new dataset needs to be annotated.
The tool provides a login service which can be used to provide customized access to multiple annotators at the same time. Once logged-in, annotators provide their evaluations on the data samples based on the parameters specified by the researchers. The labelling configuration used for annotating the OMG dataset can be seen in Fig. \[fig:kttool\] where a video sample is annotated for the affective context it represents. Each annotation is stored in the SQLite database allowing for efficient post-processing of the data. The recorded annotations can be exported in different formats such as comma-separated variables (.csv) or as spreadsheets (.xls) for data analysis and data distribution.
![The User Interface of the tool used for annotations.[]{data-label="fig:kttool"}](figures/KT_AnnotationTool){width="\columnwidth"}
Annotation Procedure
--------------------
For annotating the OMG dataset, a number of annotation tasks were published corresponding to each video in the dataset and the annotators were granted access to the annotation tool based on their MTurk ID and the unique IDs of the videos assigned to them. Each video was split into several clips based on utterances. The annotators provided their evaluations by setting valence, arousal and emotion labels for each clip individually. Valence and arousal values were recorded using two separate sliders, ranging from negative (-1) to positive extremes (1) for valence, as well as calm (0) and excited (1) for arousal. The intervals, \[0,1\] for arousal and \[-1,1\] for valence, are common representations found in most recent datasets. The annotators were not informed about these intervals, and they were calculated after the annotations were performed exclusively for computational purposes. Emotions were recorded using radio buttons representing seven categories corresponding to the six universal emotions [@Ekman1971] and ‘Neutral’. Annotators were allowed to see the previous clips they had already annotated for a particular video by using the ‘Context Clips’ option (Fig. \[fig:kttool\]) in order to maintain a consistent notion of the current data context. They were restricted from seeing and updating their annotations for these samples to avoid any bias. This was done such that each evaluation could be used individually as well as in the context of the entire video. For each video, we obtained 5 annotations from different annotators.
Once all the clips in the video sequence were successfully annotated, a unique success code was generated for the video. This success code was entered by the annotators to claim their remuneration in Amazon Mechanical Turk. If the annotator was logged out or unable to complete an annotation sequence, they could log back into the tool using the same video ID and the annotation process resumed from the same point in the sequence, ensuring a higher number of completed annotations.
Data Analysis
=============
{width="100.00000%"}
Our annotation procedure was online for a week, in which we could collect an average of 5.40 annotations per utterance. We then standardized the arousal/valence annotations per utterance. This was important as emotion expressions can be described subjectively using different basis, but the perception variations are maintained. This helps in cases where the annotations were made with subjective starting biases but present a similar transition pattern within utterances.
Figure \[fig:data\_analysis\] illustrates the annotation distribution. It is possible to see that the categorical annotations were mostly concentrated over neutral expressions, with fearful and surprised expressions being less prevalent. This is common behavior for emotion expressions collected from in-the-wild videos, as we often maintain a neutral demeanor.
It is also possible to see that our arousal/valence annotations are well distributed over the entire spectrum, with more values being annotated as having neutral valence and calm arousal. This is also a common behavior for these types of dataset. Finally, we also provide in Figure \[fig:data\_analysis\] the arousal/valence distribution combined with the categorical annotation, which shows that the arousal/valence annotations are congruent with the categorical labels.
With these measures, we can show that our corpus is balanced over the arousal/valence space, and presents a challenging task for automatic emotion classification.
Gold Standard
-------------
One of the major challenges of emotion recognition lies in attributing an objective metric to the subjective evaluation of emotions. Every individual experiences emotion in a different manner and thus, while annotating the data samples, each annotator introduces their subjectivity when labelling data. This results in different annotations and labels for the same data samples. Therefore, it is difficult to obtain a single label for the data which agrees with all of the annotator’s evaluations. One of the ways to deal with this problem is to establish a *gold standard* for the annotations [@Han2017From]. This results in trustworthy labels that are truly representative of the subjective annotations from each of the annotators, providing an objective metric for evaluation.
The most common approach for achieving this, in the case of categorical or nominal data, is to generate a frequency distribution of all the annotations and take the mode of the histogram to represent the majority vote. In the case of interval or ratio data labels, a mean or median value from all the annotations is computed to represent the gold standard. Although this is an easy and quick solution to the problem, it does not fare well in cases of huge disagreement between authors. Therefore, a more efficient solution involves weighing each of the annotations with respect to their overall agreement with others and computing a weighted estimate of the gold standard for the annotations.
For the OMG dataset, an Evaluator Weighted Estimator (EWE) [@Grimm2005Evaluation] based approach was used to compute the gold standard evaluation for arousal and valence labels. The resultant EWE label for arousal and valence is computed using equation \[eq:1\].
$$\hat{x}_n^{EWE,(i)} = \frac{1}{\sum_{k=1}^K r_k^{(i)}} \sum_{k=1}^K r_k^{(i)} \hat{x}_{n,k}^{(i)}
\label{eq:1}$$
where $\hat{x}_{n,k}^{(i)}$ denotes the annotation provided for the n^th^ sample with $n=1,...,N$ by the k^th^ annotator with $k=1,...,K$ in any of the dimensions $i \in \{Arousal,Valence\}$, and $r_k^{(i)}$ represents the confidence measure assigned to the k^th^ annotator. The confidence for each of the annotators can be computed using equation \[eq:2\]. $$\small r_k^{(i)} = \frac{\sum_{n=1}^N (\hat{x}_{n,k}^{(i)} - \mu_k^{(i)}) (\hat{x}_n^{MLE,(i)}-\mu^{MLE,(i)})}{\sqrt[]{\sum_{n=1}^N (\hat{x}_{n,k}^{(i)} - \mu_k^{(i)})^2} \ \sqrt[]{\sum_{n=1}^N(\hat{x}_n^{MLE,(i)}-\mu^{MLE,(i)})^2}}
\label{eq:2}$$ with $$\small \mu_k^{(i)} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \hat{x}_{n,k}^{(i)}
\label{eq:3}$$ and $$\small \mu^{MLE,(i)} = \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N \hat{x}_{n}^{MLE,(i)}
\label{eq:4}$$ where $\hat{x}_n^{MLE,(i)}$ denotes the Maximum Likelihood Estimator for the n^th^ sample given $K$ annotations:
$$\small \hat{x}_{n}^{MLE,(i)} = \frac{1}{K} \sum_{k=1}^K \hat{x}_{n,k}^{(i)}
\label{eq:5}$$
Thus, for each data sample annotated by at least five annotators, the EWE label is computed for arousal and valence to represent the gold standard. For the emotion labels, represented by seven emotion categories, the maximum vote is used to compute the gold standard.
Evaluation Protocol
-------------------
To evaluate possible models which could use our dataset in a fair manner, we propose here the use of a standard evaluation protocol for the OMG-Emotion Dataset. First, we separate the data into training and testing subsets. The training set has 118 unique videos and the test set has 60. We then propose two tasks: the first one categorical emotion recognition and the second one continuous estimation, based on arousal and valence values.
The first task of the challenge is to calculate the general F1 score for each utterance:
$$F1 = 2\cdot \frac{precision \cdot recall}{precision + recall}
\label{eq:f1score}$$
As we have five labels per category, we calculate the final label by performing a simple max-voting for each utterance. The F1 score gives us a general performance of the model by calculating the harmonic average of the precision and recall, and we consider it more important for this task than a simple accuracy metric.
For the second task, we consider the arousal/valence estimation as a regression problem. Thus, we propose as a metric the computation of the Mean Squared Error (MSE) for arousal and valence values. The MSE gives us a rough indication of how the proposed model is behaving and a simple comparative metric. In addition, we also propose the use of the Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) [@Lawrence1989] between the model’s output and the annotator’s annotations. The CCC can be defined as:
$$ccc = \frac{2 \rho \sigma_x \sigma_y}{\sigma_{x}^2 + \sigma_{y}^2 + (\mu_x - \mu_y)^2}
\label{eq:ccc}$$
where $\rho$ is the Pearson’s Correlation Coefficient between annotator labels and the gold standard, $\mu_x$ and $\mu_y$ denote the mean for annotator labels and the gold standard and $\sigma_{x}^2$ and $\sigma_{y}^2$ are the corresponding variances.
Both MSE and CCC are calculated based on the model’s response and the gold standard. The difference is that the MSE is calculated based on the utterance gold standard, and the CCC based on the video gold standard. This way, while the MSE provides an initial indication of the model’s performance, the CCC shows the capability of the model to describe the expressions in a video as a whole, taking into consideration the contextual information.
OMG-Emotion Dataset
===================
We collected a total of 567 unique videos, totalizing 7371 video clips with each clip consisting of a single utterance. Each video is split into several sequential utterances, each one with an average length of 8 seconds, and having an average length of around 1 minute. After annotation collection, we obtained a total of 39803 unique annotations, averaging 5 annotations per video. Table \[tab:omgSummary\] exhibits a summary of the OMG-Emotion dataset.
Videos 567 (Around 15 hours)
------------- ----------------------------------------
Utterances 7371 (12.96 Utterances per video)
Annotations 39803 (5.40 Annotations per utterance)
: Summary information about the OMG-Emotion Dataset.
\[tab:omgSummary\]
Baseline Experimental Setup
===========================
As a way to foment further development of models based on our dataset, we provide here different benchmarks based on our evaluation protocol. We evaluate the dataset using audio, vision and language-only based models. As described before, we calculate the utterance-based F1-score for categorical classification, the Mean Squared Error (MSE) for utterance-based arousal/valence estimation and the video-based Congruence Coefficient Correlation (CCC) also for arousal/valence estimation. The arousal/valence estimations are calculated based on the gold standard of all annotators, and the categorical emotion based on a max-voting scheme.
Experiments
-----------
**Audio modality baseline**. We used the openSMILE IS13-ComParE feature set [@schuller2013interspeech], which includes low-level descriptors like MFCC, voice probability, voice quality, etc, overall comprising a feature vector of 6,373 values. Feature vectors are normalized to have a zero mean and a unit variance. An SVM with an RBF kernel was used as a baseline classifier (SVM A model).
In addition, we conducted an experiment using the audio channel of a previously proposed work [@Barros2016], pre-trained with the RAVDESS corpus.
**Text modality baseline**.
The baseline text classifier is trained on the OMG training data and uses the word2vec Google News corpus vectors as pretrained word embeddings. The model feeds the transcribed sentences as sequences of word embeddings into a 1D CNN with 128 filters and a kernel size of 3.
The CNN is followed by a global max pooling layer and a fully connected layer with 500 units, ending finally in a single neuron with a sigmoidal activation function that predicts the valence and arousal levels of the input utterance. The CNN and fully connected layer use a ReLU activation and a dropout factor of 0.2 is applied after the word embedding and fully connected layer.
**Vision modality baseline**.
For our vision experiments, we used a convolution neural network based on the Face-channel proposed on previous works [@Barros2016]. To train the network, we use the FER+ dataset.
We perform experiments with the same network architecture, but for two different tasks: one for categorical emotion classification and the other for arousal/valence estimation.
Results
-------
Table \[tab:baselineResults\] exhibits the summary of our baseline results. It shows the best performance of each of the individual modalities.
Model Emotion
-------------------------------------- ---------- ------ ------ ------ ------
F1-Score MSE CCC MSE CCC
SVM A 0.33 0.04 0.15 0.10 0.21
RF T 0.39 0.06 0.15 0.10 0.04
Vision - Face Channel [@Barros2016] 0.37 0.05 0.12 0.12 0.23
Vision - Audio Channel [@Barros2016] 0.33 0.05 0.08 0.12 0.10
: Baseline results.
\[tab:baselineResults\]
The OMG-Emotion dataset is a challenging corpus, and this is reflected on the CCC and F1-score values we obtained. Although our experiments are described as baseline, the models and techniques we used are considered state-of-the-art in the field. The MSE by itself does not carry any meaningful information about the performance (only when compared to other models), and thus we report it here for comparison reasons.
Conclusion and Future Works
===========================
In this paper, we introduce a new emotion recognition dataset with a unique focus on attempting to capture the context of emotion features over a gradual period of time. The considerations taken into account during data collection and annotation remedies many of the issues that occur in other contemporary emotion recognition datasets when attempting to apply these datasets to longer temporal spans. We intend for this dataset to be a unique challenge and a step forward towards more robust and in-depth recognition of emotions in the wild.
Our dataset will be used on the OMG-Emotion Recognition challenge[^7], where we hope to foster the implementation of neural models for contextual emotion recognition. We hope to inspire more researchers to pay greater attention to the potential features that can only be reliably tracked over time.
In the future, we hope to increase the number of samples available in the dataset and refine the quality of selected samples. In doing so we hope to increase the robustness and saliency of emotion features provided by the dataset. In particular, we are interested in collecting more samples of currently infrequent emotion samples, such as Fear, Disgust, and Surprise. Furthermore, we hope to refine our baseline by incorporating more advanced neural mechanisms that are well suited to the temporal nature of the dataset.
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
The authors gratefully acknowledge partial support from the German Research Foundation DFG under project CML (TRR 169), and the European Union under projects SECURE (No. 642667), and SOCRATES (No. 721619).
[^1]: https://www2.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/wtm/OMG-EmotionChallenge/
[^2]: https://ffmpeg.org/ \[Accessed 31.01.2018\]
[^3]: http://dlib.net/ \[Accessed 31.01.2018\]
[^4]: http://sox.sourceforge.net/ \[Accessed 31.01.2018\]
[^5]: https://www.djangoproject.com \[Accessed 10.01.2018\]
[^6]: https://sqlite.org/ \[Accessed 10.01.2018\]
[^7]: https://www2.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/wtm/OMG-EmotionChallenge/
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We describe a planar silicon metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS) based single hole transistor, which is compatible with conventional Si CMOS fabrication. A multi-layer gate design gives independent control of the carrier density in the dot and reservoirs. Clear Coulomb blockade oscillations are observed, and source-drain biasing measurements show that it is possible to deplete the dot down to the few hole regime, with excited states clearly visible. The architecture is sufficiently versatile that a second hole dot could be induced adjacent to the first one.'
author:
- 'R. Li'
- 'F. E. Hudson'
- 'A. S. Dzurak'
- 'A. R. Hamilton'
title: 'Single Hole Transport in a Silicon Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor Quantum Dot'
---
Over the past 15 years much effort has gone into the development and study of electron quantum dots as artificial atoms [@0034-4885-64-6-201; @0957-4484-22-33-335704], ultra-sensitive electrometers [@PhysRevB.81.161308], and quantum bits [@Petta30092005] for quantum information applications. To use an electron in a quantum dot as a spin qubit requires long spin life-time T$_1$ and coherence-time T$_2$ [@PhysRevA.57.120; @RevModPhys.76.323]. Significant progress has been made with III-V semiconductor based devices, although T$_2$ is limited by the hyperfine interaction between the electron spin and nuclei in the host crystal [@RevModPhys.79.1217]. Spin qubits based on group-IV semiconductors have recently shown long T$_1$ and T$_2$ times [@Morello2010; @Pla2012]. However even in silicon based devices challenges remain due to the presence of nonzero nuclear spin in isotopes of Si, the valley degree of freedom in conduction band [@PhysRevLett.88.027903], and disorder at the Si/SiO$_2$ interface.
Recently holes in quantum dots have attracted significant interest [@PhysRevLett.95.076805; @Gerardot2008] since the strong spin-orbit coupling enables all electrical spin manipulation [@PhysRevLett.107.176811; @PhysRevLett.109.107201], while the hyperfine interaction between holes and nuclear spins is strongly suppressed [@doi:10.1021/nl201211d], promising longer T$_2$. Besides, for holes in silicon there is no valley degeneracy. However, to date there have been only a few studies of holes in gate defined quantum dots[@dotsch:341; @grbic:232108; @PhysRevLett.107.076805; @Hu2012]. In this letter, we describe a planar silicon metal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS) based single hole transistor, which is compatible with conventional Si CMOS fabrication.
![(a) Schematic cross section of the device. The hole reservoirs are induced by lead gates L1 and L2. For the data shown below the dot was induced below plunger gate P1, while UG and P2 were biased to extend the hole reservoir. (b) Conductance vs plunger gate bias, showing periodic Coulomb blockade oscillations in the many hole regime. V$_\mathrm{L1}$=V$_\mathrm{L2}$=V$_\mathrm{P2}$=-4 V, and V$_\mathrm{UG}$=0 V. Inset shows the SEM image of a typical device. The white scale bar is 200 nm.[]{data-label="fig:layout"}](LayoutCB_4.eps)
The MOS structure studied in this work was fabricated from a high-resistivity ($\rho$ $>$ 10 k$\Omega\cdot$cm) (100) silicon substrate. Field-oxide, boron-diffused ohmic regions, and thin gate-oxide (thickness $\sim$ 5.9 nm) were defined by standard micro-fabrication techniques. Subsequently, multi-level aluminum gates were patterned by electron-beam lithography and lift-off. The gates were insulated from each other by a thin native AlO$\mathrm{x}$ layer [@doi:10.1021/nl070949k]. The final stage was a forming gas anneal to reduce the Si/SiO$_2$ interface trap density and enhance low-temperature performance [@doi:10.1021/nl070949k].
Figure \[fig:layout\](a) shows a schematic cross section of the device. There are three layers of gates: the first is the two plunger gates (P1 and P2), each 30 nm wide with a separation of 30 nm between them. The middle layer consists of the lead gates (L1 and L2) which were kept at -4 V to induce the source and drain hole reservoirs. The upper gate (UG) has a width of 50 nm and extends over P1 and P2. The multiple gates allow considerable flexibility over device operation. Gates L1 and L2 were always negatively biased to induced holes into the leads, but the remaining gates could either be biased negative to induced holes underneath them, or positive to form tunnel barriers between regions of holes. In the following experiments we used a single gate, P1, to localize holes into a quantum dot and control the dot occupancy. In this mode of operation the entrance and exit tunnel barriers were formed due to the oxidized aluminum layer between different gates, and the upper gate was grounded as it had little effect on the dot. Gate P2 was kept at a large negative bias, to ensure that it was transparent. In this biasing arrangement the lithographic dimensions of the dot were defined by the width of P1 (30 nm) and the fringing field from L1 (150 nm in width), so we estimate the dot area $\sim3\times10^3$ nm$^2$.
Several devices were tested at 4 K, with a yield of $\sim50$%. Further measurements were performed on one device in a dilution fridge with base temperature of 30 mK, using standard two-terminal lock-in techniques with a 100 $\mathrm{\mu}$V ac excitation voltage. Fig. \[fig:layout\](b) shows the Coulomb blockade oscillations obtained when sweeping gate P1, demonstrating that the device functions as a single hole transistor. The number of holes in the dot was estimated to be $\sim25$.
![Charge stability diagram of P1 vs. (a) P2 with V$_\mathrm{UG}$=0 V, and (b) UG with V$_\mathrm{P2}$=-4 V. In both plots, V$_\mathrm{L1}$=V$_\mathrm{L2}$=-4 V. The dense parallel lines intercepting V$_\mathrm{P1}$ axis indicates single dot operation and that the dot was strongly coupled to P1.[]{data-label="fig:CSD"}](P1P2UG_4.eps)
Gate P1 P2 L1 L2 UG
-------- ------ ------ ------ ------ ------
C (aF) 16.8 0.70 1.48 0.28 0.83
: Gate capacitance to the dot. The capacitance values are estimated from the average line-spacing in charge stability diagrams.
\[table:cap\]
Figure \[fig:CSD\] shows the conductance of the quantum dot as a function of the biases on gates P1, P2 and UG. These charge stability diagrams show almost vertical lines, indicating that the dot was most strongly coupled to the P1 gate, and the P2 and UG gates had a much weaker capacitive coupling to the dot. Similar results were obtained for the L1 and L2 gates. The large number of periodic oscillations shows that the dot cannot be due to unintentional dopants or defects. The capacitance of the various gates to the dot was determined from the periodicity of the oscillations in the charge stability diagrams, as shown in Table \[table:cap\]. These data confirm that the dot was located under P1, since the capacitance to all other gates was much smaller. We also estimated the size of the dot using a simple parallel plate capacitor model with a silicon oxide thickness $d=5.9$ nm, and obtained an area of $\sim2900$ nm$^2$, in good agreement with the area estimated from the lithographic dimensions of the dot.
![(a) Source-drain biasing of the hole quantum dot, showing Coulomb diamonds down to last few holes. V$_\mathrm{L1}$=V$_\mathrm{L2}$=V$_\mathrm{P2}$=-4 V, and V$_\mathrm{UG}$=0V. (b) A close-up of the Coulomb diamonds, showing that excited states can be resolved.[]{data-label="fig:CBD"}](CD_4.eps)
Figure \[fig:CBD\](a) shows source drain bias spectroscopy measurements, with well resolved Coulomb diamonds. At high gate bias ($|$V$_\mathrm{P1}|$ $>$ 1.6 V), the number of holes is greater than ten and the charging energy of the dot was approximately constant at E$_\mathrm{c} \sim5$ meV. As the dot was pinched off, by making V$_\mathrm{P1}$ more positive, the charging energy increased suggesting that the dot was shrinking in size and approaching the few hole limit. Finally for V$_\mathrm{P1}>-1.5$ V the charging energy increased rapidly and the Coulomb diamonds no longer close. It is tempting to ascribe this opening of the last Coulomb diamond as signaling the last occupied hole state in the dot. However, the observation of excited states at V$_\mathrm{P1}=-1.47$ V shows that there must be at least one hole in the dot for V$_\mathrm{P1}>-1.47$ V, suggesting the last hole charge state could not be reached in these measurements. No Coulomb diamonds could be resolved for V$_\mathrm{P1}>\sim-1.47$ V, as the device became so pinched off that the conductance dropped below the background noise level of 1 nS (I=0.1pA). However, the $\sim$ 10 meV charging energy of the last diamond is a strong indication that we were approaching the last few holes in the dot.
The well defined confining potential of the dot is further highlighted by the slope of the edges of the Coulomb diamonds. The slopes are the same for all diamonds in Fig. \[fig:CBD\](a), giving a lever-arm $\alpha$=C$_\mathrm{P1}/$C$_\mathrm{\Sigma}$=0.36. This suggests that the dot was defined underneath the central region of P1, and was not affected by disorder even in the few hole limit (since $\alpha$ would change and additional features would be observed in the bias spectroscopy if disorder induced parasitic dots were forming). Furthermore the slope of the diamonds allowed the capacitive coupling to the source and drain reservoirs to be estimated, giving C$_\mathrm{S}/$C$_\mathrm{P1}$=1.1 and C$_\mathrm{D}/$C$_\mathrm{P1}$=0.7 [@RevModPhys.79.1217]. The dot was more strongly coupled to the source reservoir than the drain reservoir, consistent with the geometry of the device.
Figure \[fig:CBD\](b) is a close up of the Coulomb diamonds, showing the excited states of the hole quantum dot. The excited states manifest as thin lines of high-conductance running parallel to the edge of the diamonds outside the Coulomb blockade region. The spacing of the excited states was $\Delta E \sim800~\mu$eV at V$_\mathrm{P1}=-1.51$ V, although even larger energy spacings $\sim2$ meV could also be resolved. For comparison, measurements of a silicon electron quantum dot fabricated using the same approach and with similar lithographic dimensions showed $\Delta E$ up to 600 $\mu$eV [@doi:10.1021/nl070949k]. Since the hole mass is significantly larger than the electron mass, this would suggest the excited state spacing $\Delta E$ measured for the hole device should be smaller than in Ref. . However, the hole band structure is more complex than the electron bands, and is further complicated by the lateral confinement in the quantum dot. The thickness of the 2D hole system is $\sim10$ nm, comparable to the length-scale of the in-plane confinement geometry, indicating that the quantization of the hole states should be treated in 3D. The precise nature of the hole states, including the spin properties, shape of the orbital states and the degree of light and heavy hole mixing, is highly sensitive to the confining potential and will be a fruitful area for future research.
 is that P1 and P2 were in the same bias range and that a dot was induced under each of them. (b) Charge stability diagram obtained by sweeping gates P1 and P2 for V$_\mathrm{L1}$=V$_\mathrm{L2}$=-4 V and V$_\mathrm{UG}$=0 V.[]{data-label="fig:DD"}](DDCSD_4.eps)
Finally we show that this device can also be operated as a hole double quantum dot, by changing the bias on gate P2 so that a second dot formed as sketched in Figure \[fig:DD\](a). The resulting charge stability diagram is presented in Fig. \[fig:DD\](b), where the bias on gate P2 has been reduced from -4 V to a bias similar to $V_{P1}$. Dark regions indicate Coulomb blockade where the double dot maintains the same charge configuration, and bright lines indicate current transport through the double dot, demarking regions where the hole occupation changes. In the top right of Fig. \[fig:DD\](b) the vertical lines show that gate P1 controls the hole number in dot 1, while the horizontal lines show that P2 controls the occupancy of the second dot. The horizontal line spacing is approximately twice that of the vertical spacing, suggesting that the capacitance between gate P2 and dot 2 is twice that between gate P1 and dot 1. This is consistent with the lithographic gate dimenions, since the width of gate L1 is twice that of L2 (see SEM image in Fig. \[fig:layout\](b). At more negative $V_{P1}$ and $V_{P2}$ the number of holes in the dots increased and there is evidence of coupling between the dots, as the lines become more diagonal.
In summary, we have fabricated single hole transistors based on a planar silicon MOS structure. A well-defined hole quantum dot could be induced, and operated in both the many-hole and few-hole regimes. Bias spectroscopy measurements show that the device can be operated down to the few hole regime, showing large charging and excited state energies. The flexibility of the multi-gate structure also made it possible to form a second hole dot, with the charge stability diagram displaying weak coupling between the two dots. These devices will allow future studies of individual hole spins in standard silicon MOS structures.
The authors thank N. S. Lai and A. Morello for helpful discussions, A. Rossi for help with fabrication, L. A. Yeoh and A. Srinivasan for help with the dilution refrigerator, and J. Cochrane for technical support. A.R.H. acknowledge support from the Australian Research Council (DP120102888 and DP120101859). F.E.H and A.S.D. acknowledge support from the Australian Research Council (CE11E0096) and the U.S. Army Research Office (contract W911NF-13-1-0024). Experimental devices for this study were fabricated with support from the Australian National Fabrication Facility, UNSW.
Note added: After completing these measurements we became aware of similar experiments underway elsewhere [@2013arXiv:1304.2870].
[10]{}
L. P. Kouwenhoven, D. G. Austing, and S. Tarucha, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**64**]{}, 701 (2001).
W. H. Lim, C. H. Yang, F. A. Zwanenburg, and A. S. Dzurak, Nanotechnology [**22**]{}, 335704 (2011).
C. Barthel, M. Kjærgaard, J. Medford, M. Stopa, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 161308 (2010).
J. R. Petta, A. C. Johnson, J. M. Taylor, E. A. Laird, A. Yacoby, M. D. Lukin, C. M. Marcus, M. P. Hanson, and A. C. Gossard, Science [**309**]{}, 2180 (2005).
D. Loss and D. P. DiVincenzo, Phys. Rev. A [**57**]{}, 120 (1998).
I. Žuti ć, J. Fabian, and S. Das Sarma, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**76**]{}, 323 (2004).
R. Hanson, L. P. Kouwenhoven, J. R. Petta, S. Tarucha, and L. M. K. Vandersypen, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**79**]{}, 1217 (2007).
A. Morello, J. J. Pla, F. A. Zwanenburg, K. W. Chan, K. Y. Tan, H. Huebl, M. Mottonen, C. D. Nugroho, C. Yang, J. A. van Donkelaar, A. D. C. Alves, D. N. Jamieson, C. C. Escott, L. C. L. Hollenberg, R. G. Clark, and A. S. Dzurak, Nature [**467**]{}, 687 (2010).
J. J. Pla, K. Y. Tan, J. P. Dehollain, W. H. Lim, J. J. L. Morton, D. N. Jamieson, A. S. Dzurak, and A. Morello, Nature [**489**]{}, 541 (2012).
B. Koiller, X. Hu, and S. Das Sarma, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**88**]{}, 027903 (2001).
D. V. Bulaev and D. Loss, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**95**]{}, 076805 (2005).
B. D. Gerardot, D. Brunner, P. A. Dalgarno, P. Ohberg, S. Seidl, M. Kroner, K. Karrai, N. G. Stoltz, P. M. Petroff, and R. J. Warburton, Nature [**451**]{}, 441 (2008).
M. D. Schroer, K. D. Petersson, M. Jung, and J. R. Petta, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 176811 (2011).
P. Szumniak, S. Bednarek, B. Partoens, and F. M. Peeters, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 107201 (2012).
Z. K. Keane, M. C. Godfrey, J. C. H. Chen, S. Fricke, O. Klochan, A. M. Burke, A. P. Micolich, H. E. Beere, D. A. Ritchie, K. V. Trunov, D. Reuter, A. D. Wieck, and A. R. Hamilton, Nano Lett. [**11**]{}, 3147 (2011).
U. Dotsch, U. Gennser, C. David, G. Dehlinger, D. Grutzmacher, T. Heinzel, S. Luscher, and K. Ensslin, Appl Phys. Lett. [**78**]{}, 341 (2001).
B. Grbic, R. Leturcq, K. Ensslin, D. Reuter, and A. D. Wieck, Appl Phys. Lett. [**87**]{}, 232108 (2005).
O. Klochan, A. P. Micolich, A. R. Hamilton, K. Trunov, D. Reuter, and A. D. Wieck, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**107**]{}, 076805 (2011).
Y. Hu, F. Kuemmeth, C. M. Lieber, and C. M. Marcus, Nat. Nanotechnol. [**7**]{}, 47 (2012).
S. J. Angus, A. J. Ferguson, A. S. Dzurak, and R. G. Clark, Nano Lett. [**7**]{}, 2051 (2007).
P. C. Spruijtenburg, J. Ridderbos, F. Mülller, A. W. Leenstra, M. Brauns, A. A. I. Aarnink, W. G. van der Wiel, and F. A. Zwanenburg, arXiv:1304.2870 (unpublished).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We measure the luminosity and color dependence of galaxy clustering in the largest-ever galaxy redshift survey, the main galaxy sample of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Seventh Data Release (DR7). We focus on the projected correlation function ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ of volume-limited samples, extracted from the parent sample of $\sim 700,000$ galaxies over $8000$ deg$^2$, extending up to redshift of $0.25$. We interpret our measurements using halo occupation distribution (HOD) modeling assuming a $\Lambda$CDM cosmology (inflationary cold dark matter with a cosmological constant). The amplitude of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ grows slowly with luminosity for $L<L_*$ and increases sharply at higher luminosities, with a large-scale bias factor $b(>L) \times (\sigma_8/0.8) = 1.06+0.21(L/L_*)^{1.12}$, where $L$ is the sample luminosity threshold. At fixed luminosity, redder galaxies exhibit a higher amplitude and steeper correlation function, a steady trend that runs through the “blue cloud” and “green valley” and continues across the “red sequence.” The cross-correlation of red and blue galaxies is close to the geometric mean of their auto-correlations, dropping slightly below at $r_p < 1{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$. The luminosity trends for the red and blue galaxy populations separately are strikingly different. Blue galaxies show a slow but steady increase of clustering strength with luminosity, with nearly constant shape of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$. The large-scale clustering of red galaxies shows little luminosity dependence until a sharp increase at $L>4L_*$, but the lowest luminosity red galaxies ($0.04-0.25L_*$) show very strong clustering on small scales ($r_p<2{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$). Most of the observed trends can be naturally understood within the $\Lambda$CDM+HOD framework. The growth of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ for higher luminosity galaxies reflects an overall shift in the mass scale of their host dark matter halos, in particular an increase in the minimum host halo mass $M_{\rm min}$. The mass at which a halo has, on average, one satellite galaxy brighter than $L$ is $M_1 \approx 17\Mmin(L)$ over most of the luminosity range, with a smaller ratio above $L_*$. The growth and steepening of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ for redder galaxies reflects the increasing fraction of galaxies that are satellite systems in high mass halos instead of central systems in low mass halos, a trend that is especially marked at low luminosities. Our extensive measurements, provided in tabular form, will allow detailed tests of theoretical models of galaxy formation, a firm grounding of semi-empirical models of the galaxy population, and new constraints on cosmological parameters from combining real-space galaxy clustering with mass-sensitive statistics such as redshift-space distortions, cluster mass-to-light ratios, and galaxy-galaxy lensing.'
author:
- 'Idit Zehavi, Zheng Zheng, David H. Weinberg, Michael R. Blanton, Neta A. Bahcall, Andreas A. Berlind, Jon Brinkmann, Joshua A. Frieman, James E. Gunn, Robert H. Lupton, Robert C. Nichol, Will J. Percival, Donald P. Schneider, Ramin A. Skibba, Michael A. Strauss, Max Tegmark, and Donald G. York'
title: 'Galaxy Clustering in the Completed SDSS Redshift Survey: The Dependence on Color and Luminosity'
---
Introduction {#sec:intro}
============
Three-dimensional maps of the large-scale distribution of galaxies reveal a rich network of filaments and sheets, punctuated by dense clusters and interleaved with low density tunnels and bubbles [@gregory78; @kirshner81; @davis82; @giovanelli86; @geller89; @shectman96; @colless01]. Different classes of galaxies trace this structure differently, with early type galaxies residing preferentially in rich groups and clusters and late type galaxies residing preferentially in the filaments and walls; this segregation of clustering was already evident in two-dimensional studies as early as [@hubble36]. Galaxy surveys map the distribution of visible baryons, but a combination of observational and theoretical arguments, beginning with Zwicky ([-@zwicky33], [-@zwicky37]), show that the galaxies trace an underlying network of invisible, gravitationally dominant dark matter. In this paper, we measure the clustering of galaxies as a function of luminosity and color in the largest galaxy redshift survey to date, the main galaxy sample [@strauss02] of the Seventh Data Release (DR7; @abazajian09) of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS; @york00). Our primary tool is the two-point correlation function $\xi(r)$, which provides a simple, robust, and informative measure of galaxy clustering (e.g., @peebles80). More specifically, we focus on the projected correlation function ${{w_p(r_p)}}$, which integrates out redshift-space distortions caused by galaxy peculiar velocities [@davis83]. By modeling our measurements in the context of the $\Lambda$CDM cosmological framework (inflationary cold dark matter with a cosmological constant), we infer the relation between different classes of galaxies and the underlying distribution of dark matter, providing fundamental tests for theories of galaxy formation.
Over the last few decades, a variety of “local” clustering studies have established an increasingly refined and quantitative characterization of the dependence of galaxy clustering on luminosity, morphology, color, and spectral type (e.g., @davis76 [@davis88; @hamilton88; @alimi88; @valls89; @loveday95; @benoist96; @guzzo97; @willmer98; @brown00; @norberg01; @norberg02; @zehavi02; @budavari03; @madgwick03; @zehavi05b; @li06; @swanson08; @loh09]). Luminous galaxies generally cluster more strongly than faint galaxies, reflecting their tendency to reside in denser environments. Galaxies with bulge-dominated morphologies, red colors, or spectral types indicating old stellar populations also exhibit stronger clustering and a preference for dense environments. Significant progress has also been made in recent years in measuring galaxy clustering at intermediate and high redshifts (e.g., @brown03 [@daddi03; @adelberger05b; @ouchi05; @lee05; @phleps05; @coil06; @coil07; @meneux07; @meneux09; @abbas10]).
Cosmological inferences from galaxy clustering measurements are complicated by the existence of galaxy bias, the difference between the distribution of galaxies and that of the underlying dark matter. While the gravitational clustering of dark matter from specified initial conditions can be computed reliably with cosmological $N$-body simulations, the detailed physics of galaxy formation — gas cooling, star formation, and the feedback effects of star formation and black hole accretion — is only partly understood, so galaxy bias cannot be predicted robustly from first principles. Cosmological parameter studies must adopt a mathematical description of galaxy bias and marginalize over its uncertain parameters. This procedure is most straightforward at large scales, where the effects of bias are expected to be simple, i.e., a scale-independent amplification of the matter $\xi(r)$ [@kaiser84; @BBKS86; @coles93; @fry93; @mann98; @scherrer98; @narayanan00]. Conversely, for a specified cosmological model, one can constrain detailed descriptions of galaxy bias and thus gain insights into galaxy formation physics.
In the cold dark matter scenario [@peebles82; @blumenthal84], which is now supported by a wide range of observational evidence (e.g., @dunkley09 [@reid10]), galaxies form and reside in extended dark matter halos. The existence of such halos is well established by studies of spiral galaxy rotation curves (e.g., @rubin78 [@persic96; @verheijen01]) and the stellar dynamics (e.g., @gerhard01) and gravitational lensing (e.g., @bolton08) of elliptical galaxies. Studies of weak lensing and satellite galaxies show that the halos of luminous galaxies extend to hundreds of kpc, where they join smoothly onto the larger scale distribution of dark matter (e.g., @zaritsky94 [@fischer00; @prada03; @mandelbaum06]). The formation of dark matter halos is dominated by gravity and can be well predicted for a given cosmology from high-resolution numerical simulations and analytic models. Dark matter halos thus become the natural bridge for connecting the galaxy distribution and the matter distribution.
In recent years, the theoretical understanding of galaxy clustering has been enhanced through development of the Halo Occupation Distribution (HOD) framework (e.g., @jing98a [@ma00; @peacock00; @seljak00; @scoccimarro01; @berlind02; @cooray02; @yang03; @kravtsov04; @zheng05]). The HOD formalism describes the “bias” relation between galaxies and mass at the level of individual dark matter halos, in terms of the probability distribution that a halo of virial mass $M_h$ contains $N$ galaxies of a given type, together with prescriptions for the relative spatial and velocity bias of galaxies and dark matter within virialized halos. The combination of a cosmological model and a fully specified HOD can predict any galaxy clustering statistic on any scale, allowing integrated constraints from many observations. For an assumed cosmological model and a parameterized form of the HOD motivated by contemporary theories of galaxy formation (e.g., @kauffmann97 [@kauffmann99; @benson00; @berlind03; @kravtsov04; @zheng05; @conroy06]), measurements of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ are already highly constraining, and HOD modeling transforms data on galaxy pair counts into a physical relation between galaxies and dark matter halos. HOD modeling has been applied to interpret clustering data from a number of surveys at low and high redshifts (e.g., @jing98b [@jing02; @bullock02; @moustakas02; @bosch03a; @magliocchetti03; @yan03; @zheng04; @yang05b; @zehavi05b; @cooray05b; @hamana05; @lee05; @lee08]; Zheng, Coil & Zehavi 2007; @white07 [@blake08; @brown08; @quadri08; @wake08; @kim09; @zheng09; @ross10]).
In principle, a complete model of galaxy bias might need to allow for the possibility that the average galaxy content of halos depends on large-scale environment as well as halo mass, since halo concentrations and assembly histories show some environmental correlations [@sheth04; @gao05; @harker06; @wechsler06; @zhu06; @croton07; @jing07; @wetzel07; @dalal08; @zu08]. However, studies assuming an environment-independent HOD have proven successful at explaining galaxy clustering in different density regimes (@abbas06 [@abbas07; @tinker08; @skibba09]; see also @blanton06 [@blanton07]), and theoretical models predict only a small impact of such “halo assembly bias” on galaxy clustering statistics for mass- or luminosity-thresholded samples [@yoo06; @croton07; @zu08].
The present paper builds upon our investigation of galaxy correlations in early SDSS redshift data [@zehavi02], our use of HOD modeling to interpret deviations from a power-law in the galaxy two-point correlation function [@zehavi04], and, especially, our earlier investigation of luminosity and color dependence of the galaxy correlation function in a sample of about 200,000 SDSS galaxies (Zehavi et al. 2005b, hereafter Z05). Here we take advantage of the final SDSS galaxy sample — roughly three times more galaxies once appropriate cuts are applied — and advances in HOD modeling methods to obtain higher precision measurements and tighter, more informative constraints on galaxy-halo relations. This study complements correlation function measurements and HOD models of the SDSS Luminous Red Galaxy (LRG) sample [@eisenstein01; @eisenstein05b; @zehavi05a; @zheng09; @kazin10; @watson10], which probes the most luminous galaxies out to redshift $z\approx 0.45$ [@eisenstein01]. We focus our analysis on volume-limited samples of well defined galaxy classes, which allows us to construct HOD models with a small number of free parameters to interpret the measurements for each class. This approach complements other analyses of the SDSS main galaxy sample that measure luminosity or stellar mass-weighted correlation functions [@li09; @li10] or use marked correlation functions to quantify luminosity and color dependence [@skibba06; @skibbasheth09]. These analyses typically yield smaller error bars because they use more sample galaxies for the measurement, but they require a more complete global description of the galaxy population to model the results. There are many parallels between our program and the one pursued by van den Bosch, Mo, Yang, and their collaborators (e.g., papers cited above and @bosch03b [@weinmann06; @bosch07; @yang08; @more09]), though they have largely focused on analysis of group catalogs [@yang05a; @yang07] rather than detailed fitting of the correlation function. The two approaches yield qualitatively similar results (e.g., Z05; @yang05b [@zheng07; @yang08]).
Our correlation function measurements provide basic empirical characterizations of large-scale structure at low redshift ($z<0.25$), and the luminosity and color dependence of these correlation functions can test predictions from hydrodynamic cosmological simulations (e.g., @pearce01 [@weinberg04]) or semi-analytic models (e.g., @kang05 [@croton06; @bower06]). The derived HOD constraints provide informative tests of galaxy formation models, a low redshift baseline for evolutionary studies (e.g., @zheng07 [@brown08]), and a description that can be used to create realistic mock catalogs from simulations (@scoccimarro02 [@wechsler04; @eisenstein05b; @skibbasheth09]; McBride et al., in preparation). As discussed extensively by [@zheng07a], the HOD formalism can also be used in cosmological parameter determinations, allowing marginalization over the parameters of a bias prescription that applies to a wide range of clustering statistics from the linear to the highly non-linear regime. Combinations of spatial clustering statistics and dynamically sensitive measures (such as galaxy-galaxy lensing, redshift-space distortions, or group and cluster mass-to-light ratios) can break the main degeneracies between cosmological parameters and galaxy bias. A number of papers have implemented variants of this approach to constrain the matter density parameter $\Omega_m$ and the amplitude of matter clustering $\sigma_8$ [@bosch03b; @abazajian05; @tinker05; @bosch07; @cacciato09; @rozo10]. These analyses argued for a significant downward revision of the WMAP1 values of $\Omega_m$ and/or $\sigma_8$, anticipating the parameter changes that occurred with WMAP3 (see also @vale06, who reached a similar conclusion by a related method). Our correlation function measurements are providing essential constraints for such analyses using the SDSS DR7 data set.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec:obs\] describes the SDSS data and the methods we use to measure galaxy clustering and to interpret it via HOD modeling. In §\[sec:lum\] we present results on the luminosity dependence of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ and its implications for HOD models. In § \[sec:color\] we examine the dependence of clustering on galaxy color, including cross-correlations between red and blue galaxy samples, and we investigate the luminosity dependence for red and blue galaxies separately. Section \[sec:conclusion\] summarizes our results. Appendix A discusses some technical issues relating to predictions of the galaxy cross-correlation function. Appendix B illustrates the robustness of our measurements to different systematics. Appendix C presents in tabular form the ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ measurements for most of the samples discussed in the paper.
Observations and Methods {#sec:obs}
========================
Data {#subsec:data}
----
The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (@york00 [@stoughton02]) was an ambitious project to map most of the high-latitude sky in the northern Galactic cap, using a dedicated 2.5 meter telescope [@gunn06]. The survey started regular operations in April 2000 and completed observations (for SDSS-II) in July 2008. A drift-scanning mosaic CCD camera [@gunn98] imaged the sky in five photometric bandpasses [@fukugita96; @smith02] to a limiting magnitude of $r \sim 22.5$. The imaging data were processed through a series of pipelines that perform astrometric calibration [@pier03], photometric reduction [@lupton99; @lupton01] and photometric calibration [@hogg01; @ivezic04; @tucker06; @padmanabhan08]. Objects were selected for spectroscopic followup using specific algorithms for the main galaxy sample [@strauss02], luminous red galaxies [@eisenstein01], and quasars [@richards02]. Targets were assigned to spectroscopic plates using an adaptive tiling algorithm [@blanton03a] and observed with a pair of fiber-fed spectrographs. Spectroscopic data reduction and redshift determination were performed by automated pipelines. Galaxy redshifts were measured with a success rate greater than $99\%$ and typical accuracy of $30{\,{\rm km}\;{\rm s}^{-1}}$. To a good approximation, the main galaxy sample consists of all galaxies with Petrosian magnitude $r<17.77$, with a median redshift of $\sim0.1$. The LRG redshift sample uses color-magnitude cuts to select galaxies with $r<19.5$ that are likely to be luminous early-type galaxies, extending up to redshift $\sim 0.5$. Galaxy samples suitable for large-scale structure studies have been carefully constructed from the SDSS redshift data [@blanton05b]. All magnitudes are K-corrected [@blanton03b] and evolved to rest-frame magnitudes at $z=0.1$ (which is near the median redshift of the sample and thus minimizes corrections) using an updated version of the evolving luminosity function model of @blanton03c$^{15}$. The radial selection function is derived from the sample selection criteria. When creating volume-limited samples below, we include a galaxy if its evolved, redshifted spectral energy distribution places it within the main galaxy sample’s apparent magnitude and surface brightness limits at the limiting redshift of the sample. The angular completeness is characterized carefully for each sector (a unique region of overlapping spectroscopic plates) on the sky.
Due to the placement of fibers to obtain spectra, no two targets on the same plate can be closer than $55''$. This results in $\sim 7\%$ of targeted galaxies not having a measured redshift. We assign these galaxies the redshift of their nearest neighboring galaxy; roughly speaking, this method double-weights the galaxy that [*was*]{} observed, but it retains the additional information present in the angular position of the “collided” galaxy. As shown in Z05, this treatment works remarkably well for projected statistics such as ${{w_p(r_p)}}$, above the physical scale corresponding to $55''$ ($r_p \approx 0.13{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$ at the outer edge of our sample). We thus limit the measurements in this paper to scales larger than that. The median deviation of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ for the range of separations we utilize is 0.2%, much less than the statistical errors on the measurements (Fig. 3 in Z05). It is, in fact, possible to correct for fiber collisions down to scales as small as $0.01{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$ using the ratio of small-angle pairs in the spectroscopic and photometric catalogs [@masjedi06; @li06; @li09], but we have not implemented this technique here.
The clustering measurements in this paper are based on SDSS DR7 [@abazajian09], which marks the completion of the original goals of the SDSS and the end of the phase known as SDSS-II. The associated NYU Value-Added Galaxy Catalog (NYU-VAGC)[^1] includes approximately $700,000$ main sample galaxies over about 8000 deg$^2$ on the sky. This data set can be compared to the much smaller sky coverage of the samples in previous correlation function analyses of the SDSS main galaxy sample: @zehavi02 used an early sample of $\sim 700$ deg$^2$, and Z05 analyzed a sample of about $2500$ deg$^2$. The contiguous northern footprint of DR7 offers further advantage over earlier data sets by reducing boundary effects. Figures \[fig:pie\]-\[fig:pie\_lum\] show the distribution of the main sample galaxies in right ascension and redshift for slices near the celestial equator. These plots nicely illustrate the large-scale structure we aim to study using the two-point correlation function, as well as the potential dependencies on galaxy properties. Diagrams that show contiguity of structure over multiple SDSS slices appear in [@choi10], who analyze the topology of large scale structure in the DR7 main galaxy sample.
Throughout this paper, we refer to distances in comoving units, and for all distance calculations and absolute magnitude definitions we adopt a flat $\Lambda$CDM model with $\Omega_m=0.3$. We quote distances in ${\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$ (where $h\equiv H_0/100{\,{\,{\rm km}\;{\rm s}^{-1}}\;{\rm Mpc}^{-1}}$), and we quote absolute magnitudes for $h=1$. Our correlation function measurements are strictly independent of $H_0$, except that the absolute magnitudes we list as $M_r$ are really values of $M_r+5\log h$. Changing the assumed $\Omega_m$ or $\Omega_\Lambda$ would have a small impact on our measurements by changing the distance-redshift relation and thus shifting galaxies among luminosity bins and galaxy pairs among radial separation bins. However, even at our outer redshift limit of $z=0.25$, the effect of lowering $\Omega_m$ from 0.3 to 0.25 is only 1% in distance, so our measurements are effectively independent of cosmological parameters within their observational uncertainties.
In order to work with well-defined classes of galaxies, we study volume-limited samples constructed for varying luminosity bins and luminosity thresholds. While volume-limited subsamples include fewer galaxies than the full flux-limited sample, they are much easier to interpret. For a given luminosity bin, we discard the galaxies that are too faint to be included at the far redshift limit or too bright to be included at the near limit. We include galaxies with $14.5 < r < 17.6$, with the conservative bright limit imposed to avoid small incompletenesses associated with galaxy deblending (the NYU-VAGC `afe `amples). We further cut these samples by color, using the K-corrected ${{g-r}}$ color as a separator into different populations. We also study a set of luminosity-threshold samples, namely volume-limited samples of all galaxies brighter than a given threshold, as these yield higher precision measurements than luminosity-bin samples and are somewhat more straightforward for HOD modeling. For these samples we relax the bright flux limit to $r>10.0$, in order to be able to define a viable volume-limited redshift range (the NYU-VAGC `right samples). The distri`ution in magnitude and redshift and the cuts used to define the samples are shown in Figure \[fig:samples\]. Details of the samples are given in Tables \[table:bins\] and \[table:thres\]. For luminosity-threshold samples, one could improve statistics by using the flux-limited galaxy catalog and weighting galaxy pairs by the inverse volume over which they can be observed, as done by [@li09; @li10] for samples weighted by stellar mass and luminosity. This procedure would extend the outer redshift limit for the more luminous galaxies above the threshold, thus reducing sample variance, but it has the arguable disadvantage of using different measurement volumes for different subsets of galaxies within the sample, and we have not implemented it here.
The full spectroscopic survey of the SDSS DR7 Legacy survey contains 900,000 unique, survey-quality galaxy spectra over 8000 deg$^2$. Of these objects, the main galaxy sample target criteria selected 700,000. SDSS targeted the remainder as luminous red galaxy candidates (around 100,000) or in other categories (e.g., as quasar candidates or in special programs on the Equator). We use a reduced footprint of 7700 deg$^2$, which excludes areas of suspect photometric calibration [@padmanabhan08] and incomplete regions near bright stars. This reduction leaves 670,000 main sample galaxies. Because we are using an updated photometric reduction, a substantial fraction of targets are assigned fluxes fainter than the original flux limit, which further reduces the sample to about 640,000 galaxies. For uniformity we have imposed an even stricter faint limit of $r=17.6$ in this paper, which yields 540,000 galaxies. About 30,000 of the original targets at that flux limit were not assigned fibers because of fiber collisions; we assign these objects the redshift of their nearest neighbor as discussed above. The resulting sample of 570,000 galaxies constitutes the parent sample for all of the volume-limited samples in this paper. When we apply a bright magnitude cut of $r=14.5$, it eliminates about 6,000 galaxies. Further details and the samples themselves are available as part of the public NYU-VAGC datasets.
Clustering Measures {#subsec:xi}
-------------------
The auto-correlation function is a powerful way to characterize galaxy clustering, measuring the excess probability over random of finding pairs of galaxies as a function of separation (e.g., @peebles80). To separate effects of redshift distortions from spatial correlations, it is customary to estimate the galaxy correlation function on a two-dimensional grid of pair separations parallel ($\pi$) and perpendicular ($r_p$) to the line of sight. Following the notation of @fisher94, for a pair of galaxies with redshift positions ${\bf v}_1$ and ${\bf v}_2$, we define the redshift separation vector ${\bf s} \equiv {\bf v}_1-{\bf v}_2$ and the line-of-sight vector ${\bf l} \equiv {{1}\over{2}}({\bf v}_1+{\bf v}_2)$. The parallel and perpendicular separations are then $$\label{eq:rppi}
\pi \equiv |{\bf s}\cdot{\bf l}|/|{\bf l}|\,, \qquad
{r_p}^2 \equiv {\bf s}\cdot{\bf s} - \pi^2\,.$$ To estimate the pair counts expected for unclustered objects while accounting for the complex survey geometry, we generate volume-limited random catalogs with the detailed angular selection function of the samples. For the different galaxy samples, we use random catalogs with 25-300 times as many galaxies, depending on the varying number density and size of the samples. We have verified that increasing the number of random galaxies or replacing the random catalog with another one makes a negligible difference to the measurements. We estimate $\xi(r_p,\pi)$ using the @landy93 estimator $$\label{eq:LS}
\xi(r_p,\pi)=\frac{DD-2DR+RR}{RR} ,$$ where DD, DR and RR are the suitably normalized numbers of weighted data-data, data-random and random-random pairs in each separation bin. We weight the galaxies (real and random) according to the angular selection function; because we are using volume-limited samples, we do not weight by a radial selection function. We also tested the alternative $\xi$ estimators of @hamilton93 and @davis83 and found only small differences in the measurements. See Appendix \[sec:systematics\] for these and other tests of our standard analysis procedures.
To examine the real-space correlation function, we follow standard practice and compute the projected correlation function $$w_p(r_p) = 2 \int_0^{\infty} d\pi \, \xi(r_p,\pi).
\label{eq:wp}$$ In practice, for most samples we integrate up to $\pi_{\rm max} =60{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$, which is large enough to include most correlated pairs and gives a stable result by suppressing noise from distant, uncorrelated pairs. For samples with low outer redshift limits we use $\pi_{\rm max} = 40{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$ (see Tables \[table:bins\] and \[table:thres\]). We use these $\pi_{\rm max}$ values consistently when performing HOD modeling of the clustering results (not including the small residual effects of redshift-space distortions). We use linearly spaced bins in $\pi$ with widths of $2{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$. Our bins in separation $r_p$ are logarithmically spaced with widths of 0.2 dex. We checked the robustness to binning in $r_p$ and $\pi$ and found our results to be insensitive to either. The measurements are quoted at the pair-weighted average separation in the bin. We estimate that this separation varies by at most 1% from the $r_p$ for which $w_p(r_p)$ equals the pair-weighted average of $w_p$ in the bin. This corresponds to a change of the same magnitude in $w_p$, significantly smaller than the statistical errors on the measurements, and an up to 0.5% shift in the best-fit correlation length.
The projected correlation function can be related to the real-space correlation function, ${{\xi(r)}}$, by $$w_p(r_p)
= 2 \int_{r_p}^{\infty} r\, dr\, {{\xi(r)}}(r^2-{r_p}^2)^{-1/2}
\label{eq:wp2}$$ [@davis83]. In particular, for a power-law $\xi(r) = (r/r_0)^{-\gamma}$, one obtains $$w_p(r_p) = r_p \left(\frac{r_p}{r_0}\right)^{-\gamma}
\Gamma\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)
\Gamma\left(\frac{\gamma-1}{2}\right)\,
\Bigr/ \,\Gamma\left(\frac{\gamma}{2}\right),
\label{eq:wp3}$$ allowing one to infer the best-fit power-law for ${{\xi(r)}}$ from $w_p$. Alternatively, one can invert $w_p$ to get ${{\xi(r)}}$ independent of the power-law assumption. Here, however, we focus on $w_p$ itself, as this is the statistic measured directly from the data that is determined by the real-space correlation function. We note that equation (\[eq:wp3\]) strictly holds only in the limit of integrating to infinity to obtain $w_p$. For most of our measurements used in the fits, however, $r_p \lesssim \pi_{\rm max}/4$, and this has a minimal effect. In this paper, we focus on HOD modeling of the measurements (using the finite $\pi_{\rm max}$ values consistently) and provide power-law fits only as qualitative guidelines, but see @coil07 for a possible way to modify the power-law fitting.
We estimate statistical errors on our different measurements using jackknife resampling, as in Z05. We define 144 spatially contiguous subsamples of the full data set, each covering approximately 55 deg$^2$ on the sky. Our jackknife samples are then created by omitting each of these subsamples in turn. The error covariance matrix is estimated from the total dispersion among the jackknife samples, $$\label{eq:jk}
{\rm Covar}(\xi_i,\xi_j) = \frac{N-1}{N} \sum_{l=1}^{N}
({\xi_i}^l - {\bar{\xi}_i})({\xi_j}^l - {\bar{\xi}_j}),$$ where $N=144$ in our case, and $\bar{\xi}_i$ is the mean value of the statistic ${\xi}$ measured in radial bin $i$ in all the samples ($\xi$ denotes here the statistic at hand, whether it is $\xi$ or $w_p$). In Z05 we used $N=104$ for the smaller sample. The larger value here is chosen to enable better estimation of the full covariance matrix, while still allowing each excluded subvolume to be sufficiently large.
@norberg09 have recently studied a variety of error estimators for dark matter correlation functions in N-body simulations, comparing internal methods such as jackknife and bootstrap to external estimates derived from multiple independent catalogs, each comparable in size to our $L_*$ galaxy samples. They find good agreement between jackknife and external estimates for the variance in ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ on large scales, with jackknife errors somewhat overestimating the externally derived errors on small scales ($r_p \la 2{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$). Our own tests of the jackknife method on PTHalos mock catalogs [@scoccimarro02], described by Zehavi et al. (2002, 2004) and Z05, show that it yields error and covariance estimates similar to those derived from multiple independent catalogs (see Z05, Figure 2). In principle, covariance matrices derived from large numbers of realistic mock catalogs are preferable because they use larger total volumes and include cosmic variance on scales of the full survey (while jackknife or bootstrap estimates only include cosmic variance on the scale of individual subsamples). However, the tests mentioned above suggest that jackknife estimates are sufficient for our purposes, and they are a far more practical tool when working with many subsamples of different clustering properties, as the mock catalog approach would require a new set of realizations mimicking the clustering signal of each one. The [@norberg09] tests suggest that parameter uncertainties derived using the jackknife errors should, if anything, be conservative. Because of potential noise or systematics in jackknife estimates of the full covariance matrix, we also present some model fits below that use only diagonal elements.
HOD Modeling {#subsec:hod}
------------
We interpret the clustering measurements in the framework of the halo occupation distribution (HOD), which describes the bias between galaxies and mass in terms of the probability distribution $P(N|M_h)$ that a halo of virial mass $M_h$ contains $N$ galaxies of a given type. Our modeling effectively translates galaxy clustering measurements for each class of galaxies into halo occupation functions $\langle N(M_h)\rangle$, the mean number of galaxies as a function of halo mass. Other aspects of the HOD — the form of $P(N|\langle N \rangle)$ and the galaxy distribution within halos — are specified by theoretical expectations.
We adopt a spatially flat “concordance” $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model with matter density parameter $\Omega_m=0.25$, and baryon density parameter $\Omega_b=0.045$, consistent with recent determinations from the cosmic microwave background (WMAP5; @hinshaw09 [@dunkley09; @komatsu09]), supernova Ia [@kowalski08; @kessler09], and baryon acoustic oscillations [@percival10]. Accordingly, we assume a primordial density power spectrum with fluctuations at 8 ${\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$ scale of $\sigma_8=0.8$. The Hubble constant we use is $H_0 =70$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, and we assume an inflationary spectral index $n_s=0.95$. Lowering $\Omega_m$ to 0.25 has only a small effect on our clustering measurements (see Appendix \[sec:systematics\]).
Hydrodynamic simulations show that the most massive galaxy in a halo typically resides at or near the halo center (e.g., @berlind03 [@simha09]), in accord with the expectations of semi-analytic models (e.g., @white91 [@kauffmann93; @cole94]). For HOD parametrization, it is useful to separate the contributions of these central galaxies from those of the additional, satellite galaxies in each halo [@kravtsov04; @zheng05]. For samples of galaxies brighter than a given luminosity, the mean occupation function can be well characterized by a smoothed step function for the central galaxy and a power-law number of satellites increasing with halo mass. We model it in this work using the following form: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:hod}
\langle N(M_h)\rangle = & \\
\frac{1}{2} &
\left[1+ \erf\left(\frac{\log M_h-\log\Mmin}{\sigM}\right)\right]
\left[1+\left(\frac{M_h-M_0}{M_1^\prime}\right)^\alpha\right], \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ where $\erf$ is the error function ${\rm erf}(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}} \int_0^{\rm{x}} e^{-t^2} dt$ . The mean occupation function of the central galaxies (the left square brackets times the 1/2 factor) is a step-like function with a cutoff profile softened to account for the scatter between galaxy luminosity and halo mass (see also @more09). The mean occupation of the satellite galaxies (the second term in the right square brackets multiplied by the left square brackets times the 1/2 factor) is a power-law modified by a similar cutoff profile. The five free parameters are the mass scale $\Mmin$ and width $\sigM$ of the central galaxy mean occupation, and the cutoff mass scale $M_0$, normalization $M_1^\prime$, and high mass slope $\alpha$ of the satellite galaxy mean occupation function.
This specific form is motivated by the theoretical study presented in @zheng05, and is identical to the five-parameter model adopted in @zheng07 (see also @zheng09, Appendix B). It is more flexible than the three-parameter model used in Z05, which has the same basic shape. The five-parameter model introduces two additional parameters to characterize the cutoff profiles of central and satellite galaxies, allowing excellent descriptions of the $\langle N(M_h)\rangle$ functions predicted by hydrodynamic simulations and semi-analytic models [@zheng05].
Two characteristic halo masses come into play in the modeling, which set the mass scales of halos that host central galaxies and satellites. $\Mmin$ characterizes the minimum mass of a halo hosting a central galaxy above the luminosity threshold. The exact definition of $\Mmin$ can vary between different HOD parameterizations; in the form we adopt (eq. \[eq:hod\]), it is the mass for which half of such halos host galaxies above the luminosity threshold, i.e., $\langle N_{\rm cen}(M_{\rm min}) \rangle = 0.5$. It can also be interpreted as the mass of halos in which the median luminosity of central galaxies is equal to the luminosity threshold (see @zheng07 for details, except that it was incorrectly labeled as [*mean*]{} rather than [*median*]{} luminosity there). The second characteristic mass scale is $M_1$, the mass of halos that on average have one additional satellite galaxy above the luminosity threshold, defined by $\langle N_{\rm sat}(M_1) \rangle = 1$. Note that $M_1$ is different from $M_1^\prime$ in equation (\[eq:hod\]), though it is obviously related to the values of $M_1^\prime$ and $M_0$.
As is common practice, the distributions of the occupation number of central galaxies and satellite galaxies are assumed to follow the nearest-integer and Poisson distributions, respectively, consistent with theoretical predictions [@kravtsov04; @zheng05]. [@boylan-kolchin09] have recently argued that the distributions of subhalo counts in high mass halos become super-Poisson at high $\langle N_{\rm sat}\rangle$, but we expect such a distribution to have minimal quantitative impact on our clustering predictions. The spatial distribution of satellite galaxies within halos is assumed to be the same as that of the dark matter, which follows to a good approximation an NFW profile [@NFW96]. For the halo concentration parameter $c(M_h)$, we adopt the relation given by @bullock01, modified to be consistent with our halo definition that the mean density of halos is 200 times the background density: $c(M_h)=c_0(M_h/M_{\rm nl})^\beta (1+z)^{-1}$, where $c_0=11$, $\beta=-0.13$, and $M_{\rm nl} = 2.26\times 10^{12}\hMsun$ is the nonlinear mass scale at $z=0$.
The two-point correlation function of galaxies in our model is calculated using the method described by @tinker05, specifically their “$\bar{n}_g^\prime$–matched” method, which improves the algorithm in @zheng04 by incorporating a more accurate treatment of the halo exclusion effect. The method, calibrated and tested using mock catalogs, is accurate to 10% or better. We use the measured values of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ with the full error covariance matrices. We also incorporate the observed number density of galaxies in each subsample as an additional constraint on the HOD model, with an assumed $5\%$ uncertainty. That is, we form the $\chi^2$ as $$\chi^2= \mathbf{(w_p-w_p^*)^T C^{-1} (w_p-w_p^*)}
+(n_g-n_g^*)^2/\sigma_{n_g}^2,$$ where $\mathbf{w_p}$ and $n_g$ are the vectors of the two-point correlation function and the number density of the sample, and $\mathbf{C}$ is the full covariance matrix. The measured values are denoted with a superscript $*$.
We implement a Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) code to explore the HOD parameter space. At each point of the chain, a random walk is taken in the parameter space to generate a new set of HOD parameters. The step-size of the random walk for each parameter is drawn from a Gaussian distribution. The probability to accept the new set of HOD parameters is taken to be 1 if $\chi^2_{\rm new}\leq\chi^2_{\rm old}$ and $\exp[-(\chi^2_{\rm new}- \chi^2_{\rm old})]$ if $\chi^2_{\rm new}>\chi^2_{\rm old}$, where $\chi^2_{\rm old}$ and $\chi^2_{\rm new}$ are the values of $\chi^2$ for the old and new models. Flat priors in logarithmic space are adopted for the three parameters related to mass scales and flat priors in linear space are used for the other two HOD parameters. The length of the chain for each galaxy sample is typically 10,000 and we find convergence by comparing multiple realizations of chains.
Before turning to our observational results, it is worth noting the similarities and differences between HOD modeling and two closely related methods, conditional luminosity functions (CLF) and sub-halo abundance matching (SHAM). Each well defined class of galaxies, e.g., a luminosity-bin or luminosity-threshold sample, has its own HOD. A conditional luminosity function [@yang03] provides a global model of the full galaxy population, specifying the luminosity function at each halo mass. An HOD can be calculated from a CLF by integrating the latter over luminosity, and a CLF can be calculated from a series of HODs by smoothed differentiation. The virtue of the CLF is its completeness, but when fitting data it typically requires stronger prior assumptions, such as a functional form for the luminosity function itself and functional forms for the dependence of luminosity function parameters on halo mass. By contrast, the five-parameter HOD model used here is already flexible enough to provide a near-perfect description of theoretical model predictions for luminosity-threshold samples [@zheng05]. The SHAM method [@conroy06; @vale06] assumes a monotonic relation between the luminosity or stellar mass of a galaxy and the mass or circular velocity of its parent halo or subhalo; the method can be generalized to allow scatter in this relation. While an HOD model takes the space density and clustering of a galaxy population as input for parameter fits, a SHAM model takes only the space density as input and predicts the clustering, effectively using a theoretical prior to specify the satellite occupation function. SHAM models are remarkably successful at matching the Z05 correlation functions of luminosity-threshold samples [@conroy06].
The correlation functions of sub-$L_*$ galaxies at low redshift are typically well described by power laws on scales $r_p \la 10{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$ [@totsuji69; @peebles74; @gott79], but deviations from a power law become progressively stronger for brighter galaxies (@zehavi04; Z05; this paper) and at higher redshifts (@conroy06 and references therein). In the context of HOD models, [@watson11] discuss the physical processes that lead both to an approximate power law correlation function and to deviations from a power law (see also @benson00, @berlind02, and Appendix A of @zheng09).
Dependence on Luminosity {#sec:lum}
========================
Clustering Results {#subsec:xilum}
------------------
We study the clustering dependence on luminosity using sets of volume-limited samples constructed from the full SDSS sample, corresponding to different luminosity bins and thresholds. Details of the individual samples are given in Tables \[table:bins\] and \[table:thres\] and illustrated in Figure \[fig:samples\].
[crrrrrcccccccc]{} -23 to -22 & 30,900 & 73,500 & 10,251 & 1,797 & 8,452 & 10.47 $\pm$ 0.25 & 1.92 $\pm$ 0.03 & 2.4 & 10.40 $\pm$ 0.18 & 1.94 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.004 & -22.22 & 60 -22 to -21 & 19,900 & 47,650 & 73,746 & 27,496 & 46,249 & 5.98 $\pm$ 0.11 & 1.92 $\pm$ 0.02 & 5.0 & 6.30 $\pm$ 0.06 & 1.88 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.111 & -21.32 & 60 -21 to -20 & 12,600 & 31,900 & 108,629 & 50,879 & 57,749 & 5.46 $\pm$ 0.15 & 1.77 $\pm$ 0.02 & 3.8 & 5.80 $\pm$ 0.09 & 1.75 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.530 & -20.42 & 60 -21 to -20 & 12,600 & 19,250$^*$ & 17,853 & 8,103 & 9,749 & 4.82 $\pm$ 0.23 & 1.87 $\pm$ 0.03 & 2.5 & 5.33 $\pm$ 0.13 & 1.81 $\pm$ 0.03 & 0.530 & -20.42 & 40 -20 to -19 & 8,050 & 19,250 & 44,348 & 25,455 & 18,892 & 4.89 $\pm$ 0.26 & 1.78 $\pm$ 0.02 & 3.8 & 5.19 $\pm$ 0.13 & 1.80 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.004 & -19.47 & 60 -19 to -18 & 5,200 & 12,500 & 18,200 & 13,035 & 5,165 & 4.14 $\pm$ 0.30 & 1.81 $\pm$ 0.03 & 2.3 & 4.59 $\pm$ 0.18 & 1.93 $\pm$ 0.04 & 1.300 & -18.48 & 40 -18 to -17 & 3,200 & 7,850 & 5,965 & 4,970 & 995 & 2.09 $\pm$ 0.38 & 1.99 $\pm$ 0.14 & 2.0 & 4.37 $\pm$ 0.37 & 1.91 $\pm$ 0.08 & 1.972 & -17.46 & 40
[lrrrrccccccc]{} -22.0 & 73,500 & 11,385 & 2,145 & 9,237 & 10.71 $\pm$ 0.24 & 1.91 $\pm$ 0.03 & 3.2 & 10.56 $\pm$ 0.17 & 1.92 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.005 & 60 -21.5 & 59,600 & 39,456 & 10,576 & 28,876 & 7.27 $\pm$ 0.14 & 2.00 $\pm$ 0.01 & 8.8 & 7.68 $\pm$ 0.08 & 1.94 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.028 & 60 -21.0 & 47,650 & 83,238 & 30,159 & 53,075 & 5.98 $\pm$ 0.12 & 1.96 $\pm$ 0.02 & 6.1 & 6.46 $\pm$ 0.06 & 1.90 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.116 & 60 -20.5 & 39,700 & 132,225 & 54,827 & 77,395 & 5.60 $\pm$ 0.12 & 1.90 $\pm$ 0.01 & 3.2 & 6.01 $\pm$ 0.06 & 1.85 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.318 & 60 -20.0 & 31,900 & 141,733 & 62,862 & 78,868 & 5.54 $\pm$ 0.14 & 1.83 $\pm$ 0.01 & 3.8 & 6.00 $\pm$ 0.09 & 1.79 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.656 & 60 -20.0 & 19,250$^*$ & 30,245 & 12,733 & 17,510 & 5.24 $\pm$ 0.28 & 1.87 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.2 & 5.53 $\pm$ 0.13 & 1.85 $\pm$ 0.02 & 0.656 & 60 -19.5 & 25,450 & 132,664 & 62,892 & 69,770 & 5.11 $\pm$ 0.17 & 1.81 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.8 & 5.37 $\pm$ 0.08 & 1.81 $\pm$ 0.01 & 1.120 & 60 -19.5 & 19,250$^*$ & 51,498 & 24,005 & 27,491 & 5.17 $\pm$ 0.27 & 1.84 $\pm$ 0.03 & 2.3 & 5.36 $\pm$ 0.13 & 1.85 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.120 & 60 -19.0 & 19,250 & 77,142 & 39,554 & 37,585 & 4.86 $\pm$ 0.27 & 1.85 $\pm$ 0.03 & 3.2 & 5.23 $\pm$ 0.12 & 1.85 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.676 & 60 -18.5 & 15,750 & 58,909 & 32,554 & 26,355 & 4.48 $\pm$ 0.33 & 1.86 $\pm$ 0.04 & 2.1 & 5.33 $\pm$ 0.18 & 1.83 $\pm$ 0.03 & 2.311 & 40 -18.0 & 12,500 & 39,027 & 23,159 & 15,868 & 4.10 $\pm$ 0.34 & 1.85 $\pm$ 0.04 & 1.8 & 4.75 $\pm$ 0.17 & 1.91 $\pm$ 0.04 & 3.030 & 40
As a representative case, we show in Figure \[fig:xsirpi\] the two-dimensional correlation function, $\xi(r_p,\pi)$, as a function of separations perpendicular, $r_p$, and parallel, $\pi$, to the line of sight, calculated for the $-20<M_r<-19$ sample. In the absence of redshift-space distortions the contours would have been isotropic, a function only of total separation ($\sqrt{{r_p}^2+{\pi}^2}$). Redshift-space distortions enter in the line of sight direction and are clearly evident in the plot. For small projected separations, the contours are elongated along the line of sight direction, reflecting the “fingers-of-God” effect of small-scale virial motions in collapsed objects. On larger scales, we see the compression caused by coherent large-scale streaming into overdense regions and out of underdense regions [@sargent77; @kaiser87].
We isolate real-space correlations by calculating the projected correlation function, $w_p(r_p)$, according to equation (\[eq:wp\]). Figure \[fig:wp\_vl\] shows the projected correlation functions obtained for the volume-limited samples defined by luminosity bins and by luminosity thresholds. For the luminosity bins, we find a pronounced dependence of clustering on luminosity for the bright samples, with the more luminous galaxies exhibiting higher clustering amplitudes. The dependence on luminosity is more subtle for the fainter luminosity-bin samples, with little change for scales $r_p<2 {\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$. Behavior for the luminosity thresholds is similar, with nearly identical correlation functions for the $M_r<-18.5$ and $<-19.5$ samples, a slow but significant increase in clustering strength moving to $M_r<-20.5$ and $M_r<-21.0$, then a rapid increase going to $M_r<-21.5$ and $M_r<-22.0$. Measurements for the luminosity-threshold samples are less noisy, and one can see that the shapes of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ are similar for all samples at $r_p \ga 3{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$, while the brighter samples exhibit a stronger inflection in ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ at $r_p \approx 2{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$ and a steeper correlation function at smaller scales. The error covariance matrices exhibit significant correlation between the measurements on different scales, particularly for the relatively faint, smaller volume, galaxy samples. Similar behavior is found by @mcbride10. Power-law fits for these clustering measurements, using the measured data points for $r_p < 20 {\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$, are presented in Tables \[table:bins\] and \[table:thres\]. We include fits computed both with and without the off-diagonal terms in the covariance matrix (i.e., setting the off-diagonal terms to zero). We caution that when the power-law fit is an inadequate description of the data, as indicated by large $\chi^2$/d.o.f. values, the $r_0$ and $\gamma$ uncertainties have limited meaning — fitting over different ranges of the data could produce different values of the fit parameters. Tests in Appendix \[sec:systematics\] on the $M_r<-21$ sample show that changes to our analysis procedures cause $r_0$ and $\gamma$ changes that are smaller than (or at most comparable to) the statistical error bars.
At large scales, we expect the real-space galaxy correlation function to be a scale-independent multiple of the dark matter correlation function $\xi_{\rm gg}(r) = b_g^2\xi_{\rm mm}(r)$, where the bias factor $b_g$ will differ from one class of galaxies to another. For each sample, we calculate the best-fitting bias factor of the measured ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ with respect to that of the dark matter over the separation range $4 {\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}< r_p < 30 {\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$, using the full error covariance matrix of the measurements. (The average of $r_p$ weighted by the inverse of the uncertainty in $w_p$ corresponds to a separation of $\sim 8 {\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$, which can be regarded as a rough estimate of the effective radius for this fit.) The ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ predicted for the non-linear [*matter*]{} distribution of our $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model is computed from the non-linear power spectrum with the method of @smith03. Filled circles in Figure \[fig:bias\_vl\] show these bias factors $b_g(L)$ and $b_g(>L)$ for our luminosity-bin and luminosity-threshold samples. We refer to these below as “DM-ratio” bias factors. In Z05 we defined bias factors via the value of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ at one representative separation, $r_p=2.67{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$. Open triangles in Figure \[fig:bias\_vl\] show this measurement of “single-$r_p$” bias factors for comparison. For the $-21<M_r<-20$ bin and the $M_r<-20$ and $M_r<-19.5$ thresholds, we use the samples with $cz_{\rm max}=19,250{\,{\rm km}\;{\rm s}^{-1}}$ (see Tables \[table:bins\] and \[table:thres\]), for the reasons discussed in §\[subsec:cosmicvariance\] below. Because $b_g(L)$ changes so rapidly between $M_r=-21$ and $M_r=-22$, we have also divided the $-22<M_r<-21$ bin into two half-magnitude bins and computed bias factors separately for each. The open circles, discussed further in §\[subsec:hodlum\], show large-scale bias factors derived from HOD model fits to the full projected correlation functions (“HOD bias factors”).
In agreement with previous studies (@norberg01 [@tegmark04]; Z05), $b_g(L)$ is nearly flat for luminosities $L \leq L_*$, then rises sharply at brighter luminosities.[^2] Dotted and dashed curves in the left panel show the empirical fits to $b_g(L)/b_g(L_*)$ proposed by [@norberg01] and [@tegmark04], respectively, where we take as $b_g(L_*)$ the “DM-ratio” bias factor estimated for the $-21 < M_r < -20$ luminosity bin using the large-scale ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ ratio. The [@norberg01] form appears to fit our measurements better, but the differences between the curves only become large for the $-18.0 < M_r < -19.0$ sample, where the single-$r_p$ and DM-ratio bias factors differ noticeably, and where the tests discussed in §\[subsec:cosmicvariance\] below suggest that cosmic variance fluctuations are still significant. The HOD bias factors are in good agreement with the “DM-ratio” ones.
The luminosity-threshold samples allow more precise bias measurements, and they avoid binning effects that can influence the estimates of $b(L)$ when it changes rapidly across a bin. The HOD and DM-ratio values of $b_g(>L)$ agree well for all luminosity-threshold samples except $M_r<-18.0$, where the HOD fit overpredicts the large-scale ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ measurements (see Figure \[fig:hod\_lum\] below). The HOD bias points are fit to 3% or better by the functional form $$\label{eqn:biasfactor}
b_g(>L) \times (\sigma_8/0.8) = 1.06+0.21(L/L_*)^{1.12},$$ where $L$ is the $r$-band luminosity corrected to $z=0.1$ and $L_*$ corresponds to $M_r=-20.44$ [@blanton03c]. Except for the $M_r<-18$ point, this formula also accurately describes the DM-ratio bias factors. The HOD and DM-ratio bias factors scale as $\sigma_8^{-1}$ to a near-perfect approximation, since at large scales $\xi_{\rm gg}=b_g^2\xi_{\rm mm} \propto b_g^2\sigma_8^2$. We consider equation (\[eqn:biasfactor\]) to be our most robust estimate of the dependence of large-scale bias on galaxy luminosity, applicable over the range $0.16L_* < L < 6.3L_*$ ($-22.5 < M_r < -18.5$). Fitting the DM-ratio bias values for the luminosity-bin samples yields $$\label{eqn:biasbin}
b_g(L) \times (\sigma_8/0.8) = 0.97+0.17(L/L_*)^{1.04},$$ which is close to the formula derived by [@norberg01] for $b_J$-selected galaxies, but has a slightly steeper rise at high luminosities.
Tests of Cosmic Variance {#subsec:cosmicvariance}
------------------------
Our volume-limited, luminosity-bin samples span different ranges in redshift (specified in Table \[table:bins\]), with intrinsically brighter galaxies observed over larger volumes. It is thus important to test for the robustness of the detected luminosity dependence to “cosmic variance” of the structure in these different volumes. (We follow common practice in referring to these finite-volume effects as cosmic variance, though a more precise term would be “sample variance”; @scott94.) Figure \[fig:wp\_vl\_z\] compares projected correlation functions of adjacent luminosity bins when using their respective full volume-limited redshift range (points with error bars) and when restricting both to their common overlap range (lines). The overlap volume is similar to the full volume of the fainter sample (differing only because of the $r>14.5$ bright limit), so the filled points and solid lines are usually in close agreement.
The most significant cosmic variance effect on the measurements appears to be due to the Sloan Great Wall (SGW), a huge supercluster at $z \sim 0.08$, which is the largest coherent structure detected in the SDSS (Fig. \[fig:pie\_color\]; see also @gott05). Its distance places it right at the edge of the $-21<M_r<-20$ sample (see Table \[table:bins\]). Its exclusion from this sample when limiting to the overlap range with the $-20<M_r<-19$ sample causes the decrease in clustering amplitude on large scales seen in the bottom-left panel. Hence, this structure also causes the flattening in the projected correlation function of this sample at large separations seen in Figure \[fig:wp\_vl\]. Conversely, restricting the brighter $-22<M_r<-21$ sample to the smaller overlap range accentuates the supercluster’s dominance and gives rise to the increased clustering seen in the top-right panel (dashed line). Taken together, these results strongly suggest that the most reliable estimate of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ for the $-21<M_r<-20$ luminosity bin comes from the SGW-excluded sample rather than the full sample. Brighter, larger volume samples are much less affected by the SGW, while fainter samples do not extend as far and are thus not affected. These results are very similar to those of an identical test performed with the smaller samples of Z05.
We have performed similar tests with the luminosity-threshold samples, and we find an analogous effect of the SGW, mostly for the $M_r<-20$ sample and, to a lesser degree, for the $M_r<-19.5$ sample. We have also done tests where we have excluded specifically the SGW region with angular and redshift cuts, confirming its significant impact on the large-scale clustering measurement for these samples. It is striking that even with the full SDSS sample, the effect of the SGW is still significant, and one should use caution in interpreting clustering measurements for relatively large separations ($r_p > 5 {\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$) for the few specific samples whose redshift range extends just up to (and including) this structure. For this reason, in Tables \[table:bins\] and \[table:thres\], we also provide power-law fits of these samples when restricted to a redshift limit that excludes the SGW ($cz_{\rm max}=19,250{\,{\rm km}\;{\rm s}^{-1}}$, the same limiting redshift as for the $-20<M_r<-19$ and the $M_r<-19$ samples). The HOD parameters derived for these samples are relatively insensitive to the choice of sample volume, and the correlation functions corresponding to these HOD models differ much less than the power-law fits (see, e.g., Fig 15 in Z05). This insensitivity reflects the constrained nature of HOD fits for a specified cosmological model: there is little freedom within these fits to adjust the large-scale correlation amplitude relative to the more robust measurements at $r_p < 2{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$, so the HOD modeling just accepts the $\chi^2$ penalty of missing the large-scale data points.
Other large structures in the survey volume may affect the clustering measurements in more subtle ways. @mcbride10 investigated the impact of such structures on the 3-point correlation function by analyzing the residuals of individual jackknife samples. The 2-point correlation function is much less sensitive to such effects, with individual deviations at the few percent level at most scales (C. K. McBride, private communication). Of course, it is the cumulative impact of these residuals that determines the jackknife error bars, so the fact that they exist does not in itself imply that errors are larger than our estimates. The tests of Z05 and [@norberg09] suggest that jackknife error estimates for ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ are typicallly accurate or conservative (see §\[subsec:xi\]). An investigation of the individual residuals also suggests that the jackknife errors follow a Gaussian distribution to a fair approximation, but with some noticeable skewness (C. K. McBride, private communication; see also @norberg11). However, we find only a small difference between measuring ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ from the full data sample and taking the median of the jackknife ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ values in each separation bin, which suggests that any non-Gaussianity will have minimal impact on our clustering results.
Additional cosmic variance concerns have to do with the relatively small volumes associated with the lowest luminosity samples we consider. Figure \[fig:wp\_vl\_z\] can shed some light on this issue as well. Specifically, the bottom-right panel checks the sensitivity to the volume probed in the correlation functions measured for the $-19<M_r<-18$ and $-20<M_r<-19$ luminosity bins. The general agreement of the curves (calculated in the overlap volume) to the respective sets of points (calculated for the full volume-limited sample), within the measured uncertainties, is reassuring. We perform similar tests with the magnitude-threshold samples, looking at the robustness of the clustering measurements of different samples when limiting to the inner small volumes associated with the fainter thresholds. Here we find substantial volume effects when considering the volume of the faintest threshold sample $M_r<-18$, but very weakened effects for the $M_r<-18.5$ and brighter thresholds (see Figure \[fig:wp\_lvoid\]). We are unsure why the effects for the $M_r<-18.0$ sample appear larger than those for the $-19.0<M_r<-18.0$ luminosity-bin sample, as they have the same outer redshift limit; however, the galaxy populations are different in the two cases, with the luminosity threshold sample including also brighter galaxies. We find these finite-volume effects to be smaller than those found in the earlier samples of Z05, due to the larger sky coverage of SDSS DR7.
The comparisons of solid and dashed curves in Figure \[fig:wp\_vl\_z\] provide the fairest test of luminosity dependence between the samples, as the effects of cosmic variance are essentially removed by matching volumes. For the fainter samples shown in the lower panels, the evidence for luminosity dependence is marginal relative to the error bars. The detection is stronger in the upper right panel and overwhelming for the brightest galaxies in the upper left. The difference between the dashed line and the open points in this panel is plausibly explained by the small sample ($\sim 2600$ galaxies) of $-23 < M_r < -22$ galaxies in the overlap volume: the larger volume of the full sample is required to give a robust measurement of large-scale clustering for these rare galaxies. These conclusions — evidence for increased clustering at $M_r\approx -21.5$ and dramatically increased clustering at $M_r\approx -22.5$ — are consistent with the $b(L)$ data points in Figure \[fig:bias\_vl\].
Modeling the luminosity dependence {#subsec:hodlum}
----------------------------------
To investigate further the implications of the luminosity-dependent clustering, we turn to HOD modeling. We find the best-fit HOD models for our set of volume-limited luminosity-threshold samples, using the five-parameter model described in § \[subsec:hod\]. Figure \[fig:hod\_lum\] shows the HOD best fits to the projected correlation functions (staggered by 0.25 dex for clarity). Here we use the full volume-limited samples, with no attempt to remove the SGW. The values of the fitted parameters, inferred using the full error covariance matrix, are given in Table \[table:hod\_thres\]. We also list $f_{\rm sat}$, the fraction of sample galaxies that are satellites from the HOD modeling results. We see that the HOD models provide reasonable fits to the projected correlation functions, with deviations from a power-law more apparent for the brighter samples. The characteristic inflections in ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ at $r_p=1-2{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$ arise at the transition from the small-scale, one-halo regime, where most correlated pairs come from galaxies in the same halo, to the large-scale, two-halo regime, where the shape of $\xi(r)$ approximately traces the shape of the matter correlation function [@berlind02; @zehavi04]. The $\chi^2$ values for these fits are also specified in the table and can be compared to the corresponding values for the power-law fits (Table \[table:thres\]). In all cases the HOD model has a better goodness-of-fit than the best-fit power law model. We note, however, that the $\chi^2$ values still tend to be somewhat large, particularly for the bright samples. These might reflect uncertainties in the jackknife error covariance estimate, residual systematics or a limitation of the restricted HOD model. For the $M_r<-18.0$ sample, the HOD model overpredicts the amplitude of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ at large scales, but the tests in Figure \[fig:wp\_lvoid\] suggest that the large scale clustering of this sample is significantly affected by the small sample volume.
[lccrcccccc]{} -22.0 & $14.06 \pm 0.06$ & $0.71 \pm 0.07$ & $13.72 \pm 0.53$ & $14.80 \pm 0.08$ & $1.35 \pm 0.49$ & $14.85 \pm 0.04$ & $0.04 \pm 0.01$ & $2.16 \pm 0.05$ & 1.8\
-21.5 & $13.38 \pm 0.07$ & $0.69 \pm 0.08$ & $13.35 \pm 0.21$ & $14.20 \pm 0.07$ & $1.09 \pm 0.17$ & $14.29 \pm 0.04$ & $0.09 \pm 0.01$ & $1.67 \pm 0.03$ & 2.3\
-21.0 & $12.78 \pm 0.10$ & $0.68 \pm 0.15$ & $12.71 \pm 0.26$ & $13.76 \pm 0.05$ & $1.15 \pm 0.06$ & $13.80 \pm 0.03$ & $0.15 \pm 0.01$ & $1.40 \pm 0.03$ & 3.1\
-20.5 & $12.14 \pm 0.03$ & $0.17 \pm 0.15$ & $11.62 \pm 0.72$ & $13.43 \pm 0.04$ & $1.15 \pm 0.03$ & $13.44 \pm 0.03$ & $0.20 \pm 0.01$ & $1.29 \pm 0.01$ & 2.7\
-20.0 & $11.83 \pm 0.03$ & $0.25 \pm 0.11$ & $12.35 \pm 0.24$ & $12.98 \pm 0.07$ & $1.00 \pm 0.05$ & $13.08 \pm 0.03$ & $0.22 \pm 0.01$ & $1.20 \pm 0.01$ & 2.1\
-19.5 & $11.57 \pm 0.04$ & $0.17 \pm 0.13$ & $12.23 \pm 0.17$ & $12.75 \pm 0.07$ & $0.99 \pm 0.04$ & $12.87 \pm 0.03$ & $0.23 \pm 0.01$ & $1.14 \pm 0.01$ & 1.0\
-19.0 & $11.45 \pm 0.04$ & $0.19 \pm 0.13$ & $ 9.77 \pm 1.41$ & $12.63 \pm 0.04$ & $1.02 \pm 0.02$ & $12.64 \pm 0.04$ & $0.33 \pm 0.01$ & $1.12 \pm 0.01$ & 1.8\
-18.5 & $11.33 \pm 0.07$ & $0.26 \pm 0.21$ & $ 8.99 \pm 1.33$ & $12.50 \pm 0.04$ & $1.02 \pm 0.03$ & $12.51 \pm 0.04$ & $0.34 \pm 0.02$ & $1.09 \pm 0.01$ & 0.9\
-18.0 & $11.18 \pm 0.04$ & $0.19 \pm 0.17$ & $ 9.81 \pm 0.62$ & $12.42 \pm 0.05$ & $1.04 \pm 0.04$ & $12.43 \pm 0.05$ & $0.32 \pm 0.02$ & $1.07 \pm 0.01$ & 1.4
The high-mass slope $\alpha$ of the satellite mean occupation function is around unity for most samples. For the brightest sample ($M_r<-22.0$), $\alpha$ is noticeably higher than unity, but with large error bars. The right panel of Figure \[fig:hod\_lum\] presents the halo occupation functions themselves. When going toward brighter samples, the main effect is a shift of the halo occupation function toward higher halo masses, a shift that affects both the central galaxy cutoff and the satellite occupation. More luminous galaxies occupy more massive halos, which leads to their stronger clustering. For the six fainter samples, there are models with sharp central-galaxy cutoffs ($\sigM=0$) that have $\Delta\chi^2 < 1$ compared to the best-fit model; we have chosen to plot these sharp-cutoff $\langle N(M_h) \rangle$ curves in Figure \[fig:hod\_lum\]. For the $M_r<-21.0$, $M_r<-21.5$, and $M_r<-22.0$ samples, however, a non-zero value of $\sigM$, indicating scatter between halo mass and central galaxy luminosity, is required to simultaneously fit the galaxy number density and projected correlation function. A sharper cutoff would predict an excessive clustering amplitude for the measured number density because of the rising $b(M_h)$ relation. Figure \[fig:Navg\_curves\] illustrates the level of statistical uncertainty in the HOD fits, plotting $\langle N(M_h) \rangle$ for ten models randomly chosen from the MCMC chain that have $\Delta\chi^2 < 1$ relative to the best-fit model for each of three luminosity thresholds. The cutoff profile is generally better constrained for brighter samples because of the steeper form of $b(M_h)$ at high $M_h$. The satellite occupations are tightly constrained in all cases (other than a relatively large scatter in $M_0$ for the $M_r<-20.5$ sample).
Figure \[fig:M1\_Mmin\]$a$ shows the two characteristic halo mass parameters $M_{\rm min}$ and $M_1$ (see § \[subsec:hod\]) as a function of the threshold luminosity. Both halo mass scales increase with the sample’s threshold luminosity, with a steeper dependence for brighter galaxies. Because central galaxies dominate the total number density for any luminosity threshold [@zheng05], the approximate form of the $M_{\rm min}$ curve follows simply from matching the space densities of galaxies and halos (e.g., @conroy06 [@vale06]). In our HOD parameterization, $M_{\rm min}$ can be interpreted as the mass of halos in which the median luminosity of central galaxies is equal to the threshold luminosity. We propose the following form for the relation between median central galaxy luminosity $L_{\rm cen}$ and halo mass $M_h$ (see also @kim08), $$\label{eqn:mminl}
L_{\rm cen}/L_*
=A\left(\frac{M_h}{M_t}\right)^{\alpha_M}\exp\left(-\frac{M_t}{M_h}+1\right),$$ where $A$, $M_t$, and $\alpha_M$ are three free parameters. That is, the median central galaxy luminosity has a power-law dependence on halo mass at the high mass end (with a power-law index of $\alpha_M$) and drops exponentially at the low mass end. The transition halo mass is characterized by $M_t$, and the normalization factor $A$ is the median luminosity of central galaxies (in units of $L_*=1.20\times 10^{10}h^{-2}L_\odot$ in the $r$-band; @blanton03c) in halos of transition mass. The fit (solid curve) shown in Figure \[fig:M1\_Mmin\]$a$ has $A=0.32$, $M_t=3.08\times 10^{11}\hMsun$, and $\alpha_M=0.264$. Figure \[fig:M1\_Mmin\]$b$ shows the $M_h/L_{\rm cen}$ ratio as a function of halo mass. The solid curve is derived from the fit in Figure \[fig:M1\_Mmin\]$a$: $$\label{eqn:mass_to_light}
\frac{M_h}{L_{\rm cen}}=
\left(\frac{M_h}{L_{\rm cen}}\right)_{M_t}
\left(\frac{M_h}{M_t}\right)^{1-\alpha_M}
\exp\left(\frac{M_t}{M_h}-1\right),$$ where $(M_h/L_{\rm cen})_{M_t}=80hM_\odot/L_\odot$ is the mass-to-light ratio in halos of transition mass. The transition mass (times $1/(1-\alpha_M)$, to be exact) also marks the scale at which $M_h/L_{\rm cen}$ reaches a minimum. Halos of $M_h \approx 4.2\times 10^{11}\hMsun$ are maximally efficient at converting their available baryons into $r$-band light of their central galaxy. Other authors have reached a similar conclusion using HOD, CLF, or SHAM methods (e.g., @yang03 [@tinker05; @vale06; @zheng07; @kim08; @guo10; @moster10]).
In Figure \[fig:M1\_Mmin\]$a$, the sharp upturn in $M_h$ ($M_{\rm min}$) arises because the galaxy luminosity function drops exponentially in a regime where the halo mass function remains close to a power-law. The sharp rise in $b(L)$ (Figure \[fig:bias\_vl\]) is driven both by this upturn in $M_h$ ($M_{\rm min}$) and by the steepening of the $b(M_h)$ relation itself [@mo96; @jing98c; @sheth01; @tinker10]. As discussed by Zheng et al. (2009, Appendix A), the greater departures from a power-law ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ evident for brighter galaxies arise mainly because $M_{\rm min}$ and $M_1$ are larger than the characteristic halo mass $M^*_h$ where the halo mass function begins to drop exponentially; this change in the halo mass function shape leads to a sharper transition between the one-halo and two-halo regimes of the correlation function.
There is a considerable gap between the values of $M_{\rm min}$ and $M_1$ at all luminosities. As in earlier works, we find an approximate scaling relation of $M_1 \approx 17 M_{\rm min}$, implying that a halo hosting two galaxies (one central galaxy and one satellite) above the luminosity threshold has to be about 17 times more massive on average than a halo hosting only one (central) galaxy above the luminosity threshold. Halos in this “hosting gap” mass range tend to host more luminous (higher mass) central galaxies rather than multiple galaxies, consistent with the predictions of @berlind03 based on hydrodynamic simulations and semi-analytic models. As can be seen in Figure \[fig:M1\_Mmin\]$a$, this scaling factor is somewhat smaller at the high luminosity end, corresponding to massive halos that host rich groups or clusters. This latter trend likely reflects the relatively late formation of these massive halos, which leaves less time for satellites to merge onto central galaxies and thus lowers the satellite threshold $M_1$. Physical effects that shape the $M_1/M_{\rm min}$ relation are discussed by [@zentner05] using analytic descriptions of halo and galaxy merger rates.
Our results are consistent with previous measurements of these trends (Z05; @zheng07). Z05 found a slightly larger scale factor of $\approx 23$, likely because of slight differences in the HOD parameterizations and the corresponding definitions of the halo mass scales. @zheng07 found, for that same early SDSS sample but using the current HOD model, $M_1 \approx 18 M_{\rm min}$, in excellent agreement with our results for the final SDSS sample. These results are also in agreement with predictions of galaxy formation models. In particular, the scale factor in the $M_{\rm min} - M_1$ scaling relation is in good agreement with the predictions presented by @zheng05.
Returning to Figure \[fig:bias\_vl\], open circles in the right-hand panel show the values of $b_g(>L)$ corresponding to our best-fit HOD models, i.e., the asymptotic bias on large scales where the bias factor is scale-independent. These bias estimates necessarily depend on the assumptions associated with our HOD modeling, principally that $\langle N(M_h) \rangle$ has the form defined by equation (\[eq:hod\]) and that $\langle N(M_h) \rangle$ is independent of a halo’s large-scale environment (no “assembly bias”). These assumptions allow us to use constraints from smaller scale clustering and the galaxy number density, greatly reducing the error bars on $b_g(>L)$ and reducing the sensitivity to cosmic variance in the large-scale clustering. Given the significant finite-volume variations that remain even in SDSS DR7 (§\[subsec:cosmicvariance\]), we consider these HOD-based $b_g(>L)$ values to be our most robust estimates of the luminosity dependence of galaxy bias, despite their dependence on an assumed model.
To obtain HOD-based bias factors for luminosity-bin samples, we have taken the central and satellite occupation functions for each bin to be simply the difference of the occupation functions for the bracketing threshold samples, yielding the open circles in the left panel of Figure \[fig:bias\_vl\]. The right panel of Figure \[fig:hod\_bin\] shows the resulting mean occupation functions, and the left panel compares the ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ predicted by these threshold-difference HODs to the observed ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ from Figure \[fig:wp\_vl\]. After fitting the luminosity-threshold correlation functions, there are no parameter adjustments made to fit the luminosity-bin data. The agreement is generally good. For the faintest luminosity bin $-19 < M_r < -18$ on large scales, the model slightly overpredicts the observed ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ (with $\chi^2 = 20$ for 13 data points). This tension could indicate that our HOD model does not allow a good description of galaxies in this luminosity range, or it could be that our jackknife method underestimates the cosmic variance uncertainties for this small-volume sample. We have already noted that the HOD model of the bracketing $M_r<-18.0$ sample overpredicts its observed large-scale clustering (Figure \[fig:hod\_lum\]), and that this sample appears to have significant finite-volume effects (Figure \[fig:wp\_lvoid\]). We revisit this overprediction in §\[subsec:hodcol\] below, where we separately examine the clustering of red and blue galaxies in this luminosity bin.
Dependence on Color {#sec:color}
===================
Auto-Correlation of Blue and Red Galaxies {#subsec:autocol}
-----------------------------------------
The clustering of galaxies is known to depend on other galaxy properties in addition to luminosity, such as color, surface brightness and profile shapes. These latter quantities are correlated with each other and produce similar trends in $w_p(r_p)$ (e.g., @zehavi02). Moreover, galaxy luminosity and color have been shown to be the two properties most predictive of galaxy environment [@blanton05a], such that any residual dependence on morphology or surface brightness at fixed luminosity and color are weak. We focus in this section on the color dependence of galaxy clustering using our luminosity-bin samples. Figure \[fig:pie\_color\] qualitatively illustrated the clustering differences between blue and red galaxies. To study this difference quantitatively, we divide our sample into “blue” and “red” galaxies according to the well-known color bimodality in the color-magnitude plane (, @strateva01 [@baldry04]). Following Z05, we use a magnitude-dependent color cut defined by $$\label{eq:colcut}
(g-r)_{\rm cut} = 0.21 - 0.03 M_r.$$ This tilted cut, shown below in Figure \[fig:colormag\_brg\], appropriately separates the red E/S0 ridgeline from the blue cloud, following the division into two populations as a function of luminosity. An identical color cut is used by @swanson08 and @mcbride10, while other works (e.g., @blanton07 [@skibbasheth09]) use a very slightly modified division. Our results are not sensitive to the exact choice of the cut.
While color most directly measures star formation history, it can also be viewed as a proxy of morphology, where blue galaxies are mostly spirals, and red galaxies tend to be spheroid dominated. (The two classification schemes are certainly not identical, however; see, e.g., @choi07 [@bamford08; @blanton09; @skibba09]). Figure \[fig:xsirpi\_br\] shows $\xi(r_p,\pi)$ separately for blue and red galaxies, for a representative case of the $-20<M_r<-19$ volume-limited sample. The difference between the two populations is striking. The red galaxies exhibit a substantially higher clustering amplitude and much stronger finger-of-God distortions on small scales, as seen in the elongation along the $\pi$ direction for small $r_p$ separations. These differences reflect the expected color-density relation, with red galaxies residing in more massive halos that have a stronger bias and higher velocity dispersions. The large-scale coherent distortion is more apparent in the blue sample. In linear theory, the coherent distortion depends on the parameter $\beta \approx \Omega_m^{0.6}/b$ [@kaiser87; @hamilton98], as a lower bias implies a larger gravitational perturbation for a given galaxy overdensity. The blue galaxies are better tracers of the ‘field’ and are less biased and thus exhibit a stronger large-scale compression and only a weak finger-of-God distortion. The $\xi(r_p,\pi)$ diagram of the full $-20 < M_r < -19$ sample (Figure \[fig:xsirpi\]) is, of course, intermediate between these two. These results are in qualitative agreement with previous SDSS measurements (Z05) and with DEEP2 measurements at $z\sim 1$ [@coil07].
Figure \[fig:cross\_corr\] shows the corresponding projected correlation functions, ${{w_p(r_p)}}$. The correlation function for the red sample has a higher amplitude and steeper slope than the blue sample. Fitting power laws results in a correlation length of $r_0=6.63 \pm 0.41 {\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$ and slope $\gamma=1.94 \pm 0.03$ for the red galaxies, versus $r_0=3.62 \pm 0.15{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$ and $\gamma=1.66 \pm 0.03$ for the blue (see Table \[table:color\]). These trends are similar for all the luminosity samples, but the differences in clustering are weaker with increasing luminosity, as is shown in § \[subsec:collum\].
Cross-Correlation of Blue and Red Galaxies {#subsec:crosscol}
------------------------------------------
The auto-correlation functions of red and blue galaxies separately do not include blue-red galaxy pairs. Another useful measurement is then the cross-correlation between blue and red galaxies. In the large-scale, linear bias approximation, where $\delta_{\rm red} = b_{\rm red}\delta_m$ and $\delta_{\rm blue} = b_{\rm blue}\delta_m$, the cross-correlation must be the geometric mean of the auto-correlations. To the extent that halos have correlation coefficient $r \equiv \xi_{hm}/\sqrt{\xi_{mm}\xi_{hh}}=1$ with the matter distribution, the geometric mean result should hold throughout the two-halo regime, even if the halo bias is scale-dependent and the matter field is non-linear. On small scales, in the one-halo regime, the cross-correlation encodes information on the mixing of galaxy populations within the halos. Any tendency of red or blue galaxies to segregate from one another will be reflected as a deviation of the cross-correlation function from the geometric mean. For example, if some halos contained only red galaxies while other halos contained only blue galaxies, this would depress the number of one-halo pairs and push the cross-correlation function below the geometric mean. However, the prediction of the cross-correlation function has a number of subtleties; we discuss these issues and provide some simplified estimates in Appendix \[sec:appendix\]. We also show in this Appendix that the cross-correlation function of two galaxy populations is mathematically determined if one knows the auto-correlation of the individual populations and of the combined population; nonetheless, the cross-correlation presents this implicit information in a more intuitive form.
We measure the cross-correlation function of the blue and red galaxy samples in an analogous way to the auto-correlations, using the Landy-Szalay estimator. Specifically, we use equation (\[eq:LS\]) with $D_1D_2$ replacing $DD$, $R_1R_2$ replacing $RR$ and $D_1R_2+D_2R_1$ replacing $2DR$, with the subscripts denoting the two cross-correlated subsamples. Error bars are obtained similarly via jackknife resampling. Filled green circles in Figure \[fig:cross\_corr\] show the resulting cross-correlation function for the $-20<M_r<-19$ sample. On large scales, as expected, we find that the cross-correlation result follows the geometric mean of the blue and red auto-correlations. On small scales (for $r_p \lesssim 2{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$) we find that the cross-correlation falls below the geometric mean, possibly indicating a slight segregation of blue and red galaxies within the halos. This deviation is significant given the small error bars on these scales. Note, however, that this is very far from suggesting a full segregation into “red halos” and “blue halos”. That extreme case would lead to no one-halo contribution at all, making the projected cross correlation approximately flat for $r_p < 2{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$.
We find similar behavior for the cross-correlation of red and blue galaxies in all of our luminosity subsamples. However, the depression of the cross-correlation below the geometric mean is stronger for the relatively faint samples and smaller for brighter galaxies (consistent with Z05, who showed the cross-correlation function for an $M_r<-21$ galaxy sample). Our results are also in agreement with @wang07, who investigated in detail the cross-correlation between galaxies of different luminosities and color using an earlier SDSS sample, and with @ross09, who measured angular clustering of an SDSS photometric sample. A similar depression of the cross-correlation below the geometric mean is observed by @coil07.
Using an SDSS group catalog, @weinmann06 find that the colors of satellite galaxies are correlated with those of their central galaxy. However, this trend, which they termed “galactic conformity”, is found to have roughly the same strength independent of luminosity, so its connection to our findings is unclear. It is known that the fraction of red galaxies that are satellites becomes larger with decreasing luminosity (e.g., Z05; see also related discussions in the following subsections). Thus, the luminosity-dependent suppression of the cross-correlation function in the one-halo regime may be simply related to the relative paucity of blue galaxies compared to red ones within large halos (see also @bosch08b [@hansen09]). In future work, we will model the cross-correlation results with HOD in detail, and study the implication of these measurements for the distribution of red and blue galaxies within dark matter halos.
Joint Dependence on Color and Luminosity {#subsec:collum}
----------------------------------------
We now turn to the luminosity dependence of clustering within the red and blue galaxy populations individually, using the luminosity-dependent color division of equation (\[eq:colcut\]). Figure \[fig:wp\_col\_lum\] shows projected correlation functions for the volume-limited luminosity-bin samples, separately for the red (left panel) and blue (right panel) galaxies. Figure \[fig:r0gam\_col\_lum\] shows the correlation length $r_0$ and slope $\gamma$ of power-law fits to these samples. Because some of the samples are quite small, making jackknife estimates of the covariance matrix noisy, we fit using the diagonal error bars only, which is enough to capture the trends visible in the ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ plots. Figure \[fig:r0gam\_col\_lum\] also shows $r_0$ and $\gamma$ from diagonal fits to the full luminosity-bin samples. The differences between the different color samples are particularly distinct for the fainter samples, and they decrease with increasing luminosity.
These plots display the same general trends seen in previous sections: the large-scale clustering amplitude increases with luminosity for both red and blue populations, and red galaxies generically have higher clustering amplitude and a steeper correlation function. Within the individual populations, however, the luminosity trends are remarkably different. The projected correlation functions of the blue galaxies are all roughly parallel, with slopes $1.6 \leq \gamma \leq 1.8$, and the amplitude (or correlation length) increases steadily with luminosity. For the red galaxies, on the other hand, the shape of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ is radically different for the two faintest samples, $-18 < M_r < -17$ and $-19 < M_r < -18$, with a strong inflection at $r_p \approx 3{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$ indicating a high-amplitude one-halo term. These two samples have the [*strongest*]{} small-scale clustering, matched only by the ultra-luminous, $-23 < M_r < -22$ galaxies. The large-scale clustering (at $r_p \approx 5-10{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$) shows no clear luminosity dependence until the sharp jump at the $-23 < M_r < -22$ bin, though it is consistent with a weak but continuous trend at lower luminosities. Power-law fits yield significantly steeper power-law slopes for the correlation functions of the two faintest samples, together with a mild increase in the correlation lengths (see Fig. \[fig:r0gam\_col\_lum\]). We caution that the $-18 < M_r < -17$ sample is very small, containing only about 5000 blue galaxies and 1000 red galaxies, and might be sensitive to cosmic variance; we have not used it in earlier sections but include it here to show the extension of the luminosity trends to the faintest galaxies we can effectively study.
The strong clustering of intrinsically faint red galaxies has been previously observed (@norberg02 [@hogg03]; Z05; @swanson08 [@cresswell09]). We build on these studies, confirming this intriguing clustering signal and presenting its most significant measurement obtained with the largest redshift sample available. The red galaxy samples analyzed here include $\sim 25,000$ galaxies below $L_*$, about $6,000$ of them in the two faintest bins, more than triple the size of the samples studied in Z05. The strong clustering is an indication that most of the faint red galaxies are satellites in fairly massive halos (@berlind05; Z05; @wang09). We present HOD models of a few of these samples in §\[subsec:hodcol\] below but defer a detailed examination of this population to future work.
Auto-Correlation of Finer Color Samples {#subsec:finecol}
---------------------------------------
The large size of the DR7 main galaxy sample allows us to measure ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ for narrow bins of color in addition to the broad “blue” and “red” classifications used in §\[subsec:autocol\]-§\[subsec:collum\] and in most earlier work. Figure \[fig:colormag\_brg\] shows the cuts we adopt to divide galaxies into “bluest”, “bluer”, “redder” and “reddest” populations. We also define an intermediate population of “green” galaxies, located near the minimum of the observed color bimodality along the red/blue dividing line, associated with the so-called “green valley” galaxies (e.g., @wyder07 [@loh09]). We include all galaxies within $\Delta (g-r)=0.05$ of the tilted dividing line of Eq. \[eq:colcut\] (analogous to the “green” galaxy population studied by @coil07). In addition, we add a sample of galaxies along the cusp of the red sequence galaxies, denoted as “redseq”, defined as all galaxies within $\Delta (g-r)=0.03$ of the redder/reddest dividing line. Note that the last two classes are not distinct populations: the “green” sample contains a subset of the redder and bluer samples, while the “redseq” sample contains a subset of the the redder and reddest samples. Details of the individual samples are given in Table \[table:color\].
[lrccccc]{} ${\mathrm{All}}$ & 44,348 & 1.004 & 4.89 $\pm$ 0.26 & 1.78 $\pm$ 0.02 & 3.79 ${\mathrm{Red}}$ & 18,892 & 0.428 & 6.63 $\pm$ 0.41 & 1.94 $\pm$ 0.03 & 5.07 ${\mathrm{Blue}}$ & 25,455 & 0.576 & 3.62 $\pm$ 0.15 & 1.66 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.66 & & & & & ${\mathrm{Reddest}}$ & 10,278 & 0.233 & 7.62 $\pm$ 0.42 & 2.07 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.87 ${\mathrm{Redseq}}$ & 7,542 & 0.171 & 7.23 $\pm$ 0.28 & 1.95 $\pm$ 0.03 & 1.06 ${\mathrm{Redder}}$ & 8,614 & 0.195 & 5.48 $\pm$ 0.43 & 1.91 $\pm$ 0.04 & 1.84 ${\mathrm{Green}}$ & 5,543 & 0.126 & 5.06 $\pm$ 0.42 & 1.79 $\pm$ 0.05 & 1.35 ${\mathrm{Bluer}}$ & 11,156 & 0.253 & 4.14 $\pm$ 0.21 & 1.69 $\pm$ 0.04 & 0.89 ${\mathrm{Bluest}}$ & 14,299 & 0.324 & 3.15 $\pm$ 0.15 & 1.71 $\pm$ 0.05 & 1.10
Figure \[fig:wp\_brg\] shows the projected correlation functions of all these color samples, for the representative luminosity bin $-20<M_r<-19$. We find a [*continuous*]{} trend with color, in both amplitude and slope: the redder the color of the sample, the higher and steeper the correlation function. We find the same trends in the other luminosity bins, although the dependence on color is weaker at higher luminosities, as seen already for the red/blue division in Figure \[fig:r0gam\_col\_lum\].
Differences in clustering strengths should be reflective of the different environments of the galaxies. The steady trend of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ with color at fixed luminosity is consistent with the findings of [@hogg03], who investigated the density of galaxy environments as a function of luminosity and color. The trend across our three red samples indicates that redder galaxies within the red sequence populate denser regions, again consistent with @hogg03. @hogg04 examined the color-magnitude diagram as a function of environment and did not find a significant shift of the red sequence location with density, but examining their results in detail does reveal mild changes in the locus for bulge-dominated galaxies. The trends observed in @hogg03 [@hogg04] are subtle, but they appear consistent with our results.
@coil07 have carried out an analysis similar to ours at $z\sim 1$, using projected correlation functions of fine color bins in the DEEP2 galaxy survey. They find qualitatively similar results for blue galaxies and for the difference between blue and red galaxy clustering, but they find no significant change in the amplitude or slope of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ among their red samples (see their figure 12). The difference from our results could be a consequence of details of sample definition, or possibly a consequence of color-dependent incompleteness in DEEP2 (e.g., @gerke07), though [@coil07] account for this in their analysis. The difference could also be an evolutionary effect reflecting the buildup of galaxies on the red sequence. One plausible explanation is that variations in star formation history and dust content contaminate and scatter galaxies within the red sequence, and from the “blue cloud” into the red sequence, when the universe is younger (e.g., @brammer09), while evolution to $z=0$ allows galaxy populations to separate more cleanly, yielding a tighter correlation between color, stellar population age, and environment.
The clustering of the green galaxies falls between that of the blue and red galaxy samples and clearly follows the continuous trend with color in both amplitude and slope. We do not find the apparent break in the green galaxies’ projected correlation function seen in DEEP2 [@coil07], where the clustering amplitude is similar to that of blue galaxies on small scales and to that of the red galaxies on large scales. @loh09 investigate the clustering properties of “green valley” galaxies using UV imaging from GALEX matched to SDSS spectroscopy, and find that the clustering of green galaxies is intermediate between that of the blue and red galaxies, in qualitative agreement with our results. However, they find that the green galaxies have a large-scale clustering amplitude similar to that of the blue galaxies (in contrast with @coil07). When fitting an overall power-law to the projected correlation function, they find the green galaxies’ clustering amplitude to be between that of the blue and red samples, with a similar slope to that of the red galaxies, while we find the green galaxy population to be intermediate in both amplitude and slope. These differences may have to do with the different sample definition and selection in each of these and warrant further investigation.
Modeling the Color Dependence {#subsec:hodcol}
-----------------------------
To model the color dependence of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ presented in §\[subsec:finecol\], we adopt a simplified HOD model based on the parameterized form of the mean occupation function specified in equation (\[eq:hod\]) for luminosity-threshold samples. For the $-20<M_r<-19$ luminosity bin, we set the central galaxy occupation function to the difference of the $M_r<-19$ and $M_r<-20$ modeling results shown in § \[subsec:hodlum\]. For simplicity, we also fix the slope of the satellite occupation function, $\alpha$, to 1. We also assume that the occupation number of satellites at fixed halo mass follows a Poisson distribution and is independent of the central galaxy occupation number. The modeling is thus a one-parameter family, in which only $M_1^\prime$ is varied to fit ${{w_p(r_p)}}$, changing the relative normalization of the central and satellite occupation functions with color. The overall normalization is determined by matching the observed number density of galaxies in the color bin. In this simple model, the relative fraction of blue and red satellites has no dependence on halo mass. Different modeling approaches and more detailed parameterizations are possible, of course (e.g., @scranton02 [@cooray05]; Z05; @ross09 [@simon09; @skibbasheth09]), but this form is sufficient to explain the main trends of the color dependence. We note that our model guarantees that the sum of central galaxy occupation functions of independent color samples equals that of the full $-20<M_r<-19$ bin sample. By construction, the sum of the satellite mean occupation functions, each of which follows a power law with soft cutoff, differs in shape slightly from the bin-sample satellite occupation, which is the difference of two power law curves with soft cutoffs. We have verified, however, that the sum in our fits is close to the satellite mean occupation function of the overall bin sample, especially in the range where the occupation number is close to unity and the contribution to the small scale clustering signal is dominant.
Figure \[fig:hod\_col\] presents the results of this modeling. Points with error bars in the upper-left panel are the ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ measurements for fine color bins repeated from Figure \[fig:wp\_brg\], with 0.25-dex offsets added between bins for visual clarity. The curves show the model predictions corresponding to the best-fit HODs, exhibited in the upper-right panel. Going from bluer galaxies to redder galaxies, the number of central galaxies steadily decreases and the number of satellite galaxies steadily increases. Although the central-to-satellite ratio is the only tunable parameter in our simplified HOD model, this is sufficient to explain the main trends observed in Figure \[fig:wp\_brg\]: going from bluer to redder galaxies, the large-scale amplitude of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ increases, the correlation function steepens, and the inflection at the one-to-two-halo transition becomes stronger. Table \[table:hod\_color\] lists the best-fit HOD parameters and $\chi^2$ values. We find $\chi^2$/d.o.f. of $0.5-1.3$ for most of the color samples, the exception being the bluest sample, which has $\chi^2$/d.o.f.$\sim 2$. The fits can be improved by adding flexibility to the HOD model; for example, the fit for the bluest galaxies can be improved by allowing the slope of the satellite occupation function and the halo concentration to change.
[lccccc]{} ${\mathrm{Reddest}}$ & $12.11 \pm 0.06$ & $0.10$ & $0.75 \pm 0.03$ & $12.61 \pm 0.07$ & 1.3\
${\mathrm{Redseq}}$ & $12.39 \pm 0.05$ & $0.11$ & $0.62 \pm 0.03$ & $12.15 \pm 0.09$ & 1.2\
${\mathrm{Redder}}$ & $12.67 \pm 0.04$ & $0.18$ & $0.46 \pm 0.02$ & $11.80 \pm 0.02$ & 1.0\
${\mathrm{Green}}$ & $12.87 \pm 0.05$ & $0.14$ & $0.34 \pm 0.02$ & $11.70 \pm 0.01$ & 0.9\
${\mathrm{Bluer}}$ & $13.11 \pm 0.03$ & $0.33$ & $0.24 \pm 0.01$ & $11.65 \pm 0.01$ & 0.5\
${\mathrm{Bluest}}$ & $13.36 \pm 0.05$ & $0.47$ & $0.15 \pm 0.01$ & $11.62 \pm 0.01$ & 2.0
The lower panels of Figure \[fig:hod\_col\] display the trends of satellite fraction more clearly. In the lower-right panel, we scale each occupation function by a constant factor so that the central galaxy components have the same normalization. The amplitude of the satellite occupation function increases steadily going from the bluest galaxies to the reddest galaxies. The lower-left panel plots the satellite fraction $\fsat$ of each color bin against the median halo mass of galaxies in that bin. The satellite fraction rises from $\sim 15\%$ for the bluest bin to $\sim 75\%$ for the reddest bin, and the median halo mass increases as the fraction of galaxies that are satellites in massive halos grows. Green-valley galaxies have occupation functions intermediate between the red and blue galaxies, consistent with the idea that they are a transitional population (e.g., @coil07 [@martin07]).
As discussed in §\[subsec:hodlum\], the trend of clustering strength with luminosity is explained principally by a rise in the central galaxy halo mass, and the satellite fraction drops with increasing luminosity because the halo mass function steepens at higher masses. In contrast, the trend with color at fixed luminosity can be explained with a constant halo mass for central galaxies and a steady increase of satellite fraction with redder color. The increase in typical host halo mass leads to an increase in the large-scale bias factor and thus a higher clustering amplitude at large scales. However, increasing $\fsat$ drives the one-halo term up more rapidly than the bias factor, so the correlation function steepens for redder galaxies as well. The success of our simple HOD model does not rule out a shift in central-galaxy halo mass for redder galaxies, but explaining the strong observed color trend solely through the central galaxy occupation would require placing moderate luminosity red galaxies at the centers of very massive halos, and it might well be impossible to match the clustering and number density constraints simultaneously.
Returning to the joint dependence on color and luminosity (§\[subsec:collum\]), Figure \[fig:hod\_col\_lum\] presents HOD model fits to the blue and red galaxy populations for three of the luminosity bins shown in Figure \[fig:wp\_col\_lum\]. We use the same modeling approach adopted above for the fine color bins: we difference the central galaxy occupation functions of two luminosity-threshold samples to get the central galaxy occupation function of the luminosity bin, fix the satellite slope to $\alpha=1$, and vary only the relative central and satellite normalizations within each population to fit the red and blue ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ measurements. With the other HOD parameters fixed previously by fitting the correlation functions of the full luminosity-threshold samples, this modeling has just one adjustable parameter within each luminosity bin. The model explains the rather complex color-luminosity trends from Figure \[fig:wp\_col\_lum\] fairly well. In particular, it is able to reproduce the small-scale clustering of red galaxies increasing towards low luminosities, both in absolute terms and relative to the large scale clustering, while the shape of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ for the blue galaxies stays roughly constant. The fraction of red galaxies that are satellites increases sharply with decreasing luminosity, from 33% to 60% to 90% in the three luminosity bins, while the fraction of blue satellites (13%, 19%, 19%) is smaller and only weakly dependent on luminosity. The precise values of the satellite fractions depend on the HOD parameterization used to fit ${{w_p(r_p)}}$, but the general trend is robust: most blue galaxies at these luminosities are central, and the satellite fraction for red galaxies is higher and increases towards faint luminosities.
The largest quantitative failure of this model is its overprediction of the large-scale ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ for the faintest red galaxies (and, to a smaller extent, for the faintest blue galaxies). It could be that our jackknife method underestimates the errors for this small-volume sample, and we have already noted (Figure \[fig:hod\_bin\]) that our HOD model overpredicts the total (red+blue) galaxy correlation function in this luminosity bin. However, this discrepancy could indicate a limitation of our restricted HOD parameterization. To investigate this possibility, we have considered models for the faint red galaxy population in which we vary the satellite slope $\alpha$, the concentration parameter of red galaxies in halos, and, most notably, the satellite cutoff parameter $M_0$ in equation (\[eq:hod\]).
The dot-dashed curves in the upper panels of Figure \[fig:hod\_col\_lum\] show an example in which red satellites arise only in halos above $10^{13}\hMsun$, reducing the satellite fraction from 90% in our original fit to 34%, thereby lowering the large-scale bias factor. The physical motivation for such a model is that gas accretion (and subsequent star formation) by a satellite system might be shut off only if it enters a halo whose mass is much larger than the “birth” halo in which it was a central galaxy (@simha09; see also @font08 [@kang08; @skibba09a]). The lower satellite fraction of this model is more consistent with the results of [@wang09], who argue, based on group catalogs, that 30-60% of faint red galaxies (significantly fainter than those modeled here) are central rather than satellite galaxies. The fit to the smallest scale data points is improved by increasing the galaxy concentration parameter [@bosch08] to twice the dark matter value, steepening the profile of the one-halo term. Visually, the ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ prediction of this model is not much better than that of the original model, but the $\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ drops from 3.3 to 1.4 (since the mid-range points where the deviation is largest are the most covariant), a large statistical improvement. Despite its flexibility, this model underpredicts ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ in the one-halo regime and overpredicts it in the two-halo regime, emphasizing how difficult it is to simultaneously reproduce the strong small-scale clustering and low large-scale bias factor of this galaxy sample. This tension could be a sign of environment-dependent effects on the HOD, but the expected form of “assembly bias” for low mass halos, putting the redder central galaxies into older, more clustered halos, would exacerbate the discrepancies with the data further.
Overall, our inferences from HOD modeling accord well with the theoretical predictions of [@berlind05], who compared the results of cosmological SPH simulations to Hogg et al.’s ([-@hogg03]) measurements of galaxy environments as a function of luminosity and color. In particular, [@berlind05] find that the environment of satellite galaxies in the simulations is strongly correlated with stellar population age (hence color), and that for low and intermediate luminosities the environmental dependence of the overall galaxy population tracks that of satellite galaxies. [@berlind05] also find that the great majority of faint red galaxies in the simulation are satellites, though the simulation they use to study this population is small. The success of our simple HOD models in reproducing the observed color dependence of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ contrasts with the recent conclusions of [@ross09], who find that some segregation of early- and late-type galaxies into separate halos is required to reproduce their measured angular clustering of an SDSS photometric galaxy sample, which extends to smaller separations.
Conclusions and Prospects {#sec:conclusion}
=========================
The SDSS galaxy redshift survey allows high-precision clustering measurements for a broadly selected galaxy sample with extensive, high quality photometric information. We have examined the luminosity and color dependence of the galaxy correlation function in the DR7 main galaxy sample, which includes approximately $700,000$ galaxies over $8000$ deg$^2$, with a median redshift of $\sim 0.1$. This is the largest sample used to date for such studies, by a factor of several. Furthermore, the DR7 main galaxy sample is likely to remain the definitive low redshift galaxy survey for many years; other ongoing and planned surveys, including the BOSS survey of LRGs in SDSS-III [@schlegel09], will probe larger volumes and higher redshifts, but they will not target a wide range of galaxy types in the present-day universe. Our analysis focuses on the projected auto-correlation functions calculated for volume-limited samples defined by luminosity and color cuts, with measurements tabulated in Appendix \[sec:measurements\]. We use HOD modeling to interpret these measurements in terms of the relation between galaxies and dark matter halos, assuming a $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model with $\Omega_m=1-\Omega_\Lambda=0.25$, $\Omega_b=0.045$, $h=0.7$, $n_s=0.95$, and $\sigma_8=0.8$.
The amplitude of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ increases with increasing galaxy luminosity, slowly for $L<L_*$ and rapidly for $L>L_*$, where $L_*$ corresponds to $M_r=-20.44$ (@blanton03c; we quote absolute magnitudes for $h=1$ throughout the paper). For $L \leq L_*$, ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ is reasonably described by a power-law at $r_p<10{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$, while brighter samples show clear and increasingly strong inflections at $r_p \approx 1-3{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$. We find similar trends for samples defined by luminosity bins and by luminosity thresholds. The large-scale bias factor of luminosity-threshold samples is well described by the fitting formula $b_g(>L) = 1.06 + 0.21(L/L_*)^{1.12}$. For luminosity-bin samples, we find $b_g(L) = 0.97+ 0.17(L/L_*)^{1.04}$, similar to the luminosity dependence found by [@norberg01] for $b_J$-selected galaxies in the 2dFGRS.
At fixed luminosity, the redshift-space correlation function of red galaxies exhibits stronger “finger-of-God” distortions than that of blue galaxies, while the blue galaxies exhibit stronger large-scale, coherent flow distortions. The projected correlation function of red galaxies is steeper and higher in amplitude. The cross-correlation of red and blue galaxies is equal to the geometric mean of the auto-correlation functions on large scales, but it falls slightly below the geometric mean for $r_p \la 1{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$. Adopting fine color bins, we find a continuous trend of clustering with color: the bluest galaxies have a shallow, low-amplitude correlation function, the clustering of “green valley” galaxies is intermediate between that of blue and red galaxies, and the reddest galaxies have a (slightly) steeper correlation function than galaxies that trace the ridge of the red sequence. We present detailed results for the $-20<M_r<-19$ luminosity bin, but we find similar trends in other bins where our statistics are good enough to measure them.
The luminosity dependence of clustering for the red and blue populations is strikingly different. For blue galaxies, the amplitude of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ increases slowly but steadily with luminosity over the range $M_r=-18$ to $M_r=-22$, with nearly constant shape. For red galaxies, there are only weak luminosity trends over the range $-22<M_r<-19$. The $-23<M_r<-22$ galaxies have a much higher correlation amplitude and a strong break in ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ at $r_p\approx 2{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$. Most remarkably, the small-scale ($r_p < 2{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$) correlation function of the $-19<M_r<-18$ red galaxies is equal to that of the $-23<M_r<-22$ red galaxies, a factor of $2-3$ higher than that of intermediate luminosity red galaxies. Red galaxies with $-18<M_r<-17$ show even stronger small-scale clustering, though our survey volume for such low luminosity systems is small.
Our HOD modeling shows that these varied trends in the amplitude and shape of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ can, for the most part, be well explained by the combination of $\Lambda$CDM cosmology and physically plausible recipes for the relation between galaxies and dark matter halos. The luminosity dependence of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ arises from an overall shift in the mass scale of the mean occupation function $\langle N(M_h)\rangle$. The halo mass $\Mmin$ for hosting central galaxies of luminosity $L$ rises with luminosity. Correspondingly, the central galaxy luminosity increases with halo mass as $L/L_*=A(\Mmin/M_t)^{\alpha_M}\exp(-M_t/\Mmin+1)$, where $A=0.32$, $M_t=3.08\times 10^{11}\hMsun$, $\alpha_M=0.264$, and $M_{\rm min}$ is the halo mass at which the median luminosity of central galaxies is $L$. The mass $M_1$ at which halos host an average of one satellite above luminosity $L$ follows a similar trend: we find $M_1\approx 17 M_{\rm min}$ over most of our luminosity range, with a smaller factor at the highest luminosities. We find substantial scatter ($\approx 0.3$ dex) between halo mass and central galaxy luminosity for $L>L_*$, while fits for lower luminosities are consistent with little or no scatter.
The color dependence of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ at fixed luminosity can be explained well by a change in the relative fractions of central and satellite galaxies. In our best-fit models of the $-20<M_r<-19$ bin, for example, the satellite fraction rises steadily from 15% for the bluest galaxies to 75% for the reddest galaxies. Increasing the satellite fraction increases the large-scale bias factor by placing more galaxies in high mass halos, and it produces a steeper correlation function with a stronger inflection by boosting the one-halo term relative to the two-halo term. A modest offset in the halo mass scale for [*central*]{} red and blue galaxies is physically plausible, but our models are able to fit the main observed trends without such offsets, and it is unlikely that the central-galaxy mass scale can be the primary driver of the observed color trends in ${{w_p(r_p)}}$.
Differences in satellite fractions largely explain the different luminosity dependence of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ for red and blue galaxies. However, within our standard parameterization we are unable to find a statistically acceptable fit to the clustering of the red $-19 < M_r < -18$ galaxies. After adjusting the model to allow red satellites only in relatively high mass halos ($M_h > 10^{13} \hMsun$, a factor of 100 above $M_{\rm min}$), we do find a statistically acceptable fit, but even this model underpredicts the one-halo term of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ while overpredicting the two-halo term. The difficulty in reproducing ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ for faint red galaxies could signify a breakdown of our assumption that the HOD is independent of large-scale environment, but the obvious forms of environment dependence (redder central galaxies in older halos) go in the wrong direction. Clearly the clustering of the faint red galaxy population merits further study. While we do not know of any planned redshift surveys that will provide better statistics for such low luminosity galaxies, cross-correlation of photometric samples with redshift samples of more luminous galaxies may allow higher precision clustering measurements from a larger effective volume.
Our measured luminosity and color trends agree with those found in earlier studies, most notably the [@norberg01; @norberg02] studies of the 2dFGRS and the Z05 study of SDSS DR2, but the SDSS DR7 sample allows measurements of higher precision, greater detail, and wider dynamic range. Our conclusions about the luminosity and color dependence of galaxy halo occupations are generally consistent with those found in earlier studies (e.g., @bosch03a [@collister05; @yang05b]; Z05), although the greater precision and dynamic range of our clustering measurements allows us to examine this dependence in substantially greater detail. Even with SDSS DR7, the tests in §\[subsec:cosmicvariance\] reveal significant finite-volume effects for samples with limiting absolute magnitude $M_r \approx -20$, which extend just far enough to enclose the Sloan Great Wall, and for samples with limiting magnitude $M_r \geq -18$, which have small total volume. These effects have a significant influence on the $(r_0,\gamma)$ values of power-law fits to these samples (and their color-defined subsamples). They have little impact on the best-fit values of HOD parameters, though they do affect the $\chi^2$ values of HOD fits. The finite-volume uncertainties limit the strength of our conclusions about the faint red galaxy population.
Our modeling in this paper derives HOD parameters for well-specified classes of galaxies defined by thresholds or bins in luminosity and divisions in color. The related formalism of conditional luminosity functions [@yang03] seeks to provide a continuous description of the dependence of the galaxy luminosity function on halo mass. In a subsequent paper (Zheng et al., in preparation), we will present a generalization of this approach to luminosity-color distributions and apply it to our ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ data, resulting in a comprehensive model that synthesizes the information from all of the measurements presented here.
Our HOD parameterization is flexible enough to describe the predictions of galaxy formation models accurately [@zheng05], and with an assumed cosmological model the ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ measurements are themselves sufficient to provide tight constraints on HOD parameters. Studies of other real-space clustering measures, such as the multiplicity function of groups, the three-point correlation function, the topology of isodensity surfaces, and the void probability function can test the HOD models presented here, perhaps revealing breakdowns of this parameterization that would point to new aspects of galaxy formation physics. Most interesting would be to find evidence for environmental variations of the HOD, as this would tie observable galaxy properties to features of halo formation history that correlate with large-scale environment at fixed halo mass. Conversely, limits on environmental variations (e.g., @blanton07 [@tinker08]) limit the degree to which galaxy properties can be driven by quantities such as halo formation time or concentration.
Uncertainties in cosmological parameters within the range allowed by other data have little impact on our conclusions. The largest effect is that changes to $\Omega_m$ or $\sigma_8$ would shift the mass scale of the HOD [@zheng07a]. The combination of ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ constraints with dynamical measures that are sensitive to the halo mass scale allows novel constraints on these cosmological parameters. Efforts in this direction are underway, using cluster mass-to-light ratios, galaxy-galaxy lensing, and redshift-space distortions. We expect these analyses, together with the cluster abundance analysis of [@rozo10], to yield tight independent constraints on $\sigma_8$ and $\Omega_m$ with several systematic cross-checks. These constraints, based on the inferred amplitude of dark matter clustering, are complementary to those derived from the large-scale [*shape*]{} of the galaxy power spectrum [@reid10], which can themselves be sharpened by using HOD modeling to account for the effects of scale-dependent galaxy bias [@yoo09]. The combination of these constraints with those derived from CMB data, Type Ia supernovae, baryon acoustic oscillations, and other cosmological observables will allow stringent consistency tests of the $\Lambda$CDM cosmological model, at the few-percent level. Surveys of the next decade will extend many of these techniques to higher redshifts, but the SDSS maps of structure in the present-day universe still have much to teach us about galaxy formation and the physics of the cosmos.
We thank Jeremy Tinker and Cameron McBride for useful discussions and Ravi Sheth and Simon White for helpful comments on the manuscript. We thank the anonymous referee for an exceptionally careful reading and many insightful comments. I.Z. & Z.Z. acknowledge support by NSF grant AST-0907947. I.Z. was further supported by NASA through a contract issued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Z.Z. was supported by the Institute for Advanced Study through a John Bahcall Fellowship at an early stage of this work. Z.Z. gratefully acknowledges support from Yale Center for Astronomy and Astrophysics through a YCAA fellowship. D.W. is supported by NSF grant AST-0707985, and he gratefully acknowledges the support of an AMIAS membership at the Institute for Advanced Study during the completion of this work. M.B. was supported by Spitzer G05-AR-50443 and NASA Award NNX09AC85G.
Funding for the SDSS and SDSS-II has been provided by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Participating Institutions, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Japanese Monbukagakusho, the Max Planck Society, and the Higher Education Funding Council for England. The SDSS Web Site is http://www.sdss.org/.
The SDSS is managed by the Astrophysical Research Consortium for the Participating Institutions. The Participating Institutions are the American Museum of Natural History, Astrophysical Institute Potsdam, University of Basel, University of Cambridge, Case Western Reserve University, University of Chicago, Drexel University, Fermilab, the Institute for Advanced Study, the Japan Participation Group, Johns Hopkins University, the Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics, the Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology, the Korean Scientist Group, the Chinese Academy of Sciences (LAMOST), Los Alamos National Laboratory, the Max-Planck-Institute for Astronomy (MPIA), the Max-Planck-Institute for Astrophysics (MPA), New Mexico State University, Ohio State University, University of Pittsburgh, University of Portsmouth, Princeton University, the United States Naval Observatory, and the University of Washington.
A. The Cross-Correlation Function of Galaxies {#sec:appendix}
=============================================
A.1 The Relation Between the Cross-correlation and Auto-correlation Functions of Galaxy Samples
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[@zu08] consider the general case of the relation between the two-point auto-correlation functions of a galaxy sample and the auto- and cross-correlation functions of its subsamples (see their Appendix). Here we focus on the specific case of the correlation functions of red, blue and all galaxies. The point we make here is that only three of the four correlation functions (blue-blue, red-red, all-all auto-correlation functions, and red-blue cross-correlation functions) are independent. That is, if we measured blue-blue, red-red, and all-all auto-correlation functions, there would be no new information from the red-blue cross-correlation functions.
To demonstrate that this is the case, we recall that the two-point correlation function represents a galaxy pair count. The total number of pairs of all galaxies in the parent sample is simply the sum of the numbers of red galaxy pairs, blue galaxy pairs, and red-blue galaxy pairs. That is, $$\frac{1}{2}n_{\rm all}^2 (1+\xi_{\rm all}) =
\frac{1}{2}n_{\rm blue}^2 (1+\xi_{\rm blue})
+ \frac{1}{2}n_{\rm red}^2 (1+\xi_{\rm red})
+ n_{\rm blue} n_{\rm red} (1+\xi_{\rm cross}),$$ where $n_{\rm all}$, $n_{\rm red}$, and $n_{\rm blue}$ are the mean number density of the parent sample and the red/blue subsamples, $\xi_{\rm all}$, $\xi_{\rm blue}$, and $\xi_{\rm red}$ are the two-point auto-correlation functions, and $\xi_{\rm cross}$ is the red-blue two-point cross-correlation function. The factor of $1/2$ in front of the auto-correlation terms is to avoid the double count of auto-pairs. Since $n_{\rm all}=n_{\rm red}
+n_{\rm blue}$, the above identity reduces to $$\label{eq:cross}
n_{\rm all}^2 \xi_{\rm all} =
n_{\rm blue}^2 \xi_{\rm blue}
+ n_{\rm red}^2 \xi_{\rm red}
+ 2 n_{\rm blue} n_{\rm red} \xi_{\rm cross}.$$ The same relation holds for projected correlation functions $w_p$. Thus the red-blue cross-correlation function can be derived from the three auto-correlation functions.
As a test of this relation, we predicted the red-blue cross-correlation function based on the measured all-all, red-red, and blue-blue auto-correlation functions for the $-20<M_r<-19$ volume-limited galaxy sample. The prediction agrees essentially perfectly with the measured cross-correlation function shown in Figure \[fig:cross\_corr\], with deviations much smaller than the $1\sigma$ error bars.
There is thus, in theory, no new information provided by the cross-correlation function, when one has measured the three individual auto-correlation functions. In practice, the relation in equation (\[eq:cross\]) and that for projected two-point correlation functions can be used for a consistency check. Furthermore, for understanding the mixture among different galaxy populations, the cross-correlation function is more readily interpreted than the consistency relation itself. For example, segregation of “red” and “blue” halos would produce a distinctive suppression of the one-halo term of the cross-correlation function, while its effect on the auto-correlation functions (boosting the red and blue auto-correlations relative to the all auto-correlation) might be difficult to disentangle from changes in satellite occupation slopes, concentration parameters, and so forth.
A.2 The Relation Between the Cross-correlation Function and the Geometric Mean of the Auto-correlation Functions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The two-point cross-correlation function of two populations (e.g., red and blue galaxies we study here) is often compared to the geometric mean of the two-point auto-correlation functions to infer the information about the mixing of the the two populations. On large scales, where the two-halo term dominates the correlation functions, the cross-correlation function is guaranteed to be the geometric mean of the auto-correlation functions.[^3] On small scales, where the one-halo term dominates, it is not obvious what we can infer if there are deviations of the cross-correlation function from the geometric mean. We show here that the situation becomes even less clear for projected correlation functions.
As an example, consider the two-point auto-correlation functions of red and blue galaxies, $\xi_{\rm red}$ and $\xi_{\rm blue}$, and their cross-correlation function $\xi_{\rm cross}$. Under the assumption that these correlation functions are positive, we have $$\left(\int \sqrt{\xi_{\rm red}(r_p,\pi)
\xi_{\rm blue}(r_p,\pi)} d\pi\right)^2
\leq \int \xi_{\rm red}(r_p,\pi) d\pi
\int \xi_{\rm blue}(r_p,\pi) d\pi$$ from the Cauchy-Schwartz inequality. Even if we had $\xi_{\rm cross}=\sqrt{\xi_{\rm red}\xi_{\rm blue}}$ on all scales, the above inequality would mean that the projected correlation functions satisfy $$w_{p,{\rm cross}} \leq \sqrt{ w_{p,{\rm red}} w_{p,{\rm blue}} }.$$ The equality only holds for the case where both galaxy populations trace the same dark matter distribution and $\xi_{\rm red}$ and $\xi_{\rm blue}$ are parallel to each other, which is true on large scales but not on small scales.
B. Robustness of Measurements {#sec:systematics}
=============================
Measuring projected correlation functions from galaxy redshift data involves a set of standard procedures. We test here the sensitivity of our measurements to some key details of these procedures (described in § \[sec:obs\]). Figure \[fig:system\] presents projected correlation functions for several variants of our standard technique, calculated for the $M_r<-21$ sample, which yields the smallest statistical errors among our samples. The overall visual impression of the plotted projected correlation functions (top panels) demonstrates the robustness of the measurements, but we examine it in more detail by looking at the fractional deviations from our standard case (bottom panels).
The measurements presented in the paper all use the @landy93 estimator, the standard for such studies, and we show here (left-hand side) results when using also the estimators of @hamilton93 (long-dashed red line) and @davis83 (short-dashed blue line). We find that the alternative estimators provide similar measurements to the Landy-Szalay one, with some differences on small scales for the Hamilton estimator and a significant deviation of the Davis-Peebles measurement on large scales. Our results are in accord with long-standing claims that the Davis-Peebles estimator is more sensitive to uncertainties in the galaxy mean density, with the differences becoming apparent on large scales [@hamilton93; @strauss95; @pons99], and that the Landy-Szalay estimator has improved shot-noise behavior [@landy93; @szapudi98]. A detailed examination of different clustering estimators is given by @pons99.
The angular selection function is carefully calculated in each sector on the sky, with an average completeness of 0.97. The detailed angular completeness is mimicked in the random samples, and is then used to weight both real and random galaxies. The main analyses of the paper imposed a cut on the angular completeness of $f_{\rm comp}>0.5$, to avoid shot noise from undersampled regions. A more conservative cut of $f_{\rm comp}>0.9$ (which eliminates $\sim 1400$ additional galaxies; dot-dashed green line in the left-hand side) results in negligible changes to the measurements. If we drop the weighting of both real and random galaxies by the angular completeness, it also makes no difference to the results. However, neglecting to address the angular incompleteness altogether (i.e., by not including it in the random catalog and not weighting either data or randoms by it; dotted magenta line) results in a couple of percent difference.
We test additional variants of our standard procedures in the right-hand side of Figure \[fig:system\]. The dashed blue curve shows the effect of integrating ${{w_p(r_p)}}$ up to $\pi_{\rm max}=80{\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$ instead of $60 {\,h^{-1}\;{\rm Mpc}}$. Replacing the random catalog with another realization of equal size makes negligible difference except at the smallest separations; the slight changes in the innermost bins show the importance of using a sufficiently large random catalog. Changing the assumed $\Omega_m$ from 0.3 to 0.25 when calculating comoving separations produces a small ($\sim 2\%$) systematic shift of the measurements. Finally, relaxing the bright flux limit of 14.5, needed for defining the luminosity-threshold samples, might introduce occasional problems with galaxy deblending or saturation nearby ($z<0.05$), but increasing the minimum redshift from 0.02 to 0.05 results in negligible differences.
Table \[table:system\] presents power-law fits to the projected correlation functions for each variant. In all of these cases, we find an overall change in the best-fitting power-law parameters of at most $1\%$, smaller than or comparable to the statistical errorbars, highlighting the robustness of our results. While adopting the [@davis83] estimator or entirely dropping angular completeness corrections makes a (marginally) noticeable change in parameter values, these choices would clearly not be optimal; the smaller changes associated with the [@hamilton93] estimator or with raising the completeness threshold are better indicators of the associated systematic uncertainty.
[lccc]{} ${\mathrm{Standard}}$ & 5.98 $\pm$ 0.12 & 1.96 $\pm$ 0.02 & 6.1 ${\mathrm{Davis}}-{\mathrm{Peebles}}$ & 6.06 $\pm$ 0.11 & 1.94 $\pm$ 0.01 & 5.9 ${\mathrm{Hamilton}}$ & 6.02 $\pm$ 0.10 & 1.94 $\pm$ 0.01 & 5.4 ${f_\mathrm{comp}}$ & 6.03 $\pm$ 0.11 & 1.95 $\pm$ 0.02 & 5.8 ${\mathrm{No\ ang.\ comp.}}$ & 5.92 $\pm$ 0.12 & 1.97 $\pm$ 0.02 & 6.1 ${\mathrm{\pi_{max}=80}}$ & 6.06 $\pm$ 0.13 & 1.95 $\pm$ 0.02 & 6.0 ${\mathrm{Random}}$ & 6.01 $\pm$ 0.12 & 1.95 $\pm$ 0.02 & 6.1 ${\mathrm{\Omega_m=0.25}}$ & 5.97 $\pm$ 0.10 & 1.97 $\pm$ 0.01 & 6.4 ${\mathrm{z_{min}=0.05}}$ & 6.01 $\pm$ 0.10 & 1.95 $\pm$ 0.01 & 6.5
C. Correlation Function Measurements {#sec:measurements}
====================================
[ccccccc]{} 0.17 & 2307 (510) & 536.1 (25.4) & 297.9 (9.9) & 269.0 (18.3) & 268.4 (46.7) & 211.6 (64.7) 0.27 & 1200 (208) & 359.0 (12.4) & 231.5 (7.8) & 208.7 (16.3) & 212.1 (37.0) & 203.9 (67.3) 0.42 & 713.4 (100.0) & 238.6 (6.5) & 166.4 (6.6) & 152.2 (13.1) & 153.7 (31.0) & 158.1 (58.7) 0.67 & 527.2 (62.0) & 148.7 (4.8) & 117.2 (5.4) & 108.8 (11.2) & 109.8 (22.1) & 114.4 (46.8) 1.1 & 274.1 (25.6) & 99.1 (3.2) & 79.3 (4.3) & 73.1 (7.9) & 75.1 (18.0) & 79.4 (34.1) 1.7 & 155.6 (15.4) & 65.6 (2.2) & 55.8 (3.6) & 48.5 (6.8) & 47.1 (12.0) & 53.0 (20.8) 2.7 & 109.7 (10.7) & 47.2 (2.0) & 40.4 (3.3) & 33.8 (5.2) & 31.4 (7.6) & 36.7 (13.9) 4.2 & 92.0 (5.9) & 34.0 (1.8) & 29.3 (3.1) & 24.2 (4.0) & 18.0 (4.0) & 21.7 (9.9) 6.7 & 56.1 (3.8) & 23.6 (1.5) & 20.9 (2.7) & 16.2 (3.3) & 9.43 (2.50) & 12.9 (6.2) 10.6 & 33.2 (3.1) & 14.9 (1.3) & 13.9 (2.0) & 9.94 (2.03) & 5.95 (1.68) & 2.43 (3.10) 16.9 & 19.4 (2.3) & 8.30 (0.92) & 7.87 (1.32) & 5.00 (1.53) & 3.73 (1.31) & 0.23 (3.04) 26.8 & 10.3 (1.7) & 4.08 (0.72) & 4.59 (1.09) & 2.47 (1.68) & 1.82 (1.11) & -0.93 (1.71) 42.3 & 5.21 (1.26) & 2.68 (0.54) & 3.40 (0.85) & 1.11 (1.28) & 0.23 (1.15) & -4.89 (1.85)
The following tables present the projected correlation function values that are used in this work, together with the diagonal error bars on the measurements. Table \[table:wp\_bins\] and Table \[table:wp\_thres\] present the measurements from the volume-limited luminosity samples described in § \[sec:lum\]. The tables include the projected correlation functions measured for the samples defined by magnitude bin and thresholds, respectively. Table \[table:wp\_bins\_blue\] and Table \[table:wp\_bins\_red\] present the measurements for the blue and red subsamples, respectively, analyzed in § \[sec:color\]. The full error covariance matrices, obtained from the jackknife resampling, are available upon request.
[ccccccccccc]{} 0.17 & 2615 (491) & 1028 (68) & 586.2 (19.5) & 455.7 (11.3) & 366.1 (9.3) & 307.0 (9.2) & 322.5 (17.0) & 313.3 (25.9) & 294.3 (34.7) 0.27 & 1189 (202) & 731.7 (34.0) & 402.9 (11.7) & 296.9 (6.9) & 264.3 (7.6) & 228.5 (8.3) & 231.1 (15.3) & 230.2 (24.9) & 221.5 (32.1) 0.42 & 728.0 (96.3) & 392.6 (17.1) & 258.7 (6.7) & 197.0 (5.1) & 184.0 (6.6) & 159.3 (7.2) & 162.4 (12.8) & 165.4 (21.1) & 161.4 (27.6) 0.67 & 491.4 (55.3) & 228.6 (10.9) & 163.2 (4.7) & 134.1 (4.1) & 128.6 (5.5) & 110.4 (5.6) & 114.6 (10.3) & 118.3 (17.5) & 114.7 (22.0) 1.1 & 272.8 (23.2) & 144.6 (6.4) & 105.5 (3.0) & 89.4 (3.3) & 84.7 (4.3) & 72.9 (4.2) & 75.5 (7.7) & 79.7 (13.2) & 75.5 (16.5) 1.7 & 154.4 (14.5) & 94.3 (3.7) & 68.9 (2.2) & 61.1 (2.6) & 59.4 (3.6) & 49.8 (3.4) & 50.6 (6.0) & 53.8 (10.5) & 48.6 (11.5) 2.7 & 111.5 (10.4) & 70.5 (2.7) & 50.2 (2.1) & 44.0 (2.3) & 42.9 (3.3) & 34.6 (2.9) & 35.0 (4.7) & 37.4 (7.8) & 32.4 (7.7) 4.2 & 94.5 (5.6) & 48.6 (2.3) & 35.5 (1.8) & 31.2 (2.0) & 30.9 (3.1) & 24.6 (2.5) & 24.2 (3.6) & 25.9 (5.8) & 19.7 (4.4) 6.7 & 56.8 (3.8) & 33.1 (1.8) & 24.5 (1.6) & 21.3 (1.8) & 21.9 (2.7) & 16.7 (2.4) & 15.3 (2.9) & 17.4 (4.5) & 10.8 (2.8) 10.6 & 35.1 (3.2) & 20.9 (1.5) & 15.3 (1.3) & 13.7 (1.5) & 14.6 (2.1) & 10.7 (1.9) & 9.20 (1.78) & 10.6 (2.6) & 6.35 (1.93) 16.9 & 22.0 (2.2) & 11.6 (1.2) & 8.54 (0.94) & 7.65 (1.07) & 8.24 (1.32) & 5.73 (1.28) & 4.11 (1.29) & 5.31 (1.42) & 3.62 (1.34) 26.8 & 11.4 (1.6) & 6.04 (0.95) & 4.11 (0.71) & 4.09 (0.88) & 4.88 (1.06) & 2.82 (1.13) & 1.81 (1.39) & 3.56 (1.76) & 2.14 (1.23) 42.3 & 5.89 (1.21) & 3.28 (0.64) & 2.73 (0.54) & 3.21 (0.70) & 3.58 (0.85) & 1.39 (0.91) & 0.72 (1.24) & 0.96 (1.02) & 0.56 (1.26)
[ccccccc]{} 0.17 & & 273.8 (40.0) & 131.7 (8.0) & 108.4 (8.5) & 87.6 (8.5) & 59.2 (10.8) 0.27 & & 160.2 (19.6) & 101.1 (5.4) & 89.7 (6.9) & 72.1 (6.6) & 78.2 (11.7) 0.42 & & 132.5 (11.6) & 80.3 (3.9) & 64.8 (4.4) & 52.1 (6.9) & 60.9 (10.1) 0.67 & 111.6 (350.0) & 77.7 (7.0) & 58.1 (3.0) & 48.8 (4.1) & 44.9 (4.7) & 46.2 (9.6) 1.1 & 164.5 (129.8) & 66.4 (4.4) & 45.3 (2.3) & 37.9 (2.8) & 34.1 (4.8) & 40.3 (8.1) 1.7 & 55.6 (62.6) & 47.0 (2.5) & 37.2 (2.0) & 27.9 (2.9) & 24.6 (3.6) & 31.5 (8.5) 2.7 & 20.9 (36.9) & 28.7 (1.9) & 27.9 (1.8) & 20.1 (2.5) & 18.0 (2.9) & 25.2 (8.5) 4.2 & 98.9 (32.8) & 23.8 (1.6) & 20.7 (1.7) & 16.1 (2.2) & 11.8 (2.0) & 17.9 (7.5) 6.7 & 56.9 (16.8) & 15.6 (1.1) & 14.5 (1.6) & 11.1 (1.9) & 7.26 (1.74) & 10.6 (4.7) 10.6 & 32.7 (13.8) & 10.6 (1.0) & 10.4 (1.4) & 7.17 (1.40) & 4.27 (1.20) & 1.95 (2.50) 16.9 & 25.6 (8.4) & 6.08 (0.79) & 6.33 (1.09) & 3.75 (1.15) & 2.87 (0.93) & -1.01 (2.12) 26.8 & 15.7 (7.1) & 3.41 (0.61) & 3.77 (0.84) & 1.57 (0.96) & 1.26 (0.70) & -0.68 (1.27) 42.3 & 13.6 (4.0) & 2.07 (0.51) & 2.95 (0.68) & 0.33 (0.71) & 0.15 (0.72) & -3.64 (1.15)
[ccccccc]{} 0.17 & 3158 (1061) & 821.7 (45.5) & 570.9 (24.4) & 724.0 (63.0) & 1623 (311) & 3182 (1439) 0.27 & 1300 (268) & 542.0 (24.1) & 433.1 (17.5) & 570.7 (51.3) & 1197 (252) & 2839 (1437) 0.42 & 875.7 (135.5) & 339.6 (12.3) & 305.1 (14.7) & 390.7 (39.3) & 852.6 (203.1) & 2034 (1218) 0.67 & 633.7 (82.3) & 201.7 (7.8) & 206.5 (11.4) & 257.5 (31.9) & 525.5.9 (138.8) & 1329 (909) 1.1 & 350.4 (35.0) & 132.4 (5.1) & 125.8 (8.6) & 157.1 (21.2) & 313.6 (106.9) & 749.7 (592.2) 1.7 & 164.3 (18.4) & 83.4 (3.5) & 82.0 (6.8) & 95.0 (17.3) & 165.2 (61.3) & 385.6 (296.9) 2.7 & 127.3 (13.1) & 60.3 (2.9) & 56.8 (5.5) & 61.3 (12.0) & 91.6 (29.4) & 166.3 (106.1) 4.2 & 107.0 (7.5) & 42.2 (2.6) & 39.6 (4.8) & 39.3 (8.2) & 42.1 (11.5) & 33.4 (22.9) 6. & 61.3 (4.2) & 29.2 (2.2) & 28.0 (4.1) & 25.1 (6.1) & 14.5 (6.3) & 15.8 (18.5) 10.6 & 35.6 (3.5) & 18.2 (1.7) & 17.8 (2.9) & 14.1 (3.3) & 9.93 (3.82) & -4.73 (7.73) 16.9 & 20.7 (2.5) & 9.74 (1.21) & 9.30 (1.68) & 6.97 (2.42) & 6.43 (3.32) & 14.5 (15.0) 26.8 & 10.2 (1.8) & 4.68 (0.92) & 5.47 (1.48) & 4.23 (3.20) & 2.99 (3.01) & -5.02 (7.43) 42.4 & 4.69 (1.18) & 3.22 (0.68) & 3.85 (1.08) & 2.53 (2.40) & 0.29 (3.04) & -15.6 (9.6)
[999]{}
Abazajian, K., Zheng, Z., Zehavi, I., Weinberg, D. W., Frieman, J. A., Berlind, A. A., Blanton, M. R., Bahcall, N. A., Brinkman, J., Schneider, D. P., & Tegmark, M. 2005, , 625, 613 Abazajian, K., et al. 2009, , 182, 543
Abbas, U., & Sheth, R. K. 2006, , 372, 1749 Abbas, U., & Sheth, R. K. 2007, , 378, 641 Abbas, U., et al. 2010, , 406, 1306 Adelberger, K. L., Steidel, C. C., Pettini, M., Shapley, A. E., Reddy, N. A., & Erb, D. K. 2005, , 619, 697
Alimi, J.-M., Valls-Gabaud, D., & Blanchard, A., 1988, A&A, 206, L11 Baldry, I. K., Glazebrook, K., Brinkman, J., Ivezić, Ž., Lupton, R. H., Nichol, R. C., & Szalay, A. S. 2004, , 600, 681 Bamford, S. P., et al. 2009, , 393, 1324 Bardeen, J. M., Bond, J. R., Kaiser, N., & Szalay, A. S. 1986, , 304, 15
Benoist, C., Maurogordato, S., da Costa, L. N., Cappi, A., & Schaeffer, R. 1996, , 472, 452 Benson, A. J., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., Baugh, C. M., & Lacey, C. G. 2000, , 311, 793 Berlind, A. A., & Weinberg, D. H. 2002, , 575, 587 Berlind, A. A., Weinberg, D. H., Benson, A. J., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., et al. 2003, , 593, 1 Berlind, A. A., Blanton, M. R., Hogg, D. W., Weinberg, D. H., Dav[é]{}, R., Eisenstein, D. J., & Katz, N. 2005, , 629, 625 Blake, C., Collister, A., & Lahav, O. 2008, , 385, 1257
Blanton, M. R., Lupton, R. H., Maley, F. M., Young, N., Zehavi, I., & Loveday, J. 2003a, , 125, 2276 Blanton, M. R., et al. 2003b, , 125, 2348 Blanton, M. R., et al. 2003c, , 592, 819 Blanton, M. R., Eisenstein, D. J., Hogg, D. W., Schlegel, D. J., & Brinkmann, J. 2005a, , 629, 143 Blanton, M. R., et al. 2005b, , 129, 2562 Blanton, M. R., Eisenstein, D., Hogg, D. W., & Zehavi, I. 2006, , 645, 977 Blanton, M. R., & Berlind, A. A. 2007, , 664, 791 Blanton, M. R., & Moustakas, J. 2009. [*Physical Properties and Environments of Nearby Galaxies*]{}, , Vol. 47, 159
Blumenthal, G. R., Faber, S. M., Primack, J. R., & Rees, M. J. 1984, Nature, 311, 517 Bolton, A. S., Treu, T., Koopmans, L. V. E., Gavazzi, R., Moustakas, L. A., Burles, S., Schlegel, D. J., & Wayth, R. 2008, , 684, 248
Bower, R. G., Benson, A. J., Malbon, R., Helly, J. C., Frenk, C. S., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., & Lacey, C. G. 2006, , 370, 645 Boylan-Kolchin, M., Springel, V., White, S. D. M., & Jenkins, A. 2010, , 406, 896 Brammer, G. B. et al. 2009, , 706, L173 Brown, M. J. I., Webster, R. L., & Boyle, B. J. 2000, , 317, 782 Brown, M. J. I., Dey, A., Jannuzi, B. T., Lauer, T. R., Tiede, G. P., & Mikkles, V. J. 2003, , 597, 225
Brown, M. J. I., et al. 2008,, 682, 937
Bullock, J. S., Kolatt, T. S., Sigad, Y., Somerville, R. S., Klypin, A. A., Primack, J. R., & Dekel, A. 2001, , 321, 559 Bullock, J. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Somerville, Rachel, S. 2002, , 329, 246 Budavari, T., et al. 2003 , 595, 59 Cacciato, M., van den Bosch, F. C., More, S., Li, R., Mo, H. J., & Yang, X. 2009, , 394, 929 Choi, Y.-Y., Park, C., & Vogeley, M. S. 2007, , 658, 884 Choi, Y.-Y., Park, C., Kim, J., Gott, J. R., III, Weinberg, D. H., Vogeley, M. S., & Kim, S. S. 2010, , 190, 181 Coil, A. L., Newman, J. A., Cooper, M. C., Davis, M., Faber, S. M., Koo, D. C., & Willmer, C. N. A. 2006b, , 644, 671 Coil, A. L., et al. 2008, , 672, 153 Cole, S., Aragon-Salamanca, A., Frenk, C. S., Navarro, J. F., & Zepf, S. E. 1994, , 271, 781 Coles, P., 1993, , 262, 1065
Colless, M. et al. 2001, , 328, 1039 Collister, A. A., & Lahav, O. 2005, , 361, 415 Conroy, C., Wechsler, R. H., & Kravtsov, A. V. 2006, , 647, 201 Cooray, A., & Sheth, R. 2002, Phys. Rept., 372, 1
Cooray, A. 2005, , 363, 337
Cooray, A. 2006, , 365, 842 Cresswell, J. G., & Percival, W. J. 2009, , 392, 682
Croton, D. J., et al. 2006, , 365, 11 Croton, D. J., Gao, L., & White, S. D. M. 2007, , 374, 1303 Daddi, E., Röttgering, H. J. A., Labbe, I., Rudnick, G., et al. 2003, , 588, 50
Dalal, N., White, M., Richard, B. J., & Shirokov, A. 2008, , 687, 12 Davis, M., & Geller, M. J. 1976, , 208, 13 Davis, M., Huchra, J., Latham, D. W., & Tonry, J. 1982, , 253, 423
Davis, M., Meiksin, A., Strauss, M. A., da Costa, L. N., & Yahil, A. 1988, , 333, L9 Davis, M., & Peebles, P. J. E. 1983, , 267, 465 Dunkley, J., et al. 2009, , 180, 306 Eisenstein, D. J., et al. 2001, , 122, 2267 Eisenstein, D. J., Blanton, M., Zehavi, I., et al. 2005a , 619, 178
Eisenstein, D. J., Zehavi, I., Hogg D. W., Scoccimarro, R., et al. 2005b, , 633, 560 Fischer, P., et al. 2000, , 120, 1198 Fisher, K. B., Davis, M., Strauss, M. A., Yahil, A., & Huchra, J. P. 1994, , 266, 50
Font, A. S., et al. 2008, , 389, 1619 Fry, J. N., & Gaztañaga, E. 1993, , 413, 447
Fukugita, M., Ichikawa, T., Gunn, J. E., Doi, M., Shimasaku, K., & Schneider, D. P. 1996, , 111, 1748 Gao, L., Springel, V., & White, S. D. M. 2005, , 363, L66
Geller, M. J., & Huchra, J. P. 1989, Science, 246, 897
Gerhard, O., Kronawitter, A., Saglia, R. P., & Bender, R. 2001, , 121, 1936
Gerke, B., et al. 2007, , 376, 1425 Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M. P., & Chincarini, G. L. 1986, , 300, 77
Gott, J. R., III, & Turner, E. L. 1979, , 232, L79
Gott, J. R., III, Juric, M., Schlegel, D. J., Hoyle, F., Vogeley, M. S., Tegmark, M., Bahcall, N. A., Brinkmann, J. 2005, , 624, 463 Gregory, S. A., & Thompson, L. A. 1978, , 222, 784
Gunn, J. E., et al. 1998, , 116, 3040 Gunn, J. E., et al. 2006, , 131, 2332 Guo, Q., White, S., Li, C., & Boylan-Kolchin, M. 2010, , 367 Guzzo, L., Strauss, M. A., Fisher, K. B., Giovanelli, R., & Haynes, M. P. 1997, , 489, 37 Hamana, T., Yamada, T., Ouchi, M., Iwata, I., & Kodama, T. 2006, , 369, 1929 Harker, G., Cole, S., Helly, J., Frenk, C., & Jenkins, A. 2006, , 367, 1039 Hamilton, A. J. S. 1988, , 331, L59 Hamilton, A. J. S. 1992, , 385, L5 Hamilton, A. J. S. 1993, , 417, 19 Hamilton, A. J. S. 1998, ASSL Vol. 231: The Evolving Universe, 185 Hansen, S. M., Sheldon, E. S., Wechsler, R. H., & Koester, B. P. 2009, , 699, 1333 Hinshaw, G., et al. 2009, , 180, 225 Hogg, D. W., Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P., & Gunn, J. E. 2001, , 122, 2129 Hogg, D. W., et al. 2003, , 585, L5 Hogg, D. W., et al. 2004, , 601, L29 Hubble, E.P. 1936, The Realm of the Nebulae (Oxford University Press: Oxford), 79 Ivezić, Ž., et al. 2004, AN, 325, 583 Jing, Y.P. 1998, , 503, L9 Jing, Y. P. & Börner, G. 1998, , 503, 37 Jing, Y. P., Börner, G., & Suto, Y. 2002, , 564, 15 Jing, Y. P., Mo, H. J., & Börner, G. 1998, , 494, 1 Jing, Y. P., Suto, Y., & Mo, H. J. 2007, , 657, 664 Kaiser, N. 1984, , 294, L9 Kaiser, N. 1987, , 227, 1 Kang, X., Jing, Y. P., Mo, H. J., Börner, G. 2005, , 631, 21 Kang, X., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2008, , 676, L101 Kauffmann, G., White, S. D. M., & Guiderdoni, B. 1993, , 264, 201 Kauffmann, G., Nusser, A., & Steinmetz, M. 1997, , 286, 795 Kauffmann, G., Colberg, J. M., Diaferio, A., & White, S. D. M. 1999, , 303, 188 Kazin, E. A., et al. 2010, , 710, 1444 Kessler, R., et al. 2009, , 185, 32
Kim, H. S., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., Frenk, C. S., & Benson, A. J. 2009, , 400, 1527 Kim, J., Park, C., & Choi, Y. 2008, , 683, 123 Kirshner, R. P., Oemler, A., Jr., Schechter, P. L., & Shectman, S. A. 1981, , 248, L57
Komatsu, E., et al. 2009, , 180, 330 Kowalski, M., et al. 2008, , 686, 749 Kravtsov, A. V., Berlind, A. A., Wechsler, R. H., Klypin, A. A., Gottloeber, S., Allgood, B., & Primack, J. R. 2004, , 609, 35 Landy, S. D., & Szalay, A. S. 1993, , 412, 64 Lee, K., Giavalisco, M., Gnedin, O. Y., Somerville, R., Ferguson, H., Dickinson, M., & Ouchi, M. 2006, , 642, 63 Lee, K., Giavalisco, M., Conroy, C., Wechsler, R. H., Ferguson, H., Somerville, R., Dickinson, M. E., & Urry, C. M. 2008, , 695, 368 Li, C., Kauffmann, G., Jing, Y. P., White, S. D. M., Boerner, G., & Cheng, F. Z. 2006, , 368, 21 Li, C., Jing, Y. P., Kauffmann, G., Boerner, G., Kang, X., & Wang, L. 2007, , 376, 894 Li, C., & White, S. D. M. 2009, , 398, 2177 Li, C., & White, S. D. M. 2010, , 407, 515 Loh, Y.-S., et al. 2010, , 407, 55 Loveday, J., Maddox, S. J., Efstathiou, G., & Peterson, B. A. 1995, , 442, 457 Lupton, R. H., Gunn, J. E., Ivezić, Ž., Knapp, G. R., Kent, S., & Yasuda, N. 2001, in ASP Conf. Ser. 238, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems X, ed. F. R. Harnden, Jr., F. A. Primini, and H. E. Payne (San Francisco: Astr. Soc. Pac.), p. 269 (arXiv:astro-ph/0101420) Lupton, R. H., Gunn, J. E., and Szalay, A. S. 1999, , 118, 1406 Ma, C., & Fry, J. N. 2000, , 543, 503 Madgwick, D. S. et al. 2003, , 344, 847 Magliocchetti, M., & Porciani, C. 2003, , 346, 186 Mandelbaum, R., Seljak, U., Kauffmann, G., Hirata, C. M., & Brinkmann, J. 2006, , 368, 715 Mann, R. G., Peacock, J. A., & Heavens, A. F. 1998, , 293, 209
Martin, D. C., et al. 2007, , 173, 342 Masjedi, M., et al. 2006, , 644, 54
McBride, C. K., Connolly, A. J., Gardner, J. P., Scranton, R., Newman, J. A., Scoccimarro, R., Zehavi, I., & Schneider, D. P. 2011, , 726, 13 Meneux, B., et al., 2008, A&A, 478, 299 Meneux, B., et al., 2009, A&A, 505, 463 Mo, H. J., & White, S. D. M. 1996, , 282, 1096 More, S., van den Bosch, F. C., Cacciato, M., Mo, H. J., Yang, X., & Li, R. 2009, , 392, 80 Moster, B. P., Somerville, R. S., Maulbetsch, C., van den Bosch, F. C., Macci[ò]{}, A. V., Naab, T., & Oser, L. 2010, , 710, 903 Moustakas, L. A., & Somerville, R. S. 2002, , 577, 1 Narayanan, V. K., Berlind, A. A., & Weinberg, D. H. 2000, , 528, 1
Navarro, J. F., Frenk, C. S., & White, S. D. M. 1996, , 462, 563 Norberg, P., et al. 2001, , 328, 64 Norberg, P., et al. 2002, , 332, 827 Norberg, P., Baugh, C. M., Gaztanaga, E., & Croton, D. J. 2009, , 396, 19 Norberg, P., Gaztanaga, E., Baugh, C. M., & Croton, D. J. 2011, , submitted Ouchi, M., et al. 2005, , 635, L117 Padmanabhan, N., et al. 2008, , 674, 1217 Peacock, J. A., & Smith, R. E. 2000, , 318, 1144 Pearce, F. R., Jenkins, A., Frenk, C. S., White, S. D. M., Thomas, P. A., Couchman, H. M. P., Peacock, J. A., & Efstathiou, G. 2001, , 326, 649
Peebles, P. J. E. 1974, A&A, 32, 197
Peebles, P. J. E. 1980, The Large-Scale Structure of the Universe (Princeton: Princeton University Press)
Peebles, P. J. E. 1982, , 263, L1
Percival, W. J., Cole, S., Eisenstein, D. J., Nichol, R. C., Peacock, J. A., Pope, A. C., & Szalay, A. S. 2007, , 381, 1053 Percival, W. J., et al. 2010, , 401, 2148 Persic, M., Salucci, P., & Stel, F. 1996, , 281, 27
Pier, J. R., Munn, J. A., Hindsley, R. B., Hennessy, G. S., Kent, S. M., Lupton, R. H., & Ivezić, Ž. 2003, , 125, 1559 Phleps, S., Peacock, J, A., Meisenheimer, K., & Wolf, C. 2006, A&A, 457, 145 Pons-Borderia, M., Martinez, V., Stoyan, D., Stoyan, H., & Saar, A. 1999, , 523, 480
Prada, F., et al. 2003, , 598, 260 Quadri, R. F., Williams, R. J., Lee, K., Franx, M., van Dokkum, P., & Brammer, G. B. 2008, , 685, L1
Reid, B. A., et al. 2010, , 404, 60
Richards, G. T., et al. 2002, , 123, 2945 Ross, A. J., & Brunner, R. J. 2009, , 399, 878 Ross, A. J., Percival, W. J., & Brunner, R. J. 2010, , 407, 420 Rozo, E., et al. 2010, , 708, 645 Rubin, V. C., Thonnard, N., & Ford, W. K., Jr. 1978, , 225, L107
Sargent, W. L. W., & Turner, E. L. 1977, , 212, L3 Schechter, P. 1976, , 203, 297 Scherrer, R. J., & Weinberg, D. H. 1998, , 504, 607
Schlegel, D., While, M., & Eisenstein, D. 2009, white paper for US Decadal Survey (arXiv:0902.4680)
Scoccimarro, R., & Sheth, R. K. 2002, , 329, 629 Scoccimarro, R., Sheth, R. K., Hui, L., & Jain, B. 2001, , 546, 20 Scott, D., Srednicki, M., & White, M. 1994, , 421, L5 Scranton, R. 2002, , 332, 697 Seljak, U. 2000, , 318, 203 Shectman, S. A., Landy, S. D., Oemler, A., Tucker, D. L., Lin, H., Kirshner, R. P., & Schechter, P. L. 1996, , 470, 172
Sheldon, E. S., et al. 2004, , 127, 2544 Sheldon, E. S., et al. 2009, , 703, 2217
Sheth, R. K., Mo, H. J., & Tormen, G. 2001, , 323, 1 Sheth, R. K., & Tormen, G. 2004, , 350, 1385 Simha, V., Weinberg, D. H., Dav[é]{}, R., Gnedin, O. Y., Katz, N., & Kere[š]{}, D. 2009, , 399, 650 Simon, P., Hetterscheidt, M., Wolf, C., Meisenheimer, K., Hildebrandt, H., Schneider, P., Schirmer, M., & Erben, T. 2009, , 398, 807 Skibba, R., Sheth, R. K., Connolly, A. J., & Scranton, R. 2006, , 369, 68 Skibba, R. A. 2009, , 392, 1467 Skibba, R. A., & Sheth, R. K. 2009, , 392, 1080 Skibba, R. A., et al. 2009, , 399, 966 Smith, J. A., et al. 2002, , 123, 2121 Smith, R. E., et al. 2003, , 341, 1311 Stoughton, C., et al. 2002, , 123, 485 Strateva, I., et al. 2001, , 122, 1861
Strauss, M.A., & Willick, J.A. 1995, Physics Reports, 261, 271
Strauss, M.A., et al. 2002, , 124, 1810 Swanson, M. E. C., Tegmark, M., Blanton, M., & Zehavi, I. 2008, , 385, 1635 Szapudi, I., & Szapay, A. S. 1998, , 494, L41
Tegmark, M., et al. 2004, , 606, 702 Tinker, J. L., Weinberg, D. H., Zheng, Z., & Zehavi, I. 2005, , 631, 41
Tinker, J. L., Conroy, C., Norberg, P., Patiri, S. G., Weinberg, D. H., & Warren, M. S. 2008, , 686, 53 Tinker, J. L., Robertson, B. E., Kravtsov, A. V., Klypin, A., Warren, M. S., Yepes, G., & Gottlober, S. 2010, , 724, 878 Totsuji, H., & Kihara, T. 1969, PASJ, 21, 221 Tucker, D., et al. 2006, AN, 327, 821 Vale, A., & Ostriker, J. P. 2006, MNRAS, 371, 1173 Valls-Gabaud, D., Alimi, J.-M., & Blanchard, A. 1989, Nature, 341, 215 van den Bosch, Frank, C., Yang, X. H., & Mo, H. J. 2003a, , 340, 771 van den Bosch, Frank, C., Mo, H. J., & Yang, X. H. 2003b, , 345, 923 van den Bosch, F. C., et al. 2007, , 376, 841 van den Bosch, F. C., Aquino, D., Yang, X., Mo, H. J., Pasquali, A., McIntosh, D. H., Weinmann, S. M., & Kang, X. 2008a, , 387, 79 van den Bosch, F. C., Pasquali, A., Yang, X., Mo, H. J., Weinmann, S., McIntosh, D. H., & Aquino, D. 2008b, , submitted (arXiv:0805.0002) Verheijen, M. A. W. 2001, , 563, 694
Wake, D. A., et al. 2008, , 387, 1045
Wang, Y., Yang, X., Mo, H. J., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2007, , 664, 608 Wang, Y., Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., Katz, N., Pasquali, A., McIntosh, D. H., & Weinmann, S. M. 2009, , 697, 247 Watson, D. F., Berlind, A. A., McBride, C. K., & Masjedi, M. 2010, , 709, 115 Watson, D. F., Berlind, A. A., & Zentner, A. R. 2011, , submitted (arXiv:1101.5155) Wechsler, R. H. 2004, in Carnegie Observatories Astrophysics Series, Vol. 3: Clusters of Galaxies: Probes of Cosmological Structure and Galaxy Evolution, ed. J. S. Mulchaey, A. Dressler, and A., Oemler (Pasadena: Carnegie Observatories) Wechsler, R. H., Zentner, A. R., Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Allgood, B. 2006, , 647, 201 Weinberg, D. H., Davé, R., Katz, N., & Hernquist, L. 2004, , 601, 1
Weinmann, S. M., van den Bosch, F. C., Yang, X., & Mo, H. J. 2006, , 366, 2 Wetzel, A. R., Cohn, J. D., White, M., Holz, D. E., & Warren, M. S. 2007, , 656, 139 White, M., Zheng, Z., Brown, M. J. I., Dey, A., & Jannuzi, B. T. 2007, , 655, L69 White, S. D. M., & Frenk, C. S. 1991, , 379, 52 Willmer, C. N. A., da Costa, L. N., & Pellegrini, P. S. 1998, , 115, 869 Wyder, T. K., et al. 2007, , 173, 293 Yan, R., Madgwick, D. S., & White, M. 2003, , 598, 848 Yang, X. H., Mo, H. J., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2003, , 339, 1057 Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., & Jing, Y. P. 2005a, , 356, 1293 Yang, X. H., Mo, H. J., Jing, Y. P., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2005b, , 358, 217 Yang, X., Mo, H. J., van den Bosch, F. C., Pasquali, A., Li, C., & Barden, M. 2007, , 671, 153 Yang, X., Mo, H. J., & van den Bosch, F. C. 2008, , 676, 248 Yoo, J., Tinker, J. L., Weinberg, D. H., Zheng, Z., Katz, N., & Dav[é]{}, R. 2006, , 652, 26 Yoo, J., Weinberg, D. H., Tinker, J. L., Zheng, Z., & Warren, M. S. 2009, , 698, 967
York, D. G. et al. 2000, , 120, 1579 Zaritsky, D., & White, S. D. M. 1994, , 435, 599 Zehavi, I., Blanton, M. R., Frieman, J. A., Weinberg, D. H., Mo, H. J., et al. 2002, , 571, 172 Zehavi, I., Weinberg, D. H., Zheng, Z., Berlind, A. A., Frieman, J. A., et al. 2004, , 608, 16 Zehavi, I., Eisenstein D. J., Nichol, R., et al. 2005a, , 621, 22 Zehavi, I., Zheng, Z., Weinberg, D. H., Frieman, J. A., Berlind, A. A., et al. 2005b, , 630, 1 \[Z05\] Zentner, A. R., Berlind, A. A., Bullock, J. S., Kravtsov, A. V., & Wechsler, R. H. 2005, , 624, 505 Zheng, Z. 2004, , 610, 61 Zheng, Z., Berlind, A. A., Weinberg, D. H., Benson, A. J., Baugh, C. M., Cole, S., Davé, R., Frenk, C. S., Katz, N., & Lacey, C. G. 2005, , 633, 791 Zheng, Z., Coil, A. L., & Zehavi, I. 2007, , 667, 760 Zheng, Z., & Weinberg, D. H. 2007, , 659, 1 Zheng, Z., Zehavi, I., Eisenstein, D. J., Weinberg, D. H., & Jing, Y. 2009, , 707, 554 Zhu, G., Zheng, Z., Lin, W. P., Jing, Y. P., Kang, X., & Gao, L. 2006, , 639, L5 Zu, Y., Zheng, Z., Zhu, G., & Jing, Y. P. 2008, , 686, 41
Zwicky, F. 1933, Helvetica Physica Acta, 6, 110
Zwicky, F. 1937, , 86, 217
[^1]: http://sdss.physics.nyu.edu/vagc/lss.html
[^2]: For the [@blanton03c] luminosity function, the characteristic luminosity $L_*$ of the [@schechter76] luminosity function fit corresponds to $M_r=-20.44$.
[^3]: This statement relies on the fact that the host halo populations are tracing the same dark matter distribution. One can construct a physically absurd but mathematically acceptable model with zero cross-correlation by superposing the halo populations of two independent N-body simulations in a single cube, populating one with red galaxies and the other with blue.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In this proceeding we present the nested Bethe ansatz for open spin chains of XXX-type, with arbitrary representations (i.e. ‘spins’) on each site of the chain and diagonal boundary matrices $(K^+(u),K^-(u))$. The nested Bethe anstaz applies for a general $K^-(u)$, but a particular form of the $K^+(u)$ matrix. We give the eigenvalues, Bethe equations and the form of the Bethe vectors for the corresponding models. The Bethe vectors are expressed using a trace formula.'
---
\
[ [^1]\
*Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Sezione di Bologna, Italy*\
E. Ragoucy[^2]\
*Laboratoire de Physique Th[é]{}orique LAPTH, UMR 5108 du CNRS, associ[é]{}e [à]{} l’Universit[é]{} de Savoie, Annecy-le-Vieux Cedex, France.* ]{}
Introduction
============
Recently we proposed a unified formulation for Nested Bethe ansatz for closed and open spin chains with “quantum group” [@D1; @FRT; @STF; @Fad], or “reflexion algebra” [@Ch; @S] related to $gl({\mathfrak n})$ and $gl({\mathfrak n}|{\mathfrak m})$ Lie algebras [@BR1; @BR2]. In this proceeding we focus to open anisotropic spin chains, or of XXX-type, related to the Yangian and the reflection algebra. More precisely we give Bethe Vectors, eigenvalues and Bethe equations for the ’Universal’ transfer matrix, an operator over the tensor product of $L$ highest weight representations of the Yangian. These representations are chosen in the set of irreducible finite dimensional representations. This approach generalises the fundamental case studies in [@GM] and needs deeper analysis of the algebraic structure of the Reflection Algebra to be perform. The main points of this work are the explicit construction of the Bethe vectors as a trace formula, the construction of the Bethe vectors using embedding between different rank of reflection algebras and the proof of the validity of the Bethe Ansatz for arbitrary irreducible finite dimensional representations (up to some constraint on the boundary). We give here a proof by increasing recursion contrary to the decreasing proof of [@BR2].
The plan of the proceeding is the following. First we recall definitions and property of the Yangian ${\cal Y}_{\mathfrak n}$ and the reflection algebra ${\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak n}$. Then we give the finite dimensional representations of ${\cal Y}_{\mathfrak n}$ and deduce the ones of ${\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak n}$. Next we recall the Bethe ansatz for ${\mathfrak n}=2$. To perform the Nested Bethe anstaz, we present embedding for the reflection algebra of different rank (valid up to some quotient) and the Bethe vectors in two forms, trace formula and recursion formula. Then we give the proof of the Nested Bethe anstaz for open spin chains with $K^+(u)={\mathbb I}$ (the other possibility is briefly discussed). To finish we give some open problem from this result.
RTT Formalism and Yangian
=========================
Periodic anisotropic spin chains are closely related to the Yangian ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$. Among these realisations [@D2; @D1], the so called RTT (or FRT) [@FRT] formalism is the more efficient to construct the conserved quantities of the model. These quantities belong to a abelian sub-algebra of the Yangian, and are generated from transfer matrix. The explicit construction of local Hamiltonian relevant for physics applications from the transfer matrix is not easy to do in great generality, and we will focus only on its study.
Let us recall the definition of the Yangian in this RTT formalism. ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ is an unital associative infinite dimensional algebra generated by: $$\begin{aligned}
\{ t_{ij}^{(p)}\,; \, i,j=1,\dots,n\, ; \,p \in \mathbb N/\{0\}\}\end{aligned}$$ We gather the ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ generators for same $i,j$ into a a formal series of $u^{-1}$ and then put it in an ${\mathfrak n} \times {\mathfrak n}$ matrix acting in an auxiliary space ${\cal V}={\mathbb C}^{{\mathfrak n}}$. We obtain the monodromy matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
T(u)&=& \sum_{i,j=1}^{{\mathfrak n}} E_{ij} \otimes t_{ij}(u)
\in End({\cal V}) \otimes {\cal Y}_{\mathfrak n} \\
t_{ij}(u)&=&\delta_{ij}+\sum_{n=1}^\infty t_{ij}^{(n)} u^{-n}\end{aligned}$$ where $E_{ij}$ are ${\mathfrak n} \times {\mathfrak n}$ matrices with $1$ at the intersection of line $i$ and column $j$ and $0$ otherwise. The commutation between elements of ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ are given by the RTT relations: $$\begin{aligned}
R_{12}(u-v)\ T_{1}(u)\ T_{2}(v)=T_{2}(v)\ T_{1}(u)\ R_{12}(u-v)\, \in End({\cal V}) \otimes End({\cal V}) \otimes {\cal Y}_{\mathfrak n}.
\label{RTT}\end{aligned}$$ where indices $1,2$ label the auxiliary spaces where the operators act non trivially. The matrix $R \in End({\cal V}) \otimes End({\cal V})$ is the rational solution of the Yang-Baxter equation: $$\begin{aligned}
R_{12}(u_{1}-u_{2})\ R_{13}(u_{1}-u_{3})\
R_{23}(u_{2}-u_{3})=R_{23}(u_{2}-u_{3})\ R_{13}(u_{1}-u_{3})\
R_{12}(u_{1}-u_{2}),\\
R_{12}(u)=u{\mathbb I}\otimes{\mathbb I}-\hbar P_{12},\quad
P_{12}=\sum_{i,j=1}^{\mathfrak n} E_{ij}\otimes E_{ji},\quad \qquad \qquad \qquad
\label{YBE}\end{aligned}$$ writen in auxiliary space $End({\cal V}) \otimes End({\cal V}) \otimes End({\cal V})$. This condition is equivalent to the associativity for the product of monodromy matrices. The $R$-matrix satisfies unitarity relation, $$\begin{aligned}
R(u) R(-u) &=&(u-\hbar)(-u-\hbar) \,{\mathbb I} \otimes {\mathbb I}\,,
\label{Unit}\end{aligned}$$ crossing unitarity, with $t$ transposition of the first space, $$\begin{aligned}
R^{t}(u)R^t(-u+{\mathfrak n} \hbar)
&=&u(-u+{\mathfrak n} \hbar) \,{\mathbb I} \otimes {\mathbb I}\,,
\label{CrossU}\end{aligned}$$ and is $GL({\mathfrak n},{\mathbb C})$ group invariant: $$\begin{aligned}
[R(u),M\otimes M]=0, \quad M \in GL({\mathfrak n},{\mathbb C})\end{aligned}$$ The transfer matrix is defined as the trace over auxiliary space of the monodromy matrix $t(u)=tr(T(u))$ and commutes for different values of the formal variable $u$. $$\begin{aligned}
[t(u),t(v)]=0\end{aligned}$$ This is the main object to study for periodic anisotropic spin chains or more generally for two dimensional quantum integrable models related to the Yangian [@Fad; @KR; @MTV; @BR1; @STF].
The Yangian have the following automorphisms:\
-Shift of the spectral parameter : $$\begin{aligned}
\sigma_a
\,:\quad T(u)\,\to\,
T(u+a)\end{aligned}$$ -Product by scalar function: $$\begin{aligned}
f: T(u) \to f(u)T(u)\end{aligned}$$
antimorphisms:\
- Matrix inversion: $$\begin{aligned}
\quad inv:\quad T(u)\,\to\,T^{-1}(u)=
\sum_{i,j=1}^{{\mathfrak n}} E_{ij}\otimes t'_{ij}(u)\,.\end{aligned}$$ - Spectral parameter inversion: $$\begin{aligned}
\quad inv:\quad T(u)\,\to\,T(-u). \end{aligned}$$
and an Hopf algebra structure $(\Delta,S,\epsilon)$ with the coproduct define as: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta \quad: \quad \Delta(T(u)) =
T(u)\dot{\otimes}T(u) = \sum_{i,j,k=1}^{{\mathfrak n}} \,
E_{ij}\otimes t_{ik}(u)\otimes t_{kj}(u).\end{aligned}$$ More generally, one defines recursively for $L\geq 2$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta^{(L+1)}=(\mbox{id}^{\otimes (L-1)}\otimes \Delta)\circ\Delta^{(L)}\
:\ {{\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}} \to {{\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}}^{\otimes (L+1)},\end{aligned}$$ with $\Delta^{(2)}=\Delta$ and $\Delta^{(1)}=\mbox{id}$. The map $\Delta^{(L)}$ is an algebra homomorphism.
The Yangian has the universal enveloping algebra ${\cal U}(gl({\mathfrak n}))$ as an Hopf subalgebra, the embedding is given by ${\cal E}_{ji} \to t^{(1)}_{ij}$. Where ${\cal E}_{ij}$ are the generators of ${\cal U}(gl({\mathfrak n}))$ with commutation relations: $$\begin{aligned}
[{\cal E}_{ij},{\cal E}_{kl}]=\delta_{jk}{\cal E}_{ik}-\delta_{il}{\cal E}_{kj}\end{aligned}$$ The evaluation homomorphism $ ev: {\cal Y}_{\mathfrak n} \to {\cal U}(gl({\mathfrak n}))$ is given by: $$\begin{aligned}
ev &:& t^{(1)}_{ij} \to {\cal E}_{ji}\nonumber \\
ev &:& t^{(p)}_{ij} \to 0 , \quad p>1\end{aligned}$$ This evaluation homomorphism is the key ingredient to construct finite dimensional representation of $ {\cal Y}_{\mathfrak n}$ [@D2; @M1; @CP1].
Let us introduce some notation used for $R$ matrices in this paper:\
-The ’normalized’ $R$-matrices: $$\begin{aligned}
\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}(u)=\frac{R(u)}{(u-\hbar)}\,
\mbox{with}
\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}(u)\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}(-u)={\mathbb I}\otimes{\mathbb I}.
\label{Runit}\end{aligned}$$ -And the ‘reduced’ $R$-matrices $R^{(k,p)}(u)$: $$\begin{aligned}
R^{(k,p)}(u)&=&
\left({\mathbb I}^{(k)} \otimes {\mathbb I}^{(p)}\right) R(u)
\left({\mathbb I}^{(k)} \otimes {\mathbb I}^{(p)}\right), \quad
\mbox{with} \quad{\mathbb I}^{(k)}=\sum_{i=k}^{{\mathfrak n}}E_{ii}\,,\nonumber \\
R^{(k)}(u)&=&R^{(k,k)}(u).
\label{eq:Ik}\end{aligned}$$ We have $R^{(1)}(u)=R(u)$, and more generally $R^{(k)}(u)$ corresponds to the $R$-matrix of ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}-k+1}$.
Reflection algebra and $K(u)$ matrices
======================================
The ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ algebra is enough to construct a transfer matrix leading to periodic models, but in the context of open spin chains, one needs another algebra, the reflection algebra ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ [@Ch], which turns out to be a subalgebra of ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$. Indeed, physically, one can interpret the RTT relation as encoding the interaction between the spins of the chain. Hence, it is the only relation needed to describe a periodic chain. On the other hand, in the case of open chain, the interaction with the boundaries has to be taken into account. Following the seminal paper [@S], one constructs the reflection algebra and the dual reflection equation for the boundary scalar matrices $K^-(u)$ and $K^+(u)$. We first define the matrix $K^-(u)$ to be the solution of the reflection equation in $End({\cal V})\otimes End({\cal V})$: $$\begin{aligned}
R_{12}(u_{1}-u_{2}) K^-_{1}(u_{1})
R_{12}(u_{1}+u_{2}) K^-_{2}(u_{2})=
K^-_{2}(u_{2})R_{12}(u_{1}+u_{2})
K^-_{1}(u_{1})R_{12}(u_{1}-u_{2}) .
\label{ERK}\end{aligned}$$ The scalar solutions to the reflection equation have been classified using the $GL({\mathfrak n},{\mathbb C})$ invariance of $R$ matrix [@AACDFR]. The diagonal solutions take the form (up to normalisation), $$\begin{aligned}
K^-(u)=diag(\underbrace{u-c_-,\dots,u-c_-}_a,
\underbrace{-u-c_-,\dots,-u-c_-}_{{\mathfrak n}-a}) =\sum_{i=1}^{\mathfrak n} \kappa^-_i(u)E_{ii}
\label{eq:Kdiag}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_{-}$ is a free complex parameter and $a$ is an integer. From this $K^-(u)$ matrix and the monodromy matrix $T(u)$ of ${\cal Y}_{\mathfrak n}$, we can construct the monodromy matrix of ${\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak n} \subset {\cal Y}_{\mathfrak n}$: $$\begin{aligned}
D(u)&=&T(u)\,K^-(u)\,T^{-1}(-u)
\ =\ \sum_{i,j=1}^{{\mathfrak n}} d_{ij}(u)\otimes E_{ij},
\label{D-from-T}\\
d_{ij}(u) &=& \sum_{a=1}^{{\mathfrak n}}\,
\kappa^-_a(u)t_{ia}(u)t'_{aj}(-u).\end{aligned}$$ From (\[RTT\]) and (\[ERK\]), one can prove that $D(u)$ also satisfies the reflection equation in $End({\cal V})\otimes End({\cal V})\otimes {\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak n}$: $$\begin{aligned}
R_{12}(u_{1}-u_{2}) D_{1}(u_{1})
R_{12}(u_{1}-u_{2}) D_{2}(u_{2})=
D_{2}(u_{2})R_{12}(u_{1}-u_{2})
D_{1}(u_{1})R_{12}(u_{1}-u_{2}).
\label{ER}\end{aligned}$$ The algebra ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ is a left coideal [@MoRa] of the algebra ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ with coproduct action: $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta (D_{[2]}(u))=T_{[1]}(u)D_{[2]}(u)T_{[1]}^{-1}(-u) \in End({\cal V})\otimes{\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}\otimes{\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}
\label{eq:deltaD}\end{aligned}$$ where $[1]$ and $[2]$ labels the algebras ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ and ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}$, respectively.
To construct commuting transfer matrices we introduced a dual equation in $End({\cal V})\otimes End({\cal V})$ : $$\begin{aligned}
&&R_{12}(u_{2}-u_{1}) (K^+_{1}(u_{1}))^{t_1}
R_{12}(-u_{1}-u_{2}+{\mathfrak n} \hbar)
(K^+_{2}(u_{2}))^{t_2}=\nonumber \\
&&
(K^+_{2}(u_{2}))^{t_2}R_{12}(-u_{1}-u_{2}+{\mathfrak n} \hbar)
(K^+_{1}(u_{1}))^{t_1}R_{12}(u_{2}-u_{1}).
\label{ERD}\end{aligned}$$ From isomorphism of the refection equation and dual reflection equation, one can construct solutions to the dual reflection equation from $K^-(u)$: $$\begin{aligned}
(K^+(u))^t=K^-(-u+\frac{{\mathfrak n}}{2}\hbar)\,,\end{aligned}$$ With $D(u)$ and $K^+(u)$ one constructs the transfer matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
d(u) = tr(K^+(u) D(u)). \end{aligned}$$ The reflection equation and its dual form ensure the commutation relation: $$\begin{aligned}
[d(u),d(v)] = 0. \end{aligned}$$ Thus, $d(u)$ generates (via an expansion in $u^-1$) a set of commuting conserved quantities and is related to boundaries anisotropy spin chains models and more generally to boundaries quantum integrable models related to ${\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak n}$.
Highest weight representations\[sec:hw\]
========================================
The fundamental point in using the ABA is to know a pseudo-vacuum for the model. In the mathematical framework it is equivalent to know a highest weight representation for the algebra which underlies the model. Since the generators of the algebra ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ can be constructed from the ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ ones, see eq. (\[D-from-T\]), we first describe how to construct highest repesentations for the infinite dimensional algebras ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ from highest weight representations of the finite dimensional Lie algebras $gl({\mathfrak n})$. Next, we show how these representations induce (for diagonal $K^-(u)$ matrix) a representation for ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ with same highest weight vector.
A representation of ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ is called *highest weight* if there exists a nonzero vector $\Omega$ such that, $$\begin{aligned}
t_{ii} (u)\, \Omega = \lambda_{i}(u)\, \Omega \quad \mbox{and} \quad
t_{ij} (u)\, \Omega = 0 \ \mbox{ for }\ i>j,
\label{higvectU}\end{aligned}$$ for some scalars $\lambda_{i}(u)$ $\in$ ${\mathbb C}$ $[[u^{-1}]]$. $\lambda(u)= (\lambda_{1}(u),\dots,\lambda_{{\mathfrak n}}(u))$ is called the highest weight and $\Omega$ the highest weight vector.
It is known that any finite-dimensional irreducible representation of ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ is highest weight and that it contains a unique (up to scalar multiples) highest weight vector [@CP1; @M1].
To construct such representations, one uses the evaluation morphism, which relates the infinite dimensional algebra ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ to its finite dimensional subalgebra ${\cal U}(gl({\mathfrak n}))$ and a finite dimensional irreducible highest weight representation $\pi_{\mu}: {\cal U}(gl({\mathfrak n})) \to End({\cal V}_\mu)$ with highest weight $\Omega \in {\cal V}_\mu$: $$\begin{aligned}
\pi_{\mu}({\cal E}_{ij})\Omega=0, \quad 1\leq i<j \leq n , \quad
\quad \pi_{\mu}({\cal E}_{ii})\Omega=\mu_i\Omega, \quad 1\leq i \leq n,\quad
\mu_i-\mu_{i+1} \in \mathbb Z_+\end{aligned}$$
The evaluation representations of ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ are constructed by the following composition of maps: $$\begin{aligned}
\rho^\mu_{a}=\pi_{\mu} \circ\, ev \circ \sigma_a :\quad {\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}\stackrel{ \sigma_a}{\longrightarrow} {\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}\
\stackrel{ev}{\longrightarrow}\ {\cal U}(gl({\mathfrak n}))\
\stackrel{\pi_{\mu}}{\longrightarrow}\ End({\cal V}_{\lambda})\,. \end{aligned}$$ The weight of this evaluation representation is given by $\lambda(u)=\big(\lambda_{1}(u),\ldots,\lambda_{{\mathfrak n}}(u)\big)$, with: $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_{j}(u) =
u-a-\,\hbar\,\mu_j \quad ,\quad j=1,\ldots,{\mathfrak n},
\label{eq:Lambda-eval}\end{aligned}$$
More generally, one constructs tensor products of evaluation representations using the coproduct of ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
\Big(\otimes_{i=1}^{L}\,\rho^{\mu^{\langle
i\rangle}}_{a_i}\Big)\, \circ
\Delta^{(L)}\Big(T(u)\Big) = \rho^{\mu^{\langle
1\rangle}}_{a_{1}}\Big(T(u)\Big)\dot{\otimes}\,
\rho^{\mu^{\langle 2\rangle}}_{a_{2}}\Big(T(u)\Big)
\dot{\otimes}\cdots
\dot{\otimes}\rho^{\mu^{\langle L\rangle}}_{a_{L}}\Big(T(u)\Big),
\label{eq:mono-repr}\end{aligned}$$ where $\mu^{\langle i\rangle}=(\mu^{\langle
i\rangle}_{1},\ldots,
\mu^{\langle i\rangle}_{{\mathfrak n}})$, $i=1,\ldots,L$, are the weights of the ${\cal U}(gl({\mathfrak n}))$ representations. This provides a ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ representation with weight, $$\begin{aligned}
\lambda_j(u)=\prod_{i=1}^{L}\lambda^{\langle i\rangle}_j(u)
\,,\qquad j=1,\ldots,{\mathfrak n},
\label{VP}\end{aligned}$$ where $\lambda^{\langle i\rangle}_j(u)$ have the form (\[eq:Lambda-eval\]). Evaluation representations are central in the study of representations because all finite dimensional irreducible representations of ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ can be constructed from tensor products of evaluation representations (see [@BR1] for references).
To obtain representation of $D(u)$ we also need to give $T^{-1}(u)$ in term of the $T(u)$ elements. It could be done using the quantum determinant $qdet(T(u))$ and the comatrix $\widehat T(u)$ see [@M2].
The quantum determinant $qdet(T(u))$ which generates the center of ${\cal Y}_{\mathfrak n}$ is defined as: $$\begin{aligned}
qdet(T(u))=\sum_{\sigma \in S_{\mathfrak n}}sign(\sigma)\,
\prod_{i=1}^{{\mathfrak n}}t_{i \sigma(i)}(u+(i-{\mathfrak n})\hbar), \end{aligned}$$ where $S_{\mathfrak n}$ is the permutation group of ${\mathfrak n}$ elements and $\sigma$ a permutation with signature $sgn(\sigma)$.
The quantum comatrix $\widehat T(u)$ satisfies: $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat T(u)\,T(u-({\mathfrak n}-1)\hbar)=qdet(T(u)),\end{aligned}$$ this equation allows to relate $T^{-1}(u)$ to $\widehat T(u)$: $$\begin{aligned}
T^{-1}(u)=\frac{\widehat T(u+({\mathfrak n}-1)\hbar)}{qdet(T(u+({\mathfrak n}-1)\hbar))}.\end{aligned}$$
From the exact form of $\widehat T(u)$ in term of $t_{ij}(u)$ we can find that $\Omega$ is also a highest weight vector for $T^{-1}(u)$ with weights : $$\begin{aligned}
t'_{ii}(u)\,\Omega&=&\lambda'_i(u)\,\Omega, \quad
\lambda'_i(u)=\left(
\prod_{k=1}^{i-1}\frac{\lambda_k(u+k\hbar)}{\lambda_k(u+(k-1)\hbar)}
\right)\frac{1}{\lambda_i(u+(i-1)\hbar)}.\end{aligned}$$
The representations of the reflection algebra ${\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak n}$, could be study from previous results [@MoRa]. For $K^-(u)$ diagonal, the finite dimensional irreducible highest weight representations follow from the ones of ${\cal Y}_{\mathfrak n}$ and lead to the following theorem:
\[theo:valB\] If $\Omega$ is a highest weight vector of ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$, with eigenvalue $( \lambda_{1}(u),\ldots, \lambda_{{\mathfrak n}}(u))$, then, when $K(u)$ is a diagonal matrix with $\kappa_i(u)$ diagonal elements, $\Omega$ is also a highest weight vector for ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}$, $$\begin{aligned}
d_{ij}(u)\,\Omega =0 \quad \mbox{for} \quad i>j,
\quad \mbox{and} \quad
d_{ii}(u)\,\Omega =\Lambda_i(u,\{\kappa^-(u),\lambda(u),\lambda'(-u)\})\,\Omega, \end{aligned}$$ with eigenvalues: $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda_i(u)&=&{\cal K}_{i}(u)\,\lambda_{i}(u)\,\lambda'_{i}(-u)
-\sum_{k=1}^{i-1}
\frac{\hbar}{2u-\frac{(k-1)\hbar}{2}}\,
{\cal K}_{k}(u)\,\lambda_{k}(u)\,\lambda'_{k}(-u),
\label{eq:valprD}\\
{\cal K}_{i}(u)&=&\kappa_{i}(u)+\sum_{k=1}^{i-1}\kappa_{k}(u)
\frac{\hbar}
{2u-\frac{(i-2)\hbar}{2}}
\label{eq:grKapp}\end{aligned}$$
Now we can introduce what we call ’general transfer matrix’ ${\mathfrak d}(u; L,\{a\},\{\mu\})$: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak d}(u; L,\{a\},\{\mu\})=\Big(\otimes_{i=1}^{L}\,\rho^{\mu^{\langle
i\rangle}}_{a_i}\Big)\, \circ
\Delta^{(L)}(d(u))\end{aligned}$$ The next section we will give the proof of the Nested Bethe ansatz for this ’general transfer matrix’. To simplify notation we will use $d(u)$ for ${\mathfrak d}(u; L,\{a\},\{\mu\})$ in the next sections.
Algebraic Bethe ansatz for ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ with ${\mathfrak n}=2$ \[sec:ABA\]
=============================================================================================
In this section, we remind the framework of the Algebraic Bethe Ansatz (ABA) [@STF] introduced in order to compute transfer matrix eigenvalues and eigenvectors. The method follows the same steps as the closed chain case, up to a preliminary step. We will only consider the case $K^+(u)={\mathbb I}$ which is relevant for the Nested Bethe anstaz. In the open case the transfer matrix hs the form: $$\begin{aligned}
d(u) &=& tr(D_a(u))=d_{11}(u) + d_{22}(u).\end{aligned}$$ We perform a change of basis and a shift, $$\begin{aligned}
d_{11}(u+\frac{\hbar}{2}) &=& \widehat d_{11}(u)\mbox{,} \quad d_{12}(u+\frac{\hbar}{2})=\widehat
d_{12}(u)
\mbox{,} \quad
d_{21}(u+\frac{\hbar}{2})=\widehat d_{21}(u),\\
d_{22}(u+\frac{\hbar}{2}) &=& \widehat d_{22}(u)-\frac{\hbar}{2u}\,\widehat d_{11}(u).\end{aligned}$$ This change of basis leads to symmetric exchange relations: $$\begin{aligned}
[ \widehat d_{12}(u),\widehat d_{12}(v)]&=& 0 ,
\label{eq:d12d12hat}\\
\widehat d_{11}(u)\, \widehat d_{12}(v)&=&
\frac{(u-v+\hbar)(u+v+\hbar)}{(u-v)(u+v)}\widehat d_{12}(v)\, \widehat d_{11}(u)
-\frac{\hbar(2v+\hbar)}{2v(u-v)}\widehat d_{12}(u)\, \widehat d_{11}(v)
\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{\hbar}{u+v}\,\widehat d_{12}(u)\, \widehat d_{22}(v),
\label{ExchABF}
\\
\widehat d_{22}(u)\, \widehat d_{12}(v)&=& \frac{(u-v-\hbar)(u+v-\hbar)}{(u-v)(u+v)}\,
\widehat d_{12}(v) \, \widehat d_{22}(u)
+\frac{\hbar(2u-\hbar)}{2u(u-v)}\widehat d_{12}(u)\, \widehat d_{22}(v)
\nonumber \\
&& -\frac{\hbar(2u-\hbar)(2v+\hbar)}{4uv(u+v)}\, \widehat d_{12}(u)\, \widehat d_{11}(v).
\label{ExchABFbis} \end{aligned}$$ In the new basis, $\Omega$ is still a pseudo-vacuum: $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat d_{11}(u) \, \Omega &=&\widehat{\Lambda}_1(u)\,\Omega= {\cal K}_1(u+\frac{\hbar}{2})
\lambda_1(u+\frac{\hbar}{2})\lambda'_1(-u-\frac{\hbar}{2}) \,\Omega \mbox{,} \quad
\widehat d_{21}(u) \, \Omega \,=\, 0,\\
\widehat d_{22}(u) \, \Omega &=& \widehat \Lambda_2(u)
\,\Omega \,=\,\Big(\Lambda_{2}(u+\frac{\hbar}{2})+\frac{\hbar}{2u}\,
\Lambda_1(u+\frac{\hbar}{2}) \Big)\,\Omega\nonumber \\
&=& {\cal K}_2(u+\frac{\hbar}{2})
\lambda_2(u+\frac{\hbar}{2})\lambda'_2(-u-\frac{\hbar}{2}) \,\Omega
\,.\end{aligned}$$ and we can use the algebraic Bethe ansatz as in the closed chain case. The transfer matrix rewrites: $$\begin{aligned}
d(u+\frac{\hbar}{2}) =
\frac{2u-\hbar}{2u}\,
\widehat d_{11}(u)+
\widehat d_{22}(u)
\equiv \widehat d(u)\end{aligned}$$ Applying $M$ creation operators $\widehat d_{12}(u_{j})$ on the pseudo vacuum we generate a Bethe vector: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi(\{u\}) \, = \widehat d_{12} (u_1) \dots \widehat d_{12} (u_M)\Omega.\end{aligned}$$ where $\{u\}=\{u_1,\dots,u_M\}$. Demanding $\Phi(\{u\})$ to be an eigenvector of $\widehat d(u)$ leads to a set of algebraic relations on the parameters $\{u\}$, the so-called Bethe equations: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ {\cal K}_1(u_k+\frac{\hbar}{2})
\lambda_1(u_k+\frac{\hbar}{2})\lambda'_1(-u_k-\frac{\hbar}{2})}{ {\cal K}_2(u_k+\frac{\hbar}{2})
\lambda_2(u_k+\frac{\hbar}{2})\lambda'_2(-u_k-\frac{\hbar}{2})} &=&
\frac{2u_k}{2u_k+\hbar}\prod_{i\neq k}^{l}\frac{(u_k-u_i-\hbar)(u_k+u_i-\hbar)}{(u_k-u_i+\hbar)(u_k+u_i+\hbar)},\end{aligned}$$ Then, the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix read: $$\begin{aligned}
d(u)\,\Phi(\{u\}) &=& \Lambda(u)\, \Phi(\{u\}), \\
\Lambda(u) &=&
\frac{2u-2h}{2u-\hbar}\,
{\cal K}_1(u)
\lambda_1(u)\lambda'_1(-u)\prod_{k=1}^{M}
\frac{(u-u_k+\frac{\hbar}{2})(u+u_k+\frac{\hbar}{2})}{(u-u_k-\frac{\hbar}{2})(u+u_k-\frac{\hbar}{2})}\nonumber \\
&&+ {\cal K}_2(u)
\lambda_2(u)\lambda'_2(-u)\,
\prod_{k=1}^{M} \frac{(u-u_k-\frac{3\hbar}{2})(u+u_k-\frac{3\hbar}{2})}{(u-u_k-\frac{\hbar}{2})(u+u_k-\frac{\hbar}{2})}\,.\end{aligned}$$ Note that Bethe equations correspond to the vanishing of the residue of $\Lambda(u)$ at $u=u_j+\frac{\hbar}{2}$.
Nested Bethe ansatz\[sec:NBA\]
==============================
In this section we will give the step for a direct recursion for the Bethe equations and eigenvalues of a “general open spin chain” of rank ${\mathfrak n}+1$. This proof uses the knowledge of the recursion formula for the Bethe vectors and the embedding $ {\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}} \to {\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}+1}$. More precisely, one has to consider the quotient of ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}+1}$ by ${\cal I}$, the left ideal generate by $\{d_{ij}(u), i>j\}$ . First we give the theorem about this embedding and next we prove the Nested Bethe ansatz for ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}+1}$ from the ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ one. This formulation gives an alternative proof of the one given in [@BR2] for a more general case.
Embeddings of ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ algebras
------------------------------------------------------
The algebraic cornerstone for the nested Bethe ansatz is a recursion relation on the ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ algebraic structure: $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}} \to {\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}-1} \to \dots \to {\mathfrak D}_{3} \to {\mathfrak D}_{2}
\end{aligned}$$ In this section we give two important properties of the algebra ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}$, described in the following theorem:
\[theo:embedding\] For $k=1,2,\ldots,{\mathfrak n}-1$, let $F^{(k)}$ be a linear combination of $d_{i_1j_1}(u_1)\dots d_{i_lj_l}(u_l)$ with all indices $k-1<i_{p}\leq j_{p}$, and let ${\cal I}$ be the left ideal generated by $d_{ij}(u)$ for $i>j$. Then, we have the following properties: $$\begin{aligned}
d_{ij}(u)\,F^{(k)}&\equiv&0 \quad\mbox{mod ${\cal I}$}\,,\quad \mbox{for} \quad i>j \quad \mbox{and} \quad
j<k,\\
\null [d_{ii}(u)\,,F^{(k)}] &\equiv&0 \quad\mbox{mod ${\cal I}$}\,, \quad\mbox{for}\quad i<k.
\label{com-LC}\end{aligned}$$ and the generators: $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat D^{(k)}(u)&=&
\sum_{i,j=k}^{{\mathfrak n}} E_{ij} \otimes d^{(k)}_{ij}(u), \\
d^{(k)}_{ij}(u)&=&d_{ij}(u+\frac{( k - 1)\hbar}{2})+\delta_{ij}\sum_{a=1}^{k-1} \frac{\hbar}{2u} \,
d_{aa}(u+\frac{( k - 1)\hbar}{2})\,
\label{TF-D}\end{aligned}$$ satisfy in ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}/{\cal I}$ the reflection equation for ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}-k+1}$: $$\begin{aligned}
R^{(k)}_{12}(u_{1}-u_{2}) \widehat D^{(k)}_{1}(u_{1})
R^{(k)}_{12}(u_{1}+u_{2})\widehat D^{(k)}_{2}(u_{2})
\equiv
\widehat D^{(k)}_{2}(u_{2}) R^{(k)}_{12}(u_{1}+u_{2})
\widehat D^{(k)}_{1}(u_{1}) R^{(k)}_{12}(u_{1}-u_{2}) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$
Let us give two useful relations from this theorem for the Nested Bethe Ansatz:
-The action of $d^{(k)}_{kk}(u)$ on $\Omega$ : $$\begin{aligned}
d^{(k)}_{kk}(u)\Omega={\cal K}_{k}(u+\frac{(k-1)\hbar}{2})\lambda_k(u+\frac{(k-1)\hbar}{2})\lambda'_k(-u-\frac{(k-1)\hbar}{2})
\end{aligned}$$
-The embedding $\tau: {\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}/{\cal I}_{\mathfrak n} \to {\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}+1}/{\cal I}_{{\mathfrak n}+1}$ given by: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(d_{ij}(u))=d^{(2)}_{i+1j+1}(u)=d_{i+1j+1}(u+\frac{\hbar}{2})+\delta_{i,j}\frac{\hbar}{2u}d_{11}(u+\frac{\hbar}{2})\end{aligned}$$ it follows: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(d^{(k)}_{ij}(u))=d^{(k+1)}_{i+1,j+1}(u) \label{tau-bis}\end{aligned}$$ This morphism will be crucial for the computation of the Nested Bethe ansatz. We will use it in the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\tau(D(u))=\widehat D^{(2)}(u) \label{tau}
\end{aligned}$$ Choosing the form (\[D-from-T\]) for the operator $D$ we can compute the action of the coproduct of ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$ on $\widehat D^{(k)}(u)$.
\[embedding-co\] In the coset ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}/{\cal J} \otimes {\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}/{\cal I}$, where ${\cal J}$ is the left ideal generated by $$\begin{aligned}
\{t_{ij}(u),t'_{ij}(-u), i>j\}, \nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ the coproduct takes the form $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta(\widehat D_{[2]}^{(k)}(u)) &\equiv&
T_{[1]}^{(k)}(u)\widehat D_{[2]}^{(k)}(u)(T_{[1]}^{-1})^{(k)}(-u)
\mbox{mod ${\cal J}$},\\
T^{(k)}(u)&=&
\sum_{i,j=k}^{{\mathfrak n}} E_{ij} \otimes t^{(k)}_{ij}(u) \mbox{and}
(T^{-1})^{(k)}(-u) = \sum_{i,j=k}^{{\mathfrak n}} E_{ij} \otimes
t'^{(k)}_{ij}(-u),
\\
t^{(k)}_{ij}(u)&=&t_{ij}(u+\frac{( k - 1)\hbar}{2}) \mbox{ and}
t'^{(k)}_{ij}(-u) = t'_{ij}(-u-\frac{( k - 1)\hbar}{2}),\end{aligned}$$ where $[1]$ labels the space ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}/{\cal I}$, $[2]$ labels the space ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}/{\cal J}$ and $\Delta$ is the coproduct of ${\cal Y}_{{\mathfrak n}}$.
From this result and using the fundamental representation $\bar{\pi}_a$ of ${\cal Y}_i$ we can obtain the convenient relation for $i<k$ (see [@BR2]): $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\pi}^{(i)}_a(T^{(k)}(u))=\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}^{(i,k)}(u+a+\frac{(k-i)\hbar}{2}) \nonumber \\
\bar{\pi}^{(i)}_a((T^{-1})^{(k)}(-u))=\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}^{(i,k)}(u-a+\frac{(k-i)\hbar}{2}) \label{repf} \end{aligned}$$ This formulas will be use to prove the recursion of the Nested Bethe ansatz.
Bethe vectors
-------------
We present here a generalization to open spin chains of the recursion and trace formulas for Bethe vectors, obtained in [@MTV; @TV2] for closed spin chains.
Let us introduce the following trace formula for the Bethe vectors (or weight function) of ${\mathfrak D}_{\mathfrak n}$ universal “diagonal” open spin chains. We introduce a family of Bethe parameters $u_{kj}$, $j=1,\ldots,M_{k}$, the number $M_{k}$ of these parameters being a free integer. The partial unions of these families will be noted as, $$\begin{aligned}
\{u_{\ell}\}=\bigcup_{i=1}^{\ell}\,
\{u_{ij}\,,\ j=1,\ldots,M_{i}\},\end{aligned}$$ so that the whole family of Bethe parameters is $\{u\}=\{u_{{\mathfrak n}-1}\}$ with cardinal $M=\sum_{k=1}^{{\mathfrak n}-1}M_k$.
\[trace\] We denote $A_1; \dots; A_{{\mathfrak n}-1} $ the ordered sequence of auxiliary spaces $a_1^1, \dots, a_{M_1}^1$; $a_1^2, \dots, a_{M_2}^2$ $; \dots ;$ $a_1^{{\mathfrak n}-1}, \dots ,
a_{M_{{\mathfrak n}-1}}^{{\mathfrak n}-1}$. Then: $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^{{\mathfrak n}}_M(\{u\})\Omega =
tr_{A_1 \ldots A_{{\mathfrak n}-1} }
\,\left(\prod_{i=1}^{{\mathfrak n}-1}
\widehat {\mathbb D}^{(i)}_{A_i}(\{u_i\})
E_{{\mathfrak n},{\mathfrak n}-1}^{\otimes M_{{\mathfrak n}-1}}
\otimes \dots \otimes
E_{21}^{\otimes M_1}\right) \,\Omega, \quad
\label{eq:Phi-str}\end{aligned}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat {\mathbb D}^{(i)}_{A_i}(\{u_i\})&=&\prod_{j=1}^{M_i}
\overline {\cal R}^{(i)}_{A_{<i},a^i_j}(\{u_{i-1}\},u_{ij})
\widehat{D}^{(i)}_{a^i_j}(u_{ij}+\frac{\hbar}{2})
{\cal R}^{(i)}_{a^i_j,A_{<i}}(\{u_{i-1}\},u_{ij}),
\\
\overline {\cal R}^{(i)}_{A_{<i},a^i_j}(\{u_{i-1}\},u_{ij})
&=&\prod_{b<i}^{\longleftarrow}
\prod_{c=1...M_b}^{\longrightarrow}
\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}^{(i,b+1)}_{a_j^ia_c^b }\Big(u_{ij}+u_{bc}+\frac{(i-b+1)\hbar}{2}\Big),
\\
{\cal R}^{(i)}_{a^i_j,A_{<i}}(\{u_{i-1}\},u_{ij})
&=&\prod_{b<i}^{\longrightarrow}
\prod_{c=1...M_b}^{\longleftarrow}
\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}^{(i,b+1)}_{a_j^ia_c^b}\Big(u_{ij}-u_{bc}+\frac{(i-b+1)\hbar}{2}\Big),
\label{eq:bigR}
\\
\prod_{i=1,..,n}^{\longrightarrow}X_i=X_1...X_n, && \prod_{i=1,..,n}^{\longleftarrow}X_i=X_n...X_1\end{aligned}$$ This formula is invariant under the same permutation of elements of $A_i$ and $\{u_{i1},\dots,u_{iM_i}\}$.
The proof of the last assertion does not clearly appear in [@BR2] and will be published elsewhere.
[From]{} the trace formula, we can extract a recurrent form for the Bethe vectors, $$\begin{aligned}
\Phi^{{\mathfrak n}}_M(\{u\}) \Omega&=& \widehat B^{(1)}_{a^1_1}(u_{11}) \cdots
\widehat B^{(1)}_{a^1_{M_1}}(u_{1M_1})\,\widehat\Psi^{(1)}_{\{u_1\}}
\Big(\Phi^{{{\mathfrak n}}-1}_{M-M_{1}}(\{u\}/\{u_1\})\Big)\Omega,
\label{BVR}\\
\widehat\Psi^{(1)}_{\{u_1\}} &=&
v^{(2)}\,\circ \,
(\bar{\pi}^{(2)}_{u_{11}} \otimes \dots \otimes
\bar{\pi}^{(2)}_{u_{1M_1}}\otimes {\mathbb I}) \circ \Delta^{(M_1)} \circ \tau ,\label{eq:recurPhi}\\
\widehat{B}^{(1)}(u) &=& \sum_{j=1}^{{\mathfrak n}}e^t_{j} \otimes d^{(1)}_{1j}(u)\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar{\pi}^{(2)}_{a}$ is the fundamental representation evaluation homomorphism normalized as in (\[repf\]), $v^{(2)}$ is the application of the highest weight vector $e_{2}$ for the space $A_1$: $$\begin{aligned}
v^{(2)}(X)=X\,(e_{2})^{\otimes
M_{k-1}}\end{aligned}$$
The proof is given in [@BR2].
Eigenvalues and Bethe Equations
-------------------------------
We state the following commutation relation between $d(u)$ and $\Phi^{{\mathfrak n}}_M(\{u\})$ for $K^+(u)={\mathbb I}$: $$\begin{aligned}
&&d(u)\Phi^{{\mathfrak n}}_M(\{u\})=U.W.T \nonumber \\
&&+ \Phi^{{\mathfrak n}}_M(\{u\}) \Big(\sum_{k=1}^{{\mathfrak n}}\frac{2u-{\mathfrak n}\hbar}{2u-k\hbar}
\prod_{i=1}^{M_k}f(u-\frac{k\hbar}{2},u_{kj})\prod_{i=1}^{M_{k-1}}\widetilde{f}(u-\frac{(k-1)\hbar}{2},u_{k-1j})
d^{(k)}_{kk}(u-\frac{(k-1)\hbar}{2})\Big)\nonumber \\
&& f(u,v)=\frac{(u-v+\hbar)(u+v+\hbar)}{(u-v)(u+v)}, \quad \widetilde{f}(u,v)=\frac{(u-v-\hbar)(u+v-\hbar)}{(u-v)(u+v)}\label{bigcom}\end{aligned}$$ with the convention $M_{0}=M_{{\mathfrak n}}=0$. The $U.W.T$ contains terms with $u$ in the vector. We will prove the following theorem:
For $K^+(u)={\mathbb I}$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
d(u)\Phi^{{\mathfrak n}}_M(\{u\}) \Omega=\Lambda(u)\Phi^{{\mathfrak n}}_M(\{u\}) \Omega\end{aligned}$$ If the following set of Bethe equations is satisfed: $$\begin{aligned}
&&\frac{{\cal K}_{k}(u_{kj}+\frac{k\hbar}{2}) \lambda_{k} (u_{kj}+\frac{k\hbar}{2}) \lambda'_{k} (-u_{kj}-\frac{k\hbar}{2}) }{{\cal K}_{k+1}(u_{kj}+\frac{k\hbar}{2}) \lambda_{k+1} (u_{kj}+\frac{k\hbar}{2}) \lambda'_{k+1} (-u_{kj}-\frac{k\hbar}{2})} = \frac{2u_{kj}}{2u_{kj}+\hbar}\times \nonumber \\
&& \qquad \prod_{i=1}^{M_{k-1}}\frac{(u_{kj}-u_{k-1,i}-\frac{\hbar}{2})(u_{kj}+u_{k-1,i}-\frac{\hbar}{2})}{(u_{kj}-u_{k-1,i}+\frac{\hbar}{2})(u_{kj}+u_{k-1,i}+\frac{\hbar}{2})}
\prod_{i\neq j}^{M_k}
\frac{(u_{kj}-u_{ki}-\hbar)(u_{kj}+u_{ki}-\hbar)}{(u_{kj}-u_{ki}+\hbar)(u_{kj}+u_{ki}+\hbar)} \times\nonumber \\
&& \qquad\prod_{i=1}^{M_{k+1}}
\frac{(u_{kj}-u_{k+1,i}-\frac{\hbar}{2})(u_{kj}+u_{k+1,i}-\frac{\hbar}{2})}{(u_{kj}-u_{k+1,i}+\frac{\hbar}{2})(u_{kj}+u_{k+1,i}+\frac{\hbar}{2})},
\nonumber \\
&& j=1,\ldots,M_{k}\,,\quad k=1,\ldots,{\mathfrak n}-1,
\label{BE}\end{aligned}$$ then the eigenvalues of the transfer matrix have the form: $$\begin{aligned}
\Lambda(u)&=&\sum_{k=1}^{{\mathfrak n}}\frac{2u-{\mathfrak n}\hbar}{2u-k\hbar}{\cal K}_{k}(u) \lambda_{k} (u) \lambda'_{k} (-u)\prod_{j=1}^{M_{k}}
\frac{(u-u_{kj}-\frac{k\hbar}{2}+\hbar)(u+u_{kj}-\frac{k\hbar}{2}+\hbar)}{(u-u_{kj}-\frac{k\hbar}{2})(u+u_{kj}-\frac{k\hbar}{2})}
\nonumber \\
&& \times
\prod_{j=1}^{M_{k-1}}\frac{(u-u_{k-1j}-\frac{(k-1)\hbar}{2}-\hbar)(u+u_{k-1j}-\frac{(k-1)\hbar}{2}-\hbar)}{(u-u_{k-1j}-\frac{(k-1)\hbar}{2})(u+u_{k-1j}-\frac{(k-1)\hbar}{2})}\end{aligned}$$
For ${\mathfrak n}=2$ we find the result of section 5. We will prove the case ${\mathfrak n}+1$ assuming the case ${\mathfrak n}$ is true. We decompose the transfer matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
d(u) &=& d_{11}(u)+d^{(2)}(u)\,,\nonumber \\
d^{(2)}(u) &=& tr\Big(D^{(2)}(u)\Big)\end{aligned}$$ We make a transformation of the operator and a shift of the spectral parameter to have symmetric commutation relations: $$\begin{aligned}
d_{11}(u+\frac{\hbar}{2})&=&\widehat d_{11}(u)\,, \qquad
B^{(1)}_a(u+\frac{\hbar}{2})\,=\,\widehat B^{(1)}_a(u), \nonumber \\
D^{(2)}_a(u+\frac{\hbar}{2})&=&\widehat D^{(2)}_a(u)-
\frac{\hbar}{2u} \,{\mathbb I}^{(2)}_a \otimes \widehat d_{11}(u). \end{aligned}$$ From this transformation we get a new form for the transfer matrix: $$\begin{aligned}
d(u+\frac{\hbar}{2}) &=&\frac{2u-{\mathfrak n}\hbar}{2u}\widehat d_{11}(u)+tr_a\Big(\widehat D_a^{(2)}(u)\Big),
\end{aligned}$$ The commutation relations between $\widehat d_{11}(u)$, $\widehat D^{(2)}(u)$ and $ \widehat B^{(1)}(u)$ are obtains from reflection equation (\[ER\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat B^{(1)}_a(u)\,\widehat B^{(1)}_b(v)&=&
\widehat B^{(1)}_b(v)\, \widehat B^{(1)}_a(u)\,\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}_{ab}^{(2)}(u-v),
\label{eq:comBB}\\
\widehat d_{11}(u)\, \widehat B^{(1)}_b(v)&=&
\frac{(u-v+\hbar)(u+v+\hbar)}{(u-v)(u+v)}
\widehat B_b(v) \widehat d_{11}(u) -\frac{\hbar(2v+\hbar)}{(u-v)2v}\widehat B^{(1)}_b(u)
\,\widehat d_{11}(v)
\nonumber \\
&& +\frac{\hbar}{u+v}\, \widehat B^{(1)}_b(v) \widehat D^{(2)}_b(v),
\label{eq:comdkkB} \\
\widehat D^{(2)}_a(u)\widehat B^{(1)}_b(v)&=&\frac{(u-v-\hbar)(u+v-\hbar)}{(u-v)(u+v)}\widehat B^{(1)}_b(v)
\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}^{(2)}_{ab}(u+v)
\widehat D^{(2)}_a(u) \mbox{${\mathbb R}$}^{(2)}_{ab}(u-v)\nonumber \\
&&-\frac{\hbar(2v+\hbar)}{4uv(u+v)}\widehat
B^{(1)}_b(u)R^{(2)}_{ab}(2u)P^{(2)}_{ab}\,\widehat d_{kk}(v)\nonumber \\
&&+\frac{\hbar}{(u-v)2u}\widehat B^{(k)}_b(u)
R^{(2)}_{ab}(2u)
\widehat D^{(2)}_a(v)P^{(2)}_{ba}.
\label{eq:comDB}\end{aligned}$$
From this commutation relations and using the fact that the Bethe vector is globally invariant if we permute $\widehat{B}$ we obtain two types of terms: the wanted and unwanted. Let us consider first the wanted terms. For $\widehat d_{11}(u)$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{i=1}^{M_1}f(u,u_{1i})\Phi^{{\mathfrak n}+1}_{M}(\{u\})\widehat d_{11}(u)\Omega\end{aligned}$$ where we have used the theorem \[theo:embedding\] to put $\widehat d_{11}(u)$ in the right. For $\widehat D^{(2)}(u)$ we have: $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{i=1}^{M_1}\widetilde{f}(u,u_{1i})\widehat B^{(1)}_{a^1_1}(u_{11}) \cdots
\widehat B^{(1)}_{a^1_{M_1}}(u_{1M_1})\,\widehat\Psi^{(1)}_{\{u_1\}}
\Big(d(u)\Phi^{{\mathfrak n}}_{M-M_1}(\{u\}/\{u_1\})\Big),\end{aligned}$$ where $d(u)$ is the transfer matrix for ${\mathfrak D}_{{\mathfrak n}}$. We have used the definition of $\widehat\Psi^{(1)}_{\{u_1\}}$ and the relations (\[tau\],\[repf\]) to find: $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{i=1...M_1}^{\longrightarrow} \mbox{${\mathbb R}$}^{(2)}_{aa_i^1}(u+u_{1i})
\widehat D^{(2)}_a(u) \prod_{i=1...M_1}^{\longleftarrow}\mbox{${\mathbb R}$}^{(2)}_{aa_i^1}(u-u_{1i})\widehat\Psi^{(1)}_{\{u_1\}}(X)=\widehat\Psi^{(1)}_{\{u_1\}}(D_a(u)X)\end{aligned}$$ Using (\[bigcom\]) we can commute $d^{(2)}(u)$. It remains to compute the action of $\widehat\Psi^{(1)}_{\{u_1\}}$. The formulas (\[tau-bis\],\[repf\]) and the fact that $\widehat\Psi^{(1)}_{\{u_1\}}$ is an morphism (up to $\nu^{(2)}$) allow to find ($1<k\leq{\mathfrak n}$): $$\begin{aligned}
\widehat\Psi^{(1)}_{\{u_1\}}(d^{(1)}_{11}(u))&=&d^{(2)}_{22}(u)\nonumber \\
\widehat\Psi^{(1)}_{\{u_1\}}(d^{(k)}_{kk}(u-\frac{(k-1)\hbar}{2}))&=&d^{(k+1)}_{k+1k+1}(u-\frac{(k-1)\hbar}{2})\prod_{i=1}^{M_1}\widetilde{f}^{-1}(u,u_{1i}) \label{phi-act}\end{aligned}$$ Using these formulas and making a reverse shift, the theorem is proved for the wanted term.
Let us now consider the unwanted terms. First we give the reason why it is not possible to deal with a general diagonal $K^+(u)$ matrix. To factorised the unwanted term for $\widehat d_{11}(u)$ we must have $tr((K_a^+)^{(2)}(u)R^{(2)}_{ab}(2u)P^{(2)}_{ab})\propto {\mathbb I}^{(2)}$. The only possibility is $(K_a^+)^{(2)}(u)\propto {\mathbb I}^{(2)}$. Here we will just prove the case $K^+(u)= {\mathbb I}$ and let the reader consult [@BR2] for the other case: $K^+(u)= k(u)E_{11}+{\mathbb I}^{(2)}$.
Using the commutation relations and looking to the term with $\widehat d_{11}(u_{11})$–the other term are similar using the invariance by permutation of the Bethe vector, see theorem \[trace\]–we find: $$\begin{aligned}
-\frac{(2u-{\mathfrak n}\hbar)(2u_{11}+\hbar)}{2u_{11}(u^2-u_{11}^2)}\prod_{i=2}^{M_1}f(u_{11},u_{1i})\Phi^{{\mathfrak n}+1}_{M}(\{u\},u_{11}\to u)\widehat d_{11}(u_{11}) \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ Looking now for the term $\widehat D^{(2)}(u_{11})$, after using the trick $tr(R^{(2)}_{ab}(2u)P^{(2)}_{ab})=(2u-{\mathfrak n}\hbar){\mathbb I}^{(2)}$ to obtain a good form for commuting with $\widehat\Psi^{(1)}_{\{u_1\}}$, we find:
$$\begin{aligned}
\frac{(2u-{\mathfrak n}\hbar)(2u_{11}-\hbar)\hbar}{(2u_{11}-{\mathfrak n}\hbar)(u^2-u_{11}^{2})}\prod_{i=2}^{M_1}\widetilde{f}(u_{11},u_{1i})\widehat B^{(1)}_{a^1_1}(u) \cdots
\widehat B^{(1)}_{a^1_{M_1}}(u_{1M_1})\,\widehat\Psi^{(1)}_{\{u_1\}}
\Big(d(u_{11})\Phi^{{\mathfrak n}}_{M-M_1}(\{u\}/\{u_1\})\Big)\nonumber\end{aligned}$$
From (\[phi-act\]) we see that only the first term of the eigenvalue is non zero. We can obtain the Bethe equation for $u_{11}$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{\cal K}_1(u_{11}+\frac{\hbar}{2})\lambda_1(u_{11}+\frac{\hbar}{2})\lambda'_{1}(u_{11}+\frac{\hbar}{2})}{{\cal K}_2(u_{11}+\frac{\hbar}{2})\lambda_2(u_{11}+\frac{\hbar}{2})\lambda'_{2}(u_{11}+\frac{\hbar}{2})}=\frac{2u_{11}}{(2u_{11}+\hbar)}
\prod_{i=2}^{M_1}\frac{\widetilde{f}(u_{11},u_{1i})}{f(u_{11},u_{1i})}\prod_{i=1}^{M_2}f^{-1}(u_{11}-\frac{\hbar}{2},u_{2i})\nonumber
\end{aligned}$$ Using the invariance by permutation the Bethe equations for the other $u_{ij}$ follow. We must also modify the other Bethe equations. The only change comes from the relations (\[phi-act\]) who change the eigenvalues of the $d^{(k)}_{kk}(u-\frac{(k-1)\hbar}{2})$. This modification only affects the first familly of Bethe equations adding a term to the right product. This ends the recursion and proves the theorem.\
Conclusion
==========
In this proceeding we give the Nested Bethe ansatz for open spin chains of XXX-type with diagonal boundary conditions. This result could be extend to the case of non diagonal boundary conditions but with some constraints between $K^+(u)$ and $K^-(u)$. To do this, we use the $GL({\mathfrak n},{\mathbb C})$ invariance of the Yangian [@GM; @AACDFR] and take for an arbitrary invertible $M$: $$\begin{aligned}
\widetilde K^+(u)=MK^+(u)M^{-1}, \quad \widetilde K^-(u)=MK^-(u)M^{-1}\end{aligned}$$ It’s equivalent to the assertion that $K^+(u)$ and $K^-(u)$ are diagonalisable in the same basis, otherwise the nested Bethe ansatz does not work and the diagonalisation of the transfer matrix remains an open problem.
We also give a **trace formula** for the Bethe vector of the open chain. This formulation could be a starting point for the investigation of the quantized Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation following the work [@TV2]. For such a purpose, the coproduct properties of Bethe vectors for open spin chains remain to be studied. Defining a scalar product and computing the norm of these Bethe vectors is also a point of fundamental interest.
Acknowledgments: {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
================
The first autor thanks E. Ivanov and S. Fedoruk for invitation at the Dubna International SQS’09 Workshop (“Supersymmetries and Quantum Symmetries-2009”, july 29 - August 3, 2009) where this work has been presented and F.Ravanini for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by the INFN Iniziativa Specifica FI11.
[99]{}
I. Cherednik, *Factorizing particules on the half-line and roots systems*, Teor. Mat. Fiz. [**61**]{} (1984) 55.
E.K. Sklyanin, *Boundary conditions for integrable quantum systems*, j. Phys. **A21** (1988) 2375.
E. Sklyanin, L. Takhtajan and L. Faddeev, *The Quantum Inverse Problem Method*, Theor. Math. Phys. [**40**]{} (1979) 688. L. Faddeev, *How Algebraic Bethe Ansatz works for integrable model*, in *Symétries Quantiques*, Les Houches summerschool proceedings **64**, Eds A. Connes, K. Gawedzki and j. Zinn-justin, North-Holland 1998 and `hep-th/9605187`.
P.P. Kulish and N. Yu. Reshetikhin, *Diagonalisation of $gl({\mathfrak n})$ invariant transfer matrices and quatum N-wave system (Lee model)*, [j. Phys.]{} [**A16**]{} (1983) L591-L596.
W. Galleas and M.j. Martins, *Solution of the $SU({\mathfrak n})$ vertex model with non-diagonal open boundaries*, Phys. Lett. [**A335**]{} (2005) 167 and `[arXiv:nlin.SI/0407027]`.
D. Arnaudon, N. Crampé, A. Doikou, L. Frappat and [É]{}. Ragoucy, *Analytical Bethe Ansatz for closed and open $gl({\mathfrak n})$-spin chains in any representation*, jSTAT **02** (2005) P02007 and `[arXiv:math-ph/0411021]`.
S. Belliard and [É]{}. Ragoucy, *The nested Bethe ansatz for ’all’ closed spin chains*, j. Phys. **A41** (2008) and `arXiv:0804.2822v2 [math-ph]`.
S. Belliard and [É]{}. Ragoucy, *Nested Bethe ansatz for ‘all’ open spin chains with diagonal boundary conditions*, j. Phys. **A42** (2009) and `arXiv:0902.0321[math-ph]`.
N. Yu. Reshetikhin, L. A. Takhtajan and L. D. Faddeev, *Quantization of Lie Groups and Lie algebras*, Leningrad Math. j. [**1**]{} (1990) 193–225.
, *Quantum groups*, in Proc. Int. Congress Math., Berkeley, 1986’, AMS, Providence RI, 1987, pp. 798–820.
V. G. Drinfeld, [*Hopf algebras and the quantum Yang-Baxter equation*]{}, Sov. Math. Doklady [**32**]{} (1985) p. 254.
V. Chari and A. Pressley, *Yangians and R-matrices*, L’Enseignement Math. [**36**]{} (1990) 267;
*A guide to quantum groups*, Cambridge University Press 1994.
A.I. Molev, *Irreducibility criterion for tensor products of Yangian evaluation modules*, Duke Math. j. **112** (2002) 307 and `[arXiv:math.QA/0009183]`.
A.I. Molev,*Yangians and their applications*, Handbook of Algebra [**3**]{} (M. Hazewinkel, Ed.) Elsevier (2003) 907 and `[arXiv:math.QA/021128]`.
D. Arnaudon, j. Avan, N. Crampé, A. Doikou, L. Frappat and [É]{}. Ragoucy, *General boundary conditions for the $sl({\mathfrak n})$ and $sl({\mathfrak n}|{\mathfrak m})$ open spin chains*, jSTAT **0408** (2004) P005 and `[arXiv:math-ph/0406021]`.
A. Molev and [É]{}.Ragoucy, *Representations of reflection algebras*, Rev. Math. Phys. **14** (2002) 317 and `[arXiv:math-QA/0406021]`.
E. Mukhin, V. Tarasov and A. Varchenko, *Bethe eigenvectors of higer transfert matricies*, jSTAT **0608** (2006) P08002 and `[arXiv:math.QA/0605015]`.
V. Tarasov and A. Varchenko, *Solutions to the quantized Knizhnik-Zamolodchikov equation and the Bethe ansatz*, `[arXiv:hep-th/9411181]`.
[^1]: [email protected]
[^2]: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- Xiangrui Gao
- ', Song He'
- ', Yong Zhang'
bibliography:
- 'mybibliography.bib'
title: |
Labelled tree graphs, Feynman diagrams\
and disk integrals
---
Invitation: a new class of CHY half integrands {#invitation}
==============================================
In 2013, F. Cachazo, E. Y. Yuan and one of the authors found a new formulation for tree-level S-matrices for a large variety of massless theories in arbitrary dimensions [@Cachazo:2013iaa; @Cachazo:2013gna; @Cachazo:2013hca; @Cachazo:2013iea] (for extension to more theories, see [*i.e.*]{} [@Cachazo:2014nsa; @Cachazo:2014xea; @He:2016iqi; @He:2016dol; @Cachazo:2016njl]). The key ingredient of the formulation is the so-called [*scattering equations*]{}, which link kinematics of $n$ massless particles to points in the moduli space of $n$-punctured Riemann spheres, ${\cal M}_{0,n}$ [@Cachazo:2013iaa; @Cachazo:2013gna]:
$$\label{se}
\sum_{b\neq a}\frac{k_a\cdot k_b}{\sigma_a-\sigma_b}=0,\quad a\in\{1,2,...,n\},$$
where $\sigma_a$ denotes the position of the $a^{th}$ puncture on the Riemann sphere. The tree-level S-matrix can be compactly formulated as an integral over ${\cal M}_{0,n}$ localized on solutions of the scattering equations [@Cachazo:2013hca]: \[sm\] [M]{}\^[tree]{}\_n ({k, })=\_n[**I**]{}\_n ({k, , }), \_n:=\_\^n ( \_a(\_[ba]{} ))(\_[i,j]{}\_[j,k]{}\_[k,i]{})\^2, where $\sigma_{a,b}:=\sigma_a-\sigma_b$ and we have included delta functions imposing in the measure ${\mathrm{d}}{\bm \mu}$. Note that both the moduli space ${\cal M}_{0,n}$ and the scattering equations have an $\rm{SL}(2,\mathds{C})$ redundancy; our definition of ${\mathrm{d}}{\bm \mu}$ means that we fix the $\rm{SL}(2,\mathds{C})$ redundancy by deleting three ${\mathrm{d}}\sigma$’s and three delta-functions ([*e.g.*]{} both chosen to be $i,j,k$) with a compensation factor $(\sigma_{i,j}\sigma_{j,k}\sigma_{k,i})^2$.
We will refer to as CHY formula for amplitudes in a given theory, where $\mathcal{\bf I}_n$ is the “CHY integrand" of the theory that can generally also depends on momenta and polarizations. Note that for to be well defined, the CHY integrand must transform covariantly, with opposite weight as ${\mathrm{d}}{\bm \mu}$, under a $\rm{SL}(2,\mathds{C})$ transformation (here $\alpha \delta-\beta\gamma=1$): \[trans\] \_a : \_n \_[a=1]{}\^n(\_a +)\^[-4]{} \_n \_n \_[a=1]{}\^n(\_a +)\^4[**I**]{}\_n({\_a}), and we will refer to this as the fact that ${\bf I}_n$ has weight 4. For most theories that admit CHY representations, the CHY integrand factorizes into two parts $\mathcal{\bf I}_n=\mathcal{\bf I}_n^{(L)}\,\mathcal{\bf I}_n^{(R)}$ where each of them transforms as in with weight 2 and we will refer to ${\bf I}_n^{(L)}$ and ${\bf I}_n^{(R)}$ as “half integrands".
The simplest function with this transformation property is probably the so-called [*Parke-Taylor*]{} (PT) factor. Given an ordering of $n$ labels, $\alpha:=(\alpha(1), \alpha(2), \cdots, \alpha(n))$ we define $$\label{pt}
{\rm{\bf PT}}(\alpha):=\frac{1}{\sigma_{\alpha(1),\alpha(2)}\sigma_{\alpha(2),\alpha(3)}\cdot \cdot \cdot \sigma_{\alpha(n),\alpha(1)}}\,.$$ It turns out that such Parke-Taylor factors play an important role in CHY formula for various theories (with ordering), and the simplest example is the so-called bi-adjoint $\phi^3$ theory [@Cachazo:2013iea]. This is a theory with scalars in the adjoint of two flavor groups, [*e.g.*]{} U(N) $\times$ U(N’), with a cubic vertex $\sim f^{abc} f^{a'b'c'} \phi_{a, a'} \phi_{b, b'} \phi_{c, c'}$. By doing trace-decomposition in both groups, the so-called double-partial amplitude, $m(\alpha|\beta)$ for orderings $\alpha$ and $\beta$, is given by the sum of scalar Feynman diagrams (cubic tree graphs with $n$ external legs) that are compatible with both $\alpha$ and $\beta$: \[mab\] m(|)=(-1)\^[[flip]{}(|)]{}\_[g T() T() ]{} \_[I P(g)]{} 1 [s\_I]{}, where $T(\alpha)$ denotes the set of cubic tree graphs compatible with ordering $\alpha$ (similarly for $T(\beta)$), and for each graph $g$ we have the product of $n{-}3$ propagators labelled by $I$ (the collection of all poles/propagators of a Feynman diagram $g$ is denoted as $P(g)$) [^1].Although this $\phi^3$ theory is simple, it is remarkable that $m(\alpha|\beta)$ is given by the simplest CHY formula, with two PT factors: m(|)=\_n [**PT**]{}() [**PT**]{}(), which is a rather non-trivial mathematical identity first proposed and shown in [@Cachazo:2013iea]. In particular, if we choose $\alpha=\beta$ the CHY formula can be viewed as a map from a half integrand, [**PT**]{}($\alpha$), to the collection of Feynman diagrams that are compatible with ordering $\alpha$, $T(\alpha)$ (all planar cubic tree graphs with external legs in the ordering $\alpha$): \[map\] [**PT**]{} [planar cubic tree graphs]{}:\_n [**PT**]{}()\^2=\_[g [compatible with]{} ]{}\^[[Cat]{}\_[n[-]{}2]{}]{} \_I 1 [s\_I]{}, where ${\rm Cat}_{n{-}2}$ denotes the [Catalan number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_number) $1, 2, 5, 14, 42, 132, \ldots$ for $n=3,4,5,6,7,8, \ldots$ [@catalan]. In this paper, we will study a new class of half integrands, which largely generalize Parke-Taylor factors and maps to collections of Feynman diagrams. In addition, they naturally appear in superstring disk integrals and we will discuss their applications in that direction as well.
Cayley functions and the map to cubic Feynman graphs
----------------------------------------------------
The main character of our story is a new class of half-integrands that we call [ Cayley functions]{}. Before proceeding, let us discuss a convenient way of fixing ${\rm SL}(2,{\mathbb C})$ in CHY formulas. Recall that we need to fix three punctures: we can always choose $\sigma_n\to \infty$, and fix any two more punctures at finite positions, [*e.g.*]{} $\sigma_1=0$, $\sigma_{n{-}1}=1$ which won’t be necessary to explicitly write down. With $\s_n\rightarrow \infty$, ${\rm SL}(2,{\mathbb C})$-fixed CHY formula reads \_n=\_n [I]{}\_n, \_n:=\_[a=2]{}\^[n[-]{}1]{} \_a(\_[ba]{} ), where the four infinite factors containing $\sigma_n$ in ${\mathrm{d}}{\bm \mu}_n$ cancel against those in ${\bf I}_n$ thus we can remove all $\sigma_n$-dependence in ${\rm SL}(2,{\mathbb C})$-fixed ${\mathrm{d}}{ \mu}_n$ and ${\cal I}_n$. For example, we define the ${\rm SL}(2,{\mathbb C})$-fixed PT factor as (since there are $(n{-}1)!$ $\alpha$’s we can always choose $n$ in the end) \[PT\] [PT]{}((1), , (n[-]{}1), n)=. From now on, we will mostly be using this ${\rm SL}(2,{\mathbb C})$-fixed form of CHY formulas and integrands, and only switch back to the covariant (boldface) form when necessary.
Now we can define our new half integrands in this $\sigma_n\to \infty$ form. Given any labelled tree graph with with points $1,2,\ldots, n{-}1$ (also called $(n{-}1)$-pt Cayley tree graph), we define Calyley function as the product of $n{-}2$ $\frac{1}{\s_i-\s_j}$, one for each edge $(i,j)$ of the tree $(1\leq i<j\leq n-1)$ [^2]. $$\label{C}
C_n(\{i,j\}):=\prod_{a=1}^{n{-}2} \frac 1 {\sigma_{i_a, j_a}}\,,$$ where equivalently we can say that no cycle is formed with these $n{-}2$ pairs $\{i,j\}$. For example, for $n=4$ we can have the following three labelled trees , see figure \[sijk123\] ,where [*e.g.*]{} Cayley function for the first one is $C_4(\{1,2\}, \{2,3\})=\frac 1 {\sigma_{12} \sigma_{23}}$.
For $n=5$ there are 16 labelled trees, and here we give two examples of $C_5$ for the two topologies , see figure \[sijkl123\] C\_5 ({1,2}, {2,3}, {3,4})=1[\_[12]{} \_[23]{} \_[34]{}]{}, C\_5({1,2}, {1,3}, {1,4})=1 [\_[12]{}\_[13]{} \_[14]{}]{}.
Since Cayley functions in this $\sigma_n \to \infty$ frame are in one-to-one correspondence with $(n{-}1)$-pt labelled trees, there are exactly $(n{-}1)^{n{-}3}$ of them. A basic question we are interested in is how many different classes of Cayley functions there are; two Cayley functions are said to be topologically equivalent if and only if their tree graphs can be brought to the same shape, which are just relabelling of each other, for example the there are two classes of Cayley functions for $n=5$. Generally for any $n$, there are always these two extreme classes, given by the so-called Hamiltonian graph (a line) and star graph (a star-shaped tree, and we can choose the center to be [*e.g.*]{} 1) respectively (see figure \[S graph\]) C\^[H]{}\_n=\_[a=1]{}\^[n-2]{} 1 [\_[(a), (a[+]{}1)]{}]{}, C\^[S]{}\_n=\_[a=2]{}\^[n-1]{} 1 [\_[1, a]{}]{}. The former is nothing but the Parke-Taylor factor ${\rm PT}(\alpha(1), \alpha(2), \cdots, \alpha(n{-}1), n)$ in the ${\rm SL}(2, {\mathbb C})$-fixed form, , while the latter is totally symmetric in labels $2,3,\ldots, n{-}1$.
For $n\geq 6$, we have new classes that are in between these two extremes, see examples in sec.\[sec2\]. The number of distinct classes is nothing but the number of unlabelled trees, which equals $1,2,3,6,11,23,47,\cdots$ for $n{=}4,5,6,7,8,9,10,\cdots$ respectively (see [A000055](https://oeis.org/search?q=1%2C2%2C3%2C6%2C11%2C23%2C47%2C106
&sort=&language=english&go=Search) [@A000055] ) . We will see that these classes play an important role in our following discussions.
Although we have defined Cayley functions in $\sigma_n\to \infty$ frame, it is straightforward to recover the ${\rm SL}(2,{\mathbb C})$ redundancy which results in the unique covariant form for each $C$: \_n({i,j}):=C\_n({i,j}) \_[1,n]{}\^[v\_1-2]{}\_[2,n]{}\^[v\_2-2]{}\_[n[-]{}1,n]{}\^[v\_[n[-]{}1]{}-2]{}, where $v_a$ denotes the valency of vertex $a=1,2,\cdots, n{-}1$ in the labelled tree, and by definition, $1\leq v_a \leq n{-}3$. It is easy to check that in ${\bf C}$ every $\sigma_a$ appears exactly twice in the denominator, including $\sigma_n$; this is because $\sum_{a=1}^{n-1} (v_a-2)=2(n-2)-2(n-1)=-2$, thus ${\bf C}_n$ given above is indeed ${\rm SL}(2,{\mathbb C})$ covariant with weight 2. The covariant form of $C^H_n={\rm PT}_n$ is of course ${\bf PT}_n$ in , and that for $C^S_n$ is given by \[cccova\] [**C**]{}\^S\_n=\_[a=2]{}\^[n[-]{}1]{} 1 [\_[1,a]{}]{} \_[1,n]{}\^[n[-]{}4]{}\_[a=2]{}\^[n[-]{}1]{} \_[a,n]{}\^[-1]{} =.
The Cayley functions generalize Parke-Taylor factors in an interesting way; it is well known that via partial-fraction identities, they can be redued to PT’s (see sec \[sec3p1\]), but we find it intriguing and useful to study these functions directly, in the context of CHY formula and string integrals. As we will see shortly, Cayley functions have the property that, similar to the case of PT factors , via CHY formula it maps to a sum of certain cubic tree graphs with coefficient $+1$ only : \[cubicsum\] C\_n({i,j}) [cubic tree graphs]{}: [ ]{}\_n C\_n\^2({i,j})=\_[g [“compatible with"]{} {i,j}]{} \_I 1 [s\_I]{}. As we will explain in sec 2, we say a Feynman diagram,$ g$, is “compatible with” $\{i,j\}$ if and only if the $n-3$ poles of $g$ correspond to $n-3$ mutually compatible connected subgraphs of the labelled tree $\{i,j\}$. We summarize this result as a theorem to be shown in sec \[sec2\]:
\[identicalCc\] \[identicalCc22\]
Our study of Cayley functions has been motivated by [@Arkani-Hamedsonghe], where the “pushforward" of differential forms on ${\cal M}_{0,n}$ to Mandelstam space ([*i.e.*]{} space spanned by some independent Mandelstam variables) has been considered. As explained in [@Arkani-Hamedsonghe], the pushforward of a half-integrand, which is a differential form in Mandelstam space , contains all the information of CHY formula of its square; in some sense, the discussions here are like the [*combinatoric*]{} version of the geometric story in [@Arkani-Hamedsonghe] (the idea of studying the combinatorics of “polytopes of Feynman diagrams" has been considered in [@JJCarrascoaafe] and also see [@GraphAssociahedra; @ConciniCProcesi; @AlexanderPostnikov; @AlexandePostnikovVictorReiner] for some previous discussion about graph associahedra , generalized permutohedra and so on).
A map from Cayley functions to polytopes of Feynman diagrams {#sec2}
============================================================
An important property of Cayley functions is that we can directly read off the pole structures and consequently the sum of Feynman diagrams of their CHY formulas. We will see that the result provides an interesting map from any labelled tree to a polytope whose vertices correspond to Feynman diagrams. Note that these polytopes are only combinatoric, while in [@Arkani-Hamedsonghe] one can actually construct polytopes, [*e.g.*]{} the associahedron in Mandelstam space, whose canonical form (also see [@Arkani-Hamed:2017tmz] for definition) turns out to be the pushforward of the canonical form of ${\cal M}_{0,n}$ (also an associahedron).
CHY formulas for Cayley functions squared {#identicalCcc}
-----------------------------------------
Here we explain Theorem \[identicalCc\] in two steps. First we show what poles are allowed on the RHS of Theorem \[identicalCc\], and then provide a way to obtain all Feynman diagrams recursively . Then we give a classification of Cayley functions and also present detailed examples, for the two extreme cases, $C_n^H$ and $C_n^S$, as well as some other cases.
### The pole structure {#the-pole-structure .unnumbered}
The first result we present is the construction for the set of allowed poles, for CHY formula of $C_n^2$ , which we will denote as $P(C_n)$. Given the labelled tree, any of its non-trivial [*connected subgraph*]{} corresponds to a pole on the RHS of :
\[pc\] P(C\_n)={s\_[i\_1,i\_2,...,i\_m]{}| . } This rule for the poles is very intuitive, and it follows from the general analysis of pole structures of CHY formulas [@Cachazo:2013gna; @Baadsgaard:2015voa; @Cachazo:2015nwa; @Dolan:2013isa; @Broedel:2013tta] (for $C_n^2$ we only have simple poles, see [@Huang:2016zzb; @Cardona:2016gon] for discussions on higher-order poles). A connected subgraph with vertices $i_1, i_2, ...,i_m$ means that there are exactly $2(m-1)$ $\sigma_{i,j}$ with $i,j\in {i_1,...,i_m}$ in $C_n^2$, thus it will produce a pole $s_{i_1,i_2,...,i_m}$ according to the rule described in [@Baadsgaard:2015voa]. Note that we don’t have $n$ contained in any subgraph as any pole containing $n$ can be expressed by its complement.
Here we spell out some examples. For two-particle pole, $s_{i,j}\in P(C_n)$ iff is a edge in the labelled tree. For three particle pole, $s_{i,j,k}\in P(C_n)$ iff one of the graphs in figure \[sijk\] exists in the labelled tree.
For $m>3$, there are more topologies of subgraphs. For example, for $s_{i,j,k,l}$ there are two different topologies of subgraphs , see figure \[sijkl\].
With the help of labelled tree, the relation of poles are also intuitive. Two poles [*i.e.*]{} two connected subgraphs , are compatible iff the particle set of one is a subset of that of the other, see figure \[compatible subgraph\] (1), or they have no intersection,see figure \[compatible subgraph\] (2). Two incompatible poles, see figure \[incompatible subgraph\] can’t both appear in a Feynman diagram.
We say a set of poles are compatible iff any two of them are compatible.
### Feynman diagrams from poles {#feynman-diagrams-from-poles .unnumbered}
Any $n-3$ compatible poles from $P(C_n)$ should correspond to a Feynman diagram on RHS of . In this subsubsection, we provide a clever way to obtain all Feynman diagrams from those of lowers points recursively, which is much more efficient than to find all $n-3$ compatible pole sets by brute force in higher points.
The starting point is that any cubic Feynman diagram has two parts whose external particles are $I,{\bar I}$ respectively which join a vertex with $n$, in the way shown in figure \[factozation2\]
According to , $s_I,s_{\bar I}$ corresponding to two connected subgraphs which together make up the whole labelled tree up to a link edge, see figure \[factozation\].
Reversely, each edge of the labelled tree can be a linking edge, which corresponds to different Feynman diagram sets. Using factorization, as shown in Appendix \[appa\] , they together make up all Feynman diagrams on the RHS of Theorem \[identicalCc\] with coefficient $+1$, \[recursiongraph\] = + + +. While the two parts in figure \[factozation2\] themselves are also Feynman diagrams , whose corresponding labelled trees are $C^1,C^2$ in figure \[factozation\]. That means we can obtain Feynman diagrams from those of lower points. Let’s give the recursion explicitly \[recursion2\] T(C)= \_[ C\^1C\^2 - = C]{} { |c\^1T(C\^1),c\^2T(C\^2) }. Here we use the symbol $\bigsqcup$ as disjoint union.
A direct consequence is the recursion about the number of Feynman diagrams , \[recursion22\] |T(C)|= \_[ C\^1C\^2 - = C]{} |T(C\^1)||T(C\^2)|.
Let’s spell out some examples.
\[example4pt\] T( ) = { , }.
According to \[5ptafaf\] = + + , then \[example5pt\] T( ) = { , } { } { , }. 5 planar Feynman diagrams with ordering $1,2,3,4,5$ as expected.
Similarly for $C_n^{S}(1)$, according to = + + , then \[example5ptstar\] T( ) & =& { , } { , } && { , } , which are 6 multi-peripheral Feynman diagrams with the permutations of $2,3,4$.
A more non-trivial example for $n=6$. According to = + + + , we have the 18 Feynman diagrams \[example6pt\] T() &=& { , , , , } && { , } && { , , , , , } . Here ${\color{blue}\big(}{\color{blue}\text{{ 1}}}\leftrightarrow {\color{blue}\text{{ 3}}}{\color{blue}\big)}$ means five more Feynman diagrams owing to the symmetry of $1$ and $3$ in the labelled tree.
### Hamiltonian graph , Star graph and beyond {#hamiltonian-graph-star-graph-and-beyond .unnumbered}
Above we have seen examples , for Hamiltonian graph, which is the so-called Parke-Taylor graph. All connected line segment except the labelled tree itself correspond to a pole and all compatible $n-3$ connected line segment from these correspond to a pole Feynman diagrams. The exact pole sets and Feynman diagram sets are given by \[p of H\] P([PT]{}(1,2,...,n))&=&{s\_[i,i+1,...,j]{}| 1i<j n-1, (i,j)=(1,n-1)}\
T([PT]{}(1,2,...,n))&=&{}. The number of poles are $\frac{n(n-3)}{2}$. The number of Feynman diagrams ${\rm Cat}_{n-2}$ can be seen from the recursion which gives the recursion of Catalan numbers directly.
The ${\rm PT}(1,2,3,4)$ in can also be seen as $C^S_4(2)$, \[example4pt22\] T( ) = { , }, which are two multi-peripheral Feynman diagrams with the permutations of $1,3$. Another example for star graph is given in . For star graph, all particles except the center one and $n$ are end points, which are symmetric. Each of them corresponds to a line from center point to it. Any nontrivial subset of these lines must make up a connected subgraph which corresponds to a pole. So there are $2^{n-2}-2$ poles in star graph. What’s more, in star graph, any two connected subgraphs are compatible if and only if one is contained in the other. So start from two-particle pole, the next subgraph is compatible to the former if and only if it contains the former. So there are $(n-2)!$ sets of $n-3$ compatible poles, any of which corresponds to a multi-peripheral Feynman diagram . The exact pole sets and Feynman diagram sets are given by \[p of S\] P(C\^[[S]{}]{}\_n(1))&=&{s\_[1,i\_1,,i\_m]{}|[i\_1,,i\_m]{}{2,,n-1},1mn-3 }, T(C\^[[S]{}]{}\_n(1))&=&{ | 2,3,,n-1 } .
Starting from $n=6$, Cayley functions of new kind comes out, see . We can also extend it to general $n$, next-to-Hamiltonian graph seen in figure \[nH graph\] and next-to-Star graph seen in figure \[nS graph\].
With more patience, we can also list out their pole sets and Feynman diagram sets. Here we just show a nontrivial use of the recursion about $T(C_n)$ and get a feeling about the value of Parke-Taylors and star graph in the analyzing a more complicated Cayley function. For next-to-Hamiltonian graph, |T(C\^[nH]{}\_n)|= [Cat]{}\_[n-3]{}+[Cat]{}\_[n-3]{} +\_[r=0]{}\^[n-5]{} |T(C\^[nH]{}\_[4+r]{})| [Cat]{}\_[n-5-r]{}, where we have used $|T(C^{H}_n)|={\rm Cat}_{n-2}$. So we obtain |T(C\^[nH]{}\_n)|=. The counting of the number of poles is simple. Using the additional edge, we have $(n-3)\times 2^1-1$ more poles. Then |P(C\^[nH]{}\_n)|= +1+(n-3)2\^1-1 =-4. Similarly, |T(C\^[nS]{}\_[n]{})| = ,|P(C\^[nS]{}\_[n]{})| =32\^[n-4]{}-1.
More complicated Cayley functions can be analyzed with the help of simpler ones. Different kinds of Cayley functions have different pole structures $P(C_n)$ and Feynman diagram structures $T(C_n)$. For $n\geq 6$, there are too many poles or Feynman diagrams for any Cayley function to put them here. We just make a list showing the number of poles and Feynman diagrams below.
$n$ $|T(C_n)|$ $|P(C_n)|$
----- --------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------
4 2 2
5 5,6 5,6
6 14,18,24 9,11,14
7 42,56,60,76,84,120 14,17,18,21,23,30
8 132,180,200,222,248,280,288,324,408,480,720 20,24,26,28,29,32,33,36,41,47,62
9
: \[tab:widgets\] $|T(C_n)|$ and $|P(C_n)|$ for $n\leq 9$
The lists are always like $|T(C_n^H)|,|T(C_n^{nH})|,\cdots,|T(C_{n}^{nS})|,|T(C_n^S)|$( $|P(C_n^H)|,|P(C_n^{nH})|,\cdots,|P(C_{n}^{nS})|,|P(C_n^S)|$ ). Note that $|T(C_n)|,|P(C_n)|$ are only rough descriptions of Cayley functions. Two Cayley functions from two kinds may share the same $|P(C_n)|$ or $|T(C_n)|$ , seen in figure \[samenumber\].
A more accurate way is to map a Cayley function to a polytope composed by its Feynman diagrams and poles, making the map in more intuitive as now we discuss.
Polytopes from Cayley function
------------------------------
We have seen that CHY formula for $C_n^2$ produces a set of Feynman diagrams, $T(C_n)$, each with n-3 poles; two Feynman diagrams can share $n-4$ poles, and such objects with $n-4$ poles can start to share $n-5$ poles, and so on, until we reach the set of all poles $P(C_n)$. Combinatorically, they can be represented as a polytope in $n-3$ dimensions. In this section, we describe the construction of such polytopes, and especially give a direct map from Cayely functions or labelled trees to these polytopes.
[ **Polytope of Feynman diagrams :**]{} Each vertex of this polytope corresponds to a Feynman diagram which is a set of $(n-3)$ compatible poles. Each edge corresponds to a set of $(n-4)$ compatible poles. Two vertices are connected by an edge iff their Feynman diagrams share $n-4$ poles, which correspond to the intersection of the two diagrams ( so there are always $n-3$ edges stretching out from each vertex ). Similarly, a dimension-$r$ face corresponds to a set of $n-3-r$ compatible poles, which is the intersection of those of its boundaries, for $r=0,1,\cdots,n-4$. In the end, each facet (dimension-$(n{-}4)$ face) corresponds to a pole.
So far, this map is realized by CHY formula of Cayley functions squared. However, we can abstractly view it as constructing a polytope from subgraph structure of a labelled tree: every dimension-$r$ face of the polytope corresponds a collection of $n-3-r$ compatible connected subgraphs of the tree.
For PT, the vertices of the corresponding polytope are all planar Feynman diagrams. The dual graph of each planar tree diagram is the triangulation of a $n$-gon, see figure \[triangulation\]. Two vertices are connected by an edge iff their triangulations differ by a single flip. It is well known that a polytope with such vertices is the so-called [*associahedron*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associahedron) [@associahedron] living in $n-3$ dimensions, which we denote as ${\cal K}_{n-3}$ (in usual literature, it is called $K_{n-1}$). Therefore, we have mapped PT to an associahedron, and let’s give some explicit examples.
(x1) [ ]{}; at ($(x1)+(108:2)$) (x2) [ ]{}; at ($(x2)+(36:2)$) (x3) [ ]{}; at ($(x3)+(-36:2)$) (x4) [ ]{}; at ($(x4)+(-108:2)$) (x5) [ ]{};
(x1)node\[below left=0pt\]
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a1) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a2) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a3) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{};
–(x2) node\[left=0pt\]
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a3) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{};
–(x3) node\[above=0pt\]
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a1) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a2) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a3) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{};
–(x4) node\[right=0pt\]
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a1) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a2) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a3) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{};
–(x5) node\[below right=0pt\]
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a1) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a2) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{};
–(x1);
($.5*(x3)+.5*(x4)+(.5,.5)$) .. controls +(3,.3) ..+($-1.7*(x3)+2.5*(x4)$) node \[below,black,-\]
(xx3) [ ]{}; at ($(xx3)+(3:2.5)$) (xx4) [ ]{}; (xx3) node \[below=0pt\]
(0,0) node\[left=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} – ++(1,0) coordinate (a1) – +(0,1) node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a1) – ++(1,0) coordinate (a2) – +(0,-1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a2) – ++(1,0) coordinate (a3) – +(-45:1) node\[below right=-5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) – +(45:1) node\[above right=-5pt\][[3]{}]{};
–($.5*(xx3)+.5*(xx4)$) node \[below\]
(0,0) node\[left=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} – ++(1,0) coordinate (a1) – +(0,-1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1)\[blue\] – ++(0,0) coordinate (a2) – +(0,1) node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) – ++(1,0) coordinate (a3) – +(-45:1) node\[below right=-5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) – +(45:1) node\[above right=-5pt\][[3]{}]{};
–(xx4) node \[below\]
(0,0) node\[left=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} – ++(1,0) coordinate (a1) – +(0,-1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) – ++(1,0) coordinate (a2) – +(0,1) node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) – ++(1,0) coordinate (a3) – +(-45:1) node\[below right=-5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) – +(45:1) node\[above right=-5pt\][[3]{}]{};
;
;
on the right we show one of its edges
For ${\rm{PT}}(1,2,3,4)$, it’s mapped to ${\mathcal{K}}_1$ .
For ${\rm{PT}}(1,2,3,4,5)$, see , it’s mapped to ${\mathcal{K}}_2$, see figure \[H5a\]. Any two adjacent vertices ,whose triangulations differs by a flip , share a common pole represented as an edge.
For ${\rm{PT}}(1,2,3,4,5,6)$, it’s mapped to ${\mathcal{K}}_3$,see figure \[H6a\]. Any two adjacent vertices ,whose triangulations differs by a flip, share two common poles represented as edge. Any adjacent two edges share a common pole represented as a face. Those Feynman diagrams sharing a common pole sit on the same face. Note that a pentagon corresponds to a two-particle pole and a square corresponds to a three-particle pole.
\(4) at (0.03,-5.83)
; (1) at (1.62,-6.35)
; (7) at (3.76,-5.28)
; (9) at (1.37,-4.49)
; (6) at (0.30,-5.02)
; (3) at (0.03,-1.83)
; (13) at (0.85,-2.08)
; (14) at (1.65,-3.67)
; (12) at (4.82,-2.09)
; (8) at (4.80,-3.40)
; (11) at (4.03,-.50)
; (2) at (2.46,-.05)
; (5) at (0.30,-1.03)
; (10) at (2.46,-2.64)
; (1)–(4)–(3)–(13)–(14)–(1); (1)–(7)–(8)–(12)–(14)–(1); (1)–(4)–(6)–(9)–(7)–(1); (14)–(12)–(11)–(13)–(14); (3)–(5)–(2)–(11); (9)–(10)–(2); (10)–(8); (5)–(6);
at ($(7)+(.4,-.3)$)
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{};
;
at ($(4)+(-0.5,0)$)
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{};
;
at ($(5)+(0,.3)$)
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{};
;
at ($(11)+(0.55,.1)$)
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{};
;
at ($(10)+(0.3,.3)$)
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{};
;
at ($(14)+(-0.4,.3)$)
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{};
;
at ($(2)+(-0.,.3)$)
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (b5) ; (b2) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[[1]{}]{}]{} –(b5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[left=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) –(a4)–(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a4)–(b6)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[right=-2.5pt\][[[5]{}]{}]{};
;
at ($(1)+(-0.,-.4)$)
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (b5) ; (b2) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[[2]{}]{}]{} –(b5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[left=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a2) –(a4)–(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a4)–(b6)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[right=-2.5pt\][[[6]{}]{}]{};
;
at ($(12)+(0.5,-.)$)
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{};
;
at ($(3)+(-0.5,-.)$)
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{};
;
at ($(9)+(0.26,-.45)$)
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{};
;
at ($(8)+(0.5,-.0)$)
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{};
;
at ($(13)+(0.2,.4)$)
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{};
;
at ($(6)+(0.1,-.4)$)
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{};
;
($(2)+(8)-(10)$) .. controls +(3,.3) ..($(2)+(8)-(10)+(7)-(6)$)
node \[below,black,-\]
(f2) at (2.46,-.50)
;
(f11) at (4.03,-.50)
;
(f12) at (4.82,-1.90)
;
(f8) at (4.80,-3.40)
;
(f10) at (2.46,-3.40)
; (f2) node \[left=0pt\]
(0,0) node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{} – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a1) – +(1,0) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a1) – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a2) – +(-1,0) coordinate (a5); (a5)–+(135:1) node\[above left=-5pt\][[2]{}]{} ; (a5)–+(-135:1) node\[below left=-5pt\][[1]{}]{} ;
(a2) – ++(0,0) coordinate (a3) ; (a3) – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a4) – +(1,0) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a4) –+ (0,-1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{};
–(f11)–(f12)–(f8) node \[right=0pt\]
(0,0) node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{} – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a1) – +(1,0) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a1) – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a2) – +(-1,0) node\[left=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a3) – +(1,0) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a3) – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a4) – +(-1,0) node\[left=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a4) –+ (0,-1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{};
–($.5*(f8)+.5*(f10)$) node \[below=-6pt\]
(0,0) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{} – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a1) – +(1,0) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a1) – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a2) – +(-1,0) node\[left=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a3); (a3) – +(1,0) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a3) – ++(0,-0) coordinate (a4) – +(-1,0) node\[left=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a4) –+ (0,-1) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{};
–(f10) node \[left=0pt\]
(0,0) node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{} – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a1) – +(1,0) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a1) – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a2) – +(-1,0) node\[left=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a3) – +(-1,0) node\[left=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a3) – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a4) – +(1,0) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a4) –+ (0,-1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{};
–($.5*(f10)+.5*(f2)$)
node \[left=-5pt\]
(0,0) node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{} – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a1) – +(1,0) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a1) – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a2) – +(0,0) coordinate (a5); (a5)–+(135:1) node\[above left=-5pt\][[2]{}]{} ; (a5)–+(-135:1) node\[below left=-5pt\][[1]{}]{} ;
(a2) – ++(0,0) coordinate (a3) ; (a3) – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a4) – +(1,0) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a4) –+ (0,-1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{};
–(f2);
at ($.4*(f8)+.6*(f2)$)
(0,0) node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{} – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a1) – +(1,0) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a1) – +(0,-1) coordinate (a2);
(a2) – +(-1,0) node\[left=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) – +(-120:1)node\[below left=-5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a2) – +(-60:1)node\[below right=-5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a2) – +(0:1)node\[right=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{};
;
(f9) at (2.46,-6.)
;
(f7) at (4.80,-6.)
; (f8)–(f7)–(f9)–(f10); at ($.5*(f10)+.5*(f7) $)
(0,0)\[red\] node\[right=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{} – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a1) – +(1,0) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a1)\[red\] – ++(0,0) coordinate (a2) – +(-1,0) node\[left=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) – ++(0,-1) coordinate (a3); (a3) – +(1,0) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a3) – ++(0,-0) coordinate (a4) – +(-1,0) node\[left=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a4) –+ (0,-1) node\[right=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{};
;
;
on the right we show its two faces, one pentagon and one square
As we have discussed, a star graph corresponds to $(n-2)!$ multi-peripheral Feynman diagrams, each characterized by a permutation of $n-2$ particles. For star graph, the vertices of the corresponding polytope are $(n-2)!$ multi-peripheral Feynman diagrams, each characterized by a permutation of $n-2$ particles. Two vertices are connected by an edge iff their permutations differ by a relabeling of two adjacent particles. It is known that a polytope with such vertices is the so-called [*permutohedron*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutohedron) [@permutohedron] living in $n-3$ dimensions, which we denoted as ${\mathcal{P}}_{n-2}$ (in usual literature, it is called $P_{n-1}$). Therefore. we have mapped a star graph to a star graph to a permutohedron, and let’s give some explicit examples.
For $n=4$, ${\rm PT}(1,2,3,4)=C^S_4(2)$, so the associahedron is also a permutohedron, but in a different view, ${\mathcal{P}}_1$ , corresponding to the permutation of $1,3$.
For $C^S_5(1)$, see , it’s mapped to ${\mathcal{P}}_2$ ,see figure \[per of S5\] . The leg 1 and 5 in each Feynman diagram are particular and all other legs take part in the permutations. Any two adjacent vertices, which differs by a relabeling of two adjacent particles, ,share a common pole represented by an edge.
at (5,0) [ ]{}; (-1,-1.25)–(1,0)–(3,-1.25)–(3,-3.3)–(1,-4.55)–(-1,-3.3)–(-1,-1.25); at (-2,-1.05)
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a3) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{};
; at (1,0.42)
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{};
; at (4,-1.05)
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a2) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a3) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{};
; at (4,-3.5)
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a2) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a3) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{};
; at (1,-5.04)
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a2) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{};
; at (-2,-3.5)
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a2) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a3) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{};
; at (-0.4,-0.1)
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; ($.5*(a2)+.5*(a3)$) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; ($.5*(a2)+.5*(a3)$) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{};
; at (2.42,-0.1)
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; ($.5*(a1)+.5*(a2)$) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; ($.5*(a1)+.5*(a2)$) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{};
; at (3.72,-2.3)
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; ($.5*(a2)+.5*(a3)$) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; ($.5*(a2)+.5*(a3)$) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{};
; at(2.32,-4.3)
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; ($.5*(a1)+.5*(a2)$) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; ($.5*(a1)+.5*(a2)$) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a3) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{};
; at(-0.41,-4.3)
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; ($.5*(a2)+.5*(a3)$) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; ($.5*(a2)+.5*(a3)$) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{};
; at (-1.7,-2.35)
(1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (5) ; (2) ; (3) ; (4) ; (1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; ($.5*(a1)+.5*(a2)$) –(2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; ($.5*(a1)+.5*(a2)$) –(3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a3) –(4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{};
;
(-1,-1.25) circle (.1); (1,0) circle (.1); (3,-1.25) circle (.1); (3,-3.3)circle (.1); (1,-4.55) circle (.1); (-1,-3.3) circle (.1);
As for the $C^S_6(1)$, it’s mapped to ${\mathcal{P}}_3$ ,see figure \[S6p\],
\(2345) at (3.23,-6.01) ; (2354) at (4.20,-5.44) ; (3254) at (2.73,-4.89) ; (3245) at (1.71,-5.44) ;
\(2453) at (5.43,-4.19) ; (2543) at (5.76,-3.47) ; (2534) at (4.85,-3.95) ;
\(3425) at (2.12,-3.98) ; (3524) at (3.46,-2.69) ; (2435) at (3.48,-5.35) ; (4325) at (0.62,-3.44) ; (4235) at (.48,-4.18) ;
\(3542) at (5.39,-1.75) ; (4532) at (4.15,-.53) ; (4523) at (3.21,-.88) ;
\(5423) at (1.74,-.52) ; (5324) at (.49,-1.76) ;
\(5432) at (2.72,-.18) ; (5234) at (.36,-2.49) ;
\(4253) at (2.51,-3.23) ; (4352) at (3.65,-2.17) ; (3452) at (5.08,-2.51) ;
\(5342) at (2.53,-1.01) ; (5243) at (1.46,-2.13) ;
(2345)–(2354)–(2453)–(2543)–(2534)–(2435)–(2345); (2345)–(2435)–(3425)–(4325)–(4235)–(3245)–(2345); (2534)–(3524)–(3425); (2543)–(3542)–(4532)– (4523)–(3524); (4523)–(5423)–(5324)–(4325); (4532)–(5432)–(5423); (5324)– (5234)–(4235);
(2354)–(3254)–(3245);
(3254)–(4253)–(4352)– (3452)–(2453);
(4352)–(5342)–(5243)–(4253);
(3452)–(3542);
(5432)–(5342);
(5234)–(5243);
($(4532)-.5*(5432)+.5*(4532)$) .. controls +(2,.3) ..+($2*(4352)-2*(5243)$) coordinate (hahah); (hahah)–(hahah) node \[black,-,below\]
(f5423) ; at ($(f5423)+(5:2)$) (f4523) ; at ($ (f4523)+(-60:2)$) (f4253) ; at ($ (f4253)+(-120:2) $) (f2453) ; at ($ (f2453)+(-186:2) $) (f2543) ;
at ($ (f2543) +(120:2.4) $) (f5243) ;
at ($ (f5423) +(90:2) $) (f5432) ; at ($ (f5432) +(5:2) $) (f4532) ;
(f5423) –($.5*(f5423)+.5*(f4523)$) node \[above=-2pt\]
(0,0)–++(1,0) coordinate (a1); (a1)\[blue\]–++(120:1); (a1)\[blue\]–+(60:1); (a1)–++(1,0) coordinate (a2)–++(90:1); (a2)–++(1,0) coordinate (a3)–++(90:1); (a3)–+(1,0) ;
–(f4523)
–($.5*(f4253)+.5*(f4523)$) node \[right=-1pt\]
(0,0)–++(1,0) coordinate (a1)–++(90:1); (a1)–++(1,0) coordinate (a2);
(a2)\[blue\]–++(120:1); (a2)\[blue\]–+(60:1);
(a2)–++(1,0) coordinate (a3)–++(90:1); (a3)–+(1,0) ;
– (f4253)
–($.5*(f4253)+.5*(f2453)$) node \[right=-2pt\]
(0,0)–++(1,0) coordinate (a1); (a1)\[blue\]–++(120:1); (a1)\[blue\]–+(60:1); (a1)–++(1,0) coordinate (a2)–++(90:1); (a2)–++(1,0) coordinate (a3)–++(90:1); (a3)–+(1,0) ;
–(f2453)
–($.5*(f2543)+.5*(f2453)$) node \[below=-2pt\]
(0,0)–++(1,0) coordinate (a1)–++(90:1); (a1)–++(1,0) coordinate (a2);
(a2)\[blue\]–++(120:1); (a2)\[blue\]–+(60:1);
(a2)–++(1,0) coordinate (a3)–++(90:1); (a3)–+(1,0) ;
– (f2543)
–($.5*(f2543)+.5*(f5243)$) node \[left=-2pt\]
(0,0)–++(1,0) coordinate (a1); (a1)\[blue\]–++(120:1); (a1)\[blue\]–+(60:1); (a1)–++(1,0) coordinate (a2)–++(90:1); (a2)–++(1,0) coordinate (a3)–++(90:1); (a3)–+(1,0) ;
– (f5243)
–($.5*(f5243)+.5*(f5423)$) node \[left=-1pt\]
(0,0)–++(1,0) coordinate (a1)–++(90:1); (a1)–++(1,0) coordinate (a2);
(a2)\[blue\]–++(120:1); (a2)\[blue\]–+(60:1);
(a2)–++(1,0) coordinate (a3)–++(90:1); (a3)–+(1,0) ;
–(f5423)
–($.5*(f5432)+.5*(f5423)$) node \[left=-2pt\]
(0,0)–++(1,0) coordinate (a1)–++(90:1); (a1)–++(1,0) coordinate (a2)–++(90:1); (a2)–++(1,0) coordinate (a3); (a3)\[blue\]–++(120:1); (a3)\[blue\]–+(60:1); (a3)–+(1,0) ;
–(f5432)
–($.5*(f5432)+.5*(f4532)$) node \[above=-2pt\]
(0,0)–++(1,0) coordinate (a1); (a1)\[blue\]–++(120:1); (a1)\[blue\]–+(60:1); (a1)–++(1,0) coordinate (a2)–++(90:1); (a2)–++(1,0) coordinate (a3)–++(90:1); (a3)–+(1,0) ;
–(f4532)
–($.5*(f4523)+.5*(f4532)$) node \[right=-2pt\]
(0,0)–++(1,0) coordinate (a1)–++(90:1); (a1)–++(1,0) coordinate (a2)–++(90:1); (a2)–++(1,0) coordinate (a3); (a3)\[blue\]–++(120:1); (a3)\[blue\]–+(60:1); (a3)–+(1,0) ;
– (f4523); at ($.5*(f5423)+.5*(f2453)$)
(0,0)–++(1,0) coordinate (a1); (a1)\[blue\]–++(135:1); (a1)\[blue\]–+(90:1); (a1)\[blue\]–+(45:1); (a1)–++(1.3,0) coordinate (a2)–++(90:1); (a2)–+(1,0) ;
; at ($.5*(f5423)+.5*(f4532)$)
(0,0)\[blue\]–++(1,0) coordinate (a1); (a1)\[blue\]–++(120:1); (a1)\[blue\]–+(60:1); (a1)–++(1.4,0) coordinate (a2); (a2)\[pink\]–++(120:1); (a2)\[pink\]–+(60:1); (a2)\[pink\]–++(1,0) ;
;
;
on the right we show its two faces, one square and one hexagon
which corresponds to the permutations of $2,3,4,5$. Any two adjacent vertices, which differ by a relabeling of two adjoint particles ,share two common poles represented by an edge. Any adjacent two edges share a common pole represented as a face. Note that a three-particle pole corresponds to a square while different from the case of associahedron ${\cal K}_3$, a two-particle pole corresponds to a hexagon.
Similarly, for arbitrary Cayley function, we can always draw its polytope by the map. One more example about the polytope , see figure \[ahfewiofawei\], from , see eq.
\(2) at (2.44,-5.8); (18) at (6.21,-6.41) ; (16) at (7.01,-5.93) ; (8) at (5.29,-5.29); (7) at (3.73,-5.16); (17) at (7.39,-4.45); (15) at (8.21,-3.92); (1) at (6.14,-3.26); (4) at (2.79,-2.86); (3) at (0.57,-3.78); (11) at (6.30,-1.17); (12) at (7.95,-1.76); (14) at (6.46,-.70); (13) at (4.94,-.23); (6) at (2.75,-.64); (5) at (0.36,-1.52); (4) at (2.79,-2.86); (9) at (1.20,-1.77); (10) at (5.35,-1.52); (2)
node \[below=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (b5) ; (b2) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[[1]{}]{}]{} –(b5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[left=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) –(a4)–(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a4)–(b6)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[right=-2.5pt\][[[4]{}]{}]{};
–(18) node \[below=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{};
–(16)
node \[below right=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{};
–(15)
node \[right=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{};
–(17)
node \[left=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{};
–(18); (2)–(3)
node \[left=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{};
–(4)
node \[below=-3pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{};
–(1)–(17); (1) node \[right=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (b5) ; (b2) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[[2]{}]{}]{} –(b5)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[left=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a2) –(a4)–(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a4)–(b6)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[right=-2.5pt\][[[4]{}]{}]{};
–(11)
node \[below right=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{};
–(12)
node \[right=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{};
–(14)
node \[above right=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{};
–(13)
node \[above=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{};
–(11); (13)–(6)
node \[above=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{};
–(5)
node \[above left=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{};
–(3)–(4)–(6); (12)–(15); (4)–(1); (9)–(5); (9)–(9) node \[below=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{};
;
(10)–(14); (10)–(10) node \[below left=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{};
;
(7)–(7)
node \[above=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{};
;
(7)–(9)–(10)–(8);
(8)–(8)
node \[below=-5pt\]
(b1); (a1) ; (a2) ; (a3) ; (a4) ; (b6) ; (b2) ; (b3) ; (b4) ; (b5) ;
(b1) node\[below=-2.5pt\][[2]{}]{} –(b6)node\[below=-2.5pt\][[6]{}]{}; (a1) –(b2)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[4]{}]{}; (a2) –(b3)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[1]{}]{}; (a3) –(b4)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[5]{}]{}; (a4) –(b5)node\[above=-2.5pt\][[3]{}]{};
; (16)–(8)–(7)–(2);
Any two adjacent vertices share two common poles represented by an edge. Any adjacent two edges share a common pole represented as a face. Note that A three-particle pole corresponds to a square , so there are 4 squares. While the case of two-particle pole are between associahedron ${\cal K}_{3}$ and permutohedron ${\cal P}_3$: 4 two-particle poles correspond to pentagons and 3 correspond to hexagons .
We can see symmetries of polytope reflects that of the covariant form of Cayley functions, see some examples in figure \[cova\].
Linear space of Cayley functions
=================================
In this section, we study the linear space spanned by all Cayley functions, which is of dimension $(n{-}2)!$. We first show that any Cayley function can be written as a linear combination of $(n{-}2)!$ Parke-Taylor factors, known as the “Kleiss-Kuijf (KK) basis". More importantly, we find a new basis of the space which consists of elements we call $C^{\rm single}$ and $C^{\rm kernel}$. The remarkable property of the new basis is that, given a PT, the CHY formula of any $C^{\rm single}$ and PT gives a single Feynman diagram, while that of $C^{\rm kernel}$ and PT gives zero.
Reduction to PT factors and KK basis {#sec3p1}
------------------------------------
The main result here is a remarkable formula expressing C as sum of certain PT’s: \[id\] C({i\_1,j\_1},,{i\_[n-2]{},j\_[n-2]{}})=\_ [PT]{}((1),(2),,(n-1),n). Here $\rho^{-1}(i)<\rho^{-1}(j)$ means $i$ is in the left of $j$ in $\rho$. It is not surprising that by partial fraction, a Cayley function can be reduced to those of Hamilton graphs (see [@Stieberger:2013hza]), but here we see that the result takes such a simple form, with coefficient only +1!
This identity can be easily proved by recursion. We remove any of the $n{-}2$ pairs denoted as $\{i_r,j_r\}$ and make $i_r,j_r$ identical, then the remaining $n{-}3$ pairs still compose a C. More intuitively, we shrink any line $\{i_r,j_r\}$ in the labelled tree of C, and it is still a Cayley graph. If any of the C of $n{-}1$ points satisfy , that is to say any residue of C in LHS of equals to that of RHS. Obviously, C function doesn’t have pole at infinity, and is correct for $n=4$, so we finish the proof.
For example, \[cflip\] C({1,3},{2,3},{3,4})&=&[PT]{}(1,2,3,4,5)+ [PT]{}(2,1,3,4,5) ,C({3,1},{3,2},{3,4})&=&\_[S\_3]{}[PT]{}(3,(1,2,4),5) ,C({1,2},{2,3},{2,4},{3,5})&=&[PT]{}(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)+[PT]{}(1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6)&&+[PT]{}(1, 2, 4, 3, 5, 6),C({2,4},{4,3},{3,5},{5,1},{1,6})&=&[PT]{}(2,4,3,5,1,6,7).
Note that we can flip some pairs in $C$, which at most changes its overall sign, since $C(\cdots,\{j,i\},\cdots)=-C(\cdots,\{i,j\},\cdots)$; while the summation on the RHS of changes completely. For example we can see that on the first line of , by flipping two pairs, the RHS differs from that of the second line of . This is not surprising since the PT’s are not linearly independent but satisfy relations known as “Kleiss-Kuijf(KK) relations". However, it is remarkable that we have a canonical way to land on a basis; we give each edge an orientation such that the whole flow are from 1 to end points, see figure \[stretch1\],
(0,0) node \[neuron\] (1) node\[below=0pt\][$1$]{} –+(-1,0)node \[neuron\] (a) ;
(a)–+(0,-1)node \[neuron\] ; (a) –+(-1,0)node \[neuron\] (a1) ; (a1) –+(0,1)node \[neuron\] (a2) ; (a2) –+(45:1)node \[neuron\] ; (a2) –+(135:1)node \[neuron\] ; (a1) –+(-1,0)node \[neuron\] (a3) ; (a3) –+(-1,0)node \[neuron\] ; (1) –+(0,1)node \[neuron\] (a1) ; (a1) –+(-1,0)node \[neuron\] ; (a1) –+(1,0)node \[neuron\] ; (a1) –+(0,1)node \[neuron\] ; (1) –+(1,0)node \[neuron\] (a1); (a1) –+(1,0)node \[neuron\] (a2); (a2) –+(1,0)node \[neuron\] ; (a2) –+(0,-1)node \[neuron\] ;
which makes sure that 1 is always the left-most particle in each contributing PT factor in the summation on the RHS of . We denote the deformed Cayley function as $C'(\{i'_1,j'_1\},\cdots,\{i'_{n-2},j'_{n-2}\})$ with $\{i',j'\}$ equal to either $\{i,j\}$ or $\{j,i\}$ and count the number of flip pairs as $r_{\rm flip}$. Then these two Cayley functions differ by a overall sign $(-1)^{r_{\rm flip}}$ . Thus we expand any Cayley function into $(n-2)!$ PT factors with an overall sign, \[idkk\] &&C({i\_1,j\_1},,{i\_[n-2]{},j\_[n-2]{}}) =(-1)\^[r\_[flip]{}]{} C({i’\_1,j’\_1},,{i’\_[n-2]{},j’\_[n-2]{}})&=&(-1)\^[r\_[flip]{}]{}\_ [PT]{}(1,(2),,(n-1),n). As we know, these $(n-2)!$ PT factors of KK basis are linearly independent algebraically, so the rank of all C is $(n{-}2)!$ .
For example, $C(\{1,3\},\{2,3\},\{3,4\})$ on the first two lines of are expanded to KK basis this way, \[cflip\] C({1,3},{2,3},{3,4})&=&-C({1,3},{3,2},{3,4})&=& -[PT]{}(1,3,2,4,5)- [PT]{}(1,3,4,2,5) . Here is a more example, C\_6({2,3},{3,5},{3,1},{1,4})&=& C\_6({3,2},{3,5},{1,3},{1,4})&=&(1,3,2,4,5,6)+(1,3,2,5,4,6)&&+(1,3,4,2,5,6)+(1,3,4,5,2,6)&&+(1,3,5,2,4,6)+(1,3,5,4,2,6)&&+(1,4,3,2,5,6)+(1,4,3,5,2,6).
Interlude: CHY formulas with two distinct Cayley functions
----------------------------------------------------------
Here we present another theorem which states that the Feynman diagrams obtained by the CHY integral of two distinct Cayley functions is just the intersection of those obtained by the CHY integral of of Cayley function squared, up to a overall sign which we know how to determine now. The diagrams can be directly obtained by finding all $n-3$ compatible poles of the intersection of their pole sets,
\[identicalCcp\] ${\rm where}$ $
f={\rm flip}({\rho}[1,2,\cdots,n-1]|{\rho}'[1,2,\cdots,n-1])
$ ${\rm (which}$ ${\rm comes}$ ${\rm from}$ ${\rm }$ ${\rm)}$ ${\rm will}$ ${\rm be}$ ${\rm described}$ ${\rm in}$ ${\rm a}$ ${\rm moment}$ .
Here we first briefly show that the set of allowed poles on the RHS, which will be denoted as $P(C_nC'_n)$ , are the intersection of $P(C_n),P(C'_n)$ . Divide $P(C_n)$ into several subsets $P_m(C_n)$ with $m=2,3,\cdots,n-2$ according to the number of particles of a pole, then any pole $s_I\in P_m(C)\cap P_m(C')$ must have $m-1$ lines in $C$ and $C'$ using the rule in [@Baadsgaard:2015voa], so it has $2m-2$ lines in $CC'$ and $s_I\in P_m(CC')$. Reversely, any $s_I\in P_m(CC')$, it must have $r$ lines in $C$ and $2m-r$ lines in $C'$. However, $r\leq m-1$ and $2m-r\leq m-1$ or subcycle appears in $C$ or $C'$. So $r=2m-r=m-1$, [*i.e.*]{} $s_I\in P_m(C)\cap P_m(C')$.So \[pccprime\] P\_m(CC’)=P\_m(C)P\_m(C’), thus we have proved the main part of Theorem \[identicalCcp\] .
Now we turn to the overall sign. Note that if we require the orientation of the linking edge is from $C^1$ to $C^2$ in , we provides a canonical way to stretch all legs of a Feynman diagram, which gives us a ordering denoted as ${\rho}[1,2,\cdots,n-1]$. So does that of $C'_n$ denoted as ${\rho}'[1,2,\cdots,n-1]$. Then $(-1)^{{\rm flip}({\rho}[1,2,\cdots,n-1]|{\rho}'[1,2,\cdots,n-1])}$ gives the sign in Theorem \[identicalCcp\], see the proof in Appendix \[appb\].
For example, take $
C_6=
\raisebox{-.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=0pt,draw=black,
node distance = \layersep,
neuron/.style = {circle, minimum size=3pt, inner sep=0pt, fill=black } ]
\node[neuron] (1) {};
\node[ neuron,right of = 1] (2) {};
\node[ neuron,above of = 2] (3) {};
\node[ neuron,right of = 2] (4) {};
\node[ neuron,right of = 4] (5) {};
\draw[particle] (1) node[below=4pt]{$1$} --(2)node[below=4pt]{$2$};
\draw[particle](3)node[above=4pt]{$5$}--(2);
\draw[particle] (4)node[below=4pt]{$3$}--(2) ;
\draw[particle] (4) --(5)node[below=4pt]{$4$};
\end{tikzpicture}
},
C'_6=
\raisebox{-.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[shorten >=0pt,draw=black,
node distance = \layersep,
neuron/.style = {circle, minimum size=3pt, inner sep=0pt, fill=black } ]
\node[neuron] (1) {};
\node[ neuron,right of = 1] (2) {};
\node[ neuron,right of = 2] (4) {};
\node[ neuron,above of = 4] (3) {};
\node[ neuron,right of = 4] (5) {};
\draw[particle] (2)node[below=4pt]{$2$}--(1) node[below=4pt]{$1$};
\draw[particle] (2) --(4)node[below=4pt]{$4$};
\draw[particle] (4)--(3) node[above=4pt]{$5$} ;
\draw [particle](5)node[below=4pt]{$3$} --(4);
\end{tikzpicture}
}
$. Then the allowed poles are given by \[exampafaf\] P(C\_6C’\_6)= P(C\_6)P(C’\_6)={s\_[1,2]{},s\_[3,4]{},s\_[2,3,4]{},s\_[1,2,3,4]{},s\_[2,3,4,5]{}}. All $n-3=3$ compatible pole sets are \[wahaha\] &&{ {s\_[1,2]{},s\_[3,4]{},s\_[1,2,3,4]{}}, {s\_[3,4]{},s\_[2,3,4]{},s\_[1,2,3,4]{}}, {s\_[3,4]{},s\_[2,3,4]{},s\_[2,3,4,5]{}} } &=& { , , }. As all Feynman diagrams share the same sign in Theorem \[identicalCcp\], we take the first one above as a representative one. The canonical way to draw it according to the recursion and the orientation of $C_6$ is , which gives a ordering ${\rho}[1,2,3,4,5]=(5,3,4,1,2)$. That of $C'_6$ is , which gives a ordering ${\rho}'[1,2,3,4,5]=(2,1,3,4,5)$. So f=[flip]{}(\[1,2,3,4,5\]|’\[1,2,3,4,5\])= [flip]{}(5,3,4,1,2|2,1,3,4,5)=3. Here we can either count the times whether $(5,3),(3,4),(4,1),(1,2)$ flip in $(2,1,3,4,5)$ or count the times whether $(2,1),(2,3),(3,4),(4,5)$ flip in $(5,3,4,1,2)$.
Thus \_6 = - - - .
When one Cayley function in Theorem \[identicalCcp\] is a PT factor, it picks out all Feynman diagrams of the other Cayley function compatible with ordering. For example the CHY formula of a Hamiton graph and a star graph is given by \_n [PT]{}(,i,,n)C\_n\^[S]{}(i)=(-1)\^[||]{}\_[\^[-1]{} ]{} here we take the natural orientation of a Hamiton graph and a star graph, see figure \[S graph2\].
$\a^{-1}$ is the reverse list of $\a$. $\a^{-1} {\sqcup\! \sqcup} \b $ are the permutations with the ordering of particles from $\a^{-1}$ and $\b$ unchanged respectively. For example, \_6 [PT]{}(3,2,4,1,5,6)C\_6\^[S]{}(4) &=& + + &&+ + + . When two Cayler function in Theorem \[identicalCcp\] are PT factors, it comes back to double amplitude .
Here is another typical CHY formula of two star graphs with different center points, \[starstar\] \_n C\_n\^[S]{}(i) C\_n\^[S]{}(j) =- For example, \[starstar\] \_6 C\_6\^[S]{}(2) C\_6\^[S]{}(4) &=& - - - &&- - -
The CHY integral of any two arbitrary star graphs also has a closed formula, see Appendix \[appc\].
As all the Feynman diagrams on the RHS of Theorem \[identicalCcp\] share the same sign, it has a geometry description which is the intersection of the polytopes mapped from $C_n, C'_n$, see an example in figure \[intersectionpoly\].
(0,0) node\[neuronaa\] (1) node\[below left=-7pt\]
(f1); (fa1) ; (fa2) ; (fa3) ; (f5) ; (f2) ; (f3) ; (f4) ; (f1) node\[below=0pt\][[2]{}]{} –(f5)node\[below=0pt\][[1]{}]{}; (fa1) –(f2)node\[above=0pt\][[3]{}]{}; (fa2) –(f3)node\[above=0pt\][[4]{}]{}; (fa3) –(f4)node\[above=0pt\][[5]{}]{};
–++(120:2) node\[neuronaa\] (2) node\[left=-4pt\]
(f1); (fa1) ; (fa2) ; (fa3) ; (f5) ; (f2) ; (f3) ; (f4) ; (f1) node\[below=0pt\][[4]{}]{} –(f5)node\[below=0pt\][[3]{}]{}; (fa1) –(f2)node\[above=0pt\][[5]{}]{}; (fa2) –(f3)node\[above=0pt\][[1]{}]{}; (fa3) –(f4)node\[above=0pt\][[2]{}]{};
–++(60:2) node\[neuronaa\] (3) node\[above left=-7pt\]
(f1); (fa1) ; (fa2) ; (fa3) ; (f5) ; (f2) ; (f3) ; (f4) ; (f1) node\[below=0pt\][[1]{}]{} –(f5)node\[below=0pt\][[5]{}]{}; (fa1) –(f2)node\[above=0pt\][[2]{}]{}; (fa2) –(f3)node\[above=0pt\][[3]{}]{}; (fa3) –(f4)node\[above=0pt\][[4]{}]{};
–++(0:2) coordinate (4) –++(-60:2) coordinate (5) –++(-120:2) coordinate (6) –+(180:2) ;
($(1)+(-135:.15)$)–($(2)+(180:.15)$) –($(3)+(135:.15)$)–($(4)+(2,0)+(45:.15)$) –($(6)+(2,0)+(-45:.15)$)–($(1)+(-135:.15)$);
gives the CHY intergral of them
A new basis of Cayley functions
-------------------------------
As shown in , KK basis provides a basis for the space of all Cayley functions. However, we are also interested in a new basis with elements that have a special property. Given a Parke-Taylor factor, we would like the CHY formula of PT and an element to give either a [*single*]{} Feynamn diagram or [*zero*]{}. In the study of Z integrals [@Mafra:2016mcc], the authors have proposed an algorithm for constructing an alternative basis of rational functions of $n$ punctures, which we believe should be the same as our new basis. We have checked explicitly that up to $n=8$ they coincide and we leave it to a future work to show this for all multiplicities. Below we first present the basis for all $n$, and then study its applications in both CHY and disk integrals. Without loss of generality, we choose ${\rm PT}(1,2,\cdots,n)$ and align the particles in the labelled tree in this ordering.
The new basis are obtained recursively using the map $M$ defined as following:
1. $M$ maps an [ordered]{} particle label set to a connected subgraph set.
2. As starting point, $M(\{i\})=\{
\raisebox{-.5cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.5]
\fill (0,0) circle (0.05);
\node at (0,-.5) {$i$};
\end{tikzpicture}}
\}$.
3. The map is defined recursively, via the function $\Lambda$, \[MP\] M({i\_1,i\_2,,i\_k}) =\_ \_[i\_1]{}(M(I\_1)M(I\_2)M(I\_r)).Here $i_1<i_2<\cdots<i_k$ and we always pick out the [ left-most]{} particle $i_1$ as the starting point to drawing lines and divide the remaining sequence into all possible disjoint sets $I_1, I_2 ,\cdots , I_r$ with $r=1,\cdots,k-1$. $\otimes$ means direct product and $M(I_1)\otimes M(I_2)\otimes\cdots \otimes M(I_r)$ is a set of disajoint subgraphs with $r$ parts. What $\Lambda_{i_1}$ does for each non-connected subgraph is to draw a line from $i_1$ to the particle label of each connected part respectively. So $\Lambda_{i_1}$ actually acts on each elements of $M(I_1),M(I_2),\cdots,M(I_r)$ respectively as shown below, \_[i\_1]{}(M(I\_1)M(I\_r)) = { | m\_1 M(I\_1),, m\_r M(I\_r) }. Note that $m_1,\cdots,m_r$ are connected subgraphs and they are linked to $i_1$ from their right-most point.
There is always a trivial line $\{1,n-1\}$ in each element of $M(\{1,2,\cdots,n-1\})$ as 1 is always the minimum particle in its particle set and $n-1$ is always the right-most particle point of its subgraph. Sometimes we draw a dashed line instead for later convenience.
For example \[3ptbasis\] M({1,2})=\_1(M({2}))={ }.
\[4ptbasis\] M({1,2,3}) &=& \_1(M({2,3}))\_1(M({2})M({3})) &=& { , }. Here the right-most particle label of $M(\{2,3\})$ is $3$, so we draw a line from 1 to 3.
M({1,2,3,4}) &=& \_1(M({2,3,4}))\_1(M({2,3})M({4}))\_1(M({2})M({3,4})) && \_1(M({3})M({2,4})) \_1(M({2})M({3})M({4})), where $\Lambda_1$ acts on the two graphs of $M(\{2,3,4\})$ respectively \[p1m\] \_1(M({2,3,4})) = { , }, and crossing lines come out because of the non consecutive sequence $\{2,4\}$, \[p13\] \_1(M({3}M({2,4}))={ }. So \[5ptbasis\] M({1,2,3,4}) &=& { , , , && , , }.
There are [Stirling number of the second kind ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_number) of terms in the union in . So, using recursion, one can easily prove that $|M(\{i_1,\cdots,i_k\})|=(k-1)!$ , [*i.e.*]{}, there are $(k-1)!$ connected subgraphs in $M(\{i_1,\cdots,i_k\})$ . Thus there $(n-2)!$ Cayley functions in $M(\{1,2,\cdots,n-1\})$ and we believe they compose a new set of basis denoted as $C^{\rm basis}$, which we have checked up to 10pts and are the same as those in [@Mafra:2016mcc] up to 8pts. Using the recursion above and the transition rule , a proof based on direct inspection should be straightforward.
For example, the basis of 3,4,5pt have been shown in ,,. There are 24 basis in 6pt , 10 of which have crossing lines as shown in figure \[kernel6\].
As it turns out, there are ${\rm Cat}_{n-3}$ elements without crossing lines denoted as $C^{\rm single}$ and $(n-2)!-{\rm Cat}_{n-3}$ elements with crossing lines $C^{\rm kernel}$. Now we show, with ${\rm PT}(1,2,\cdots,n)$, how the CHY integral of any $C^{\rm single}$ gives a single Feynman diagram and why the CHY integral of any $C^{\rm kernel}$ gives zero.
### Elements for a single graph {#elements-for-a-single-graph .unnumbered}
If we restrict the union in with a additional rule that $I_1,\cdots,I_r$ must be consecutive sequences and denote this new map as $M^{\rm single}$, then there are no crossing lines coming out ,see , and $M^{\rm single}(\{1,2,\cdots,n-1\})$ gives all $C^{\rm single}$. Equivalently, we can obtain all $C^{\rm single}$ in one step: any $n-2$ pairs $\{i_a,j_a\}$ with $i_a< j_a$ which are interval mutually compatible ,[*i.e.*]{} either $[i_a,j_a]\subset [i_b,j_b] $ or $[i_b,j_b]\subset [i_a,j_a] $ or $[i_a,j_a]\cup [i_b,j_b]=\emptyset$, corresponds to a $C^{\rm single}$. Obviously, there is always a line $\{1,n-1\}$ and there are ${\rm Cat}_{n-2}$ of $C^{\rm single}$ . Ignoring this trivial line, we can read out the single Feynman diagram directly from the left $n-3$ lines , \[singlept\] .Here $s_{i,\cdots,j}$ is the abbreviation of cyclic pole $s_{i,i+1,\cdots,j}$. For example \[cpt\] \_5 [PT]{}(1,,5) &=& , \_6 [PT]{}(1,,6) &=& .
Now we give a brief proof of using . Thanks to ${\rm PT}(1,\cdots,n)$, we only need to consider the cyclic poles of $C^{\rm single}$. Each pair $\{i,j\}\in \{\{i_1,j_1\},\cdots,\{i_{n-3},j_{n-3}\}\}$ corresponds to a connected subgraph which is made up of all lines $\{i_r,j_r\}$ with $i\leq i_r<j_r \leq j$. Note that all points $i,i+1,\cdots,j$ locate in this connected subgraph as their are no crossing lines in $C^{\rm single}$, so this subgraph corresponds to a Pole $s_{i,i+1,\cdots,j}$. So we obtain $n-3$ allowed poles as shown in . While for any pair $\{i',j'\}\notin \{\{i_1,j_1\},\cdots,\{i_{n-3},j_{n-3}\}\}$ with $i'<j'$, there are no connected line from $i'$ to $j'$ restrained in the region $[i',j']$ or non mutually compatible lines seen in Figure \[twosides\] appear, let alone a connected subgraph contained $i',i'+1,\cdots,j'$ located in $[i',j']$. So $s_{i',i'+1,\cdots,j'}$ is forbidden and no more poles comes out. Obviously, $s_{i_1,\cdots,j_1},\cdots,s_{i_{n-3},\cdots,j_{n-3}}$ are compatible each other and these give the cubic graph shown in .
As known that the CHY integral of two ${\rm PT}(1,\cdots,n)$ gives ${\rm Cat}_{n-2}$ of planar Feynman diagrams. Now we translate each planar cubic graph to a $C^{\rm single}$, which is consistent to the following identity, (1,2,,n)= \^[[Cat]{}\_[n-2]{}]{} C\^[single]{} ({i\_1,j\_1},,{i\_[n-3]{},j\_[n-3]{}},{1,n-1}), with the gauge fixing $\s_1\rightarrow 0,\s_{n-1}\rightarrow 1,\s_n\rightarrow \infty$. Here we sum over all ${\rm Cat}_{n-2}$ $C^{\rm single}$. In [@Arkani-Hamedsonghe], we will see that this identity can be interpreted as a triangulation of the associahedron into ${\rm Cat}_{n-2}$ simplices.
Eq. is a very clean identity, using which, reversely, we can translate any cubic Feynman diagram to CHY integral directly. For example, given a cubic Feynman diagram, (here without loss of general, we let the particle labels are $1,2,\cdots,8$ as other cases are just relabelling), as the poles are $s_{1,2},s_{3,4},s_{3,4,5},s_{1,2,3,4,5},s_{6,7}$, the pairs in Cayley function we need are $\{1,2\},\{3,4\},\{3,5\},\{1,5\},\{6,7\}$. Thus the full CHY formula for this Feynman diagram is = \_8 [PT]{}(1,2,,8) C({1,2},{3,4},{3,5},{1,5},{6,7},{1,7}).
Last but not least, we briefly comment on a corollary of , namely it can be used to give a large class of CHY formulas for $\phi^p$ graphs . The idea is that one can blow up any $\phi^p$ graph to a cubic graph, which can be translated into a formula via , and the result is given by further multiplying with those additional inverse propagators. There are many ways of blowing up the $\phi^p$ graph, and any way of doing it gives such a formula. For example, we can write $
\raisebox{-.6cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.4]
\draw (-1,0) node [left =-2pt]{\tiny 2} --(1,0);
\draw (0,-1) node [below =-2pt]{\tiny 1} --(0,1)node [above =-2pt]{\tiny 3};
\end{tikzpicture}}
=s_{1,2}
\raisebox{-.6cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.4]
\draw (-1,0) node [left =-2pt]{\tiny 2} --(1,0);
\draw (-.2,-1) node [below =-2pt]{\tiny 1}--(-.2,0);
\draw (.2,0)--(.2,1)node [above =-2pt]{\tiny 3};
\end{tikzpicture}}
$, $
\raisebox{-.6cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.4]
\draw (0,0)--(-72:1) node [below =-2pt]{\tiny 1} ;
\draw (0,0)--(-144:1) node [left =-2pt]{\tiny 2} ;
\draw (0,0)--(144:1) node [left =-2pt]{\tiny 3} ;
\draw (0,0)--(72:1) node [above =-2pt]{\tiny 4} ;
\draw (0,0)--(1.2,0);
\end{tikzpicture}}
=
s_{1,2}s_{1,2,3}
\raisebox{-.4cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.4]
\draw (0,0)node [left=-2pt] {\tiny 1}
--++(1,0) coordinate (a) --+(0,1) node [above =-2pt] {\tiny 2};
\draw (a) --++(.4,0) coordinate (b) --+(0,1) node [above =-2pt] {\tiny 3};
\draw (b) --++(.4,0) coordinate (c) --+(0,1) node [above =-2pt] {\tiny 4};
\draw (c)--+(1,0);
\end{tikzpicture}}
$ . To illustrate the method, we consider a 10-pt $\phi^4$ Feynman diagram, ; one way to rewrite it is $s_{1,2}s_{4,5}s_{6,7}s_{9,10}
\raisebox{-1cm}{
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=.6]
\draw (0,0) coordinate (a)--++(1,0) coordinate (b);
\draw ($(b)+(0,-.2)$)--+(1,0) node [right=-2pt]{\tiny 9};
\draw (b)--+(0,-1) node [below=-2pt] {\tiny 10};
\draw (b)--++(0,1) coordinate (c)--+(0,.5) node [above=-2pt] {\tiny 5};
\draw ($(c)+(0,.2)$)--+(-.5,0) node [left=-2pt] {\tiny 4};
\draw (c)--++(.5,0)coordinate (d)--+(.5,0) node [right=-2pt] {\tiny 7};
\draw (d)--+(0,.5) node [above=-2pt] {\tiny 6};
\draw ($(d)+(-.2,0)$)--+(0,-.5) node [below=-2pt] {\tiny 8};
\draw (a)--+(-.5,0) node [left=-2pt] {\tiny 2};
\draw ($(a)+(-.2,0)$)--+(0,-.5) node [below=-2pt] {\tiny 1};
\draw (a)--+(0,.5) node [above=-2pt] {\tiny 3};
\end{tikzpicture} }$ , and by we obtain its CHY formula as &=& \_[10]{} [PT]{}(1,2,,10) s\_[1,2]{}s\_[4,5]{}s\_[6,7]{}s\_[9,10]{} && C({1,2},{1,3},{4,5},{4,8},{6,7},{6,8},{1,8},{1,9}). In this way, we find a large class of simple CHY integrands for any $\phi^p$ graph (and [@Baadsgaard:2015ifa] corresponds to a symmetrized version ; see also [@Cachazo:2014xea; @Baadsgaard:2016fel] for other methods ).
### Elements in the kernel {#elements-in-the-kernel .unnumbered}
Now we move to the second kind, $C^{\rm kernel}$ and prove they produce zero in its CHY formula with a PT factor briefly. For any $C^{\rm kernel}$, we pick out two lines $\{i,k\}$ and $\{j,l\}$ which are crossing each other, as shown in figure \[overlap\].
(0,0) circle (0.03); (1,0) circle (0.03); (1.4,0) circle (0.03); (2.5,0) circle (0.03); (0,0) arc (180:0:.7); (1,0) arc (180:0:.75); at (0,-.3) [$i$]{}; at (1,-.3) [$j$]{}; at (1.4,-.3) [$k$]{}; at (2.5,-.3) [$l$]{};
Because of the construction way of $M$, there are no connected line from $j$ to $i$ without passing $l$ or connected line from $k$ to $l$ without passing $i$. An immediate observation is that any $s_{A\cup \{k\}}$ or $s_{A\cup \{j\}}$ with $k,j\notin A$ is a non-planar pole and can’t appear in the CHY integral. The only possible way for $j,k$ appearing in a pole is $s_{I\cup \{j,k\}}$ with $i,l\in I$. Before using the lines $\{i,k\}$ and $\{j,l\}$, the other $n-4$ lines can only provide $n-5$ compatible poles at most, denoted as $\{\cdots, s_{I_1},s_{I_2},\cdots,s_{I_r}\}$ with $I_1\subset I_2 \cdots \subset I_r$. Now we consider to use the two lines $\{i,k\}$ and $\{j,l\}$. However, there is at most one more compatible pole coming out denoted as $s_{I_t\cup\{j,k\}}$ and the $n-4$ compatible pole set becomes $\{\cdots, s_{I_1},\cdots,s_{I_t},s_{I_t\cup\{j,k\}},s_{I_{t+1}\cup\{j,k\}},\cdots,s_{I_r\cup\{j,k\}}\}$. So there are no Feynman diagrams coming out.
### More about the new basis {#more-about-the-new-basis .unnumbered}
Owing to the clear property of $C^{\rm single }$ and $C^{\rm kernel }$, we can’t wait to expand any Cayley functions or even general CHY half integrand (without subcycle about $\s$) to these basis. For example, C({1,2},{2,3},{1,4})&=&C({1,2},{1,3},{1,4}) +C({1,3},{2,3},{1,4}),C({1,3},{2,3},{2,4},{1,5})&=&C({1,3},{2,3}, {1,4},{1,5}) +C({2,3},{1,4},{2,4},{1,5}), && -C({1,3},{1,4},{2,4},{1,5}), C({1,3},{1,2},{2,4},{2,5})&=& C({1,2},{1,3},{1,4},{1,5}) +C({1,3},{1,4},{2,4},{1,5})&&+C({1,3},{2,4},{2,5},{1,5}). Then calculating their CHY integral with the canonical PT factor becomes as easy as consulting a dictionary, see below \[cpt\] \_5 [PT]{}(1,,5) C({1,2},{2,3},{1,4}) &=& +,\_6 [PT]{}(1,,6) C({1,3},{2,3},{2,4},{1,5}) &=& +,\_6 [PT]{}(1,,6) C({1,3},{1,2},{2,4},{2,5}) &=& . More application will be seen in next section.
Above we have shown a constructive way to get $C^{\rm basis}$. How to identify whether an arbitrary Cayley function is a $C^{\rm basis}$ ? Motivated by the rule that a line is always drawn from a left-most point to a right-most point of a subgraph, such construction shown in figure \[twosides\]
can’t appear in $C^{\rm basis}$. Reversely, as long as they don’t have these two constructions, which actually excludes many Cayley functions, see an example for more complicated cases in figure \[complicated\], and makes sure that the left-most particle of any connected subgraph , like here $i$, has to be linked to the right-most particle, like here $l$,
(0,0) circle (0.03) node \[below=0pt\] [$i$]{}; (1,0) circle (0.03) node \[below=0pt\] [$k_1$]{}; (1.5,0) circle (0.03) node \[below=0pt\] [$k_2$]{}; (0.5,0) circle (0.03) node \[below=0pt\] [$j$]{}; (3,0) circle (0.03) node \[below=0pt\] [$l$]{};
(0,0) arc (180:0:.75); (1,0) arc (180:0:.25); (0.5,0) arc (180:0:.25); (.5,0) arc (180:0:1.25);
there is always a way to construct them by the map $M$ and so they belong to the basis.
Though the CHY integral of canonical PT factor and $C^{\rm kernel}$ is zero, it will contribute in string integral, as we discuss now.
Cayley functions and disk integrals {#sec4}
===================================
In this section, we study the natural appearance of Cayley functions in certain disk integrals of open superstring theory. The basic objects we are interested in are a class of disk integrals with Cayley functions as (half) integrands, which we collectively call $Z$ integrals [@Broedel:2013tta; @Carrasco:2016ygv; @Mafra:2016mcc; @Carrasco:2016ldy] \[Zgen\] Z(12 ,n| {i,j}):=(’)\^[n[-]{}3]{}\_[(12n)]{}\^[n[-]{}3]{} z\_[i<j]{}\^[n[-]{}1]{} |z\_[i j]{}|\^[’ s\_[i j]{}]{} 1 [z\_[i\_1 j\_1]{}]{} 1 [z\_[i\_[n[-]{}2]{}, j\_[n[-]{}2]{}]{}]{}, where we have chosen to fix the ${\rm PSL}(2,\mathbb R)$ redundancy by setting [*e.g.*]{} $(z_1, z_{n{-}1}, z_n)=(0,1,\infty)$ and the domain for integrals over ${\mathrm{d}}^{n{-}3} z$, denoted as $(12\cdots n)$, means $0<z_2<\cdots< z_{n{-}2}<1$. In addition to the Koba-Nielsen factor, we insert the SL(2)-fixed $C(\{i,j\})$ in the integrand, which can be rewritten in a SL(2) covariant form as before. In the special case that $C=$PT$(\beta)$, it reduces to the more familiar $Z$ integrals which depend on another ordering $\beta$: Z(12n| )=(’)\^[n[-]{}3]{}\_[(12n)]{}\^[n[-]{}3]{} z\_[i<j]{}\^[n[-]{}1]{} |z\_[i j]{}|\^[’ s\_[i j]{}]{} [PT]{}(), These $Z$ integrals have played important roles not only for gluon amplitudes in open superstring theory, but also for higher-order corrections to NLSM and other theories [@Carrasco:2016ygv; @Carrasco:2016ldy]. To see this, let’s recall the main results of [@Mafra:2011nv]: it has been shown that any $n$-pt tree amplitude in type I superstring theory is a linear combination of $(n{-}3)!$ partial amplitudes in super-Yang-Mills theory (SYM), with ordering $(1, \pi(2), \cdots, \pi(n{-}2), n{-}1, n)$ \_n\^[type I]{} (1,2,,n)=\_[S\_[n[-]{}3]{}]{} F(12n| ) M\_n\^[SYM]{} (1, (2), , (n[-]{}2), n[-]{}1,n), where all the $\alpha'$-dependence is encoded in the $(n{-}3)!$ disk integrals $F$’s defined as F(12n | ):=(’)\^[n[-]{}3]{} \_[(12n)]{}\^[n[-]{}3]{} z\_[i<j]{}\^[n[-]{}1]{} |z\_[i j]{}|\^[’ s\_[i j]{}]{} \_[b=2]{}\^[n[-]{}2]{}\_[a=1]{}\^[b[-]{}1]{} , with $\pi(1)=1$ ($\pi(n{-}1)=n{-}1$ though that is not used here). The RHS is nothing but a sum of $(n{-}3)!$ $Z$ integrals, dressed by products of $n{-}3$ poles: F(12n | )=\_ \_[a=2]{}\^[n[-]{}2]{} s\_[i\_a, j\_a]{}Z(12, n|{1,n[-]{}1}, {i\_2, (2)}, , {i\_[n[-]{}2]{}, (n[-]{}2)}), where after fixing $i_1=1, j_1=n{-}1$, we have Cayley functions with $j_a=\pi(a)$ and each $i_a$ precedes $j_a$ in the ordering $\pi$, for $a=2, \cdots, n{-}2$ (there are $(n{-}3)!$ of them). For example, $F(1234|2)=s_{12} Z(1234|\{1,2\},\{1,3\})$ and for $n=5$ (we suppress the ordering $(12345)$ and the overall edge $\{1,4\}$ in $Z$ integrals): $$\begin{aligned}
F(12345|23)&=s_{12}~\left(s_{13} Z(\{1,2\},\{1,3\})+ s_{23} Z(\{1,2\},\{2,3\}\right)\,, \\\nonumber
F(12345|32)&=s_{13}~\left(s_{12} Z(\{1,2\}, 13)+ s_{23} Z(\{2,3\},\{1,3\})\right)\,.\end{aligned}$$ Thus we have seen that the complete $\alpha'$-dependence of tree amplitudes in type I theory is encoded in these $Z$ integrals, . The $\alpha'$ expansion of generic $Z$ integrals can be computed, but it suffices to do so for those where the $C$ functions form a basis. A convenient choice is to focus on a $(n{-}2)!$ basis given by $Z(12\cdots|\beta)$ where PT$(\beta)$’s form a KK basis [@Broedel:2013tta], and it is well known that such Z integrals give double-partial amplitudes in the $\alpha'\to 0$ limit: Z(|)=m(|) + [O]{}(’\^2), where the first correction starts at ${\cal O}(\alpha'^2)$ since ${\cal O}(\alpha')$ term vanishes identically , which follows from supersymmetry of open string amplitudes. In the following, we will focus on $Z$ integrals with Cayley functions in the $(n{-}2)!$ new basis, and as we will see shortly, they play a special role in the $\alpha'$ expansion of disk integrals. In fact, such $Z$ integrals have been studied in [@Broedel:2013tta; @Mafra:2016mcc] , where these integrals are called pole-channel basis. Our discussion here will focus on a graphic way of reading off nice properties of this Z-integral basis from the structures of Cayley functions.
Note that the new basis consists of ${\rm Cat}_{n{-}2}$ $C^{\rm single}$’s and $(n{-}2)!- {\rm Cat}_{n{-}2}$ $C^{\rm kernel}$’s, thus at ${\cal O}(1)$ in the $\alpha'$ expansion, we have either a single cubic tree graph or zero: \[Zzero\] Z(12n | {i,j})=
1 [s\_[i\_1 j\_1]{}]{} 1 [s\_[i\_[n[-]{}3]{} j\_[n[-]{}3]{}]{}]{} + [O]{}(’\^2), & C\^[single]{}({i,j}),\
0 + [O]{}(’\^2), & C\^[kernel]{}({i,j}),\
where note that we have suppressed the trivial edge $(1,n{-}1)$. For $n=5$ we have 5 elements with single graph, [*e.g.*]{} $Z(12345|\{1,2\},\{1,3\})=\frac 1 {s_{12}} \frac 1 {s_{123}} + {\cal O}(\alpha'^2)$, and the kernel one gives $Z(12345|\{1,3\}, \{2,4\})={\cal O}(\alpha'^2)$. A natural question is, can we say something about higher order corrections, especially in the case of $C^{\rm kernel}$ ? We propose that one can obtain [*pole structures*]{} of the leading non-vanishing $\alpha'$ order directly from corresponding Cayley tree graphs. [**Proposal**]{}: For any $C(\{i,j\})$ in the new basis, the pole structure for the first non-vanishing order in the $\alpha'$-expansion of $Z(12\cdots n | \{i,j\})$ is determined by its [*maximal subgraph without crossing*]{}, $M$. Let’s assume that $M$ has $m$ edges which, without loss of generality, are denoted as $\{i_1, j_1\}, \cdots, \{i_m, j_m\}$ (out of all the $n{-}3$ edges $\{i_1, j_1\}, \cdots, \{ i_{n{-}3}, j_{n{-}3}\}$), then the Z integral has the leading non-vanishing order at ${\cal O}(\alpha'^{n{-}3{-}m})$: \[Zleading\] Z(12n | {i,j})= + [O]{}(’\^[n[-]{}2[-]{}m]{}). where $c_m$ is a multiple zeta value of transcendental weight $n{-}3{-}m$. For $C^{\rm single}$, reduces to the ${\cal O}(1)$ cubic tree of , since by definition it has all $m=n{-}3$ non-crossing edges. The other extreme is the case that there is no non-crossing subgraph, $m=0$, and we predict that the first non-vanishing order is at ${\cal O}((\alpha')^{n{-}3})$, which is given by a multiple zeta value with weight $n{-}3$.
Note that is also consistent with the absence of ${\cal O}(\alpha')$: for $C^{\rm kernel}$ we have $m<n{-}3$ but we can at most have $m=n{-}5$ which corresponds to only two edges crossed. Thus in the general case $0<m\leq n{-}5$, we have at leading order ${\cal O}((\alpha')^{n{-}3{-}m})$, product of $m$ compatible propagators (a subset of a cubic tree). We believe that the proposal can be proved using the Berends-Giele recursion for Z integrals given in [@Mafra:2016mcc] (which in turn was based on methods of $\alpha'$ expansion in [@Broedel:2013tta; @Mafra:2011nw]).
Let’s illustrate the result with more examples. For $n=6$, there are 10 $C^{\rm kernel}$’s shown in figure \[kernel6\] . We see that $K_1, K_2, K_3, K_4$ all have an edge ($m=1$ subgraph) that does not cross others, while others have no non-crossing subgraph ($m=0$), thus &{Z(K\_1), Z(K\_2), Z(K\_3), Z(K\_4)} \~’\^2 \_2 {1 [s\_[12]{}]{}, 1 [s\_[45]{}]{}, 1 [s\_[23]{}]{}, 1 [s\_[34]{}]{}} + [O]{}(’\^3),&{Z(K\_5), Z(K\_6), Z(K\_7), Z(K\_8), Z(K\_9), Z(K\_[10]{})} \~’\^3 \_3 + [O]{}(’\^4), where we have suppressed the overall ordering $(12\cdots 6)$, and ignored overall constants.
For $n=7$, there are all 78 $C^{\rm kernel}$’s and we find that all of them fall into three categories according to their leading non-vanishing order: (a): $m=2$: $\alpha'^2$ order with two compatible poles, (b): $m=1$: $\alpha'^3$ order with one pole, and (c): $m=0$: $\alpha'^4$ order without any pole. Here are examples for these three cases seen in figure \[kernel7\].
Finally, let’s present the following $n=8$ examples seen in figure \[kernel8\].
Discussions and Outlook {#sec5}
=======================
In this note, we have introduced Cayley functions as a new class of half integrands in CHY formulas; they naturally generalize the Parke-Taylor factor (PT), which arises from a line or Hamiltonian tree, to general cases of labelled trees. We have discussed important aspects and applications of Cayley functions. First of all, we have presented a diagrammatic way to directly read off the sum of cubic Feynman diagrams, as given by the CHY formula with $C^2$. Combinatorically, a collection of such cubic trees correspond to a polytope, thus providing a one-to-one map between Cayley functions and certain polytopes; we classified such polytopes as ranging from the associahedron (Hamiltonian tree graph) to permutohedron (star tree graph).The CHY formula with $C C'$ produces Feynman diagrams that correspond to the intersection of the two polytopes.
Furthermore, we have studied the linear space of all half integrands without forming subcycles. The dimension of the space is $(n{-}2)!$ since any such half integrands can be reduced to the KK basis of PT factors, and we have found a nice formula for the reduction. We have introduced a new basis where each element has the property that under CHY formula with a given PT, it gives either a single diagram or zero. Finally, we have briefly discussed how these Cayley functions and especially the new basis can be used in disk integrals of superstring theory. In the following, we will briefly mention more aspects of Cayley functions that have not been covered above, especially open questions along several directions.
Beyond Cayley functions: from $G(2,n)$ to ${\cal M}_{0,n}$ {#beyond-cayley-functions-from-g2n-to-cal-m_0n .unnumbered}
----------------------------------------------------------
One of the most important properties of a Cayley function is that it maps to a sum of cubic Feynman diagrams (with coefficients $+1$). Of course they are just special cases of half-integrands that have this property, and we suspect that they are the simplest ones. As a first step towards going beyond Cayley functions, we find a larger class of such half-integrands, which are in one-to-one correspondence with MHV non-planar on-shell diagrams in $N=4$ SYM [@Arkani-Hamed:2014bca], and ${\bf C}$’s are just special cases of these functions.
Any MHV on-shell-diagram gives a rational function, ${\bf B}(\lambda_1, \cdots, \lambda_n)$ defined on G$(2,n)$ with weight -2: ${\bf B} \to \prod_{i=1}^n x_i^{-2} {\bf B}$ for $\lambda^\alpha_i \to x_i \lambda^\alpha_i$ with $a=1,2, \cdots, n$. Such a function is related to our functions on ${\cal M}_{0,n}$ via $(\lambda_i^{\alpha=1}, \lambda_i^{\alpha=2})=t_i (1,\sigma_i)$ (thus $\langle \lambda_i \lambda_j \rangle=t_i t_j \sigma_{i,j}$). The simplest case is again a Parke-Taylor factor (the demominator of original “Parke-Taylor” formula) which is the same as our [**PT**]{} up to an overall prefactor: \[PTG2n\] 1 [12n 1]{}=1 [\_[i=1]{}\^n t\_i\^2]{} [**PT**]{}(1,2,,n). In this way, any function with weight -2 on G$(2,n)$ can be converted to that on ${\cal M}_{0,n}$.
As shown in [@Arkani-Hamed:2014bca], a generic MHV on-shell-diagram is characterized by $n{-}2$ triplets of labels $(i_a, j_a, k_a)$ for $1\leq a\leq n{-}2$ (we assume that all labels $1,2,\cdots, n$ are covered), and its rational function is always a positive sum of with different orderings \[expB\] [**B**]{}({i,j,k})=\_ 1 [(1), (2) (n), (1) ]{}. Here $i<j<k$ is a cyclic ordering in $\pi$. Generally, a ${\bf B}$ function takes a form more complicated than ${\bf C}$’s [@Arkani-Hamed:2014bca], but it is straightforward to see when it can reduce to a ${\bf C}$ (with the prefactor as in): if all the $n{-}2$ triplets share a label, [*e.g.*]{} $k_1=\cdots=k_{n{-}2}=n$ for all $a$, ${\bf B}$ reduces to ${\bf C}$ with the same $\{i,j\}$: ({i\_1,j\_1,n}, , {i\_[n[-]{}2]{}, j\_[n[-]{}2]{}, n})=\_[a=1]{}\^n t\_a\^[-2]{} [**C**]{} ({i,j}), and we see that reduces to if we fix $n$ to be at the end of all orderings.
One can show that ${\bf B}$ functions also have the property that ${\bf C}$’s have: any CHY formula with ${\bf B}^2$ gives a sum of Feynman diagrams, which can be encoded in a polytope as that for a Cayley function. We will leave the generalization of theorem \[identicalCc\] and full classifications of these more general polytopes to a future work.
Open questions for Cayley functions {#open-questions-for-cayley-functions .unnumbered}
-----------------------------------
There are other open questions regarding Cayley functions in CHY formulas. The most obvious question is to understand better the origin of the map from Cayley functions to polytopes, and what is the significance of these polytopes in mathematics, see [@GraphAssociahedra; @ConciniCProcesi; @AlexanderPostnikov; @AlexandePostnikovVictorReiner] for some previous work. One possible direction is to consider the class of graph associahedra based on Dynkin diagrams, which are known to tile the compactied moduli space of punctured Riemann spheres [@MDavisTJanuszkiewiczRScott]. It would be fascinating to explore whether this class of graphs has special properties in the context of CHY formulae or disk integrals. Besides, it would be highly desirable to generalize our study of Cayley functions and polytopes of Feynman diagrams to loop level, along the line of $\phi^3$ loop amplitudes from CHY-like constructions [@Geyer:2015bja; @He:2015yua; @Feng:2016nrf; @Baadsgaard:2015hia; @He:2017spx].
We would also like to understand better the meaning of the new basis. For example, it is well known that one can expand those half integrands appearing in CHY formulas of other theories (such as the reduced Pfaffian [*etc.*]{}) in the KK basis; a natural question is when we expand them in our new basis, what is the interpretation of the coefficients? Moreover, we know that in twistor-string formula for ${\cal N}=4$ SYM [@Witten:2003nn; @Roiban:2004yf], Parke-Taylor factors are mapped to color-ordered amplitudes. Similarly a Cayley function is mapped to a certain sum of such color-ordered amplitudes, which in turn form a basis different than the usual KK basis. It may be interesting to study their properties as well.
Another direction concerns higher-order $\alpha'$ corrections in Z integrals and other integrals in superstring theory. We have only studied leading non-zero order in the $\alpha'$-expansion of Z integrals, and it would be intriguing to extract sub-leading pole structures from the graph. For Z integrals with PT’s, such sub-leading terms can be obtained systematically using the method in [@Broedel:2013tta], which can be turned into results for Z integrals in the new basis. What is remained to be done is a more direct (and preferably diagrammatic) way of extracting higher-order terms from Cayley functions. Moreover, it is possible that the combinatorical polytope structures generalize to disk integrals (see [@Mizera:2017cqs] for related work which studies certain combinatoric structures in closed-string integrals).
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
S.H. would like to thank Nima Arkani-Hamed, Yuntao Bai and Gongwang Yan for stimulating discussions and collaborations on related projects. We also thank Chi-Sing Lam, Sebastian Mizera and Chi Zhang for useful discussions and especially Oliver Schlotterer for very helpful comments on the draft. We also thank Freddy Cachazo, Nick Early and a referee for comments on v2 of the paper. S.H.’s research is supported in part by the Thousand Young Talents program and the Key Research Program of Frontier Sciences of CAS.
A sketch of proof for using factorization {#appa}
==========================================
All Feynman diagrams must have $n-3$ compatible poles, so they must be contained on the RHS of . The only problem is that maybe some terms on the RHS of don’t appear on the RHS of Theorem \[identicalCc\]. So we assign each of them of a undetermined coefficient and use to determine them. First we see a simple case, \[4ptafaf\] = x\_1 + x\_2 , According to the analyzing in , have poles , , which means it must contains both and corresponding to the two terms on the RHS of , [*i.e.*]{} $x_1\neq 0,x_2\neq 0$. The next thing is to determine their relative sign appearing in Theorem \[identicalCc\]. While they must be the same as we can’t allow the value of one expression after being taken the residue of its pole is 1 while the other is $-1$, so $x_1=x_2=1$.
Now we move the 5pt cases, \[5ptafaff\] = x\_1 + x\_2 + x\_3 , According to pole analyzing, it must contains the Feynman diagrams in the first and the last term on the RHS of above equation, [*i.e.*]{} $x_1\neq 0,x_3\neq 0$. While if we take the factorization $s_{3,4}\rightarrow 0$, only the first two terms survives, \[4ptafafff\] = x\_1 + x\_2 , where $I$ is the internal particle. In factorization limits, it just reduces to the case of 4pt, , which means $x_1=x_2$. Similarly, $x_2=x_3=x_1=1$. The Feynman diagrams in each term of the RHS of share the same sign , so all 5 Feynman diagrams of share the same sign in Theorem \[identicalCc\].
Generally, for a arbitrary Cayley function, according to the pole analyzing, some terms on the RHS of must appear in Theorem \[identicalCc\] with nonzero coefficient. After we take all kinds of factorization, other terms on the RHS of appear to join them with the same sign using the results of lower points recursively. So any $n-3$ compatible poles corresponds to a Feynman diagram in Theorem \[identicalCc\] with coefficient $+1$.
Proof of the sign in Theorem \[identicalCcp\] {#appb}
=============================================
As for the subtle all overall sign in Theorem \[identicalCcp\], in principle, we can expand $C_n,C'_n$ into PT’s using the identity , then their CHY formulas becomes a summation of double partial amplitudes , see \[twob\] \_n C\_n C’\_n= \_[,]{}m(|). However there is huge cancellation between these double partial amplitudes and a clever way is to find a dominant one to determine the sign in Theorem \[identicalCcp\]. Our idea is to use the factorization , see figure \[ccpgraph\], recursively until we find the dominating PT from the expansion of $C_n,C'_n$ repectively.
As we will find all Feynman diagrams on the RHS of Theorem \[identicalCcp\] share the same sign, [*i.e.*]{} we can pick out any one denoted as the represetative Feynman diagram, [*i.e.*]{} any $n-3$ compatible poles both belonging to $P(C_n)$ and $P(C'_n)$ to represent all cases. There are always two “biggest” poles $s_I,s_{\bar I}$ between these $n-3$ compatible poles (here we means all particles of other poles without using the particle $n$ sit on these two “biggest” poles ) whose corresponding subgraphs together make up the labelled tree of $C_n$ (so does $C'_n$) up to an oriented edge , see figure \[ccpgraph\] .
Thus the represetative Feynman diagram corresponds to a particular factorization $s_I\rightarrow 0,s_{\bar I}\rightarrow 0$ under which only certain Feynman diagrams survive. Among the PT’s from the expansion of $C_n$, only those which can be divided into two subgraphs with the particles $I$ and ${\bar I}$ respectively could contribute under this factorization. This decides the contributing PT’s are either ${\rm PT}(I,{\bar I},n)$ or ${\rm PT}({\bar I},I,n)$, which is further decided by the orientation of the linked edge . This was the time we saw the importance of the orientation of $C_n$ in the CHY integral of two distinguished Cayley functions. The subgraphs $C^1,C^2$ themselves are labelled trees, so we can do this factorization recursively and the range of surviving PT’s becomes more and more narrow until a single one comes out. One can see the procedure to find the dominating PT is just to draw the representative Feynman diagram in the canonical way described in main tex . While we can also define a map ${\rho}$ based on a representative Feynman diagram and a oriented labelled tree of $C_n$ (or $C'_n$ ) to find the ordering of the dominating PT more abstractly,
1. ${\rho}$ maps an unordered sequence to an ordered sequence.
2. As starting point, $({\rho}[i])=(i)$.
3. The map is defined recursively, (\[I\])=(\[I\_1\],\[I\_2\]) , where $I$ is a particle set of a labelled tree and $I_1\sqcup I_2=I$ are particle sets of subgraphs linked by an edge with the orientation from $i_1$ to $i_2$ which correspond to the two biggest poles of those from of the $n-3$ compatible poles made up by the particles $I$.
Then at last, we obtain the dominating ${\rm PT}({\rho}[1,2,\cdots,n-1],n)$ of $C_n$ and similarly that of $C'_n$ denoted as ${\rm PT}({\rho}'[1,2,\cdots,n-1],n)$. Note that $m\big({\rho}[1,2,\cdots,n-1],n\big|{\rho}'[1,2,\cdots,n-1],n\big)$ provides more than the representative Feynman diagram in general , however only this double partial amplitude provides this representative Feynman diagram among all $m(\a|\b)$ on the RHS of . So the representative Feynman diagram on the RHS of Theorem \[identicalCcp\] must share the same as that of $m\big({\rho}[1,2,\cdots,n-1],n|{\rho}'[1,2,\cdots,n-1],n\big)$ , see , [*i.e.*]{} f=[flip]{}(\[1,2,,n-1\]|’\[1,2,,n-1\]).
Let’s repeat the procedure about the example (above )in main text. Take the first Feynman diagram in as a representative one. The two biggest poles are $s_{1,2,3,4}$ and “$s_{5}$”. The corresponding subgraphs of $C_6$ are . Note that the orientation of the link edge is from 5 to 2, so (\[1,2,3,4,5\])=(\[5\],\[1,2,3,4\]) =(5,\[1,2,3,4\]). Now we look at new Feynman diagrams made from the factorization. While in this case, one is a trivial point and we only need to take the other one into consideration, , which corresponds to the subgraph . The two biggest poles of are $s_{1,2},s_{3,4}$ , corresponding to the factorization . Because of , we have (\[1,2,3,4,5\])=(5,\[1,2,3,4\]) =(5,\[3,4\],\[1,2\]). Finally, because of and , we have (\[1,2,3,4,5\])=(5,\[3,4\],\[1,2\]) =(5,\[3\],\[4\],\[1\],\[2\]) = (5,3,4,1,2). Similarly, (’\[1,2,3,4,5\])=(’\[1,2,3,4\],5) =(’\[2,1\],’\[3,4\],5) = (2,1,3,4,5).
If we choose the second Feynman diagram in as the representative Feynman diagram, ${\rho}[1,2,3,4,5]$ and ${\rho}'[1,2,3,4,5]$ will usually be different, (\[1,2,3,4,5\])&=&(5,\[1,2,3,4\]) =(5,1,\[2,3,4\]) = (5,1,\[3,4\],2) = (5,1,3,4,2), (’\[1,2,3,4,5\])&=&(’\[1,2,3,4\],5) =(’\[2,3,4\],1,5) = (2,’\[3,4\],1,5) = (2,3,4,1,5), while their flip times share the same odd-even property f=[flip]{}(\[1,2,3,4,5\]|’\[1,2,3,4,5\])= [flip]{}(5,1,3,4,2|2,3,4,1,5)=3. One can take the last Feynman diagram in as the representative Feynman diagram and see the odd-even property of flip times doesn’t change,either, f= [flip]{}(1,5,3,4,2|2,3,4,5,1)=3.
CHY formula of two arbitrary star graphs {#appc}
========================================
In main text, we mainly consider such Cayley functions with $n$ sent to infinity and they are characterised by $n-2$ pairs. They may not be characterised by $n-2$ pairs again if we send another puncture of their covariant form to infinity. For general Cayley functions which have an arbitrary puncture that is special to sent to infinity, the CHY integral of themselves squared is well defined as it is just a relabelling. While those of two different Cayley functions may meet an illness as ${\rm SL}(2,{\mathbb C})$ redundancy only allow to send one puncture to infinity and might not satisfy both requirement of two different Cayley functions. This time, it seems we couldn’t use the technical described in Theorem \[identicalCcp\] to do their CHY integral while it is not. Many properties are inherited, such as $P({\bm C}{\bm C}')=P({\bm C})\cap P({\bm C}')$ and the Feynman diagrams obtained by the CHY integral of two distinct Cayley functions is still the intersection of those obtained by the CHY integral of of Cayley function squared, except that these Feynman diagrams may not share an overall sign again and we have to determine them one by one.
For example, to do the CHY integral of two star graphs with different punctures which is expected to be sent to infinity , we have to use their ${\rm SL}(2,{\mathbb C})$ covariant , denoted as ${\bm C}_n^{S}(i;n), {\bm C}_n^{S}(j;n')$ respectively \_n\^[S]{}(i;n)&=& ,\_n\^[S]{}(j;n’)&=& . Then do the original CHY integral . Owing the symmetry of $j,n'$ in ${\bm C}_n^{S}(j;n')$, one can expect the CHY formulas of ${\bm C}_n^{S}(i;n),{\bm C}_n^{S}(i;n')$ should be analogue to . So here we only consider the case with $i,j,n,n'$ four different particles and it turns out that \[starstar\] \_n [C]{}\_n\^[S]{}(i;n) [C]{}\_n\^[S]{}(j;n’) &=& &&+ (-1)\^n . Here we see the results are the intersection of Feynman diagrams of the CHY formulas of $\big({\bm C}_n^{S}(i;n)\big)^2$ and those of $ \big({\bm C}_n^{S}(j;n')\big)^2$. While we also see there may be relative sign between Feynman diagrams.
For example, \_n [C]{}\_5\^[S]{}(3;5) [C]{}\_6\^[S]{}(4;1) &=& - , \_n [C]{}\_6\^[S]{}(2;6) [C]{}\_6\^[S]{}(3;1) &=& + &&+ + .
[^1]: Here thanks to cyclicity symmetry, without loss of general, we can let $\alpha$ and $\beta$ share the same end point and then ${\rm flip}(\alpha|\beta)$ denotes the number of flipped adjacent pairs, [*i.e.*]{} $\beta(i{+}1)$ precedes $\beta(i)$ in the ordering $\alpha$, for $i=1,\ldots, n{-}1$, see [@Cachazo:2013iea; @Mizera:2016jhj]. The sign has also been discussed in [@Mafra:2016ltu].
[^2]: Note that a Cayley function is only defined for a [*oriented*]{} tree graph, since we assign $\frac 1 {\sigma_{i,j}}$ but not $\frac 1 {\sigma_{j,i}}$ for a directed edge (i,j). However, the difference is only an overall sign, and our convention is that if there is no arrow we simply choose $\frac 1 {\sigma_{i,j}}$ for $i<j$ . We will see that in certain cases it is convenient to rearrange orientations of edges, and there is a sign $(-1)^{r_{\rm flip}}$ where $r_{\rm flip}$ is the number of edges with flipped orientation.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Superfluid helium consists of two inter-penetrating fluids, a viscous normal fluid and an inviscid superfluid, coupled by a mutual friction. We develop a two-fluid shell model to study superfluid turbulence. We investigate the energy spectra and the balance of fluxes between the two fluids as a function of temperature in continuously forced turbulence, and, in the absence of forcing, the decay of turbulence. We furthermore investigate deviations from the $k^{-5/3}$ spectrum caused by the mutual friction force. We compare our results with experiments and existing calculations. We find that, at sufficiently low temperatures a build-up of energy develops at high wavenumbers suggesting the need for a further dissipative effect, such as the Kelvin wave cascade and phonon emission.'
author:
- 'D. H. Wacks'
- 'C. F. Barenghi'
title: Shell model of superfluid turbulence
---
Introduction
============
Helium II (the low temperature, quantum phase of liquid $^4$He) consists of two inter-penetrating fluid components [@Donnelly]: the inviscid superfluid (associated with the quantum ground state) and the viscous normal fluid (consisting of thermal excitations). Each fluid component has its own density and velocity field, ${\rho^s}$, ${\mathbf {u}^s}$ for the superfluid and ${\rho^n}$, ${\mathbf {u}^n}$ for the normal fluid, where $\rho={\rho^s}+{\rho^n}$ is helium’s density and the relative proportion of superfluid and normal fluid depends on the absolute temperature $T$.
What makes helium II particularly interesting is that the superfluid vorticity is concentrated in thin, discrete vortex filaments of fixed (quantized) circulation $\kappa=h/m=9.97 \times 10^{-4}~\rm cm^2/s$, where $h$ is Planck’s constant and $m$ the mass of one $^4$He atom. The vortex filaments interact with the thermal excitations, causing a mutual friction between superfluid and normal fluid [@BDV].
Turbulence in helium II (quantum turbulence) is easily generated in the laboratory by stirring or pushing liquid helium with grids and propellers [@Oregon; @Roche; @Salort], vibrating forks [@Prague] or other means. Quantum turbulence is a complex state [@Vinen-Niemela] in which normal fluid eddies of arbitrary shapes and strengths interact with a tangle of discrete vortex filaments of fixed strength. Despite the two-fluids nature of quantum turbulence, experiments have shown remarkable similarities with turbulence in ordinary fluids (classical turbulence), for example the same pressure drops along pipes and channels [@Walstrom], drag crisis behind a sphere [@drag-crisis], and Kolmogorov energy spectrum [@Tabeling]. The last property, which is our particular concern in this paper, describes how the energy of the flow is distributed over the length scales in homogeneous isotropic turbulence.
Whereas turbulence in ordinary fluids is studied on the firm ground of the Navier-Stokes equation, there is not such an established equation for turbulent helium II. Existing numerical simulations [@Bag11a; @Adachi] of quantum turbulence follow the approach of Schwarz [@Schwarz], who calculated the properties of the vortex tangle by integrating in time the motion of a great number of individual vortex filaments in the presence of a prescribed normal fluid, neglecting the back reaction of the superfluid onto the normal fluid.
The aim of this work is to gain insight into self-consistent turbulent two-fluids hydrodynamics using a shell model [@Biferale]. In classical fluid dynamics [@Frisch] shell models are idealized truncated models of the Navier-Stokes equation which neglect any geometry of the flow but describe the Richardson cascade, its properties (e.g. the Kolmogorov energy spectrum) over a wide range of scales and times. In the less understood context of helium II, shell models allow us to explore the interaction of normal fluid and superfluid in the inertial and dissipative ranges in a relatively simple way. What happens at very large length scales [@adzhemyan] where finite-size effects may affect the dynamics of the energy-containing eddies is beyond the scope of this work.
Model
=====
Classical GOY model
-------------------
The classical Navier-Stokes equation is
$$\rho (\frac{\partial {\mathbf {u}}}{\partial t}+{\mathbf {u}}\cdot \nabla {\mathbf {u}})=
- \nabla p
+\mu \nabla^2 {\mathbf {u}},
\label{eq:NS}$$
with the incompressibility condition $\nabla \cdot {\mathbf {u}}=0$, where ${\mathbf {u}}$ is the velocity, $p$ the pressure, $\rho$ the density and $\mu$ the viscosity. Starting from the works of Gledzer [@Gledzer] and Yamada & Okhitani [@Yamada-Okhitani], a variety of shell models have been developed [@Sabra] to study turbulent solutions of Eq. \[eq:NS\]. The GOY model, named after the pioneering authors, is a finite-dimensional dynamical system which describes the dynamics of idealised (complex) Fourier components of the velocity field, $u_m$ corresponding to wavenumber $k_m$; the index $m$ ($m=1,\cdots,M$) is called the shell index. The wavenumbers are geometrically distributed in k-space, $k_m=k_0 \lambda^m$, where $k_0$ is a reference wavenumber and $\lambda>1$. The equations of motion are
$$\left( \frac{d}{dt}+\nu k_m^2 \right) u_m
=G_m[u] + f \delta_{m,m'},
\label{eq:goy}$$
for $m=1,\cdots M$, where $\nu=\mu/\rho$ is the kinematic viscosity, $\delta_{m,m'}$ is Kronecker’s delta, and $f$ is the amplitude of external forcing applied on a particular shell $m=m'$. The inertial term $G_m[u]$ is quadratically nonlinear and local in k-space, coupling $u_m$ with its nearest neighboring shells; more precisely we have
$$G_m[u]=i(c_m^{(1)} \bar{u}_{m+1} \bar{u}_{m+2}
+c_m^{(2)} \bar{u}_{m-1} \bar{u}_{m+1}
+c_m^{(3)} \bar{u}_{m-1} \bar{u}_{m-2}),
\label{eq:G}$$
where $\bar{u}$ denotes the complex conjugate of $u$, and $$c_m^{(1)}=ak_m, \qquad c_m^{(2)}=b k_{m-1}, \qquad c_m^{(3)}=c k_{m-2},
\label{eq:3}$$
The boundary conditions are $u_m=0$ for $m\leq0$, $m>M$ and $$c_1^{(2)}=c_1^{(3)}=c_2^{(3)}=c_{M-1}^{(1)}=c_M^{(1)}=c_M^{(2)}=0,$$
The coefficients $a=1$, $b=-1/2$, $c=-1/2$ and $\lambda=2$ are chosen so that in the steady ($d/dt=0$), unforced ($f=0$), inviscid ($\nu=0$) case the nonlinear interaction conserves the two quadratic invariants of the 3-dimensional Euler equation, energy and helicity, $$E=\frac{1}{V} \int \frac{1}{2} {\mathbf {u}}\cdot {\mathbf {u}}dV,
\qquad
H=\frac{1}{V} \int {{\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}}}\cdot {\mathbf {u}}dV,$$
(where ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}}}=\nabla \times {\mathbf {u}}$ and $V$ is volume) which are identified as
$$E=\frac{1}{2} \sum_{m=1}^M \vert u_m \vert^2
=\sum_{m=1}^M E_m k_m,
\label{eq:energy}$$
where
$$E_m=\frac{\vert u_m \vert^2}{2 k_m},$$
is the spectral energy associated with shell $m$, and
$$H=\frac{1}{2} \sum_{m=1}^M (-1)^m \lambda^m \vert u_m \vert^2.
\label{eq:helicity}$$
Two-fluids equations
--------------------
The two-fluids equations of helium II are [@Donnelly]
$${\rho^s}(\frac{\partial {\mathbf {u}^s}}{\partial t}+{\mathbf {u}^s}\cdot \nabla {\mathbf {u}^s})=
-\frac{{\rho^s}}{\rho} \nabla p +{\rho^s}S \nabla T -{\mathbf {F}}\label{eq:us}$$
$${\rho^n}(\frac{\partial {\mathbf {u}^n}}{\partial t}+{\mathbf {u}^n}\cdot \nabla {\mathbf {u}^n})=
-\frac{{\rho^n}}{\rho} \nabla p -{\rho^s}S \nabla T
+\mu \nabla^2 {\mathbf {u}^n}+{\mathbf {F}}\label{eq:un}$$
with $\nabla \cdot {\mathbf {u}^s}=\nabla \cdot {\mathbf {u}^n}=0$, where $S$ is the specific entropy. Hereafter we denote by ${\nu^n}=\mu/{\rho^n}$ the kinematic viscosity of helium II. If ${\mathbf {F}}=0$ and $\nabla \times {\mathbf {u}^s}={{\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}}^s}=0$, Eqs. \[eq:us\] and \[eq:un\] reduce to Landau’s two-fluids equations, which describe the well-known mechanical and thermal behaviour of helium II in the absence of vortex lines. In the presence of vortices, the mutual friction ${\mathbf {F}}$ which couples the two fluids depends on the vortex line density $L$ (vortex length per unit volume), or, more precisely, on some suitably defined coarse-grained vorticity field ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}}^s}$. Unfortunately the form of ${\mathbf {F}}$ is uncertain. The form given by Hall & Vinen [@Hall] accounts for experiments in rotating cylinders and Taylor-Couette flow [@Barenghi-Couette], in which vortices are either straight or curved, but still polarised in the same direction. In the case of turbulent flow, vortex filaments may be random or partially polarised, so the relation between the coarse-grained vorticity ${{\mbox{\boldmath $\omega$}}^s}$ and the vortex line density $L$ is not clear. Hereafter for the sake of simplicity, we assume the Gorter-Mellink [@gorter-mellink] form
$${\mathbf {F}}=\frac{B {\rho^s}{\rho^n}}{2 \rho} \kappa L ({\mathbf {u}^s}-{\mathbf {u}^n}),
\label{eq:friction}$$
where $B$ is a known temperature dependent mutual friction coefficient. This form for the mutual friction is motivated by dimensional arguments and is consistent with the method employed to measure vortex line density in experiments. It has been widely used in the quantum turbulence literature [@tough; @BDV; @melotte; @Vinen-Niemela; @vinen3he; @Leveque].
Two-fluids GOY model
--------------------
The natural generalization of Eq. \[eq:goy\] to two fluids is
$$\frac{d}{dt} u_m^s
=G_m[u^s] - F_m + f^s \delta_{m,m'},
\label{eq:goy-us}$$
$$\left( \frac{d}{dt}+{\nu^n}k_m^2 \right) u_m^n
=G_m[u^n] + \frac{{\rho^s}}{{\rho^n}}F_m + f^n \delta_{m,m'},
\label{eq:goy-un}$$
where the nonlinear term for each fluid is as in Eq. \[eq:G\], and the mutual friction is $$F_m=\alpha \kappa L(u_m^s-u_m^n).$$
The temperature dependence of the friction coefficient $\alpha=B{\rho^n}/(2 \rho)$ is well-known [@Donnelly-Barenghi]. For consistency, the vortex line density $L$ is not an arbitrary parameter, but is identified as $L=Q^{1/2}/\kappa$ where the superfluid enstrophy $Q$ is $$Q=\sum_{m=1}^M \frac{1}{2} k_m^2 \vert u_m^s \vert^2.$$
Clearly this model, which describes superfluid vorticity as a continuum, is meaningful only for length scales bigger than the average intervortex spacing $\ell \approx L^{-1/2}$, that is to say for wavenumbers $k_m<k_{\ell}=1/{\ell}=L^{1/2}$.
In a recent paper, Roche [[*et al.*]{} ]{}[@Leveque] solved equations similar to our Eqs. \[eq:us\] and \[eq:un\] in the presence of continuous forcing applied to the fluid with the greater density, thus performing the first Direct Numerical Simulations (DNS) of two-fluids hydrodynamics. Unlike our two-fluids shell model, their two-fluids DNS contained an artificial superfluid viscous force ${\nu^s}{\rho^s}\nabla^2 {\mathbf {u}^s}$ at the right hand side of Eq. \[eq:us\]. The introduction of this unphysical term was motivated by numerical analysis. They set the ratio ${\nu^n}/{\nu^s}=4$ to minimize the effect of the artificial viscosity while preserving the stability of the calculation. We stress that our two-fluids shell model (see Eq. \[eq:goy-us\]) does not need such an artificial term. Another related model is the large-eddy calculation of Merahi [[*et al.*]{} ]{}[@Merahi]
Results
=======
Forced Turbulence
-----------------
Unless stated otherwise, the results which we present are obtained by numerically integrating in time Eqs. \[eq:goy-us\] and \[eq:goy-un\] for $M=18$, $k_0=2^{-4}$. The same forcing (typically $f^s=f^n=(1+i) \times 5 \times 10^{-3}$) is applied to shell $m=4$ for both superfluid and normal fluid. A typical initial condition is $u_m^j=(1+i) k_m \exp{(-k_m^2/2)}$,$~(j=n,s)$, for which $E_m^j=k_m \exp{(-k_m^2)}$. The time stepping combines the Crank-Nicolson method for the diffusion term and the Adams-Bashforth method for the other terms; the typical time step is $\Delta t = 5 \times 10^{-6}$. We stop the time integration after the spectrum saturates, making sure that the elapsed time is of the order of 10 large eddy turnover times (about 100 turnover times of the forcing wavenumber), which is typically of the order of $500~\rm s$. We find that, once saturation is achieved, time averaged spectra are the same as ensemble averaged spectra (obtained using randomly phase shifted realisations).
To study the temperature dependence of the results, we consider three temperatures $T=2.157~\rm K$, $1.96~\rm K$ and $1.44~\rm K$ which hereafter we refer to as high, medium and low temperatures [@Leveque]. The values of $\rho^s$, $\rho^n$, $\rho$, $\nu$ and $\alpha$ in TABLE 1. corresponding to these temperatures are
$T$ (K) $\rho^s$ (g/cm$^3$) $\rho^n$ (g/cm$^3$) $\rho$ (g/cm$^3$) $\nu$ (cm$^2$/s) $\alpha$
--------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------- ---------------------- ----------
$2.157$ $0.01510$ $0.12939$ $0.14449$ $1.526\times10^{-4}$ $1.045$
$1.96$ $0.07335$ $0.07221$ $0.14556$ $9.694\times10^{-5}$ $0.245$
$1.44$ $0.13251$ $0.01264$ $0.14515$ $9.538\times10^{-5}$ $0.059$
: Helium parameters used in our calculations.[]{data-label="tab1"}
The resulting normal fluid fractions, $\rho^n/\rho^s$, are approximately $10$, $1$ and $0.1$ for high, medium and low temperatures respectively.
Fig. \[fig1\] (top) shows superfluid and normal fluid spectra at high temperature. It is apparent that superfluid and normal fluid velocity lock onto each other by the mutual friction over many length scales as envisaged by Vinen and Niemela [@Vinen-Niemela] and Barenghi [[*et al.*]{} ]{}[@BHS]. Furthermore a closer inspection of the complex $u_m$ throughout the inertial subrange reveals that $\Re\left(u^n_m\right)=\Re\left(u^s_m\right)$ and $\Im\left(u^n_m\right)=\Im\left(u^s_m\right)$ to at least $4$dp. Both spectra are consistent with the Kolmogorov scaling $k^{-5/3}$ (denoted by the solid line) over a wide inertial range $k_0~\ll~k\ll~k_{\ell}$, as observed in experiments [@Tabeling] and DNS of two-fluids hydrodynamics [@Leveque]. The vertical dotted line denotes the wavenumber $k_{\ell}$ which corresponds to the intervortex spacing. To make the Kolmogorov scaling more evident, we plot the compensated spectra $k^{5/3}~E_k$ (see Fig. \[fig1\] (top,inset)). It is apparent that the superfluid spectrum extends to bigger wavenumbers than the normal fluid’s: this is because there are no viscous forces acting on the superfluid; nevertheless, the superfluid spectrum decays at large $k$ because superfluid motion is damped by mutual friction. We confirmed that the development of a $k^{-5/3}$ spectrum is dependent neither on our choice of initial condition nor on the fact that we force both fluids.
It is instructive to consider the scale-by-scale energy budget per unit mass. Using Eqs. \[eq:goy-us\] and \[eq:goy-un\] and the fact that $$\frac{dE_m}{dt}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac {du_m}{dt}~\bar{u}_m+u_m~\frac{d\bar{u}_m}{dt} \right)$$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{dE^n_m}{dt} &=& T^n_m + D^n_m + M^n_m + \epsilon^n_{inj}\delta_{m,4},
\\[12pt]
\frac{dE^s_m}{dt} &=& T^s_m + M^s_m + \epsilon^s_{inj}\delta_{m,4},\end{aligned}$$ where $$T^j_m = -\Im\left(G_m[u^j]u^j_m\right)$$ are the energy transfer rates arising from the triadic interactions between Fourier modes within each fluid, $$D^n_m = -2{\nu^n}~k^2_mE^n_m$$ is the rate of viscous dissipation in the normal fluid, $$M^n_m = \frac{{\rho^s}}{{\rho^n}}\Re\left(F_m\bar{u}^n_m\right)$$ and $$M^s_m = -\Re\left(F_m\bar{u}^s_m\right)$$ are the rates of exchange of kinetic energy between the two fluids due to mutual friction ($M^n_m$ being the flow of energy from the normal fluid to the superfluid and $M^s_n$ the flow from the superfluid to the normal fluid) and $$\epsilon^j_{inj} = f^n\delta_{m,m'}\Re\left(u^j_m\right)$$ are the rate of influx of energy due to the forcing terms, where $\Re$ and $\Im$ denote real and imaginary parts respectively. The nonlinear triadic interaction $T^j_m$ is defined such that the energy flux at shell $m^*$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^j_m &=& \sum_{m\leq~m^*}T^j_m\\
&=& \Delta^j_{n+1}-(-b-1)\Delta^j_n,\end{aligned}$$ where we define the correlator $$\Delta^j_n = k_{n-1}\Im\left(u^j_{n-1}u^j_nu^j_{n+1}\right),$$ all other terms cancelling due to the conservation of energy.
Fig. \[fig1\] (bottom) shows the energy balance in the inertial range. It is apparent that the total energy flux in each shell is zero (solid black diamond). We find that the normal fluid’s inertial term (hollow red squares) is balanced by the viscous term (blue hollow triangles), as in ordinary turbulence. On the contrary, the superfluid’s inertial term (solid red squares) is balanced by the mutual friction (solid grey circles), in agreement with Roche [[*et al.*]{} ]{}[@Leveque]. The inset of Fig. \[fig1\] (bottom) shows the energy balance over the entire k-space, including the contribution of the forcing on the shell $m=4$. We observe that $M^n_m$ and $M^s_m$ are always of opposite signs, as expected from their definitions, and, almost without exception, $M^n_m>0$ and $M^s_m<0$. Furthermore $D^n_m<0$ for all $m$.
The basic picture did not change when we reduced the temperature to $T=1.96~\rm K$ (Fig. \[fig2\]), and then to $T=1.44~\rm K$ (Fig. \[fig3\]), again in agreement with experiments [@Tabeling]. There are however noticeable differences which develop as the temperature is lowered. At high temperature viscous forces provide a sufficient energy sink for both normal fluid and superfluid. As the temperature drops the normal fluid fraction decreases and the superfluid fraction increases. This reduces the ability of the normal fluid viscosity to adequately dissipate the energy. As $T$ is decreased, both the normal fluid and superfluid spectra extend to the right, towards higher wavenumbers, and the wavenumber, $k_{\ell}$, corresponding to the intervortex spacing, moves progressively to the right. Furthermore at low $T$ in the normal fluid the viscous dissipation is no longer balanced by the inertial term, but by the mutual friction term (see Fig. \[fig3\] bottom).
In their pure states (${\rho^s}=0$ and ${\rho^n}=0$ respectively) we expect the spectrum of the normal fluid to decay exponentially after $k_{\eta}$ (see Eq. \[eq:k1\]), the Kolmogorov microscale at which the inertial term is balanced by the viscous dissipation, and the superfluid to continue to cascade like $k^{-5/3}$; a build-up of energy at high $k$ is thus expected, although the physical interpretation of our model is limited to $k<k_{\ell}$. We can furthermore expect that as we approach these limiting cases the dominant fluid will cause a deviation in the spectrum of the other fluid. L’vov [[*et al.*]{} ]{}[@lvov2006] derived approximate expressions for each of these cases.
At low temperatures (${\rho^s}\gg{\rho^n}$), the normal fluid spectrum, instead of decaying exponentially for $k>k_{\eta}$, deviates slightly from $k^{-5/3}$ due to the force exerted on it by the mutual friction. This continues until the length scale, denoted $k_{\star}$ (see Eq. \[eq:k2\]), at which the viscous dissipation balances the mutual friction. Beyond this wavenumber the normal fluid spectrum decays with a power-law $k^{-17/3}$; not exponentially as in the case of classical turbulence. This power-law decay is valid at least until $k_{\ell}$, the wavenumber corresponding to the inter-vortex spacing, at which point the model for the superfluid is no longer valid.
On the other hand, at high temperatures (${\rho^n}\gg{\rho^s}$), the superfluid spectrum beyond $k_{\eta}$ is affected by the exponentially decaying normal fluid so that it deviates from its $k^{-5/3}$ power-law to a steeper slope $k^{-3}$. This continues for as long as the mutual friction dominates over the superfluid inertial term. At some wavenumber, $k_+$ (see Eq. \[eq:k3\]), this relationship shifts such that the inertial term becomes dominant and the superfluid spectrum regains the $k^{-5/3}$ power-law for as long as the model remains valid ($k<k_{\ell}$).
Following L’vov [@lvov2006], we define $$\begin{aligned}
k_{\eta} &=& \epsilon^{1/4}\nu^{-3/4},
\label{eq:k1}
\\[12pt]
k_{\star} &=& \alpha^{1/2}\left(\frac{{\rho^s}}{{\rho^n}}\right)^{1/2}Q^{1/4}\nu^{-1/2},
\label{eq:k2}
\\[12pt]
k_+ &=& \alpha^{3/2}Q^{3/4}\epsilon^{-1/2},
\label{eq:k3}\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu=\nu^n$ and $\epsilon\equiv-dE/dt$ is the mean energy dissipation (per unit mass), which, in the inertial subrange, is approximately constant. In the context of shell models we define $$\epsilon_m=|u_m|^3k_m.$$ We furthermore find, due to the efficient locking of the superfluid and normal fluid velocities in the inertial subrange, that $\epsilon^n\approx\epsilon^s$, which we refer to as $\epsilon$ in Eqs. (\[eq:k1\],\[eq:k3\]).
We show the deviation at low temperature in (Fig. \[fig4\]), in which we show both power-laws and the critical wavenumbers at which the spectra change. We calculate these wavenumbers in accordance with the approximations derived by L’vov [[*et al.*]{} ]{}[@lvov2006]. The deviations at high temperature are best realised by considering a system of turbulent superfluid $^3$He-B (see below).
As mentioned above, we expect that at a sufficiently low temperature the superfluid energy spectrum builds up at high $k$. This is because the only energy sink for the superfluid is the mutual friction which depends on the presence of the normal fluid to dissipate the superfluid energy. We show the development of the build-up of energy in Fig. \[fig5\]. We produced Fig. \[fig5\] by allowing the fluids to attain fully-developed spectra at high temperature. We then reduced the temperature significantly to a finite, fixed temperature well below our previous low $T$ and monitored the changes in the superfluid spectrum over time. In order to maintain numerical stability, we fixed the values of ${\rho^s}$, ${\rho^n}$ and ${\nu^n}$. Thus the only temperature-dependent variable was $\alpha$, which alone dictates the magnitude of the mutual friction felt by the superfluid. The spectrum is seen to change as progressively more energy moves to higher $k$. This phenomenon highlights the necessity for an energy sink at high $k$ such as the Kelvin wave cascade and phonon emission.
In classical turbulence the Reynolds number, $Re=UD/\nu$, is a measure of the ratio of the inertial and viscous terms, where $U$ and $D$ are the large scale velocity and length scale respectively. The inertial range exists as long as $Re\gg~1$. In the same spirit we may define a quantum Reynolds number as the ratio of the inertial and general dissipative terms, be they due to viscous dissipation or mutual friction. Using this definition we may say that the Reynolds number for the superfluid is temperature-dependent, in agreement with [@Leveque]: both normal fluid and superfluid spectra extend to higher wavenumbers as the temperature is decreased.
We furthermore show the dependence of the vortex line density, $L$, on the Reynolds number. According to Kolmogorov, the ratio of the dissipation scale and the scale of the large eddies is $\delta/D\propto~Re^{-3/4}$. In superfluid turbulence the smallest scale is $\ell\propto~L^{-1/2}$, hence we expect $L\propto~Re^{3/2}$. We show that this scaling holds true by considering $Re$ and $L$ and allowing the forcing to vary between $f=(1+i)\cdot5\cdot10^{-6}$ and $f=(1+i)\cdot5\cdot10^1$ in multiples of $10$ (see Fig. \[fig6\]). This finding agrees with the truncated DNS model of Salort [[*et al.*]{} ]{}[@SRL].
Decaying turbulence
-------------------
To study the decay of turbulence we let $f=0$ and start from saturated spectra as an initial condition. We observe that during the decay both the superfluid and normal fluid spectra maintain their initial shape ($k^{-5/3}$ at low to intermediate values of $k$, followed by a more rapid drop at larger $k$), as shown in Fig. \[fig7\] (top and bottom). The spectra shown in these figures are the result of ensemble averaging over $10$ realisations. We also found that the total turbulent kinetic energy, $E(t)$, where $$E^j(t)=\sum_m\frac{1}{2}|u_m^j(t)|^2,~(j=n,s),$$ and the vortex line density, $L(t)$, decay as $E(t)\propto~t^{-2}$ and $L(t)\propto~t^{-3/2}$ as shown in Figs \[fig8\] and \[fig9\], which is in agreement with experiments [@stalp; @walm1; @walm2] and theoretical models [@SND].
Forced turbulence in superfluid $^3$He-B
----------------------------------------
The other non-radioactive isotope of liquid helium is $^3$He. $^3$He atoms are fermions, having only a single neutron in their nuclei, and achieve superfluidity by the Cooper pairing of two atoms. Although $T_c$ for $^4$He is about $2.17$ K, for $^3$He it is much lower, at about 1 mK. Experimental studies of $^3$He have focused on the so-called B-phase, known as $^3$He-B. The most notable physical property of $^3$He-B is the rapid increase in the normal fluid viscosity below $T_c$, which is proportional to $1/T^2$ [@landau]. In fact the viscosity is so great that for all intents and purposes the normal fluid may be considered to be at rest. We may thus consider such a system to be that of a turbulent superfluid in the presence of a stationary normal fluid. This description is equally applicable to that of high temperature $^4$He in the wavenumber subrange $k\gg~k_{\eta}$. This correspondence has already been noted by L’vov [[*et al.*]{} ]{}[@lvov2006]. A second relevant physical property is the change in its quantum of circulation such that $\kappa=h/2m_3$, or about $2/3$ that of $^4$He, where $m_3$ denotes the mass of a $^3$He atom.
In a theoretical paper Vinen [@vinen3he] showed that in superfluid $^3$He-B the positions of the dissipative subrange and the inertial subrange are reversed, such that the dissipation due to the mutual friction occurs at low wavenumbers whereas the inertial subrange obeying the $k^{-5/3}$ power-law is located at high wavenumbers. His prediction for the wavenumber at which this changeover takes place is in agreement with that of L’vov [[*et al.*]{} ]{}[@lvov2004; @lvov2006]. L’vov [[*et al.*]{} ]{}[@lvov2004] furthermore predicted that the dissipation should follow a $k^{-3}$ power-law, the same power law as that of high temperature $^4$He in the wavenumber subrange $k\gg~k_{\eta}$ [@lvov2006].
In order to model turbulence in $^3$He-B we reduced our two-fluids shell model back to a single-fluid model, replacing viscous dissipation with a dissipation due to mutual friction. The shell model equation then becomes $$\frac{d}{dt} u_m^s
=G_m[u^s] - F_m + f^s \delta_{m,m'},
\label{eq:goy-he3}$$ where the mutual friction is now of the form $$F_m=\alpha \kappa^{^3He} L u_m^s.$$ The temperature dependence of Eq. \[eq:goy-he3\] is controlled by the parameter $\alpha$ alone. Experience has shown that a mutual friction of this form is extremely efficient at dissipating energy and in order to attain a steady spectrum of the kind described in [@vinen3he; @lvov2004; @lvov2006] it is necessary both to reduce $\alpha$ to $O(10^{-2})$ (much below $T_c$ and very close to a pure superfluid state) and to increase the forcing to $O(10^2)$ ($5$ orders of magnitude greater than that used for $^4$He). The numerical results show the spectrum initially decreasing like $k^{-3}$ which subsequently changes to $k^{-5/3}$. The changeover wavenumber is in reasonably good agreement with $k_+$ predicted by L’vov (see Fig. \[fig10\]). We used the following parameters $(M,\lambda,m')=(20,2,4)$.
Discussion
==========
We have developed a two-fluids shell model based on the GOY shell model of classical turbulence. We have shown that, in continually excited turbulence, the mutual friction effectively locks together the normal fluid and superfluid over a wide range of wavenumbers, forming a $k^{-5/3}$ Kolmogorov spectrum. By reducing the temperature and hence the normal fluid fraction, we have shown that this range’s cut-offs are temperature-dependent for both the normal fluid and superfluid. In other words, lowering the temperature leads to longer inertial subranges. This result for the energy spectrum agrees with the experiment of Tabeling [@Tabeling] and the DNS of Roche [[*et al.*]{} ]{}[@Leveque]. The relation which we find between vortex line density and Reynolds number agrees with Salort [[*et al.*]{} ]{}[@SRL]. We have realised the deviations from the $k^{-5/3}$ spectrum due to the mutual friction predicted by L’vov [@lvov2006] for $^4$He at low temperature and by Vinen [@vinen3he] and L’vov [@lvov2004; @lvov2006] for $^3He$-B. In the zero-temperature limit our model develops a build-up of energy at high wavenumbers, highlighting the necessity for an energy sink at high $k$, such as the Kelvin wave cascade and phonon emission [@Bag11b]. Our model shares the common advantage of all shell models: being flexible and computationally inexpensive, it is relatively easy to investigate the decay of turbulence, which would be more difficult with DNS. Our results for the decay of turbulence are in agreement with experiments [@stalp; @walm1; @walm2] and theoretical models [@SND]. We anticipate that our two-fluids model can be used to study other aspects of quantum turbulence.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
One of the authors (CFB) is grateful to F. Toschi for stimulating interest in shell models. We also thank V.S L’vov for his comments. This work was made possible with support from the EPSRC.
![(Colour online). Top: Main plot: Log-log plot of superfluid (blue diamond) and normal fluid (red circle) energy spectra $E_k$ ($\rm{cm}^2~\rm{s}^{-2}$) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\rm{cm}^{-1}$) at $T=2.157~\rm{K}$. The solid line denotes the $k^{-5/3}$ Kolmogorov spectrum. The vertical dotted line marks $k_{\ell}$. Inset: Compensated spectra. As above, but $k^{5/3} E_k$ vs $k$. Bottom: Main plot: Log-lin plots of time-averaged scale-by-scale energy budget $dE_k/dt$ ($\rm{cm}^2~\rm{s}^{-3}$) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\rm{cm}^{-1}$) for the two-fluid model at high temperature ($2.157\rm{K}$). We show the fluxes for the normal fluid (hollow shapes) and superfluid (solid shapes). The main plot shows the balance of fluxes in the normal fluid between the inertial term $T^n_m$ (red squares) and the viscous term $D^n_m$ (blue triangles), and in the superfluid between the inertial term $T^s_m$ (red squares) and the mutual friction term $M^s_m$ (grey circles). We also show the total flux $dE_m/dt$ (black diamonds). Inset: In the inset we show the fluxes over the entire wavenumber range, including the flux due to the external forcing $\epsilon^{n,s}_{inj}$ (light blue line) which is nonzero only at shell $n=4$. The vertical dotted line denotes the time-averaged wavenumber, $k_{\ell}$, corresponding to the intervortex spacing.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1a.eps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"} ![(Colour online). Top: Main plot: Log-log plot of superfluid (blue diamond) and normal fluid (red circle) energy spectra $E_k$ ($\rm{cm}^2~\rm{s}^{-2}$) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\rm{cm}^{-1}$) at $T=2.157~\rm{K}$. The solid line denotes the $k^{-5/3}$ Kolmogorov spectrum. The vertical dotted line marks $k_{\ell}$. Inset: Compensated spectra. As above, but $k^{5/3} E_k$ vs $k$. Bottom: Main plot: Log-lin plots of time-averaged scale-by-scale energy budget $dE_k/dt$ ($\rm{cm}^2~\rm{s}^{-3}$) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\rm{cm}^{-1}$) for the two-fluid model at high temperature ($2.157\rm{K}$). We show the fluxes for the normal fluid (hollow shapes) and superfluid (solid shapes). The main plot shows the balance of fluxes in the normal fluid between the inertial term $T^n_m$ (red squares) and the viscous term $D^n_m$ (blue triangles), and in the superfluid between the inertial term $T^s_m$ (red squares) and the mutual friction term $M^s_m$ (grey circles). We also show the total flux $dE_m/dt$ (black diamonds). Inset: In the inset we show the fluxes over the entire wavenumber range, including the flux due to the external forcing $\epsilon^{n,s}_{inj}$ (light blue line) which is nonzero only at shell $n=4$. The vertical dotted line denotes the time-averaged wavenumber, $k_{\ell}$, corresponding to the intervortex spacing.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1b.eps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}
![(Colour online). Top: Main plot: Log-log plot of superfluid (blue diamond) and normal fluid (red circle) energy spectra $E_k$ ($\rm{cm}^2~\rm{s}^{-2}$) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\rm{cm}^{-1}$) as in \[fig1\] (top) but at $T=1.96~\rm{K}$. The solid line denotes the $k^{-5/3}$ Kolmogorov spectrum. The vertical dotted line marks $k_{\ell}$. Inset: Compensated spectra. As above, but $k^{5/3} E_k$ vs $k$. Bottom: Main plot: Log-lin plots of time-averaged scale-by-scale energy budget $dE_k/dt$ ($\rm{cm}^2~\rm{s}^{-3}$) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\rm{cm}^{-1}$) for the two-fluid model as in \[fig1\] (bottom) but at medium temperature ($1.96\rm{K}$). We show the fluxes for the normal fluid (hollow shapes) and superfluid (solid shapes). The main plot shows the balance of fluxes in the normal fluid between the inertial term $T^n_m$ (red squares) and the viscous term $D^n_m$ (blue triangles), and in the superfluid between the inertial term $T^s_m$ (red squares) and the mutual friction term $M^s_m$ (grey circles). We also show the total flux $dE_m/dt$ (black diamonds). Inset: In the inset we show the fluxes over the entire wavenumber range, including the flux due to the external forcing $\epsilon^{n,s}_{inj}$ (light blue line) which is nonzero only at shell $n=4$. The vertical dotted line denotes the time-averaged wavenumber, $k_{\ell}$, corresponding to the intervortex spacing.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2a.eps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"} ![(Colour online). Top: Main plot: Log-log plot of superfluid (blue diamond) and normal fluid (red circle) energy spectra $E_k$ ($\rm{cm}^2~\rm{s}^{-2}$) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\rm{cm}^{-1}$) as in \[fig1\] (top) but at $T=1.96~\rm{K}$. The solid line denotes the $k^{-5/3}$ Kolmogorov spectrum. The vertical dotted line marks $k_{\ell}$. Inset: Compensated spectra. As above, but $k^{5/3} E_k$ vs $k$. Bottom: Main plot: Log-lin plots of time-averaged scale-by-scale energy budget $dE_k/dt$ ($\rm{cm}^2~\rm{s}^{-3}$) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\rm{cm}^{-1}$) for the two-fluid model as in \[fig1\] (bottom) but at medium temperature ($1.96\rm{K}$). We show the fluxes for the normal fluid (hollow shapes) and superfluid (solid shapes). The main plot shows the balance of fluxes in the normal fluid between the inertial term $T^n_m$ (red squares) and the viscous term $D^n_m$ (blue triangles), and in the superfluid between the inertial term $T^s_m$ (red squares) and the mutual friction term $M^s_m$ (grey circles). We also show the total flux $dE_m/dt$ (black diamonds). Inset: In the inset we show the fluxes over the entire wavenumber range, including the flux due to the external forcing $\epsilon^{n,s}_{inj}$ (light blue line) which is nonzero only at shell $n=4$. The vertical dotted line denotes the time-averaged wavenumber, $k_{\ell}$, corresponding to the intervortex spacing.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2b.eps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}
![(Colour online). Top: Main plot: Log-log plot of superfluid (blue diamond) and normal fluid (red circle) energy spectra $E_k$ ($\rm{cm}^2~\rm{s}^{-2}$) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\rm{cm}^{-1}$) as in \[fig1\] (top) but at $T=1.44~\rm{K}$. The solid line denotes the $k^{-5/3}$ Kolmogorov spectrum. The vertical dotted line marks $k_{\ell}$. Inset: Compensated spectra. As above, but $k^{5/3} E_k$ vs $k$. Bottom: Main plot: Log-lin plots of time-averaged scale-by-scale energy budget $dE_k/dt$ ($\rm{cm}^2~\rm{s}^{-3}$) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\rm{cm}^{-1}$) for the two-fluid model as in \[fig1\] (bottom) but at low temperature ($1.44\rm{K}$). We show the fluxes for the normal fluid (hollow shapes) and superfluid (solid shapes). The main plot shows the balance of fluxes in the normal fluid between the mutual friction term $M^n_m$ (red squares) and the viscous term $D^n_m$ (blue triangles), and in the superfluid between the inertial term $T^s_m$ (red squares) and the mutual friction term $M^s_m$ (grey circles). We also show the total flux $dE_m/dt$ (black diamonds). Inset: In the inset we show the fluxes over the entire wavenumber range, including the flux due to the external forcing $\epsilon^{n,s}_{inj}$ (light blue line) which is nonzero only at shell $n=4$. The vertical dotted line denotes the time-averaged wavenumber, $k_{\ell}$, corresponding to the intervortex spacing.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3a.eps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"} ![(Colour online). Top: Main plot: Log-log plot of superfluid (blue diamond) and normal fluid (red circle) energy spectra $E_k$ ($\rm{cm}^2~\rm{s}^{-2}$) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\rm{cm}^{-1}$) as in \[fig1\] (top) but at $T=1.44~\rm{K}$. The solid line denotes the $k^{-5/3}$ Kolmogorov spectrum. The vertical dotted line marks $k_{\ell}$. Inset: Compensated spectra. As above, but $k^{5/3} E_k$ vs $k$. Bottom: Main plot: Log-lin plots of time-averaged scale-by-scale energy budget $dE_k/dt$ ($\rm{cm}^2~\rm{s}^{-3}$) vs wavenumber $k$ ($\rm{cm}^{-1}$) for the two-fluid model as in \[fig1\] (bottom) but at low temperature ($1.44\rm{K}$). We show the fluxes for the normal fluid (hollow shapes) and superfluid (solid shapes). The main plot shows the balance of fluxes in the normal fluid between the mutual friction term $M^n_m$ (red squares) and the viscous term $D^n_m$ (blue triangles), and in the superfluid between the inertial term $T^s_m$ (red squares) and the mutual friction term $M^s_m$ (grey circles). We also show the total flux $dE_m/dt$ (black diamonds). Inset: In the inset we show the fluxes over the entire wavenumber range, including the flux due to the external forcing $\epsilon^{n,s}_{inj}$ (light blue line) which is nonzero only at shell $n=4$. The vertical dotted line denotes the time-averaged wavenumber, $k_{\ell}$, corresponding to the intervortex spacing.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3b.eps "fig:"){width="60.00000%"}
[99]{}
R.J. Donnelly, Quantized Vortices In Helium II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991.
C.F. Barenghi, R.J. Donnelly and W.F. Vinen, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**52**]{}, 189 (1983).
M.R. Smith, R.J. Donnelly, N. Goldenfeld and W.F. Vinen, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**71**]{}, 2583 (1993).
P.E. Roche, P. Diribarne, T. Didelot, et al. Europhysics Lett. [**77**]{}, 66002 (2007).
J. Salort, C. Baudet, B. Castaing, B. Chabaud, F. Daviaud, T. Didelot, P. Diribarne, B. Dubrulle, Y. Gagne, F. Gauthier, A. Girad, B. Hebral, B. Rousset. P. Thibault. and P.-E. Roche, Phys. of Fluids [**22**]{}, 125102 (2010).
D. Schmoranzer, M. Kralova, V. Pilcova, W.F. Vinen, and L. Skrbek, Phys. Rev. E [**81**]{}, 066316 (2010).
W.F. Vinen and J.J. Niemela, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**128**]{}, 167 (2002).
P.L. Walstrom J.G. Weisend, J.R. Maddocks, and S.W. Van Sciver, Cryogenics [**28**]{}, 101 (1988).
M.R. Smith, D.K. Hilton, and S.W. Van Sciver, Phys. of Fluids [**11**]{}, 751 (1999). J. Maurer and P. Tabeling, Europhys. Lett. [**43**]{}, 29 (1998).
A.W. Baggaley and C.F. Barenghi, Phys. Rev. B [**84**]{}, 020504 (2011).
H. Adachi, S. Fujiyama, and M. Tsubota, Phys. Rev. B [**81**]{}, 104511 (2010).
K.W. Schwarz, Phys. Rev. B [**38**]{}, 2398 (1988). ‘ L. Biferale, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mechanics [**35**]{}, 441 (2003).
U. Frisch, Turbulence: The legacy of A.N. Kolmogorov, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, 1995.
L.Ts. Adzhemyan, M. Hnatich,D. Horvath and M. Stehlik, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 4511 (1998).
E.B. Gledzer, Phys. Dokl. [**18**]{}, 216 (1973).
M. Yamada and K. Ohkitani, J. Phys. Soc. Japan [**56**]{}, 4210 (1987).
V.S. L’vov, E. Podivilov, A. Pomyalov, I. Procaccia. and D. Vandembroucq, Phys. Rev. E [**58**]{}, 1811 (1998).
H.E. Hall and W.F. Vinen, Proc. Roy. Soc A [**238**]{}, 204 (1956); H.E. Hall and W.F. Vinen, Proc. Roy. Soc A [**238**]{}, 215 (1956).
C.F. Barenghi, Phys. Rev. B [**45**]{}, 2290 (1992).
C.J. Gorter and J.H. Mellink, Physica [**15**]{}, 285 (1949).
P.-E. Roche, C.F. Barenghi and E. Leveque, Europhys. Lett. [**87**]{}, 54006 (2009).
J.T. Tough, Progress in Low Temperature Physics, vol. 8, ed. D.F. Brewer (1982).
D.J. Melotte and C.F. Barenghi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**80**]{}, 4181 (1998).
W.F. Vinen, Phys. Rev. B [**71**]{}, 024513 (2005).
R.J. Donnelly and C.F. Barenghi, J. Phys. Chem. Ref. Data [**27**]{}, 1217 (1998).
L. Merahi, P. Sagant and M. Abidat, Europhys. Lett. [**75**]{}, 757 (2006).
C.F. Barenghi, S. Hulton and D.C Samuels, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 275301 (2002).
V.S. L’vov, S.V. Nazarenko and L. Skrbek, J. Low Temp. Phys. [**145**]{}, 125 (2006).
J. Salort, P.-E. Roche, and E. Leveque, Europhys. Lett. [**94**]{}, 24001 (2011).
S.R. Stalp, L. Skrbek and R.J. Donnelly Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 4831 (1999).
P.M. Walmsley, A.I. Golov, H.E. Hall, A.A. Levchenko and W.F. Vinen Phys. Rev. Lett. [**99**]{}, 265302 (2007).
P.M. Walmsley, A.I. Golov, H.E. Hall, W.F. Vinen and A.A. Levchenko J. Low Temp. Phys. [**153**]{}, 127 (2008).
L. Skrbek, J.J. Niemela and R.J. Donnelly, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**85**]{}, 2973 (2000).
L.D. Landau and E.M.Lifshitz, Fluid Mechanics, Pergamon Press, New York, 1987.
V.S. L’vov, S.V. Nazarenko and G.E. Volovik JETP Lett. [**80**]{}, 535 (2004).
A.W. Baggaley and C.F. Barenghi, Phys. Rev. B [**83**]{}, 134509 (2011).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In terms of the exact angular momentum projection, properties of the three dimensional cranked HFB (3d-CHFB) states are analyzed quantitatively in the context of the relation between the signature of an intrinsic symmetry and the parity of angular momentum, $(-1)^I$. We found that the tilted states have favorable features to describe states involved with high-$K$ quantum number and/or odd total angular momentum $I$. This implies that 3d-CHFB can describe properly the backbending phenomena like a “t-band and g-band” crossing, which is suggested in $N$=106 isotones.\
[*Keywords*]{}: signature, tilted axis rotation, angular momentum projection
---
[**Signature and Angular Momentum in 3d-Cranked HFB states**]{}\
[^1]\
[*$^{\rm a}$Institute of Physics, Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, University of Tokyo,\
Komaba, Meguro-ku, Tokyo 153, Japan*]{}\
[*$^{\rm b}$Department of Information System Engineering, Aomori University,\
Kobata, Aomori 030, Japan*]{}\
[*$^{\rm c}$Cyclotron Laboratory, Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (RIKEN),\
Hirosawa 2-1, Wako-city, Saitama 351-01, Japan*]{}\
In microscopic descriptions of rotational motions of atomic nuclei, the cranked Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov(CHFB) method has been a useful and practical approach. It has been successful in analyzing the regular rotational spectra \[\[RS80\]\].
After the discovery of the backbending phenomena, the validity of the method for the application to this angular momentum region came into questions \[\[Ha76\],\[GSF78\]\]. It is because the standard cranking model is based on a semiclassical picture of a deformed wave packet uniformly rotating about an axis. In such a state, the total angular momentum is highly mixed. This mixing may not be a problem in regular rotational bands, in which the intrinsic state changes gradually with increase of angular momentum. On the other hand, the backbending phenomenon involves an abrupt change of structure taking place in a rather short interval of angular momentum due to a crossing of the ground-state band (g-band) with the rotational aligned band (s-band) \[\[SS72\]\]. Therefore, the cranking model may not be so adequate in the backbending region as the regular rotational bands. Self-consistent treatments are expected to mend partially this shortcoming. Hara, Hayashi and Ring \[\[HHR82\]\] applied the method of angular momentum projection to the CHFB states to examine a quality of the states around the backbending region. Their studies are based on the cranking model for rotation about a principal axis of quadrupole deformation (principal axis rotation; PAR). As we will show soon, the PAR-CHFB produces states having mainly even-$I$ and low $K$-quantum number components. This implies that PAR-CHFB is a method analyzing rotational bands associated with even-$I$.
With the intention of exploring yrare states which involve high-$K$ and/or odd-$I$ states, a three-dimensional self-consistent cranking model was proposed \[\[KO81\]\], and a schematic calculation along the line was carried out recently on the basis of HFB for $^{182}$Os \[\[HO94\]\]. The calculation gives rise to interesting results such as a “tilted axis rotating (TAR)” state as a yrast state. In this paper, we study the nature of 3d-CHFB states, which include both PAR and TAR states, by means of the angular momentum projection. We discuss whether the states are adequate for description of a new type of back bending phenomena caused by “tilted rotation” \[\[WD93\],\[PW97\]\].
Walker et al. \[\[WD93\],\[W95\]\] claimed from an experimental point of view ( in $^{180}$W and $^{182}$Os; isotones of N=106 ) that there is a high-$K$ band ($K^{\pi}=8^{+}$) interacting with the g-band and the s-band one after another at $I \sim 16$ in a quite short interval of angular momentum. The yrast becomes the s-band at high spin and the high-$K$ band comes closer to the yrast. It is possible that the high-$K$ band becomes the yrast before the s-band comes down. They speculate that the high-$K$ band can be a “t-band” because the Fermi energy of such nuclei is located in the middle of high-$j$ (i$_{13/2}$) shell and the situation may result in “Fermi alignment” to produce TAR \[\[Fr81\]\]. Such a new type of backbending caused by the “g-t band crossing” may exhibit a characteristic pattern of the signature splitting and, possibly, a signature inversion.
We define in this paper the signature as the symmetry of the $\pi$-rotation about the 1-axis, which is one of principal axes of the quadrupole moments. For PAR, the rotating axis coincides with the 1-axis; the conventional definition of the signature \[\[RS80\]\]. For TAR, the rotating axis is tilted by angle $\theta$ towards the 3-axis.
In our previous work \[\[HOO95\]\], we estimated the signature splitting in terms of the generator coordinate method, in which $\theta$ is chosen as a generator coordinate. We defined the signature as the mirror symmetry with respect to the equatorial plane. In that calculation employing one-dimensional generator coordinate, our definition of the signature is equivalent to the present definition. We assumed that the symmetric(antisymmetric) states are assigned to the even-$I$(odd-$I$) states. This assignment is not obviously accepted and should be examined. In this paper, it is our aim to evaluate quantitatively relationship of signature and the parity of $I$ \[\[T94\]\].
We construct the intrinsic state $\left| \phi \right>$ based on a variational calculation with a generalized BCS wave function that is a vacuum of the corresponding quasiparticles; $ a_i \left| \phi \right> = 0. $ The creation and annihilation operators of the quasiparticles $(a^{\dag}_i, a_i)$ are related to those of the nucleons $(c_m ^{\dag}, c_m)$ via the generalized Bogoliubov transformation, $$\left( \begin{array}{c} a_i \\ a^{\dag}_i \end{array} \right)=
{\cal W^{\dag}}
\left( \begin{array}{c} c_m \\ c^{\dag}_m \end{array}\right),
\quad {\rm with}~~~~~{\cal W}=\left( \begin{array}{cc} U_{mi}& V_{mi}^*\\
V_{mi} & U_{mi}^* \end{array} \right),$$ where ${\cal W}$ is a unitary matrix. Then, we solve the variational equation with constraints, $$\delta \left< \phi \left|\left[ \hat{H} -
{\textstyle \sum_{k=1}^{3}}\left( \mu_k\hat{J}_k
+\xi_k \hat{B}_k\right) -
{\textstyle \sum_{\tau=\pi}^{\nu} }\lambda_{\tau}\hat{N}_{\tau}
\right]\right| \phi \right> = 0,$$ where $\hat{J}_k$ and $\hat{B}_k$ is the $k$th component of total angular momentum and the “boost” operators \[\[KO81\]\], respectively, and $\hat{N}_{\tau}$ is a nucleon number operator. The boost operators are expressed by mass quadrupole tensors $\hat{Q}_{ij}$ as, $$\hat{B}_k = \frac{1}{2}(\hat{Q}_{ij}+\hat{Q}_{ji})~~~
\quad (ijk; {\rm cyclic}),$$ and the constraint reads, $
\left< \phi \left| \hat{B}_k \right| \phi \right>=0,
$ acting to fix the principal axes of the quadrupole deformation. In practice, we solve this equation by the method of steepest descent. More detailed procedures to generate wave functions are presented in Ref.\[\[HO96\]\]. Next, we calculate angular momentum projection matrices. $$\label{intg}
n^I_{KK'}(\theta,\theta ') = \left< \phi (\theta) \left| \hat{P}_{KK^{\prime}}^{I}\right|\phi (\theta ')\right>
~~~~{\rm with}~~~\hat{P}_{KK^{\prime}}^{I} =
\frac{2I+1}{8\pi^{2}}\int d\Omega D^{*I}_{KK'}
(\Omega) \hat{R}(\Omega) .$$ Here, $\hat{R}(\Omega)$ is a rotation operator through the Euler angles, $\Omega \equiv (\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$, and $ D_{KK^{\prime}}^I(\Omega)=
\langle IK \mid \hat{R}(\omega)\mid IK^{\prime}\rangle$ is the Wigner’s function. The states $\left| \phi (\theta)\right>$ and $\left| \phi (\theta ')\right>$ are CHFB solutions with tilting angles $\theta$ and $\theta '$, respectively. Integration is written as, $$\label{intdef}
\int d\Omega \equiv \int_0 ^{2\pi} d\alpha
\int_0 ^{\pi} \sin \beta d\beta
\int_0 ^{2\pi} d\gamma.$$
The overlap kernels, $\displaystyle \left< \phi (\theta) \left|\hat{R}(\Omega)\right|\phi (\theta')\right>$ , are evaluated by using the formulae \[\[OH80\]\], $$\label{oeq}
\left<\phi (\theta)|\hat{R}(\Omega)|\phi (\theta')\right> =\sqrt{{\rm det}\left|P(\Omega)\right|},$$ where $$\label{defp}
P(\Omega)=U(\theta)^{\dag}D^{\dag}(\Omega)U(\theta')
+V(\theta)^{\dag}D^{T}(\Omega)V(\theta').$$ Calculation of the norm kernel has to be carried out with a special caution on choosing the branches of the square root appearing on r.h.s. of eq.(\[oeq\]). In the present work, integration in eq.(\[intg\]) has to be calculated straightforwardly due to the loss of symmetries, which are related to signature, reality of intrinsic states and conjugation of bra and ket. For details of these symmetries, see Ref.\[\[HHR82\]\].
The intrinsic state and the projection operator can be expanded in terms of a complete orthonormal set of angular momentum, $$\left|\phi\right> = \sum_{IK\alpha} g_{K \alpha}^{I} \left|I K \alpha \right>
~~~~{\rm and}~~~\hat{P}^{I}_{KK^{\prime}} =
\sum_{ \alpha} \mid IK \alpha \rangle \langle IK^{\prime} \alpha \mid~,$$ where $\alpha$ indicates labels additional to $I$ and $K$. The probability $w_{K}^{I}$ found in $\left| IK\right>$ is written as, $$w_{K}^{I}=\sum_{\alpha} \left| g_{K\alpha}^I \right|^2 = n^I_{KK},$$ and therefore the probability to find states having a certain value of $I$, is evaluated as, $$W^I = \sum_{K=-I}^{I} w_{K}^{I} = Tr(n^I).$$
Then, we carry out numerical calculations. Let us take a look at the nature of the wave functions generated by 3d-CHFB. Fig.1(a) and Figs.2(a,b) show the probability distributions of $I$ and $K$ in PAR states. The PAR state is obtained under a constraint $\left< J_{x} \right>=13\hbar$, which is in the band crossing region between the g-band and the s-band\[\[HO96\]\]. One observes quite a regular distribution like a Gaussian in the present calculation.
We calculate $\sum_{I} W^{I}$ up to $I=26$; the sum to be 0.96 and 0.86 for $\left< \hat{J}_x \right>=$6 and 13, respectively. We take only $36 \times 91 \times 36 =117936$ integral points $(\Delta \alpha =\Delta \gamma = 10^{\circ}, \Delta\beta=2^{\circ})$, so that we can not obtain values of $N^{I}_{KK}$ for very high $I$ and $\mid K \mid$ values.
In the PAR for $\langle \hat{J}_{x} \rangle = J$ and $\langle \hat{J}_{z}\rangle =\langle \hat{J}_{y}\rangle = 0$, there is a definite signature. Therefore, one would expect that the state contains only even-$I$. As seen in Fig.1(a), this holds quantitatively well. Even-$I$ components occupy $95\%$ for $\langle\hat{J}_x\rangle=13\hbar$. However, one can see that the odd components are also included though their fractions are quite small. This is attributed to $\gamma$-deformation associated with the self-consistent field; The wave function for $\langle {\mbox{\boldmath$J$}} \rangle = 0$ contains only even-$I$ states because $K=0$ and the $R_1$-symmetry. The PAR states are generated by the operator $-\mu_{1}\hat{J}_{1}$, which does not mix states of the different angular momenta. However, our cranking procedure is self-consistent and induces $\gamma$-deformation, which causes mixing of odd-$I$ states. From these facts it is clearly stated that the signature is not an exact but effective quantum number to distinguish the states having even $I$ from odd $I$.
In Figs.2(a,b) presenting the probability distribution $w_{K}^{I}$, the intrinsic states consist mainly of the components with $K = 0$, but there is a finite size of fluctuation around $K \sim 0$. This fluctuation can be explained in terms of quantum fluctuation due to the non-commutative nature among the angular momentum components and the induced $\gamma$-deformation. Because the fluctuation is small, the signature seems effective in PAR-CHFB states. In this sense, it is reasonable to employ the PAR cranking model to describe nuclear rotation in the yrast line. However, it is obvious that the PAR intrinsic states are inappropriate for describing the backbending phenomena caused by “g-t band crossing” because of so small amount of odd $I$.
Fig.1(b) and Figs.2(c,d) illustrate the probability distribution of $I$ and $K$ in TAR states, which are obtained under constraints on the total angular momentum; $\left< J_1 \right>=13 \hbar \cos \theta,
\left< J_2 \right>=0$ and $
\left< J_3 \right>=13 \hbar \sin \theta$. Several characteristic features missing in the PAR states are found . In Fig.1(b) presenting the probability distribution $W^{I}$, one can see that more amounts of odd-$I$ components are contained in the TAR state than in the PAR. Conversely, the amount of the even-$I$ components is decreased to $83\%$ for $\theta=6^{\circ}$. In Figs.2(c,d) presenting the probability distribution $w_{K}^{I}$ for $\theta=6^{\circ}$, one can see that, although $K \sim 0$ components are still dominant, $K \sim 6$ components are also sizable. For a negative tilting angle, the second peak appears at $K \sim -6$.
These are explained by the fact that the TAR breaks the symmetry of the signature of intrinsic state by tilting the rotating axis. As a consequence, the TAR state contains high-$K$ components and odd-$I$ components as well as even-$I$ low-$K$ components.
To restore the signature, we try a signature projection of the TAR states, $$\left|\pm\right>= {\cal N} \left( \left|+\theta\right>
\pm \left|-\theta\right>\right),$$ where a normalization factor ${\cal N}$ is given by $1/\sqrt{2(1 \pm {\rm Re}\langle \theta \mid -\theta \rangle)}$ and $\left|\pm\right>$ express states with ($\pm$)- signature.
After the signature projection, we achieve the angular momentum projection. Fig.1(c) and Figs2.(e-h) show the probability distributions of $I$ and $K$ in signature projected TAR states. For the projected state with (+)-signature, both profiles of $W^{I}$ and $w_{K}^{I}$ resemble to those of the PAR state. Even-$I$ components occupy $89\%$. One can understand this situation as that the tilting angle is small (6$^{\circ}$) and the PAR state has (+)-signature. A different feature between them is that the projected state with (+)-signature contains more amount of high-$K$ components than the PAR. The projected state with ($-$)-signature exhibits distinguished profiles from any of the other states. Even-$I$ and odd-$I$ components are mixed evenly ($50\%$ for the even-$I$) and $K\sim 5$ components appear. Incidentally, in Figs.2(g,h), there are tiny peaks at $K=0$. These peaks are artifacts due to numerical errors.
When the overlap matrix $N_{K\,K^{\prime}}^{I}$ is diagonalized, $$\label{eigeneq}
\sum_{K^{\prime}}N_{K\,K^{\prime}}^{I} g_{K^{\prime}}^{I \nu}
= n_{\nu} ^I g_{K}^{I \nu},$$ the eigenvalues have information on the degree of linear independence of the wave functions, which is called multiplicity\[\[KO77\]\]. The multiplicity is defined as, $$m(I)=\frac{(\sum_{\nu} n_{\nu} ^I)^{2}}{\sum_{\nu} (n_{\nu}^I)^2}
=\frac{ (Tr[n^I])^2}{ Tr[(n^I)^{2}]}.$$ In table 1, the probability $W^{I}$ , the multiplicity $m(I)$ and the largest eigenvalues $n_1 ^I$ are shown for signature unprojected (designated by $(\theta)$), (+)-signature and ($-$)-signature states. In $W^I$, about four times larger odd-$I$ component is included in the ($-$)-signature state than the (+)-signature one while about twice larger even-$I$ components is included in the (+)-signature state than the ($-$)-signature one. The multiplicity shows that every state, except for odd-$I$ ($+,\theta$) states, consists mainly of a state with $n_1 ^I$ because values of the $m(I)$ are close to 1. Indeed, one can see that $W^I$ and $n^I _1$ are close in these cases.
[**Table 1**]{}
There are two conclusions from the present analysis. First, the signature is an effective quantum number associated with an intrinsic symmetry to distinguish between even and odd $I$ states. However, the resolution is not high enough to identify even-odd $I$ in practical discussion of signature splitting in “g-t band crossing”. The angular momentum projection is necessary in the study of yrare states. Second, in the backbending region where the high-$K$ band crosses with the g-band, mixing of even-odd $I$ and high-$K$ quantum numbers are highly expected. Considering relative amounts of even and odd total angular momenta, TAR states are much more adequate for treating dynamics involving odd-$I$ states than PAR states.
The numerical calculations are carried out by the Vector Parallel Processor, Fujitsu VPP500/28 at RIKEN. This work is financially supported in part by the Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Japan (09640338)
[**References**]{}
1. \[RS80\] P. Ring and P. Schuck, “[*Nuclear Many-Body Problem*]{}” (Springer-Verlag 1980)
2. \[Ha76\] I. Hamamoto, Nucl. Phys. A271 (1976) 15
3. \[GSF78\] F. Grümmer et al., Nucl. Phys. A308 (1978) 77
4. \[SS72\] F.S. Stephens and R.S. Simon, Nucl. Phys. A183 (1972) 257
5. \[HHR82\] K. Hara, A. Hayashi and P. Ring, Nucl. Phys. A358 (1982) 14
6. \[KO81\] A. Kerman and N. Onishi, Nucl. Phys. A361 (1981) 179, N. Onishi, Nucl. Phys. A456 (1986) 279
7. \[HO94\] T. Horibata and N. Onishi, Phys. Lett. B325 (1994) 283
8. \[WD93\] P.M. Walker et al., Phys. Lett. B309 (1993) 14
9. \[PW97\] C.J.Pearson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 605
10. \[W95\] P.M.Walker, private communications
11. \[Fr81\] S. Frauendorf, Phys. Scr. 24 (1981) 349
12. \[HOO95\] T. Horibata, M. Oi and N. Onishi, Phys. Lett. B355 (1995) 433
13. \[T94\] N.Tajima, Nucl. Phys. A572 (1994) 365
14. \[HO96\] T. Horibata and N. Onishi, Nucl. Phys. A596 (1996) 251
15. \[OH80\] N. Onishi and T. Horibata, Prog. Theor. Phys 65 (1980) 1650
16. \[KO77\] A. Kerman and N. Onishi, Nucl. Phys. A281 (1977) 373
[**Figure Captions**]{}
Fig.1
: Probability distributions $W^I$. In each graph, even-$I$ and odd-$I$ are drawn separately. (a): PAR states obtained under the angular momentum constraints $\langle J_x \rangle = 6\hbar$(solid lines), $8\hbar$(dash-dot lines), $13\hbar$(dash-dot-dot lines) are compared. (b): TAR states with $\theta = 0^{\circ}$ (solid lines), $2^{\circ}$ (dash-dot lines) and $6^{\circ}$ (dash-dot-dot lines) $\do$ are compared. All of the states are obtained under $\langle J_x \rangle =13\hbar\cos\theta,
\langle J_y \rangle =0$ and $\langle J_z \rangle = 13\hbar\sin\theta$. (c): Signature projected TAR states ($+/-$; solid/dash-dot-dot lines) and a TAR state ($\theta$; dotted line) are compared. Tilting angle is $6^{\circ}$ and the angular momentum constraints are the same as in (b).
Fig.2
: Probability distributions $w_K ^I$. (a): even-$I$ graph of a PAR state obtained under $\langle J_x \rangle = 13 \hbar$. (b): odd-$I$ graph of the same state as in (a). (c): even-$I$ graph of a TAR state having $\theta=6^{\circ}$. The angular momentum constraints are the same as in Fig.1(b). (d): odd-$I$ graph of the same state as in (c). (e): even-$I$ graph of a (+)-signature projected TAR state. The angular momentum constraints and tilting angle are the same as those in Fig.1(c). (f): odd-$I$ graph of the same state as in (e). (g): even-$I$ graph of a ($-$)-signature projected TAR state. The angular momentum constraints and tilting angle are the same as those in Fig.1(c). (h): odd-$I$ graph of the same state as in (g).
[**Table caption**]{}
Table 1
: Probability $W^I$, multiplicity $m(I)$ and the largest eigenvalue of eq.(\[eigeneq\]) $n_1 ^{\nu}$ are presented for each state; $(\theta)$: a TAR state, $(\pm)$: $(\pm)$-signature projected states. Tilting angle is $6^{\circ}$, and the angular momentum constraint is; $\left|\langle {\mbox{\boldmath$J$}}\rangle\right| = 13\hbar$.
[**Numerical values of probability, multiplicity and the largest eigenvalue**]{}\
$I$( sign) $W^{I}$ $m(I)$ $n_{1} ^I$ $I$( sign) $W^{I}$ $m(I)$ $n_{1} ^I$
-------------- --------- -------- ------------ -------------- --------- -------- ------------
11($\theta$) 0.0153 1.93 0.011 12($\theta$) 0.0888 1.40 0.074
11($+$) 0.0108 2.64 0.006 12($+$) 0.0960 1.22 0.087
11($-$) 0.0418 1.30 0.036 12($-$) 0.0470 1.29 0.041
13($\theta$) 0.0181 1.71 0.014 14($\theta$) 0.0889 1.46 0.072
13($+$) 0.0125 2.38 0.008 14($+$) 0.0945 1.25 0.084
13($-$) 0.0511 1.24 0.046 14($-$) 0.0555 1.26 0.049
[^1]: e-mail address: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
address: |
Nuclear Science Division,\
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory\
Berkeley, CA 94720, USA
author:
- 'L.G. MORETTO, L. PHAIR, G.J. WOZNIAK'
title: 'DO PHASE TRANSITIONS SURVIVE BINOMIAL REDUCIBILITY AND THERMAL SCALING?'
---
\#1\#2\#3\#4[[\#1]{} [**\#2**]{}, \#3 (\#4)]{}
Phase transitions, phase coexistence, and charge distributions
==============================================================
Since the early studies of complex fragment emission at intermediate energies, a “liquid vapor phase transition” had been claimed as an explanation for the observed power law dependence of the fragment charge distribution. The basis for such claims was the Fisher droplet theory [@Fis67] which was advanced to explain/predict the clusterization of monomers in vapor. According to this theory, the probability of a cluster of size $m$ is given by: $$P(m)\propto e^\frac{-(\mu _L-\mu _V)m}{kT}m^{-\tau}e^\frac{-c_sm^{2/3}}{kT}$$ where $\mu _L$, $\mu _V$ are the liquid and vapor chemical potentials, $\tau$ is the Fisher critical exponent, $c_s$ the surface energy coefficient for the liquid. For $\mu _V>\mu _L$ the liquid phase is stable and large clusters are found. For $\mu _V<\mu _L$ the vapor is stable and small clusters are present. At the critical temperature the liquid-vapor distinction ends, $\mu _L=\mu _V$ and the surface energy coefficient vanishes. The cluster size distribution assumes a characteristic power law dependence.
A recent analysis of very detailed experiments has claimed not only the demonstration of a near critical regime, but also the determination of other critical coefficients [@Gil94] besides $\tau$. Another recent announcement claiming the discovery of a first order phase transition associated with multifragmentation [@Poc95] has created a vast resonance. Because of the greater simplicity inherent to this subject and because of its relevance to some of our studies, we discuss it here in some detail.
This study claims to have determined the “caloric curve” (sic) of a nucleus, namely the dependence of nuclear temperature on excitation energy. The temperature is determined from isotopic ratios (e.g. $^3$He$^4$He, $^6$Li$^7$Li), while the excitation energy is determined through energy balance. The highlight of this measurement is the discovery of a plateau, or region of constant temperature, which is considered indicative of a first order phase transition from liquid to vapor phase.
Apparently, the “paradigm” the authors have in mind is a standard picture of the diagram temperature $T$ vs enthalpy $H$ for a one component system at . It is not clear whether this experimental curve can be interpreted in terms of equilibrium thermodynamics. If this is the case, several problems arise. For instance, the claimed distinction between the initial rise (interpreted as the fusion-evaporation regime) and the plateau (hinted at as the liquid-vapor phase transition) is not tenable, since evaporation the liquid-vapor phase transition, and no thermodynamic difference exists between evaporation and boiling.
Furthermore, the “caloric curve” requires for its interpretation an additional relationship between the variables $T$, $P$, and $V$. More to the point, the plateau is a very specific feature of the constant pressure condition rather than being a general indicator of a phase transition. For instance, a constant-volume liquid-vapor phase transition is characterized by a plateau but by a monotonic rise in temperature. This can be easily proven by means of the Clapeyron equation, together with the ideal-gas equation for the vapor.
For the nearly ideal-vapor phase ($P=nT$), we write $dP=Tdn+ndT$ where $n$ is the vapor molar density. In order to stay on the univariance line, we need the Clapeyron equation: $dP/dT=\Delta H/(T\Delta V)$ where $\Delta H$ is the molar enthalpy of vaporization and $\Delta V$ is the molar change in volume from liquid to gas. From this we obtain: $n\left( \Delta H-T\right)dT=T^2dn$. At constant pressure $dn$=0, so $dT$=0. For $dn>0$, we see immediately that $dT>0$. Using $dE\approx dn\Delta E$, where $\Delta E$ is the molar heat of vaporization at constant volume, we finally obtain: $$\left.\frac{\partial T}{\partial E} \right\vert _V\approx
\frac{T^2}{n\Delta E^2}=
\frac{1}{n\Delta S^2}.$$ The positive value of this derivative shows that the phase transition at constant volume is characterized by a monotonic increase in temperature.
As an example, Fig. \[water\] shows a standard temperature $T$ vs entropy $S$ diagram for water vapor. The region under the bell is the phase coexistence region. For the constant pressure curves ($\Delta S=\Delta H/T$), the initial rise along the “liquid” curve is associated with pure liquid, the plateau with the liquid-vapor phases, and the final rise with overheated vapor. The constant volume curves, however, ($\Delta S = \Delta E/T$) cut across the coexistence region at an angle, without evidence for a plateau.
Thus the reminiscence of the observed “caloric curve” with “the paradigm of a phase transition” may be more pictorial than substantive, and indicators other than the plateau may be needed to substantiate a possible transition from one to two phases. More specifically, [*an additional relationship*]{} between the three variables $P,T,V$ (like $P$=const, or $V$=const, etc.) [*is needed to interpret a $T$-$E$ diagram unequivocally*]{}.
Triviality of first order phase transitions
===========================================
The great attention to the alleged discovery of first order phase transition in nuclei would suggest that such a phenomenon may be of great significance to our understanding of nuclear systems. In fact, it is easy to show that first order phase transitions are completely trivial. Here are the reasons:
1)If there are two or more phases known or even hypothetically describable, then there will be first order phase transitions.
2\) The thermodynamics of these transitions is determined by the thermodynamical properties of each individual isolated phase. These phases do not affect each other, and do not need to be in contact.
As an example, let us consider Fig. \[molar\], where the molar free energy $F$ at constant $T$ is plotted vs the molar volume for a liquid and the gas phase. Stability of each phase requires each of these curves to be concave. In the region between the points of contact of the common tangent, the free energy is minimized by apportioning the system between the liquid and gas phase. Each phase is defined at the point of tangency, and the segment of the tangent between the two points is the actual free energy of the mixed phase. The slope of the common tangent is the negative of the constant pressure at which the transition takes place. The coexistence region is completely defined by the properties of the liquid at $V_L^M$ and and of the gas at $V_G^M$. Consequently, it is irrelevant whether the liquid is in contact with the vapor or not!
This discussion applies to infinite phases. However, it is simple to introduce finite size effects, e.g. surface effects.
The pressure of a drop is always greater than that of the infinite liquid. In Fig. \[molar\] the common tangent (dashed) becomes steeper, in accordance with the increased free energy of the liquid.
Microcanonical or Canonical Ensemble?
=====================================
Any good textbook of statistical mechanics contains the demonstration that, in the thermodynamic limit, all ensembles are equivalent, i.e. they give the same thermodynamic functions.
In dealing with phase transitions in finite systems one may question whether this equivalence is retained. Let us review the connection between, for instance, the Microcanonical and the Canonical Ensemble.
Let $\rho(E)$ be the microcanonical level density. The corresponding canonical partition function is the Laplace transform $$Z(\beta)=\sum e^{-\beta E_i}\approx \int\rho (E)e^{-\beta E}dE$$ The partition function is usually easier to calculate than the level density. However, the latter can be obtained from the former through the inverse Laplace Transform. $$\rho (E)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int
\hspace{-0.125in}{\Large \circ} Z(\beta)e^{\beta E}d\beta
\label{rho}$$ We can write Eq. (\[rho\]) as $$S_{{\rm Micro}}=\ln\rho (E)=\ln Z_0+\beta _0E-\frac{1}{2}\ln\left( 2\pi\left.
\frac{\partial ^2\ln Z}{\partial \beta ^2}\right| _{\beta _0}\right)$$ where $\beta _0$ corresponds to the stationary point of the integrand. Furthermore, $$S_{{\rm Micro}}=S_{{\rm Can}}-\ln\left(
2\pi\left.\frac{\partial ^2\ln Z_0}{\partial
\beta ^2}\right| _{\beta _0}\right)$$ The first term to the right is of order $N$ while the second is of order $\ln N$.
When $N$ goes to infinity (thermodynamic limit) one can disregard the term of order $\ln N$. For finite $N$ one can easily evaluate the correction term which turns out to be very accurate even for small $N$. For instance, consider a percolation system with $N$ bonds of which $n$ are broken. As an example of a finite system, let us take $N$=6 and $n$=3. The exact expression yield $\rho$=20. The saddle point approximation yields $\rho$=20.6! One can see that with little additional effort one can retain the use of the partition function with little loss of accuracy even for the smallest systems!
Still, in the mind of physicists there is the bias that a microcanonical approach, or its equivalent through the inverse Laplace Transform of the Partition Function, is more correct than the canonical approach because the former conserves energy, while the latter does not.
In fact the microcanonical distribution is given by $$P(E)=\delta\left(E(p,q)-E_0\right).$$ The canonical distribution instead is given by $$P(E)=Ke^{-\beta E(p,q)}.$$ In this case, there are energy fluctuations.
So, which is ultimately the “right” ensemble? If it does not matter, as in the the thermodynamic limit, the point is moot. But for finite systems it matters. However, consider the case of a small system which is a part of a larger system. Let us call the total energy $E$ and that of the small system $\epsilon$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
S(E,\epsilon) & = &S(E,0)+\left.\frac{\partial
S}{\partial\epsilon}\right|_{\epsilon=0}\epsilon+...\nonumber \\
& = & S(E,0)-\frac{\epsilon}{T}+...\end{aligned}$$
Thus $$\rho (E,\epsilon )\approx\rho (E,0)e^{-\epsilon/T}.$$ The energy of the small system is canonically distributed, in a real, physical sense. [*The canonical, or grand canonical distribution very frequently has a direct physical reality and is not an approximation to a “more correct” microcanonical distribution*]{}. For instance, Na clusters in thermal equilibrium with a carrier gas are canonically distributed in energy.
What is the relevance of the above to phase transitions? There are claims that a microcanonical approach yields “sharper” phase transitions than a canonical approach, because of its lack of energy fluctuations. However, any thermodynamic property, including phase transitions, is defined in statistical mechanics as an ensemble average. [*Thus the resulting properties are not properties of the system alone, but they are properties of the ensemble*]{}. So with reference to phase transitions in particular, arguments like “the microcanonical ensemble yield sharper phase transitions compared to the canonical ensemble, and because of that it is better” are meaningless. If the ensemble is canonical, the canonical description is the correct one, irrespective of whether it is sharper or fuzzier than the microcanonical description.
Sharpness of phases and phase transitions
=========================================
Let us consider the free energy of the liquid phase in Fig. \[molar\]. We can expand about the minimum as follows: $$F = F_0+\frac{1}{2}\left.\frac{\partial ^2F}{\partial
V^2}\right|_{\widehat{V}}(\Delta V)^2.$$ The probability of volume fluctuations are then $$P(V)\propto\exp\left[-\frac{(\Delta V)^2}{2\sigma_V^2}\right]$$ where $1/\sigma_V^2=\left.\partial ^2F/\partial
V^2\right|_{\widehat{V}}$. Since $F\propto N$, $\sigma_V^2\propto 1/N$. Therefore important volume (density) fluctuations are to be expected at small $N$. A cluster, or a nucleus, which are not kept artificially at constant density, are going to fluctuate substantially in density.
At coexistence, the correlated fluctuations between the two phases make the sharpness of the phases and of the phase transition even more washed out.
A robust indicator of phase coexistence
=======================================
As we have seen, a “generic” caloric curve of the kind obtained in ref. [@Poc95] is of problematic interpretation because of the difficulty in establishing the additional relation $F(V,T,P)$ associated with the evolution of the system.
On the other hand, theoretical predictions of multifragmentation phase transitions on the basis of calculated discontinuities in the specific heat are suspicious because these calculations are performed at constant volume!
Furthermore, the only meaningful experimental question about phase transitions is whether the system is present in a single phase or there is phase coexistence. In thermodynamical language, we want to know whether the system is monovariant (two phases) or bivariant (one phase).
We have found a robust indicator for just these features in the charge distributions observed in multifragmentation.
The charge distributions depend both on the number $n$ of fragments in the events, and on the excitation energy, measured through the transverse energy $E_t$ [@Phair95; @Moretto96].
It is possible empirically to “reduce” the charge distributions for $n$ fragments to that of just one, and to “scale” the transverse energy effect by means of the following empirical equation $$\sqrt{E_t}\left(\ln P_n(Z)+ncZ\right) = -F(Z)$$ where $F(Z)$ is a universal function of $Z$, and $c$ is a constant. This empirical equation suggests that the charge distributions can be expressed as: $$P_n(Z)\propto e^{-\frac{B(Z)}{T}-ncZ}.
\label{P_nZ}$$ The first term in the exponent was interpreted [@Phair95; @Moretto96] as an energy or enthalpy term, associated with the energy (enthalpy) needed to form a fragment. The second term was claimed to point to an asymptotic entropy associated with the combinatorial structure of multifragmentation. It was observed that a term of this form arises naturally in the charge distribution obtained by the least biased breaking of an integer $Z_0$ into $n$ fragments [@Phair95]. Such a $Z$ distribution is given approximately by: $$P(Z)=\frac{n^2}{Z_0}e^{-\frac{nZ}{Z_0}}=cn^2e^{-cnZ}.
\label{Euler}$$ While this form obviously implies charge conservation, it is not necessary that charge conservation be implemented as suggested by Eq. (\[Euler\]). In fact it is easy to envisage a regime where the quantity $c$ should be zero. Sequential thermal emission is a case in point. Since any fragment does not know how many other fragments will follow its emission, its charge distribution can not reflect the requirement of an unbiased partition of the total charge among $n$ fragments. On the other hand, in a simultaneous emission controlled by a $n$-fragment transition state [@Lop90], fragments would be strongly aware of each other, and would reflect such an awareness through the charge distribution.
The question then arises whether $c=0$ or $c>0$, or even better, whether one can identify a transition from a regime for which $c=0$ to a new regime for which $c>0$. To answer this question, we have studied the charge distributions as a function of fragment multiplicity $n$ and transverse energy $E_t$ for a number of systems and excitation energies. Specifically, we present data for the reaction $^{36}$Ar+$^{197}$Au at $E/A$=80 and 110 MeV and the reaction $^{129}$Xe+$^{197}$Au at $E/A$=50 and 60 MeV in Fig. \[chi2\_c\].
It is interesting to notice that for all reactions and bombarding energies the quantity $c$ starts at or near zero, it increases with increasing $E_t$ for small $E_t$ values, and seems to saturate to a constant value at large $E_t$.
This behavior can be compared to that of a fluid crossing from the region of liquid-vapor coexistence (univariant system) to the region of overheated and unsaturated vapor (bivariant system). In the coexistence region, the properties of the saturated vapor cannot depend on the total mass of fluid. The presence of the liquid phase guarantees mass conservation at all average densities for any given temperature. Hence the vapor properties, and, in particular, the cluster size distributions cannot reflect the total mass or even the mean density of the system. In our notation, $c=0$.
On the other hand, in the region of unsaturated vapor, there is no liquid to insure mass conservation. Thus the vapor itself must take care of this conservation, at least grand canonically. In our notation, $c>0$. In other words we can associate $c=0$ with thermodynamic univariance, and $c>0$ with bivariance.
To test these ideas in finite systems, we have considered a finite percolating system and a system evaporating according to a thermal binomial scheme [@Moretto95; @Ghetti95]. Percolation calculations [@Bau88] were performed for systems of $Z_0$=97, 160 and 400 as a function of the percentage of bonds broken ($p_b$). Values of $c$ were extracted as a function of $p_b$.
The results are shown in Fig. \[percolation\]. For values of $p_b$ smaller than the critical (percolating) value ($p_b^{crit}\approx $ 0.75 for an infinite system), we find $c=0$. This is the region in which a large (percolating) cluster is present. As $p_b$ goes above its critical value, the value of $c$ increases, and eventually saturates in a way very similar to that observed experimentally.
Notice that although the phase transition in the infinite system is second order at $p=p_c$, here the region for which $c=0$ mimics a first order phase transition.
An evaporation calculation was also carried out for the nuclei $^{64}$Cu and $^{129}$Xe according to the thermal binomial scheme [@Moretto95; @Ghetti95]. The only constraint introduced was to prevent at every step the emission of fragments larger than the available source. The resulting charge distributions are very well reproduced by Eq.(\[P\_nZ\]). The extracted quantity $cZ_0$ is plotted in the bottom panel of Fig. \[percolation\] as a function of excitation energy per nucleon. In both cases $cZ_0$ goes from 0 to a positive finite value (equal for both nuclei) as the energy increases. The region where $c=0$ is readily identified with the region where a large residue survives. On the other hand when $c>0$ there is no surviving residue.
These results are in striking agreement with those obtained for percolation. For both kinds of finite systems, the univariant regime ($c=0$) is associated with the presence of a residue while the bivariant regime ($c>0$) with the absence of a residue.
This work was supported by the Director, Office of Energy Research, Office of High Energy and Nuclear Physics, Nuclear Physics Division of the US Department of Energy, under contract DE-AC03-76SF00098.
References
==========
[99]{} M. E. Fischer, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**67**]{}, 615 (1967). M. L. Gilkes [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 1590 (1994). J. Pochodzalla [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 1040 (1995). L. Phair [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**75**]{}, 213 (1995). L.G. Moretto et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. [**76**]{}, 372 (1996). J.A. Lopez and J. Randrup, Nucl. Phys. A [**512**]{}, 345 (1990). L.G. Moretto [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**74**]{}, 1530 (1995). R. Ghetti [*et al.*]{}, to be published. W. Bauer, Phys. Rev. C [**38**]{}, 1297 (1988).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Generating functions for plane overpartitions are obtained using various methods such as nonintersecting paths, RSK type algorithms and symmetric functions. We extend some of the generating functions to cylindric partitions. Also, we show that plane overpartitions correspond to certain domino tilings and we give some basic properties of this correspondence.'
address:
- 'CNRS, LIAFA, Case 7014, Université Paris-Diderot, 75205 Paris Cedex 13, France'
- 'CNRS, LRI, Université Paris-Sud, 91405 Orsay Cedex, France'
- 'Department of Mathematics, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA'
author:
- 'Sylvie Corteel, Cyrille Savelief and Mirjana Vuletić'
title: Plane overpartitions and cylindric partitions
---
Introduction
============
The goal of the first part of this paper is to introduce a new object called plane overpartitions, and to give several enumeration formulas for these plane overpartitions. A [*plane overpartition*]{} is a plane partition where (1) in each row the last occurrence of an integer can be overlined or not and all the other occurrences of this integer are not overlined and (2) in each column the first occurrence of an integer can be overlined or not and all the other occurrences of this integer are overlined. An example of a plane overpartition is $$\begin{array}{llll}
4 & 4 & \bar{4} & \bar{3}\\
\bar{4} & 3 & {3} & \bar{3}\\
\bar{4} & \bar{3} & &\\
{3} & & &\\
\end{array}$$
This paper takes its place in the series of papers on overpartitions started by Corteel and Lovejoy [@CL]. The motivation is to show that the generating function for plane overpartitions is: $$\label{first}
\prod_{n\ge 1}\left(\frac{1+q^n}{1-q^n}\right)^n.$$ In this paper, we give several proofs of this result and several refinements and generalizations. Namely, we prove the following results.
The hook–content formula for the generating function for plane overpartitions of a given shape, see Theorem \[T1\].
The hook formula for the generating function for reverse plane overpartitions, see Theorem \[reverse\].
The generating function formula for plane overpartitions with bounded parts, see Theorem \[boundedparts\].
The goal of the second part of this paper is to extend the generating function formula for cylindric partitions due to Borodin [@Bo] and the following 1-parameter generalized MacMahon’s formula due to the third author of this paper [@V2]: $$\label{genmac}
\sum_{\substack{\Pi \text{ is a} \\ \text{plane
partition}}}A_\Pi(t)q^{|\Pi|} =\prod_{n=1}^\infty
\left(\frac{1-tq^{n}}{1-q^{n}}\right)^{n},$$ where the weight $A_\Pi(t)$ is a polynomial in $t$ that we describe below.
Given a plane partition $\Pi$ (a Ferrers diagram filled with positive integers that form nonincreasing rows and columns), a connected component of $\Pi$ is the set of all connected boxes of its Ferrers diagram that are filled with a same number. If a box $(i,j)$ belongs to a connected component $C$ then we define its level $h(i,j)$ as the smallest positive integer such that $(i+h,j+h)$ does not belong to $C$. A border component of level $i$ is a connected subset of a connected component whose all boxes have level $i$, see Figure \[Fig11\]. We associate to each border component of level $i$, the weight $(1-t^i)$. The polynomial $A_\Pi(t)$ is the product of the weights of its border components. For the plane partition from Figure \[Fig11\] it is $(1-t^{10})(1-t^2)^2(1-t^3)^2$.
\[htp!\] ![A plane partition: border components[]{data-label="Fig11"}](BC3Revised.eps "fig:"){height="4cm"}
We give a new proof of the 1-parameter generalized MacMahon’s formula. We also extend this formula to two more general objects: skew plane partitions and cylindric partitions. Namely, we prove the following results.
1-parameter generalized formula for the generating function for skew plane partitions, see Theorem \[skew\].
1-parameter generalized formula for the generating function for cylindric partitions, see Theorem \[uvodcyl\].
In the rest of this section we give definitions and explain our results in more detail.
A partition $\lambda$ is a nonincreasing sequence of positive integers $(\lambda_1,\ldots ,\lambda_k)$. Each $\lambda_i$ is a part of the partition and the number of parts is denoted by $\ell(\lambda)$. The weight $|\lambda|$ of $\lambda$ is the sum of its parts. A partition $\lambda$ can be graphically represented by the Ferrers diagram that is a diagram formed of $\ell(\lambda)$ left justified rows, where the $i^{th}$ row consists of $\lambda_i$ cells (or boxes). The conjugate of a partition $\lambda$, denoted by $\lambda'$, is a partition that has the Ferrers diagram equal to the transpose of the Ferrers diagram of $\lambda$. For a cell $(i,j)$ of the Ferrers diagram of $\lambda$ the [*hook length*]{} of this cell is $h_{i,j}=\lambda_i+\lambda'_j-i-j+1$ and the [*content*]{} is $c_{i,j}=j-i$. It is well known that the generating function for partitions that have at most $n$ parts is $1/(q)_n$, where $(a)_n:=(a;q)_n=\prod_{i=0}^{n-1}(1-aq^i)$. More definitions on partitions can be found, for example, in [@A] or [@Mac].
An [*overpartition*]{} is a partition where the last occurrence of an integer can be overlined [@CL]. Last occurrences in an overpartition are in one–to–one correspondence with corners of the Ferrers diagram and overlined parts can be represented by marking the corresponding corners. The generating function for overpartitions that have at most $n$ parts is $(-q)_n/{(q)_n}$.
Let $\lambda$ be a partition. A [*plane partition*]{} of shape $\lambda$ is a filling of cells of the Ferrers diagram of $\lambda$ with positive integers that form a nonincreasing sequence along each row and each column. We denote the shape of a plane partition $\Pi$ by $\text{sh}(\Pi)$ and the sum of all entries by $|\Pi|$, called the weight of $\Pi$. It is well known, under the name of MacMahon’s formula, that the generating function for plane partitions is $$\label{planeovergf}
\sum_ {\substack{\Pi \text{ is a}\\ \text{plane
partition}}}q^{|\Pi|}=
\prod_{i=1}^\infty\left(\frac{1}{1-q^i}\right)^i.$$ One way to prove this is to construct a bijection between plane partitions and pairs of semi-standard Young tableaux of the same shape and to use the RSK correspondence between these Young tableaux and certain matrices [@BK].
Recall that a plane overpartition is a plane partition where in each row the last occurrence of an integer can be overlined or not and in each column the first occurrence of an integer can be overlined or not and all the others are overlined. This definition implies that the entries strictly decrease along diagonals, i.e. all connected components are also border components. Therefore, a plane overpartition is a diagonally strict plane partition where some entries are overlined. More precisely, it is easy to check that inside a border component only one entry can be chosen to be overlined or not and this entry is the upper right entry.
Plane overpartitions are therefore in bijection with diagonally strict plane partitions where each border component can be overlined or not (or weighted by 2). Recently, those weighted diagonally strict plane partitions were studied in [@FW; @FW1; @V1; @V2]. The first result obtained was the shifted MacMahon’s formula that says that the generating function for plane overpartitions is indeed equation . This was obtained as a limiting case of the generating function formula for plane overpartitions which fit into an $r\times c$ box, i.e. whose shapes are contained in the rectangular shape with $r$ rows and $c$ columns.
[@FW; @V1]\[osnovna\] The generating function for plane overpartitions which fit in an $r\times c$ box is $$\prod_{i=1}^r\prod_{j=1}^c \frac{1+q^{i+j-1}}{1-q^{i+j-1}}.
% \prod_{n=1}^c \frac{(-q^n)_r}{(q^n)_r}.$$
This theorem was proved in [@FW; @V1] using Schur $P$ and $Q$ symmetric functions and a suitable Fock space. In [@V2] the theorem was proved in a bijective way where an RSK–type algorithm (due to Sagan [@Sa], see also Chapter XIII of [@HH]) was used to construct a bijection between plane overpartitions and matrices of nonnegative integers where positive entries can be overlined.
In Section 2, we give a mostly combinatorial proof of the generalized MacMahon formula [@V2]. Namely, we prove:
[@V2] $$\sum_{\Pi\in {\mathcal P}(r,c)}A_\Pi(t)q^{|\Pi|}
=\prod_{i=1}^r\prod_{j=1}^c \frac{1-tq^{i+j-1}}{1-q^{i+j-1}}.$$ \[mirjana\]
In the above formula, ${\mathcal P}(r,c)$ is the set of plane partitions with at most $r$ rows and $c$ columns. When we set $t=-1$, only the border components of level $1$ have a non–zero weight and we get back Theorem \[osnovna\].
The main result of Section 3 is a hook–content formula for the generating function for plane overpartitions of a given shape. More generally, we give a weighted generating function where overlined parts are weighted by some parameter $a$. Let $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)$ be the set of all plane overpartitions of shape $\lambda$. The number of overlined parts of a plane overpartition $\Pi$ is denoted by $o(\Pi)$. For example, $\Pi=
\begin{array}{llll}
4 & 4 & \bar{4} & \bar{3}\\
\bar{4} & 3 & {3} & \bar{3}\\
\bar{4} & \bar{3} & &\\
\end{array}
$ is a plane overpartition of shape $(4,4,2)$, with $|\Pi|=35$ and $o(\Pi)=6$.
\[T1\] Let $\lambda$ be a partition. The weighted generating function for plane overpartitions of shape $\lambda$ is $$\sum_{\Pi \in \mathcal{S}(\lambda)} a^{o(\Pi)}q^{|\Pi|}=q^{\sum_i
i\lambda_i}\prod_{(i,j)\in\lambda}\frac{1+aq^{c_{i,j}}}{1-q^{h_{i,j}}}.$$
We prove this theorem using using a correspondence between plane overpartitions and sets of nonintersecting paths that use three kinds of steps. (The work of Brenti used similar paths to compute super Schur functions [@Br].) Another way to prove this result is to show that plane overpartitions of shape $\lambda$ are in bijection with super semistandard tableaux of shape $\lambda$. This is presented in a remark in Section \[nonint\].
We also give the weighted generating function formula for plane overpartitions “bounded” by $\lambda$, where by that we mean plane overpartitions such that the $i^{th}$ row of the plane overpartition is an overpartition that has at most $\lambda_{i}$ parts and at least $\lambda_{i+1}$ parts. Let $\mathcal{B}(\lambda)$ be the set of all such plane overpartitions.
\[T2\] Let $\lambda$ be a partition. The weighted generating function for plane overpartitions such that the $i^{th}$ row of the plane overpartition is an overpartition that has at most $\lambda_{i}$ parts and at least $\lambda_{i+1}$ parts is $$\sum_{\Pi \in \mathcal{B}(\lambda)} a^{o(\Pi)}q^{|\Pi|}=q^{\sum_i
(i-1)\lambda_i}\prod_{(i,j)\in\lambda}\frac{1+aq^{c_{i,j}+1}}{1-q^{h_{i,j}}}.$$
Note that it is enough to assign weights to overlined (or nonoverlined) parts only because generating functions where overlined and nonoverlined parts are weighted by $a$ and $b$, respectively, follow trivially from the above formulas.
The number of nonintersecting paths is given by a determinantal formula (Lemma 1 of [@Li]). This result was anticipated by Lindström [@Li] and Karlin and McGregor [@KM1; @KM2], but Gessel and Viennot were first to use it for enumerative purpose of various classes of plane partitions [@GV; @GV1]. Applying the result and evaluating the determinants we obtain hook–content formulas. We use a simple involution to show that the Stanley hook–content formula (Theorem 7.21.2 of [@St2]) follows from our formula.
From the symmetric function point of view, these formulas are given by Schur functions in a difference of two alphabets, as explained in Section 3.
The end of Section 3 is devoted to [*reverse*]{} plane overpartitions. A reverse plane partition of shape $\lambda$ is a filling of cells of the Ferrers diagram of $\lambda$ with nonnegative integers that form a nondecreasing sequence along each row and each column. A reverse plane overpartition is a reverse plane partition where (1) only positive entries can be overlined, (2) in each row the last occurrence of an integer can be overlined or not and (3) in each column the first occurrence of a positive integer can be overlined or not and all others (if positive) are overlined. An example of a reverse plane overpartition is $$\begin{array}{llllll}
0 & 0 & 3 & 4 & 4 & \bar{4}\\
0 & 0 & 4 & \bar{4} &&\\
1&\bar{3} & & &&\\
{3} & \bar{3} & &&\\
\end{array}$$
It was proved by Gansner [@G] that the generating function for reverse plane partitions of a given shape $\lambda$ is $$\prod_{(i,j)\in \lambda}\frac{1}{1-q^{h_{i,j}}}.
\label{gans}$$
Let $\mathcal{S}^R(\lambda)$ be the set of all reverse plane overpartitions of shape $\lambda$. The generating function for reverse plane overpartitions is given by the following hook formula.
Let $\lambda$ be a partition. The generating function for reverse plane overpartitions of shape $\lambda$ is $$\sum_{\Pi \in \mathcal{S}^R(\lambda)}q^{|\Pi|}=\prod_{(i,j)\in
\lambda}\frac{1+q^{h_{i,j}}}{1-q^{h_{i,j}}}.$$ \[reverse\]
We construct a bijection between reverse plane overpartitions of a given shape and sets of nonintersecting paths whose endpoints are not fixed. Using results of [@St] we obtain a Pfaffian formula for the generating function for reverse plane partitions of a given shape. Subsequently, we evaluate the Pfaffian and obtain a proof of the hook formula. When $\lambda$ is the partition with $r$ parts equal to $c$, this result is the generating function formula for plane overpartitions fitting in an $r\times c$, box namely Theorem \[osnovna\].
In Section 4 we make a connection between plane overpartitions and domino tilings. We give some basic properties of this correspondence, such as how a removal of a box or an overline changes the corresponding tiling. This correspondence connects a measure on strict plane partitions studied in [@V2] to a measure on domino tilings. This connection was expected by similarities in correlation kernels, limit shapes and some other features of these measures, but the connection was not established before.
In Section 5 we propose a bijection between matrices and pairs of plane overpartitions based on ideas of Berele and Remmel [@berele:remmel:1985]. We give another stronger version of the shifted MacMahon’s formula, as we give a weighted generating function for plane overpartitions with bounded entries. Let $\mathcal{L}(n)$ be the set of all plane overpartitions with the largest entry at most $n$.
\[boundedparts\] The weighted generating functions for plane overpartitions where the largest entry is at most $n$ is $$\sum_{\Pi \in
\mathcal{L}(n)}a^{o(\Pi)}q^{|\Pi|}=\prod_{j=1}^n \frac{\prod_{i=0}^n(1+aq^{i+j})}{\prod_{i=1}^{j}(1-q^{i+j-1})(1-a^2q^{i+j})}.$$
In Section 6 we study interlacing sequences and cylindric partitions. We say that a sequence of partitions $\Lambda=(\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^T)$ is *interlacing* if $\lambda^i/\lambda^{i+1}$ or $\lambda^{i+1}/\lambda^i$ is a horizontal strip, i.e. a skew shape having at most one cell in each column. Let $A=(A_1,\dots,A_{T-1})$ be a sequence of 0’s and 1’s. We say that an interlacing sequence $\Lambda=(\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^T)$ has *profile* $A$ if when $A_i=1$, respectively $A_i=0$, then $\lambda^i/\lambda^{i+1}$, respectively $\lambda^{i+1}/\lambda^{i}$ is a horizontal strip. Interlacing sequences are generalizations of plane partitions. Indeed plane partitions are interlacing sequences with profile $A=(0,\ldots,0,1,\ldots ,1)$.
\[htp!\] ![The diagram of an interlacing sequence[]{data-label="Fig1"}](IntSeq5Revised.eps "fig:"){height="6cm"}
We now define the *diagram* of an interlacing sequence. See Figure \[Fig1\]. We start with a square grid; we denote the two directions defined by the grid lines with 0 and 1. A profile $A=(A_1,\dots,A_{T-1})$ is represented by a path of length $T+1$ on this grid where the path consists of grid edges whose directions are given by $0,A_1,A_2,\dots,A_{T-1},1$. This path forms the (upper) border of the diagram. Excluding the endpoints of the path we draw the diagonal rays (which form $45^{\circ}$ angles with grid lines) starting at the vertices of the path and we index them (from left to right) with integers from $1$ to $T$. A diagram is a connected subset of boxes of a square grid whose (upper) border is given by the profile path and along the $i^{th}$ diagonal ray there are $\ell(\lambda^i)$ boxes. The filling numbers on the $i^{th}$ diagonal ray are parts of $\lambda^i$ with the largest part at the top. Observe that by the definition of interlacing sequences we obtain monotone sequences of numbers in the direction of grid lines.
A (skew) plane partition and cylindric partition are examples of interlacing sequences. A plane partition can be written as $\Lambda=(\emptyset, \lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^T,\emptyset)$ with profile $A=(0,0,\dots,0,1,\dots,1,1)$ and $\lambda^i$s are diagonals of the plane partition. A skew plane partition is an interlacing sequence $\Lambda=(\emptyset,\lambda^{1},\dots,\lambda^T,\emptyset)$ with a profile $A=(0,A_1,\dots,A_{T-1},1)$. A cylindric partition is an interlacing sequence $\Lambda=(\lambda^0,\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^{T})$ where $\lambda^0=\lambda^T$, and $T$ is called the period of $\Lambda$. A cylindric partition can be represented by the *cylindric diagram* that is obtained from the ordinary diagram by identification of the first and last diagonal.
A [*connected component*]{} of an interlacing sequence $\Lambda$ is the set of rookwise connected boxes of its diagram that are filled with a same number. We denote the number of connected components of $\Lambda$ with $k(\Lambda)$. For the example from Figure \[Fig1\] we have $k(\Lambda)=18$ and its connected components are shown in Figure \[Fig1\] (bold lines represent boundaries of these components).
If a box $(i,j)$ belongs to a connected component $C$ then we define its [*level*]{} $\ell(i,j)$ as the smallest positive integer such that $(i+\ell,j+\ell)$ does not belong to $C$. In other words, a level represents the distance from the “rim”, distance being measured diagonally. A [*border component*]{} is a rookwise connected subset of a connected component where all boxes have the same level. We also say that this border component is of this level. For the example from Figure \[Fig1\], border components and their levels are shown in Figure \[Fig2\] (different levels are represented by different colors).
\[htp!\] ![Border components with levels[]{data-label="Fig2"}](IntSeq14Revised.eps "fig:"){height="4cm"}
Let $(n_1,n_2,\dots)$ be a sequence of nonnegative integers where $n_i$ is the number of $i$–level border components of $\Lambda$. We set $$A_\Lambda(t)=\prod_{i\geq1}(1-t^{i})^{n_i}.
\label{Phi}$$ For the example above $A_\Lambda(t)=(1-t)^{18}(1-t^2)^4(1-t^3)$.
For a cylindric partition $\Pi$, we define [*cylindric connected components*]{} and [*cylindric border components*]{} in the same way but connectedness is understood on the cylinder, i.e. boxes are connected if they are rookwise connected in the cylindric diagram. We define $$A_\Pi^{\text{cyl}}(t)=\prod_{i\geq1}(1-t^{i})^{n^{\text{cyl}}_i},$$ where $n^{\text{cyl}}_i$ is the number of cylindric border components of level $i$.
In Section 6 we give a generating function formula for skew plane partitions. Let $\text{Skew}(T,A)$ be the set of all skew plane partitions $\Lambda=(\emptyset,\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^T,\emptyset)$ with profile $A=(A_0,A_1,\dots,A_{T-1},A_T)$, where $A_0=0$ and $A_T=1$.
(Generalized MacMahon’s formula for skew plane partitions; Hall-Littlewood case) $$\sum_{\Pi \in \text{Skew}(T,A)}A_\Pi(t)q^{|\Pi|}=
\prod_{\substack{0\leq i< j\leq
T\\A_i=0,\,A_j=1}}\frac{1-tq^{j-i}}{1-q^{j-i}}.$$ \[skew\]
Note that as profiles are words in $\{0,1\}$, a profile $A=(A_0,\dots,A_{T})$ encodes the border of a Ferrers diagram $\lambda$. Skew plane partitions of profile $A$ are in one–to–one correspondence with reverse plane partitions of shape $\lambda$. Moreover, one can check that $$\prod_{\substack{0\leq i< j\leq
T\\A_i=0,\,A_j=1}}\frac{1-tq^{j-i}}{1-q^{j-i}}= \prod_{(i,j)\in
\lambda}\frac{1-tq^{h_{i,j}}}{1-q^{h_{i,j}}}.$$ Therefore the theorem of Gansner (equation ) is Theorem \[skew\] with $t=0$ and our Theorem \[reverse\] on reverse plane overpartitions is Theorem \[skew\] with $t=-1$.
This theorem is also a generalization of results of Vuletić [@V2]. In [@V2] a 2–parameter generalization of MacMahon’s formula related to Macdonald symmetric functions was given and the formula is especially simple in the Hall-Littlewood case. In the Hall-Littlewood case, this is a generating function formula for plane partitions weighted by $A_{\Pi}(t)$. Theorem \[skew\] can be naturally generalized to the Macdonald case, but we do not pursue this here.
Let $\text{Cyl}(T,A)$ be the set of all cylindric partitions with period $T$ and profile $A=(A_1,\dots,A_T)$. The main result of Section 6 is:
(Generalized MacMahon’s formula for cylindric partitions; Hall-Littlewood case)\[uvodcyl\] $$\sum_{\Pi \in
\text{Cyl}(T,A)}A^{\text{cyl}}_\Pi(t)q^{|\Pi|}=\prod_{n=1}^{\infty}\frac{1}{1-q^{nT}}
\prod_{\substack{1\leq i,j\leq
T\\A_i=0,\,A_j=1}}\frac{1-tq^{(j-i)_{(T)}+(n-1)T}}{1-q^{(j-i)_{(T)}+(n-1)T}},$$ where $i_{(T)}$ is the smallest positive integer such that $i\equiv
i_{(T)} \text{ mod }T$.
The case $t=0$ is due to Borodin and represents a generating function formula for cylindric partitions. Cylindric partitions were introduced and enumerated by Gessel and Krattenthaler [@GK]. The result of Borodin could be also proven using Theorem 5 of [@GK] and the ${\rm SU}(r)$-extension of Bailey’s $_6\psi_6$ summation due to Gustafson (equation (7.9) in [@GK]) [@Kr]. Again Theorem \[uvodcyl\] can be naturally generalized to the Macdonald case. The trace generating function of those cylindric partitions could also be easily derived from our proof, as done by Okada [@O] for the reverse plane partitions case.\
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we give a mostly combinatorial proof of the generalized MacMahon formula. In Section 3 we use nonintersecting paths and obtain the hook–length formulas for plane overpartitions and reverse plane partitions of a given shape. In Section 4 we make the connection between tilings and plane overpartitions. In Section 5 we construct a bijection between matrices and pairs of plane overpartitions and obtain a generating function formula for plane overpartitions with bounded part size. In Section 6 we give the hook formula for reverse plane partitions contained in a given shape and the 1–parameter generalization of the generating function formula for cylindric partitions. Section 7 contains some concluding remarks.\
[**Acknowledgment.**]{} The authors want to thank Alexei Borodin, the advisor of the third author, for help and guidance and Cédric Boutillier, Dominique Gouyou-Beauchamps, Richard Kenyon and Jeremy Lovejoy for useful discussions. The authors also want to thank one of the anonymous referee for his long list of constructive comments.
Plane partitions and Hall–Littlewood functions
==============================================
In this section, we give an alternative proof of the generalization of MacMahon’s formula due to the third author [@V2]. Our proof is mostly combinatorial as it uses a bijection between plane partitions and pairs of strict plane partitions of the same shape and the combinatorial description of Hall–Littlewood functions ([@Mac], Chapter III, Equation (5.11)).
Let ${\mathcal P}(r,c)$ be the set of plane partitions with at most $r$ rows and $c$ columns. Given a plane partition $\Pi$, let $A_\Pi(t)$ be the polynomial defined in , as $A_\Pi(t)=\prod_{r\ {\rm border}\ {\rm component}}(1-t^{{\rm level}(r)})$.
Recall that Theorem \[mirjana\] states that $$\sum_{\Pi\in {\mathcal P}(r,c)}A_\Pi(t)q^{|\Pi|}
=\prod_{i=1}^r\prod_{j=1}^c \frac{1-tq^{i+j-1}}{1-q^{i+j-1}}.$$
Any plane partition $\Pi$ is in bijection with a sequence of partitions $(\pi^{(1)},\pi^{(2)},\ldots)$. This sequence is such that $\pi^{(i)}$ is the shape of the entries greater than or equal to $i$ in $\Pi$ for all $i$. For example if $$\Pi=\begin{array}{l}
4433\\
3332\\
1 \end{array},$$ the corresponding sequence is $((4,4,1),(4,4), (4,3), (2))$.
Note that the plane partition $\Pi$ is column strict if and only if $\pi^{(i)}/
\pi^{(i+1)}$ is a horizontal strip for all $i$.
We use a bijection between pairs of column strict plane partitions $(\Sigma,\Lambda)$ and plane partitions $\Pi$ due to Bender and Knuth [@BK]. We suppose that $(\Sigma,\Lambda)$ are of the same shape $\lambda$ and that the corresponding sequences are $(\sigma^{(1)},\sigma^{(2)},\ldots)$ and $(\lambda^{(1)},\lambda^{(2)},\ldots)$
Given a plane partition $\Pi=(\Pi_{i,j})$, we define the entries of diagonal $x$ to be the partition $(\Pi_{i,j})$ with $i,j\ge 1$ and $j-i=x$. The bijection is such that the entries of diagonal $x$ of $\Pi$ are $\sigma^{(x+1)}$ if $x\ge 0$ and $\lambda^{(-x-1)}$ otherwise. Note that as $\Lambda$ and $\Sigma$ have the same shape, the entries of the main diagonal ($x=0$) are $\sigma^{(1)}=\lambda^{(1)}$.
For example, start with $$\Sigma=\begin{array}{l}
4444\\
2221\\
111\end{array} \text{ and } \Lambda=\begin{array}{l}
4433\\
3322\\
111\end{array},$$ whose sequences are $((4,4,3),(4,3), (4), (4))$ and $((4,4,3),(4,4), (4,2), (2))$, respectively and get $$\Pi=\begin{array}{l}
4444\\
443\\
443\\
22\end{array}.$$
This construction implies that: $$\begin{aligned}
|\Pi|&=&|\Sigma|+|\Lambda|-|\lambda|\\
A_\Pi(t)&=&\frac{\varphi_{\Sigma}(t)\varphi_{\Lambda}(t)}{b_{\lambda}(t)}.\end{aligned}$$ Here we have $$b_\lambda(t)=\prod_{i\ge 1}\varphi_{m_i(\lambda)}(t), \ \ \ \varphi_r(t)=\prod_{j=1}^{r}(1-t^j),$$ and $$\varphi_{\Lambda}(t)=\prod_{i\ge 1} \varphi_{\lambda^{(i)}/
\lambda^{(i+1)}}(t).$$ Moreover $$\varphi_\theta(t)=\prod_{i\in I}(1-t^{m_i(\lambda)}),$$ where $\theta$ is a horizontal strip $\lambda/\mu$,$m_i(\lambda)$ is the multiplicity of $i$ in $\lambda$ and $I$ is the set of integers such that $\theta'_i=1$ and $\theta'_{i+1}=0$. See [@Mac], Chapter III Sections 2 and 5.
Indeed, the following statements are true.
- Each factor $(1-t^i)$ in $b_{\lambda}(t)$ is in one-to-one correspondence with a border component of level $i$ that goes through the main diagonal of $\Pi$.
- Each factor $(1-t^i)$ in $\varphi_{\Sigma}(t)$ is in one-to-one correspondence with a border component of level $i$ that ends in a non-negative diagonal.
- Each factor $(1-t^i)$ in $\varphi_{\Lambda}(t)$ is in one-to-one correspondence with a border component of level $i$ that starts in a non-positive diagonal.
Continuing with our example, we have $$\varphi_\Sigma(t)=(1-t)^2(1-t^2),\ \ \ \varphi_\Lambda(t)=(1-t)^3(1-t^2),\ \ \
b_{\lambda}(t)=(1-t)^2(1-t^2),$$ and $$A_\Pi(t)=(1-t)^3(1-t^2)=\frac{(1-t)^2(1-t^2)(1-t)^3(1-t^2)}{(1-t)^2(1-t^2)}.$$
We recall the combinatorial definition of the Hall–Littlewood functions following Macdonald [@Mac]. The Hall-Littlewood function $Q_\lambda(x;t)$ can be defined as $$Q_\lambda(x;t)=\sum_{\begin{subarray}{c}\Lambda \\
{\rm sh}(\Lambda)=\lambda\end{subarray}}\varphi_\Lambda(t)x^\Lambda;$$ where $x^\Lambda=x_1^{\alpha_1}x_2^{\alpha_2}\ldots$ and $\alpha_i$ is the number of entries equal to $i$ in $\Lambda$. See [@Mac] Chapter III, equation (5.11).
A direct consequence of the preceding bijection is that the entries of $\Sigma$ are less than or equal to $c$, and the entries of $\Lambda$ are less than or equal to $r$ if and only if $\Pi$ is in ${\mathcal
P}(r,c)$. Therefore : $$\sum_{\Pi\in {\mathcal P}(r,c)}A_\Pi(t)q^{|\Pi|}=
\sum_{\lambda}\frac{Q_{\lambda}(q,\ldots,q^r,0,\ldots;t)
Q_{\lambda}(q^0,\ldots,q^{c-1},0,\ldots;t)}{b_{\lambda}(t)}.$$
Finally, we need equation (4.4) in Chapter III of [@Mac]. $$\sum_{\lambda} \frac{Q_\lambda(x;t)Q_\lambda(y;t)}{b_{\lambda}(t)}=
\prod_{i,j}\frac{1-tx_iy_j}{1-x_iy_j};
\label{cauchy}$$
With the substitutions $x_i=q^i$ for $1\le i\le r$ and $0$ otherwise and $y_j=q^{j-1}$ for $1\le j\le c$ and $0$ otherwise, we get the result.
Nonintersecting paths {#nonint}
=====================
Plane overpartitions of a given shape {#3.1}
-------------------------------------
In this section we represent plane overpartitions as nonintersecting paths. We use the determinantal formula for the number of nonintersecting paths (see [@GV1; @KM1; @KM2; @Li] ). Evaluating these determinants we obtain the hook–content formulas from Theorems \[T1\] and \[T2\]. A similar approach was used for example in [@Br] to compute super Schur functions.
We construct a bijection between the set of paths from $(0,0)$ to $(x,k)$ and the set of overpartitions with at most $k$ parts and the largest part at most $x$. Given an overpartition the corresponding path consists of North and East edges that form the border of the Ferrers diagram of the overpartition except for corners containing an overlined entry where we substitute a pair of North and East edges with an North–East edge. For example, the path corresponding to the overpartition $(6,\bar{6},4,4,\bar{3})$ is shown in Figure \[path\]. Note that this construction appears also in Proposition 2.2 of [@Br].
\[htp!\] ![Paths and overpartitions[]{data-label="path"}](PathsRevised.eps "fig:"){height="3cm"}
To each overpartition $\lambda$ we associate a weight equal to $a^{o(\lambda)}q^{|\lambda|}$, where $o(\lambda)$ is the number of overlined parts. To have the same weight on the corresponding path we introduce the following weights on edges. We assign weight 1 to East edges, $q^i$ to North edges on (vertical) level $i$ and weight $aq^{i+1}$ to North-East edges joining vertical levels $i$ and $i+1$. The weight of the path is equal to the product of weights of its edges.
We will need the following lemma.
[@CL] \[lemaop\]The generating function for overpartitions with at most $k$ parts is given by $$\label{genoverpartitions}
\sum_{l(\lambda)\leq
k}{a^{o(\lambda)}q^{|\lambda|}}=\frac{(-aq)_k}{(q)_k}$$ and the generating function for overpartitions with exactly $k$ parts is given by $$\label{genoverpartitionsprim}
\sum_{l(\lambda)=
k}{a^{o(\lambda)}q^{|\lambda|}}=q^k\frac{(-a)_k}{(q)_k}.$$
For a plane overpartition $\Pi$ of shape $\lambda$ we construct a set of nonintersecting paths using paths from row overpartitions where the starting point of the path corresponding to the $i$th row is shifted upwards by $\lambda_1-\lambda_i+i-1$ so that the starting point is $(0,\lambda_1-\lambda_i+i-1)$. In that way, we obtain a bijection between the set of nonintersecting paths from $(0,\lambda_1-\lambda_i+i-1)$ to $(x,\lambda_1+i-1),$ where $i$ runs from 1 to $\ell(\lambda)$, and the set of plane overpartitions whose $i$th row has at most $\lambda_i$ parts and at least $\lambda_{i-1}$ parts with $x$ greater or equal to the largest part. The weights of this set of nonintersecting paths (the product of weights of its paths) is equal to $a^{o(\Pi)}q^{|\Pi|}$. Figure \[Fig4\] (see also Figure \[Fig6\]) shows the corresponding set of nonintersecting paths for $x=8$ and the plane overpartition $$\begin{array}{lllll}
7&4&\bar{3}&2&\bar{2}\\
3&3&\bar{3}&\bar{2}\\
\bar{3}&2&\bar{1}&&\\
2&&&&
\end{array}.$$
\[htp!\] ![Nonintersecting paths[]{data-label="Fig4"}](NonIntRevised.eps "fig:"){height="4cm"}
\[DefM\] For a partition $\lambda$ we define $M_\lambda(a;q)$ to be the $\ell(\lambda)\times \ell(\lambda)$ matrix whose $(i,j)$th entry is given by $$\frac{(-a)_{\lambda_j+i-j}}{(q)_{\lambda_j+i-j}}.$$
For a partition $\lambda$ let $\mathcal{B}(\lambda)$ and $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)$ be as in the introduction, i.e. the sets of all plane overpartitions bounded by shape $\lambda$ and of the shape $\lambda$, respectively.
\[bounded\] Let $\lambda$ be a partition. The weighted generating function for plane overpartitions whose $i^{th}$ row is an overpartition that has at most $\lambda_{i}$ parts and at least $\lambda_{i+1}$ parts is given by $$\sum_{\Pi \in \mathcal{B}(\lambda)} a^{o(\Pi)}q^{|\Pi|}= \det
M_{\lambda}(aq;q).$$
From (\[genoverpartitions\]) we have that the limit when $x$ runs to infinity of the number of paths from $(0,0)$ to $(x,k)$ is $(-aq)_k/(q)_k$. Using Lemma 1 of [@Li] we have that $ \det M_\lambda(aq;q)$ is the limit when $x$ goes to infinity of the generating function for $\ell(\lambda)$ nonintersecting paths going from $(0,\lambda_1+i-1-\lambda_i)$ to $(x,\lambda_1+i-1)$. Thanks to the bijection between paths and overpartitions this is also the generating function for overpartitions whose $i$th row overpartition has at most $\lambda_{i}$ and at least $\lambda_{i+1}$ parts.
\[gen\] Let $\lambda$ be a partition. The weighted generating function for plane overpartitions of shape $\lambda$ is given by $$\sum_{\Pi \in \mathcal{S}(\lambda)} a^{o(\Pi)}q^{|\Pi|}=
q^{|\lambda|}\det M_{\lambda}(a;q).$$
The proof is the same as the proof of Proposition \[bounded\]. Here we just use (\[genoverpartitionsprim\]) instead of (\[genoverpartitions\]).
The determinant of $M_{\lambda}(a;q)$ is given by the following formula:
$$\label{m}
\det M_{\lambda}(a;q)=q^{\sum_i
(i-1)\lambda_i}\prod_{(i,j)\in\lambda}\frac{1+aq^{c_{i,j}}}{1-q^{h_{i,j}}}.$$
For the proof see for example pages 16–17 of [@GV1] or Theorem 26 (3.11) of [@Kr1].
Using (\[m\]) we obtain the product formulas for the generating functions from Propositions \[bounded\] and \[gen\]. Those are the hook–content formulas given in Theorems \[T1\] and \[T2\].
[**Remark 1.**]{} We give a bijective proof of formula (\[m\]). Indeed Krattenthaler [@Kr0] showed that the weighted generating function of super semistandard Young tableaux of shape $\lambda$ is $$q^{\sum_i(i-1)\lambda_i}\prod_{(i,j)\in\lambda}\frac{1+aq^{c_{i,j}}}{1-q^{h_{i,j}}},$$ where each tableau is weighted by $a^{o(T)}q^{|T|}$. A super semistandard tableau [@Kr0] of shape $\lambda$ is a filling of cells of the Ferrers diagram of $\lambda$ with entries from the ordered alphabet $1 < 2 < 3 < \ldots < \bar{1} < \bar{2} < \bar{3} < \ldots$ such that
- the nonoverlined entries form a column-strict reverse plane partition of some shape $\nu$, where $\nu$ is a partition contained in $\lambda$,
- the overlined entries form a row-strict reverse plane partition of shape $\lambda / \nu$.
We give here a bijection from super semistandard Young tableaux to plane overpartitions. We starting with a super semistandard Young tableau where the nonoverlined (resp. overlined) entries are less than or equal to $k$ (resp. $\ell$). First, change all the entries equal to $a$ by $k+1-a$ and all the entries equal to $\bar{a}$ to $\overline{\ell+1-a}$.
For example, starting with the super semistandard Young tableau with $k=5$ and $\ell=4$ $$\begin{array}{l}
1 3 4 5 5 \bar{2} \bar{4}\\
2 4 5 \bar{1} \bar{2} \bar{3} \bar{4}\\
3 5 \bar{2} \bar{3} \bar{4} \\
4 \bar{1} \bar{3}\\
\bar{3}
\end{array}
\quad \textrm{we obtain} \quad
\begin{array}{l}
5 3 2 1 1 \bar{3} \bar{1}\\
4 2 1 \bar{4} \bar{3} \bar{2} \bar{1}\\
3 1 \bar{3} \bar{2} \bar{1} \\
2 \bar{4} \bar{2}\\
\bar{2}
\end{array}.$$
Now we use the order $0<\bar{1}<1<\bar{2}<2<\bar{3}<3<\ldots $ and we suppose that the cells outside of the shape $\lambda$ are filled with 0. At first all the nonoverlined entries are active. While there is an active part, we choose the smallest active part. If there are more than one, we choose the rightmost one. We swap it with its east or south neighbor, choosing the larger of the two. If they are equal then we choose the east one. We proceed in this way until this part is greater than or equal to both of its neighbors. When we reach this, we declare the part inactive. Continuing with the preceding example and applying the algorithm to the smallest (and rightmost) active part until it becomes inactive we obtain: $$\begin{array}{l}
{\bf 5 3 2 1} {\bf 1} \bar{3} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 4 2 1} \bar{4} \bar{3} \bar{2} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 3 1} \bar{3} \bar{2} \bar{1} \\
{\bf 2} \bar{4} \bar{2}\\
\bar{2}
\end{array} \ \ \ \begin{array}{l}
{\bf 5 3 2 1} \bar{3} {\bf 1} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 4 2 1} \bar{4} \bar{3} \bar{2} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 3 1} \bar{3} \bar{2} \bar{1} \\
{\bf 2} \bar{4} \bar{2}\\
\bar{2}
\end{array}\ \ \ \begin{array}{l}
{\bf 5 3 2 1} \bar{3} \bar{2} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 4 2 1} \bar{4} \bar{3} {\bf 1} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 3 1} \bar{3} \bar{2} \bar{1} \\
{\bf 2} \bar{4} \bar{2}\\
\bar{2}
\end{array}$$
Then we move the rest of the active parts. $$\begin{array}{l}
{\bf 5 3 2 } \bar{4} \bar{3} \bar{2} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 4 2 1} \bar{3} 1 { 1} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 3 1} \bar{3} \bar{2} \bar{1} \\
{\bf 2} \bar{4} \bar{2}\\
\bar{2}
\end{array} \ \ \ \begin{array}{l}
{\bf 5 3 2} \bar{4} \bar{3} \bar{2} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 4 2} \bar{3} \bar{2} 1 1 \bar{1}\\
{\bf 3 1} \bar{3} { 1} \bar{1} \\
{\bf 2} \bar{4} \bar{2}\\
\bar{2}
\end{array} \ \ \ \begin{array}{l}
{\bf 5 3 2} \bar{4} \bar{3} \bar{2} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 4 2} \bar{3} \bar{2} 1 1 \bar{1}\\
{\bf 3 } \bar{4} \bar{3} { 1} \bar{1} \\
{\bf 2} \bar{2} {\bf 1} \\
\bar{2}
\end{array} \ \ \ \begin{array}{l}
{\bf 5 3 2} \bar{4} \bar{3} \bar{2} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 4 2} \bar{3} \bar{2} 1 1 \bar{1}\\
{\bf 3 } \bar{4} \bar{3} { 1} \bar{1} \\
{\bf 2} \bar{2} { 1} \\
\bar{2}
\end{array} \ \ \ \begin{array}{l}
{\bf 5 3 } \bar{4} \bar{3} 2 \bar{2} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 4 2 } \bar{3} \bar{2} 1 1 \bar{1}\\
{\bf 3 } \bar{4} \bar{3} { 1} \bar{1} \\
{\bf 2 } \bar{2} {1} \\
\bar{2}
\end{array}$$ $$\begin{array}{l}
{\bf 5 3 } \bar{4} \bar{3} 2 \bar{2} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 4 } \bar{4} \bar{3} \bar{2} 1 1 \bar{1}\\
{\bf 3 } \bar{3} 2 { 1} \bar{1} \\
{\bf 2 } \bar{2} {1} \\
\bar{2}
\end{array} \ \ \ \begin{array}{l}
{\bf 5 3 } \bar{4} \bar{3} 2 \bar{2} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 4 } \bar{4} \bar{3} \bar{2} 1 1 \bar{1}\\
{\bf 3 } \bar{3} 2 { 1} \bar{1} \\
\bar{2} 2 {1} \\
\bar{2}
\end{array} \ \ \ \begin{array}{l}
{\bf 5 } \bar{4} 3 \bar{3} 2 \bar{2} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 4 } \bar{4} \bar{3} \bar{2} 1 1 \bar{1}\\
{\bf 3 } \bar{3} 2 { 1} \bar{1} \\
\bar{2} 2 {1} \\
\bar{2}
\end{array} \ \ \ \begin{array}{l}
{\bf 5 } \bar{4} 3 \bar{3} 2 \bar{2} \bar{1}\\
{\bf 4 } \bar{4} \bar{3} \bar{2} 1 1 \bar{1}\\
{ 3 } \bar{3} 2 { 1} \bar{1} \\
\bar{2} 2 {1} \\
\bar{2}
\end{array} \ \ \ \begin{array}{l}
{\bf 5 } \bar{4} 3 \bar{3} 2 \bar{2} \bar{1}\\
{ 4 } \bar{4} \bar{3} \bar{2} 1 1 \bar{1}\\
{ 3 } \bar{3} 2 { 1} \bar{1} \\
\bar{2} 2 {1} \\
\bar{2}
\end{array}$$
[**Remark 2.**]{} Stanley’s hook–content formula states that the generating function of semistandard Young tableaux of shape $\lambda$ where the entries are less than or equal to $n$ is $$\label{Shc}
q^{\sum(i-1) \lambda_i}\prod_{(i,j)\in\lambda}\frac{1-q^{n+c_{i,j}}}{1-q^{h_{i,j}}}.$$ See Theorem 7.21.2 of [@St2]. Formula (\[m\]) is equivalent to Stanley’s hook formula by Examples I.2.5 and I.3.3 of [@Mac]. Again we can give a bijective argument.
Formula (\[Shc\]) is the weighted generating function of super semistandard tableaux of shape $\lambda$ with $a=-q^n$. Start with a super semistandard Young tableau $T$ of shape $\lambda$ and add $n$ to all the overlined entries. Now transform the tableau into a reverse plane overpartition with the above algorithm using the order $1>\bar{1}>2>\bar{2}>3>\ldots $. This shows that super semistandard Young tableaux $T$ of shape $\lambda$ with weight $(-q^n)^{o(T)}q^{|T|}$ are in bijection with reverse plane overpartitions $\Pi$ of the same shape where the overlined entries are greater than $n$ with weight $(-1)^{o(\Pi)}q^{|\Pi|}$.
Now we define a sign reversing involution on these reverse plane overpartitions. Given such a reverse plane overpartition, if there is at least one part greater than $n$, we choose the uppermost and rightmost part greater than $n$. If this part is overlined, then we take off the overline, otherwise we overline the part. Note that in this case the parity of the number of overlined parts is changed and therefore the weight of the reverse plane overpartition is multiplied by $-1$. If no such part exists, the given reverse plane partition is a semistandard Young tableau of shape $\lambda$ where the entries are less than or equal to $n$.\
Now, we give a generating formula for plane overpartitions with at most $r$ rows and $c$ columns.
\[suma\] The weighted generating function for plane overpartitions with at most $r$ rows and $c$ columns is given by $$\sum_{c\ge \lambda_1\ge \ldots \ge \lambda_{(r-1)/2}\ge 0} \det
M_{(c, \lambda_1, \lambda_1,\ldots , \lambda_{(r-1)/2},
\lambda_{(r-1)/2})}(aq;q)$$ if $r$ is odd, and by $$\sum_{c\ge \lambda_1\ge \ldots \ge \lambda_{r/2}\ge 0} \det
M_{(\lambda_1, \lambda_1,\ldots , \lambda_{r/2},
\lambda_{r/2})}(aq;q)$$ if $r$ is even.
In particular, the weighted generating function for all overpartitions is: $$\sum_{\lambda_1\ge \ldots \ge \lambda_{k}} \det M_{(\lambda_1,
\lambda_1,\ldots , \lambda_{k}, \lambda_{k})}(aq;q).$$
This is a direct consequence of Proposition \[bounded\].
We will use this result to get another “symmetric function” proof of the shifted MacMahon’s formula ([@FW; @V1; @V2]): $$\sum_{\substack{\Pi \text { is a
plane}\\\text{overpartition}}}q^{|\Pi|}=\prod_{n=1}^\infty
\left(\frac{1+q^n}{1-q^n}\right)^n.$$
The weighted shifted MacMahon formula
-------------------------------------
In this section we give the weighted generalization of the shifted MacMahon formula. We use a symmetric function identity to compute the last sum in Proposition \[suma\] since $\det M_\lambda(a;q)$, as we will soon see, has an interpretation in terms of symmetric functions.
A symmetric function of an alphabet (set of indeterminates, also called letters) $\mathbb A$ is a function of letters which is invariant under any permutation of $\mathbb A$. Recall three standard bases for the algebra of symmetric functions: Schur functions $s$, complete symmetric functions $h$ and elementary symmetric functions $e$ (see [@Mac]). The latter two are conveniently given by their generating functions: $$H_t(\mathbb A )=\prod_{a\in A}\frac{1}{1-ta}\quad \text{and} \quad E_t(\mathbb A )=\prod_{a\in A}(1+ta).$$
Algebraic operations on alphabets, such as addition, subtraction and multiplication, can be defined using $\lambda$-rings framework, see Chapters I and II of [@La]. In this framework symmetric functions are seen as ring operators. The addition of two alphabets $\mathbb A$ and $\mathbb B$ is defined naturally as their disjoint union and is denoted by $\mathbb A + \mathbb B$. Obviously, $$H_t(\mathbb A+\mathbb B)=H_t(\mathbb A)H_t(\mathbb B).$$ Subtraction and multiplication are defined by $$H_t(\mathbb A -\mathbb B)=\frac{H_t(\mathbb A)}{H_t(\mathbb B)}, \quad \quad H_t(c\mathbb A)=(H_t(\mathbb A))^{c}, \quad c\in \mathbb C.$$ Analogous relations hold for elementary symmetric functions since $E_t(\mathbb A)=H_{-t}(-\mathbb A)$.
A specialization is an algebra homomorphism between the algebra of symmetric functions and $\mathbb{C}$. If $\rho$ is a specialization and $f$ is a symmetric function we denote its image by $f|_{\rho}$.
Let $\rho(a)$ be a specialization given by $$h_n|_{\rho(a)}=\frac{(-a)_{n}}{(q)_{n}}.$$ Since, for $\lambda={(\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\dots,\lambda_k)}$ $$s_{\lambda}=\det(h_{\lambda_i-i+j})$$ we have from Definition \[DefM\] that $$\label{sym}
s_{\lambda}|_{\rho(a)}=\det M_\lambda(a;q).$$
In the $\lambda$–ring framework, the $q$-binomial theorem (see (2.21) of [@A]) $$\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{(-a)_n}{(q)_n}t^n=\frac{(-at)_\infty}{(t)_\infty}$$ shows that the specialization $\rho(a)$ is equivalent to considering symmetric functions in the difference of two alphabets $1+q+q^2+\cdots$ and $-a-aq-aq^2-\cdots$. Thus, $$s_{\lambda}|_{\rho(a)}=s_\lambda((1+q+q^2+\cdots)-(-a-aq-aq^2-aq^3-\cdots)).$$ The weighted shifted MacMahon formula can be obtained from (\[sym\]) and Proposition \[suma\]. We have $$\sum_{\substack{\Pi \text { is a
plane}\\\text{overpartition}}}a^{o(\pi)}q^{|\Pi|}=\sum_{\lambda_1\geq
\lambda_2\geq\cdots\geq
\lambda_k}s_{(\lambda_1,\lambda_1,\lambda_2,\lambda_2,\dots,\lambda_k,\lambda_k)}|_{\rho(aq)}=\sum_{\lambda'
\text{ even}}s_\lambda|_{\rho(aq)},$$ where $\lambda'$ is the transpose of $\lambda$ and a partition is even if it has even parts.
By Ex. 10 b) on p. 79 of [@Mac] we have $$\sum_{\lambda' \text{
even}}s_\lambda(\mathbb A)t^{|\lambda|/2}=H_t(e_2(\mathbb A)).$$ If instead of $\mathbb A$ we insert a difference of alphabets $\mathbb A=x_1+x_2+\dots$ and $\mathbb B=y_1+y_2+\dots$ then we obtain the following product formula: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_{\lambda' \text{
even}}s_\lambda(\mathbb A - \mathbb B)t^{|\lambda|/2}&=&H_t(e_2(\mathbb A-\mathbb B))\\
&=&H_t\Big(\sum_{1 \leq i < j} x_ix_j+\sum_{1\leq i\leq j} y_iy_j-\sum_{1\leq i,j}x_iy_j\Big)\\
&=&\prod_{1\leq i <j}\frac{1}{1-x_ix_jt}\prod_{1\leq i\leq j}\frac{1}{1-y_iy_jt}\prod_{1 \leq i ,j} (1-x_iy_jt ).\end{aligned}$$ This gives us the weighted shifted MacMahon formula:
The weighted generating formula for plane overpartitions is $$\sum_{\substack{\Pi \text { is a
plane}\\\text{overpartition}}}a^{o(\Pi)}q^{|\Pi|}=
\prod_{i=1}^\infty \frac{(1+aq^i)^{i}}{(1-q^i)^{\lceil
i/2\rceil}(1-a^2q^i)^{\lfloor i/2\rfloor}}.$$ \[propweighted\]
Substituting $x_i=q^{i-1}$ and $y_i=-aq^i$ in the preceding product formula, we get $$\prod_{0\leq i <j}\frac{1}{1-q^{i+j}}\prod_{1 \leq i \leq j}\frac{1}{1-a^2q^{i+j}}\prod_{1 \leq i,j}(1+aq^{i+j-1}).$$
[**Remark.**]{} This proof was suggested to the authors by one of the anonymous referees.
Reverse plane overpartitions
----------------------------
In this section, we construct a bijection between the set of all reverse plane overpartitions and sets of nonintersecting paths whose endpoints are not fixed. We use this bijection and Stembridge’s results [@St] to obtain a Pfaffian formula for the generating function for reverse plane overpartitions of a given shape. Evaluating the Pfaffian we obtain the hook formula for reverse plane overpartitions due to Okada [@O]. Let $\mathcal{S}^R(\lambda)$ be the set of all reverse plane partitions of shape $\lambda$.
\[Okada\] The generating function for reverse plane overpartitions of shape $\lambda$ is $$\sum_{\Pi \in \mathcal{S}^R(\lambda)}q^{|\Pi|}=\prod_{(i,j)\in
\lambda}\frac{1+q^{h_{i,j}}}{1-q^{h_{i,j}}}.$$
We construct a weight preserving bijection between reverse plane overpartitions and sets of nonintersecting paths on a triangular lattice in a similar fashion as in Section \[3.1\]. The lattice consists of East, North and North–East edges. East edges have weight $1$, North edges on (vertical) level $i$ have weight $q^{i+1}$ and North–East edges joining vertical levels $i$ and $i+1$ have weight $q^{i+1}$. The weight of a set of nonintersecting paths $p$ is the product of the weights of their edges and is denoted by $w(p)$. Let $\Pi$ be a reverse plane overpartition whose positive entries form a skew shape $\lambda / \mu$ and let $\ell=\ell(\lambda)$. Then $\Pi$ can be represented by a set of $n$ nonintersecting lattice paths such that
- the departure points are $(0,\mu_i+\ell-i)$ and
- the arrivals points are $(x,\lambda_i+\ell-i)$,
for a large enough $x$ and $i=1,\dots,\ell$. For example let $x=8$, $\lambda=(5,4,2,2)$ and $\mu=(2,1)$. Figure \[Fig44\] shows the corresponding set of nonintersecting paths for the reverse plane overpartition of shape $\lambda/\mu$ $$\begin{array}{llllll}
&&{3}&4&4&\\
&3&{4}&\bar{4}&\\
1&\bar{3}&&&&\\
3&\bar{3}&&&
\end{array}.$$
\[htp!\] ![Nonintersecting paths and reverse plane overpartitions[]{data-label="Fig44"}](NonIntRevRevised.eps "fig:"){height="4cm"}
This implies that all reverse plane overpartitions of shape $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\ldots ,\lambda_\ell)$ can be represented by nonintersecting lattice paths such that
- the departure points are an $\ell$–element subset of $\{(0,i)\ | i\geq 0\}$ and
- the arrivals points are $(x,\lambda_i+\ell-i),$
with $x\rightarrow \infty$.\
Now, for $r_1>r_2>\dots>r_\ell \geq0$ we define $$W(r_1,r_2,\dots,r_\ell)=\lim_{x \to \infty}\sum_{p \in P(x;r_1,\dots,r_\ell)}w(p),$$ where $P(x;r_1,r_2,\dots,r_\ell)$ is the set of all nonintersecting paths joining an $\ell$-element subset of $\{(0,i) | i\geq 0\}$ with $\{(x,r_1),\dots,(x,r_\ell)\}$. Note that for $r_1>r_2>\dots>r_\ell>0$ we have $$\label{rekW}
W(r_1,\dots,r_{\ell},0)=W(r_1-1,\dots,r_\ell-1).$$
By Stembridge’s Pfaffian formula for the sum of the weights of nonintersecting paths where departure points are not fixed (Theorem 3.1 of [@St]) we obtain $$W(r_1,r_2,\dots,r_\ell)=\text{Pf}(D),$$ where if $\ell$ is even $D$ is the $\ell \times \ell$ skew–symmetric matrix defined by $D_{i,j}=W(r_i,r_j)$ for $1\leq i<j\leq \ell$ and if $\ell$ is odd $D$ is the $(\ell+1) \times (\ell+1)$ skew–symmetric matrix defined by $D_{i,j}=W(r_i,r_j)$ for $1\leq i <j\leq \ell$ and $D_{i,\ell+1}=W(r_i)$ for $1\leq i\leq \ell$.
Let $r>s\geq0$. Then $$\begin{aligned}
W(s)&=&\frac{(-q)_s}{(q)_s},\label{forzaf1}\\
W(r,s)
&=&\frac{(-q)_{r}}{(q)_{r}}\cdot\frac{(-q)_s}{(q)_s}\cdot\frac{1-q^{r-s}}{1+q^{r-s}}.\label{forzaf2}\end{aligned}$$
From Lemma \[lemaop\] we have that the generating function for overpartitions with at most $n$ parts is $M(n)=(-q)_n/(q)_n$ and the generating function for overpartitions with exactly $n$ parts is $P(n)=q^n(-1)_n/(q)_n$. This implies that $$\label{pz}
\sum_{i=0}^{n}P(i)=M(n).$$ Moreover, $$W(s)=M(s)=\frac{(-q)_s}{(q)_s}\;\;\;\;\;\text{and}\;\;\;\;\;W(r,0)=M(r-1)=\frac{(-q)_{r-1}}{(q)_{r-1}}.$$
We prove (\[forzaf2\]) by induction on $s$. The formula for the base case $s=0$ holds by the above. So, we assume $s\geq1$.
By Lindström’s determinantal formula (Lemma 1 of [@Li]) we have that $$W(r,s)=\sum_{i=0}^{s}\sum_{j=i+1}^{r}\left(P(r-j)P(s-i)-P(r-i)P(s-j)\right).$$
Summing over $j$ and using (\[pz\]) we obtain $$W(r,s)=\sum_{i=0}^s \left(P(s-i)M(r-i-1)-P(r-i)M(s-1-i)\right).$$ Then $$W(r,s)=W(r-1,s-1)+P(s)M(r-1)-P(r)M(s-1).$$ It is enough to prove that $$\label{kolic}
\frac{P(s)M(r-1)-P(r)M(s-1)}{W(r-1,s-1)}=\frac{2(q^{r}+q^s)}{(1-q^{r})(1-q^s)}$$ and (\[forzaf2\]) follows by induction. Now, $$\begin{aligned}
&&P(s)M(r-1)-P(r)M(s-1)=\\
&&=q^s\frac{(-1)_s}{(q)_s}\cdot\frac{(-q)_{r-1}}{(q)_{r-1}}-q^{r}\frac{(-1)_{r}}{(q)_{r}}\cdot\frac{(-q)_{s-1}}{(q)_{s-1}}\\
&&=\frac{(-q)_{r-1}}{(q)_{r-1}}\cdot\frac{(-q)_{s-1}}{(q)_{s-1}}\cdot\frac{1+q^{r-s}}{1-q^{r-s}}\cdot\frac{2(q^{r}+q^s)}{(1-q^{r})(1-q^s)}.\end{aligned}$$ Using the inductive hypothesis for $W(r-1,s-1)$ we obtain (\[kolic\]).
Let $F_\lambda$ be the generating function for reverse plane overpartitions of shape $\lambda$. Then, using the bijection we have constructed, we obtain $$F_\lambda=W(\lambda_1+\ell-1,\lambda_2+\ell-2,\dots,\lambda_\ell),$$ which, after applying Stembridge’s result, gives us a Pfaffian formula. This Pfaffian formula can be expressed as a product after the following observations.
Let M be $2n \times 2n$ skew–symmetric matrix. One of definitions of the Pfaffian is the following: $$\text{Pf}(M)= \sum_{\pi=(i_1,j_1)\ldots (i_n,j_n)} \text{sgn} (\pi)
M_{i_1,j_1}M_{i_2,j_2}\cdots M_{i_n,j_n},$$ where the sum is over all of perfect matchings (or fixed point free involutions) of $[2n]$. Also, for $r>s>0$, $$\begin{aligned}
W(s)&=&\frac{1+q^s}{1-q^s} W(s-1),\\
{\rm and}\ \ W(r,s)&=&\frac{1+q^r}{1-q^r} \cdot \frac{1+q^s}{1-q^s}W(r-1,s-1).\end{aligned}$$ Then $$F_\lambda=\prod_{j=1}^\ell\frac{1+q^{h_{j,1}}}{1-q^{h_{j,1}}}\cdot F_{\bar{\lambda}},$$ where $\bar{\lambda}=(\lambda_1-1,\dots,\lambda_\ell-1)$ if $\lambda_\ell>1$ and $\bar{\lambda}=(\lambda_1-1,\dots,\lambda_{\ell-1}-1)$ if $\lambda_\ell=1$ (see (\[rekW\]) in this case). Inductively we obtain Theorem \[Okada\].
Domino tilings
==============
In [@V1] a measure on (diagonally) strict plane partitions was studied. Strict plane partitions are plane partitions were all diagonals are strict partitions, i.e. strictly decreasing sequences. They can also be seen as plane overpartitions where all overlines are deleted. There are $2^{k(\Pi)}$ different plane overpartitions corresponding to the same strict plane partition $\Pi$, where $k(\Pi)$ is the number of connected components of $\Pi$.
Alternatively, a strict plane partition can be seen as a subset of $\mathbb{N}\times\mathbb{Z}$ consisting of points $(t,x)$ where $x$ is a part of the diagonal partition indexed by $t$. See Figure \[Fig5\]. We call this set the 2-dimensional diagram of that strict plane partition. The connected components are connected sets (no holes) on the same horizontal line. The 2-dimensional diagram of a plane overpartition is the 2-dimensional diagram of its corresponding strict plane partition.
\[htp!\] ![A strict plane partition and its corresponding 2-dimensional diagram []{data-label="Fig5"}](CorrelationFun5Revised.eps "fig:"){height="5.5cm"}
The measure studied in [@V1] assigns to each strict plane partition a weight equal to $2^{k(\Pi)}q^{|\Pi|}$. The limit shape of this measure is given in terms of the Ronkin function of the polynomial $P(z,w)=-1+z+w+zw$ and it is parameterized on the domain representing half of the amoeba of this polynomial. This polynomial is also related to plane tilings with dominoes. This, as well as some other features like similarities in correlation kernels [@J; @V1] suggested that a connection between this measure and domino tilings is likely to exist.
Alternatively, one can see this measure as a uniform measure on plane overpartitions, i.e. each plane overpartition $\Pi$ has a probability proportional to $q^{|\Pi|}$. In Section \[nonint\] we have constructed a bijection between plane overpartitions and sets of nonintersecting paths. See Figure \[Fig6\]. This figure is obtained from Figure \[Fig4\] by a rotation. Note that the paths are incident with all points in the corresponding 2-dimensional diagram. The paths consist of edges of three different kinds: horizontal (joining $(t,x)$ and $(t+1,x)$), vertical (joining $(t,x+1)$ and $(t,x)$) and diagonal (joining $(t,x+1)$ and $(t+1,x)$). There is a standard way to construct a tiling with dominoes using these paths(see for example [@J]). We explain the process below. An example is given on Figure \[Fig6\].
\[htp!\] ![A plane overpartition and its corresponding domino tiling[]{data-label="Fig6"}](KonacniFinRevised.eps "fig:"){height="6.5cm"}
We start from $\mathbb{R}^2$ and color it in a chessboard fashion such that $(1/4,1/4)$, $(-1/4,3/4)$, $(1/4,5/4)$ and $(3/4,3/4)$ are vertices of a white square. So, the axes of this infinite chessboard form angles of $45$ and $135$ degrees with the axes of $\mathbb{R}^2$. A domino placed on this infinite chessboard can be one of the four types: $(1,1)$, $(-1,-1)$, $(-1,1)$ or $(1,-1)$, where we say that a domino is of type $(x,y)$ if $(x,y)$ is the vector parallel to the vector whose starting, respectively end point is the center of the white, respectively black square of that domino.
Now, take a plane overpartition and represent it on this chessboard by its corresponding set of nonintersecting paths. We cover each edge by a domino that satisfies that the endpoints of that edge are midpoints of sides of the black and white square of that domino. In that way, we obtain a tiling of a part of the plane with dominoes of three types: $(1,1)$, $(-1,-1)$ and $(1,-1)$. More precisely, horizontal edges correspond to $(1,1)$ dominoes, vertical to $(-1,-1)$ and diagonal to $(1,-1)$. To tile the whole plane we fill the rest of it by dominoes of the fourth, $(-1,1)$ type. See Figure \[Fig6\] for an illustration.
In this way, we have established a correspondence between plane overpartitions and plane tilings with dominoes. We now give some of the properties of this correspondence. First, we describe how a tiling changes when we add or remove an overline or we add or remove a box from a plane overpartition. We require that when we add/remove an overline or a box we obtain a plane overpartition again.
In terms of the 2-dimensional diagram of a plane partition, adding an overline can occur at all places where $(t,x)$ is in the diagram and $(t+1,x)$ is not. Adding an overline at $(t,x)$ means that a pair of horizontal and vertical edges, $((t,x),(t+1,x))$ and $((t+1,x),(t+1,x-1))$, is replaced by one diagonal edge, $((t,x),(t+1,x-1))$. This means that the new tiling differs from the old one by replacing a pair of $(1,1)$ and $(-1,-1)$ dominoes by a pair of $(1,-1)$ and $(-1,1)$ dominoes. See Figure \[Fig7\].
\[htp!\] ![Adding an overline[]{data-label="Fig7"}](OverlineFinRevised.eps "fig:"){height="3.2cm"}
Removing an overline is the inverse of adding an overline.
We now explain the operation of removing a box. Observe that if a box can be removed from a plane overpartition then the corresponding part is overlined or it can be overlined to obtain a plane overpartition again. So, it is enough to consider how the tiling changes when we remove an overlined box since we have already considered the case of adding or removing an overline. If we remove an overlined box we change a diagonal edge to a pair of vertical and horizontal edges. If the box was represented by $(t,x)$ in the 2-dimensional diagram then the edge $((t,x),(t+1,x-1))$ is replaced by the pair of $((t,x),(t,x-1))$ and $((t,x-1),(t+1,x-1))$. This means that the new tiling differs from the old one by replacing a pair of $(1,-1)$ and $(-1,1)$ dominoes by a pair of $(1,1)$ and $(-1,-1)$ dominoes. See Figure \[Fig8\].
\[htp!\] ![Removing a box[]{data-label="Fig8"}](RemoveFinRevised.eps "fig:"){height="3.2cm"}
All four operations are described by a swap of a pair of adjacent $(1,1)$ and $(-1,-1)$ dominoes and a pair of adjacent of $(1,-1)$ and $(-1,1)$ dominoes.
We conclude this section by the observation that plane overpartitions of a given shape $\lambda$ and whose parts are bounded by $n$ are in bijection with domino tilings of the rectangle $[-\ell(\lambda)+1,\lambda_1]\times [0,n]$ with certain boundary conditions. These conditions are imposed by the fact that outside of this rectangle nonintersecting paths are just straight lines. We describe the boundary conditions precisely in the proposition below.
The set $\mathcal{S}(\lambda) \cap \mathcal{L}(n)$ of all plane overpartitions of shape $\lambda$ and whose largest part is at most n is in bijection with plane tilings with dominoes where a point $(t,x) \in \mathbb{Z} \times \mathbb{R}$ is covered by a domino of type $(-1,-1)$ if
- $t\leq -\ell(\lambda),$
- $-\ell(\lambda)<t\leq 0$ and $x\geq n,$
- $t = \lambda_i-i+1$ for some $i$ and $x \leq0,$
and a domino of type $(-1,1)$ if
- $t>\lambda_1,$
- $0<t\leq \lambda_1$ and $x\geq n+1/2,$
- $t \neq \lambda_i-i+1$ for all $i$ and $x \leq -1/2.$
The boundary conditions for $\lambda=(5,4,3,1)$ and $n=7$ are shown in Figure \[Fig9\]. The example from Figure \[Fig6\] satisfies these boundary conditions.
\[htp!\] ![Boundary conditions[]{data-label="Fig9"}](TilingBoundRevised.eps "fig:"){height="7cm"}
Robinson-Schensted-Knuth (RSK) type algorithm for plane overpartitions
======================================================================
In this section we are going to give a bijection between certain matrices and pairs of plane overpartitions of the same shape. This bijection is obtained by an algorithm similar to the algorithm RS2 of Berele and Remmel [@berele:remmel:1985] which gives a bijection between matrices and pairs of $(k,\ell)$-semistandard tableaux. These tableaux are super semistandard tableaux, defined in Section 3, where the nonoverlined (resp. overlined) parts are less than or equal to $k$ (resp. $\ell$).
We then apply properties of this algorithm to enumerate plane overpartitions, as done by Bender and Knuth [@BK] for plane partitions.
The RSK algorithm
-----------------
Let $M=\begin{pmatrix}A & B \\C & D\end{pmatrix}$ be a $2n\times 2n$ matrix, made of four $n\times n$ blocks $A,B,C$ and $D$. The blocks $A$ and $D$ are nonnegative integer matrices, and $B$ and $C$ are $\left\{0,1\right\}$ matrices. We denote the set of all such matrices with $\mathcal{M}_n$. We represent a matrix in $\mathcal{M}_n$ by a sequence of pairs of numbers $\begin{pmatrix}i\\j\end{pmatrix}$, $\begin{pmatrix}i\\\bar{j}\end{pmatrix}$, $\begin{pmatrix}\bar{i}\\j\end{pmatrix}$ and $\begin{pmatrix}\bar{i}\\\bar{j}\end{pmatrix}$.
The encoding of $M$ into pairs is made using the following rules:
- for each nonzero entry $a_{ij}$ of $A$, we create $a_{ij}$ pairs $\begin{pmatrix}i\\j\end{pmatrix}$,
- for each nonzero entry $b_{ij}$ of $B$, we create one pair $\begin{pmatrix}i\\\bar{j}\end{pmatrix}$,
- for each nonzero entry $c_{ij}$ of $C$, we create one pair $\begin{pmatrix}\bar{i}\\j\end{pmatrix}$,
- for each nonzero entry $d_{ij}$ of $D$, we create $d_{ij}$ pairs $\begin{pmatrix}\bar{i}\\\bar{j}\end{pmatrix}$.
For example let $M=\begin{pmatrix}0 & 2 & 1 & 0 \\2 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\1 & 1 & 0 &
1 \\0 & 0 & 1 & 1\end{pmatrix}$. After encoding $M$, we obtain
$$\begin{pmatrix}1\\2\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}1\\2\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}1\\\bar{1}\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}2\\1\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}2\\1\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}2\\\bar{1}\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}\bar{1}\\1\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}\bar{1}\\2\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}\bar{1}\\\bar{2}\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}\bar{2}\\\bar{1}\end{pmatrix}, \begin{pmatrix}\bar{2}\\\bar{2}\end{pmatrix}.$$
0.5cm
From now on, we fix the order $\bar{1}<1<\bar{2}<2<\bar{3}<3<...$. We sort the pairs to create a two–line array $L$ such that
- the first line is a nonincreasing sequence,
- if two entries of the first line are equal and overlined (resp. nonoverlined) then the corresponding entries in the second line are in weakly increasing (resp. decreasing) order.
For the example above, after sorting, we obtain the two–line array $$L=\begin{pmatrix}2,2,2,\bar{2},\bar{2},1,1,1,\bar{1},\bar{1},\bar{1}\\
1,1,\bar{1},\bar{1},\bar{2},2,2,\bar{1},1,\bar{2},2\end{pmatrix} .$$ We now describe the *insertion algorithm*. It is based on an algorithm proposed by Knuth in [@K] and quite similar to the algorithm RS2 of [@berele:remmel:1985].
We first explain how to insert a number $j$ into an overpartition $\lambda$ of length $\ell$, so that the sequence $\lambda$ is still an overpartition. If $j$ can be inserted at the end of $\lambda$, then insert and stop. Otherwise, find the smallest part that can be replaced by $j$. Bump this part and insert $j$. At the end we obtain a new overpartition that contains $j$ as a part and whose length is $\ell$ if we bumped a part or $\ell +1$ if $j$ was added at the end and no part was bumped. For example if $\lambda=(4,3,3,\bar{3},2)$ then
- insert 5, obtain $(5,3,3,\bar{3},2)$ and bump 4,
- insert 3, obtain $(4,3,3,3,2)$ and bump $\bar{3}$,
- insert $\bar{3}$, obtain $(4,3,3,\bar{3},2)$ and bump $\bar{3}$,
- insert 1, obtain $(4,3,3,\bar{3},2,1)$ and bump nothing.
To insert $j$ into a plane overpartition $P$ insert $j$ in the first row. If nothing is bumped then stop. Otherwise, insert the bumped part in the second row. If something is bumped from the second row, insert it in the third and so on. Stop when nothing is bumped. For example when $\bar{3}$ is inserted in $$\begin{array}{lllll} 4&3&3&\bar{3}&2\\
3&\bar{3}&2&\\
1&&&&\\
\end{array}
\quad
\textrm{we obtain}
\quad
\begin{array}{lllll} 4&3&3&\bar{3}&2\\
3&\bar{3}&2&\\
\bar{3}&&&&\\
1&&&&\\
\end{array}.$$
We define how to insert a pair $\begin{pmatrix}i\\j\end{pmatrix}$ into a pair of plane overpartitions of the same shape $(P,Q)$. We first insert $j$ in $P$ with the insertion algorithm. If the insertion ends in column $c$ and row $r$ of $P$, then insert $i$ in column $c$ and row $r$ in $Q$. Finally going from the two–line array $L$ to pairs of plane overpartitions of the same shape works as follows: start with two empty plane overpartitions and insert each pair of $L$ going from left to right. This is identical to the classical RSK algorithm [@K].
Continuing with the previous example and applying the insertion algorithm we get $$\begin{array}{ll}
P=\begin{array}{lll} 2&2&2\\
\bar{2}&1&1\\
\bar{2}&\bar{1}&\\
1&&\\
\bar{1}&&\\
\bar{1}&& \end{array}, \ \ \ \ \ \
Q=\begin{array}{lll} 2&2&2\\
\bar{2}&1&1\\
\bar{2}&\bar{1}&\\
1&&\\
\bar{1}&&\\
\bar{1}&& \end{array}\end{array}.$$
Let $\mathcal{L}(n)$ be the set of all plane overpartitions with the largest entry at most $n$.
There is a one-to-one correspondence between matrices $M\in\mathcal{M}_n$ and pairs of plane overpartitions of the same shape $(P,Q) \in \mathcal{L}(n) \times \mathcal{L}(n)$. This correspondence is such that :
- $k$ appears in $P$ exactly $\sum_i a_{ik}+c_{ik}$ times,
- $\bar{k}$ appears in $P$ exactly $\sum_i b_{ik}+d_{ik}$ times,
- $k$ appears in $Q$ exactly $\sum_i a_{ik}+b_{ik}$ times,
- $\bar{k}$ appears in $Q$ exactly $\sum_i c_{ik}+d_{ik}$ times.
The proof is identical to the proof in the case of the RSK algorithm [@K] or the RS2 algorithm [@berele:remmel:1985]. Details are given in [@sav].
If the [insertion algorithm]{} produces $(P,Q)$ with input matrix $M$, then the [insertion algorithm]{} produces $(Q,P)$ with input matrix $M^T$. \[insalg\]
The proof is again analogous to the one in [@K]. Given a two–line array $
\begin{pmatrix}
u_1,\ldots ,u_N\\
v_1,\ldots ,v_N \end{pmatrix}$, we partition the pairs $\begin{pmatrix}u_\ell\\ v_\ell\end{pmatrix}$ in classes such that $\begin{pmatrix}u_k\\ v_k\end{pmatrix}$ and $\begin{pmatrix}u_m\\ v_m\end{pmatrix}$ are in the same class if and only if :
- $u_k\ge u_m$ and if $u_k=u_m$, then $u_m$ is overlined AND
- $v_k\le v_m$ and if $v_k=v_m$, then $v_k$ is overlined.
Then one can sort each class so that the first entries of each pair appear in nonincreasing order and then sort the classes so that the first entries of the first pair of each class are in nonincreasing order. For example if the two–line array is
$
\begin{pmatrix}2,2,2,\bar{2},\bar{2},1,1,1,\bar{1},\bar{1},\bar{1}\\
1,1,\bar{1},\bar{1},\bar{2},2,2,\bar{1},1,\bar{2},2\end{pmatrix}
$,
we get the classes $$C_1=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}2\\1\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}\bar{2}\\\bar{2}\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}1\\2\end{pmatrix}\right\},\ \
C_2=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}2\\1\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}{1}\\{2}\end{pmatrix}\right\},\ \$$ $$C_3=\left\{
\begin{pmatrix}2\\\bar{1}\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}\bar{2}\\\bar{1}\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}1\\ \bar{1}\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}\bar{1}\\1\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}\bar{1}\\\bar{2}\end{pmatrix},\begin{pmatrix}\bar{1}\\2\end{pmatrix} \right\}.\ \$$ If the classes are $C_1,\ldots ,C_d$ with $$C_i=\left\{\begin{pmatrix}u_{i1}\\v_{i1}\end{pmatrix},\ldots ,\begin{pmatrix}u_{in_i}\\v_{in_i}\end{pmatrix}\right\}$$ then the first row of $P$ is $$v_{1n_1},\ldots ,v_{dn_d}$$ and the first row of $Q$ is $$u_{11},\ldots ,u_{d1}.$$ Moreover one constructs the rest of $P$ and $Q$ using the pairs : $$\bigcup_{i=1}^d
\bigcup_{j=1}^{n_i-1}\begin{pmatrix}u_{i,j+1}\\v_{ij}\end{pmatrix}.$$ One can adapt the proof of Lemma 1 of [@K] for a complete proof. This is done in the master thesis of the second author [@sav]. As the two–line array corresponding to $M^T$ is obtained by interchanging the two lines of the array and rearranging the columns, the theorem follows.
This implies that $M=M^T$ if and only if $P=Q$.
There is a one-to-one correspondence between symmetric matrices $M \in \mathcal{M}_n$ and plane overpartitions $P\in \mathcal{L}(n)$. In this correspondence:
- $k$ appears in $P$ exactly $\sum_i a_{ik}+c_{ik}$ times, and
- $\bar{k}$ appears in $P$ exactly $\sum_i b_{ik}+d_{ik}$ times.
\[symmetric\]
Enumeration of plane overpartitions
-----------------------------------
We can get the generating function for plane overpartitions whose largest entry is at most $n$ from Theorem \[symmetric\]. By this bijection, if $M$ is a symmetric matrix of size $2n\times 2n$ with blocks $A,B,C$ and $D$, each of size $n\times n$ corresponding to a plane partition $\Pi \in \mathcal{L}(n)$, we have that $$|\Pi|=\sum_{i,j} i(a_{ij}+b_{ij}+c_{ij}+d_{ij}) \quad \textrm{and}\quad o(\Pi)=\sum_{i,j} b_{ij}+d_{ij}.$$ As $M$ is symmetric, i.e. $a_{ij}=a_{ji}$, $d_{ij}=d_{ji}$ and $b_{ij}=c_{ji}$, we can express the above formulas as $$|\Pi|=\sum_{i,j}(i+j)b_{ij}+\sum_{i} i(a_{ii}+d_{ii}) +\sum_{i<j}
(i+j)(a_{ij}+d_{ij})$$ and $$o(\Pi)=\sum_{i,j} b_{ij}+2\sum_{i<j}d_{ij}+\sum_i d_{ii}.$$
Let ${\mathcal{O}}_n(q,a)=\sum_{\Pi \in \mathcal{L}(n)} a^{o(\Pi)}q^{|\Pi|}$. We are now ready to prove Theorem \[boundedparts\] which states that: $${\mathcal O}_n(q,a)=\prod_{j=1}^n \frac{\prod_{i=0}^n(1+aq^{i+j})}
%\prod_{j=1}^n \frac{\prod_{i=0}^n(1+aq^{i+j})}
{\prod_{i=1}^{j}(1-q^{i+j-1})(1-a^2q^{i+j})}.
%{\prod_{i=1}^{j}(1-q^{i+j})(1-a^2q^{i+j})}.$$ Indeed, $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathcal O}_n(q,a)&=& \sum_{M \in \mathcal{M}_n} \prod_{j=1}^n\left(\prod_{i=1}^n (q^{i+j}a)^{b_{ij}}\right)\left(q^{ja_{jj}}(aq^j)^{d_{jj}}\right)
\left(\prod_{i=1}^{j-1}q^{(i+j)a_{ij}}(a^2q^{i+j})^{d_{ij}}\right)\\
&=& \prod_{j=1}^n\frac{\prod_{i=1}^n(1+aq^{i+j})}
{(1-q^j)(1-aq^j)\prod_{i=1}^{j-1}(1-q^{i+j})(1-a^2q^{i+j})}\\
%&=& \prod_{j=1}^n\frac{\prod_{i=1}^n(1+aq^{i+j})}
%{(1-q^i)(1-aq^i)\prod_{i=1}^{j-1}(1-q^{i+j})(1-a^2q^{i+j})}\times \frac{1+aq^j}{1+aq^j}\\
&=& \prod_{j=1}^n\frac{\prod_{i=0}^{n}(1+aq^{i+j})}
{\prod_{i=0}^{j-1}(1-q^{i+j})\prod_{i=1}^j(1-a^2q^{i+j})}.\\\end{aligned}$$
When $n$ tends to infinity we get back the weighted generating function of Proposition \[propweighted\]. We can also get this result with the method of the proof of Proposition \[propweighted\] with the substitution $x_i=q^{i-1}$ for $1\le i\le n+1$ and 0 otherwise and $y_i=-aq^i$ for $1\le i\le n$ and 0 otherwise.
We can also get some more general results, as in [@BK].
The generating function for plane overpartitions whose parts lie in a set $S$ of positive integers is given by: $$\prod_{i\in S}\left(\frac{\prod_{j\in
S}(1+aq^{i+j})}{(1-q^i)(1-aq^i)} \prod_{\begin{subarray}{c}j\in
S\\{j<i}\end{subarray}}\frac{1}{(1-q^{i+j})(1-a^2q^{i+j})}\right).$$
For example, as a corollary we get the generating function for plane overpartition with odd parts. One can get a similar formula for even parts.
The generating function for plane overpartitions with odd parts is $$\prod_{i=1}^\infty
\frac{(1+aq^{2i})^{i-1}}{(1-q^{2i-1})(1-aq^{2i-1})(1-q^{2i})^{\lfloor
i/2\rfloor}(1-a^2q^{2i})^{\lfloor i/2\rfloor}}.$$
Interlacing sequences and cylindric partitions {#s1}
==============================================
We want to combine results of [@Bo] and [@V2] to obtain a 1–parameter generalization of the formula for the generating function for cylindric partitions related to Hall-Littlewood symmetric functions. We use the definitions of interlacing sequences, profiles, cylindric partitions, polynomials $A_\Pi(t)$ and $A_\Pi^{\text{cyl}}(t)$ given in the introduction.
For an ordinary partition $\lambda$ we define a polynomial $$\label{formulab}
b_\lambda(t)=\prod_{i\geq1}\varphi_{m_i(\lambda)}(t),$$ where $m_i(\lambda)$ denotes the number of times $i$ occurs as a part of $\lambda$ and $\varphi_r(t)=(1-t)(1-t^2)\cdots(1-t^r)$.
For a horizontal strip $\theta=\lambda/\mu$ we define $$\begin{array}{c}
I_{\lambda/\mu}=\left\{i\geq1|\,\theta_i^\prime=1 \text{ and } \theta_{i+1}^\prime=0 \right\}\\
J_{\lambda/\mu}=\left\{j\geq1|\,\theta_j^\prime=0 \text{ and } \theta_{j+1}^\prime=1 \right\}
\end{array}.$$ Let $$\label{definphi}
\varphi_{\lambda/\mu}(t)=\prod_{i \in
I_{\lambda/\mu}}(1-t^{m_i(\lambda)}) \text{ and } \psi_{\lambda/\mu}(t)=\prod_{j \in
J_{\lambda/\mu}}(1-t^{m_j(\mu)}).$$ Then $$\varphi_{\lambda/\mu}(t)/\psi_{\lambda/\mu}(t)=b_\lambda(t)/b_\mu(t).$$
For an interlacing sequence $\Lambda=(\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^T)$ with profile $A=(A_1,\dots,A_{T-1})$ we define $\Phi_{\Lambda}(t)$: $$\label{alternation}
\Phi_{\Lambda}(t)=\prod_{i=1}^{T-1} \phi_{i}(t),$$ where $$\phi_{i}(t)=
\begin{cases}
\varphi_{\lambda^{i+1}/\lambda^i}(t),&A_i=0,\\
\psi_{\lambda^{i}/\lambda^{i+1}}(t),&A_i=1.
\end{cases}$$
For $\Lambda=(\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^T)$ and $M=(\mu^1,\dots,\mu^S)$ such that $\lambda^T=\mu^1$ we define $$\Lambda \cdot M=(\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^T,\mu^2,\dots,\mu^S)$$ and $$\Lambda \cap M=\lambda^T.$$ Then $$\label{APhiproiz}
A_{\Lambda \cdot M}=\frac{A_{\Lambda}A_M}{b_{\Lambda \cap
M}},\ \ \ \ \Phi_{\Lambda \cdot
M}=\Phi_{\Lambda }\Phi_{M}.$$
For an interlacing sequence $\Lambda=(\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^T)$ with profile $A=(A_1,\dots, A_{T-1})$ we define the reverse $\overline{\Lambda}=(\lambda^T,\dots,\lambda^1)$ with profile $\overline{A}=(1-A_{T-1},\dots,1-A_1)$. Then $$\label{APhirev}
A_{\overline{\Lambda}}=A_{\Lambda},\ \ \ \
\Phi_{\overline{\Lambda}}=\frac{b_{\lambda^1}\Phi_{\Lambda
}}{b_{\lambda^T}}.$$
For an ordinary partition $\lambda$ we construct an interlacing sequence $\left\langle \lambda \right\rangle=(\emptyset,
\lambda^1,\dots, \lambda^L)$ of length $L+1=\ell(\lambda)+1$, where $\lambda^i$ is obtained from $\lambda$ by truncating the last $L-i$ parts. Then $$\label{APhiseq}
A_{\left\langle \lambda \right\rangle}=\Phi_{\left\langle \lambda \right\rangle}=b_\lambda.$$
In [@V2] (Propositions 2.4 and 2.6) it was shown shown that for a plane partition $\Pi$ $$\label{APhiplane}
\Phi_{\Pi}=A_{\Pi}.$$ The following proposition is an analogue of (\[APhiplane\]) for interlacing sequences.
If $\Lambda=(\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^T)$ is an interlacing sequence then $$b_{\lambda^1}\Phi_{\Lambda}={A_{\Lambda}}.$$
If we show that the statement is true for sequences with constant profiles then inductively using (\[APhiproiz\]) we can show that it is true for sequences with arbitrary profile. It is enough to show that the statement is true for sequences with $(0, \dots,
0)$ profile because of (\[APhirev\]). So, let $\Lambda=(\lambda^1,\dots,\lambda^T)$ be a sequence with $(0,\dots,0)$ profile. Then $\Pi=\left\langle
\lambda^1\right\rangle\cdot\Lambda\cdot\overline{\left\langle
\lambda^T\right\rangle}$ is a plane partition and from (\[APhiproiz\]), (\[APhirev\]) and (\[APhiseq\]) we obtain that $A_\Pi=A_\Lambda$ and $\Phi_\Pi=b_{\lambda^1}\Phi_\Lambda$. Then from (\[APhiplane\]) it follows that $A_\Lambda=b_{\lambda^1}\Phi_\Lambda$.
For skew plane partitions and cylindric partitions we obtain the following two corollaries.
\[corskew\] For a skew plane partition $\Pi$ we have $\Phi_\Pi=A_\Pi.$
\[corcyl\] If $\Pi$ is a cylindric partition given by $\Lambda=(\lambda^0,\dots,\lambda^T)$ then $\Phi_{\Lambda}=A^{\text{cyl}}_{\Pi}$.
The last corollary comes from the observation that if a cylindric partition $\Pi$ is given by a sequence $\Lambda=(\lambda^0,\dots,\lambda^T)$ then $$%\label{vezacyl}
A^{\text{cyl}}_\Pi(t)=A_{\Lambda}(t)/b_{\lambda^0}(t).$$
In the rest of this section we prove generalized MacMahon’s formulas for skew plane partitions and cylindric partitions that are stated in Theorems \[skew\] and \[uvodcyl\]. The proofs of these theorems were inspired by [@Bo], [@OR] and [@V2]. We use a special class of symmetric functions called Hall-Littlewood functions.
**[The weight functions]{}** {#s2.1.1}
----------------------------
In this subsection we introduce weights on sequences of ordinary partitions. For that we use Hall-Littlewood symmetric functions $P$ and $Q$. We recall some of the facts about these functions, but for more details see Chapters III and VI of [@Mac]. We follow the notation used there.
Recall that Hall-Littlewood symmetric functions $P_{\lambda/\mu}(x;t)$ and $Q_{\lambda/\mu}(x;t)$ depend on a parameter $t$ and are indexed by pairs of ordinary partitions $\lambda$ and $\mu$. In the case when $t=0$ they are equal to ordinary Schur functions and in the case when $t=-1$ to Schur $P$ and $Q$ functions.
The relationship between $P$ and $Q$ functions is given by (see (5.4) of [@Mac Chapter III]) $$\label{RelQP}
Q_{\lambda/\mu}(x;t)=\frac{b_\lambda}{b_\mu}P_{\lambda/\mu}(x;t),$$ where $b$ is given by (\[formulab\]). Recall that (by (5.3) of [@Mac Chapter III] and (\[RelQP\])) $$\label{nonzero}
P_{\lambda/\mu}=Q_{\lambda/\mu}=0\;\;\;\text{unless } \lambda\supset
\mu.$$
We set $P_\lambda=P_{\lambda/\emptyset}$ and $Q_\lambda=Q_{\lambda/\emptyset}$. Recall that ((4.4) of [@Mac Chapter III]) $$H(x,y;t):=\sum_{\lambda
}Q_\lambda(x;t)P_\lambda(y;t)=\prod_{i,j}\frac{1-tx_iy_j}{1-x_iy_j}.$$
A specialization of an algebra $\mathcal{A}$ is an algebra homomorphism $\rho: \mathcal{A} \to \mathbb{C}$. If $\rho$ and $\sigma$ are specializations of the algebra of symmetric functions then we write $P_{\lambda/\mu}(\rho;t)$, $Q_{\lambda/\mu}(\rho;t)$ and $H(\rho,\sigma;t)$ for the images of $P_{\lambda/\mu}(x;t)$, $Q_{\lambda/\mu}(x;t)$ and $H(x,y;t)$ under $\rho$, respectively $\rho \otimes \sigma$. Every map $\rho:(x_1,x_2,\dots)\to
(a_1,a_2,\dots)$ where $a_i\in \mathbb{C}$ and only finitely many $a_i$’s are nonzero defines a specialization. These specializations are called evaluations. A multiplication of a specialization $\rho$ by a scalar $a\in \mathbb{C}$ is defined by its images on power sums: $$p_n(a \cdot \rho)=a^np_n(\rho).$$
If $\rho$ is the specialization of $\Lambda$ where $x_1=a,\,x_2=x_3=\ldots=0$ then by (5.14) and (5.14’) of [@Mac Chapter VI] $$\label{spec}
\begin{array}{lcc}
Q_{\lambda/\mu}(\rho;t)=
\begin{cases}
\varphi_{\lambda/\mu}(t) a^{|\lambda|-|\mu|} & \text{$\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\lambda \supset \mu$, $\lambda/\mu$ is a horizontal strip},\\
0 & \text{$\;\;\;\;\;\;\;$otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{array}$$ Similarly, $$\label{specP}
\begin{array}{lcc}
P_{\lambda/\mu}(\rho;t)=
\begin{cases}
\psi_{\lambda/\mu}(t) a^{|\lambda|-|\mu|} & \text{$\;\;\;\;\;\;\;\lambda \supset \mu$, $\lambda/\mu$ is a horizontal strip},\\
0 & \text{$\;\;\;\;\;\;\;$otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{array}$$
Let $T \geq 2$ be an integer and $\rho^\pm=(\rho_1^{\pm},\ldots,
\rho_{T-1}^{\pm})$ be finite sequences of specializations. For a sequence of partitions $ \Lambda=(\lambda^{1}, \ldots ,\lambda^{T})$ we set the weight function $W(\Lambda)$ to be $$\begin{aligned}
W(\Lambda)
&=&q^{T|\lambda^{T}|}\sum_{M}\prod_{n=1}^{T-1}P_{\lambda^{n}/\mu^{n}}
(\rho_{n}^{-};t)Q_{\lambda^{n+1}/\mu^{n}}({\rho_{n}^{+}};t),
%&=&q^{|\lambda|}\prod_{n=1}^{T}Q_{\lambda^{n-1}/\mu^{n}}
%(\tilde{\rho}_{n}^{+};t)P_{\lambda^{n}/\mu^{n}}({\tilde{\rho}_n^{-}};t),\end{aligned}$$ where $q$ and $t$ are parameters and the sum ranges over all sequences of partitions $M=(\mu^{1}, \ldots ,\mu^{T-1})$.
We can also define the weights using another set of specializations $R^{\pm}=(R_1^\pm,\dots,R_{T-1}^\pm)$ where $R_i^\pm=q^{\pm
i}\rho_i^\pm$. Then $$W(\Lambda)=\sum_M W(\Lambda,M, R^-,R^+),$$ where $$W(\Lambda,M,
R^-,R^+)=q^{|\Lambda|}\prod_{n=1}^{T-1}P_{\lambda^{n}/\mu^{n}}
(R_{n}^{-};t)Q_{\lambda^{n+1}/\mu^{n}}(R^{+}_n;t).$$ We will focus on two special sums, namely $$Z_{\text{skew}}=\sum_{\Lambda=(\emptyset,\lambda^1,\ldots,\lambda^T,\emptyset)}W(\Lambda)$$ and $$Z_{\text{cyl}}=\sum_{\substack{\Lambda=(\lambda^0,\lambda^1,\ldots,\lambda^T)\\
\lambda^0=\lambda^T}}W(\Lambda).$$
Let $A^-=(A^-_1,\dots,A^-_{T-1})$ and $A^+=(A^+_1,\dots,A^+_{T-1})$ be sequences of 0’s and 1’s such that $A^-_k+A^+_k=1$.
If the specializations $R^\pm$ are evaluations given by $${\label{evaluations}}
{R}_k^\pm: x_1=A^\pm_k,x_2=x_3=\ldots=0, %\;\;\;\;\;\;
%{\rho}_k^-:x_1=q^{-k}R^+_k,\,x_2=x_3=\ldots=0.$$ then by (\[spec\]) and (\[specP\]) the weight $W(\Lambda)$ vanishes unless $\Lambda$ is an interlacing sequence of profile $A^-$, and in that case $$W(\Lambda)=\Phi_{\Lambda}(t)q^{|\Lambda|}.$$
Then, from Corollaries \[corskew\] and \[corcyl\], we have $$Z_{\text{skew}}=\sum_{\Pi \in \text{Skew}(T,A)}A_\Pi(t)q^{|\Pi|}$$ and $$Z_{\text{cyl}}=\sum_{\Pi \in
\text{Cyl}(T,A)}A^{\text{cyl}}_\Pi(t)q^{|\Pi|},$$ where $A^-$ in both formulas is given by the fixed profile $A$ of skew plane partitions, respectively cylindric partitions.
**[Partition functions]{}**
---------------------------
If $\rho$ is $x_1=r,\,x_2=x_3=\ldots=0$ and $\sigma$ is $x_1=s,\,x_2=x_3=\ldots=0$ then $$\label{simpleh}
H(\rho,\sigma)=\frac{1-trs}{1-rs}.$$ Thus, for the specializations $\rho_i^{\pm}=q^{\mp i}R_i^{\pm}$, where $R^{\pm}$ are given by (\[evaluations\]), we have $$\label{h}
H(\rho_i^+,\rho_j^-)=\frac{1-tq^{j-i}A^+_iA^-_j}{1-q^{j-i}A^+_iA^-_j}.$$
We now use Proposition 2.2 of [@V2]):
$$Z_{\text{skew}}(\rho^-,\rho^+)=\prod_{0\leq i<j\leq T}
H(\rho_i^+,\rho_j^-).$$
This proposition together with (\[h\]) implies Theorem \[skew\]. The generating function formula for skew plane partitions can also be seen as the generating function formula for reverse plane partitions as explained in the introduction.
Each skew plane partition can be represented as an infinite sequence of ordinary partitions by adding infinitely many empty partitions to the left and right side. In that way, the profiles become infinite sequences of 0’s and 1’s. Theorem \[skew\] also gives the generating function formula for skew plane partitions of infinite profiles $A=(\dots,A_{-1},A_0,A_{1},\dots)$: $$\label{infiniteskew}
\sum_{\Pi \in \text{Skew}(A)}A_\Pi(t)q^{|\Pi|}= \prod_{\substack{i<
j\\A_i=0,\,A_j=1}}\frac{1-tq^{j-i}}{1-q^{j-i}}.$$
Similarly for cylindric partitions, using (\[simpleh\]) together with the following proposition we obtain Theorem \[uvodcyl\].
\[Z\] $$\label{FormulaForZ}
Z_{\text{cyl}}(R^-,R^+)%=\prod_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{1-s^{n}}\prod_{1 \leq l < k
%\leq T}\Pi(s^{n}\rho_l^{+},\rho_k^{-};t)\prod_{n=1}^\infty
%\prod_{k,l}\Pi(\rho_l^{+},\rho_k^{-};t) \\
=\prod_{n=1}^\infty
\frac{1}{1-q^{nT}}\prod_{k,\,l=1}^TH(q^{(k-l)_{(T)}+(n-1)T}R^-_k,R^+_l),
%\prod_{l <
%k}\Pi(q^{(k-l)n}\tilde{\rho}_l^{+},\tilde{\rho}_k^{-};t)
%\prod_{k\leq
%l}\Pi(q^{(T+k-l)n}\tilde{\rho}_l^{+},\tilde{\rho}_k^{-};t),$$ where $i_{(T)}$ is the smallest positive integer such that $i\equiv
i_{(T)} \text{ mod }T$.
We use $$\label{zamena}
\sum_{\lambda }Q_{\lambda / \mu}(x)P_{\lambda /
\nu}(y)=H(x,y)\sum_{\tau }Q_{\nu / \tau}(x)P_{\mu / \tau}(y).$$ The proof of this is analogous to the proof of Proposition 5.1 ((\[zamena\]) for $t=-1$) that appeared in [@V1]. Also, see Example 26 of Chapter I, Section 5 of [@Mac].
The proof of (\[FormulaForZ\]) uses the same idea as in the proof of Proposition 1.1 of [@Bo].
We start with the definition of $Z_{\text{cyl}}(R^-,R^+)$: $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\text{cyl}}(R^-,R^+)&=&\sum_{\Lambda,M}W(\Lambda,M,R^-,R^+)\\
&=&
\sum_{\Lambda,M}q^{|\Lambda|}\prod_{n=1}^{T}P_{\lambda^{n-1}/\mu^{n}}
(R_n^-)Q_{\lambda^{n}/\mu^{n}}(R_n^+)\\
&=&\sum_{\Lambda,M}q^{|M|}\prod_{n=1}^{T}P_{\lambda^{n-1}/\mu^{n}}
(q R^-_n)Q_{\lambda^{n}/\mu^{n}}(R^+_n).\end{aligned}$$ If $x=(x_1,x_2,\dots,x_T)$ is a vector we define the shift as $\operatorname{sh}(x)=(x_2,\dots,x_T,x_1)$. We set $R^{\pm}_0=R^{\pm}_T$, $\mu_0=\mu_T$ and $\nu_0=\nu_T$. If using the formula (\[zamena\]) we substitute the sums over the $\lambda^{i}$’s by the sums over the $\nu^{i-1}$’s we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\text{cyl}}(R^-,R^+)&=&H(q\operatorname{sh}R^-;R^+)\sum_{M,N}q^{|M|}Q_{\mu^1/\nu^0}(R^+_T),P_{\mu^0/\nu^0}(q
R^-_1) \cdot
\\
&&\cdot Q_{\mu^2/\nu^1}(R^+_1)P_{\mu^1/\nu^1}(q R^-_2)\cdots
Q_{\mu^0/\nu^{T-1}}(q R^+_{T-1})P_{\mu^{T-1}/\nu^{T-1}}(R^-_{T})\\
&=&H(q\operatorname{sh}R^-;R^+)\sum_{{M},{N}}
W(\operatorname{sh}M,N,q\operatorname{sh}R^-,R^+)\\
&=&H(q\operatorname{sh}R^-;R^+)Z_{\text{cyl}}(q \operatorname{sh}R^-,R^+).\end{aligned}$$ Since $\operatorname{sh}^T=\operatorname{id}$, if we apply the same trick $T$ times, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
Z_{\text{cyl}}(R^-,R^+)&=&\prod_{i=1}^T{H(q^i\operatorname{sh}^iR^-;R^+)}\cdot
Z_{\text{cyl}}(q^TR^-,R^+)\\
&=&\prod_{i=1}^T{H(q^i\operatorname{sh}^iR^-;R^+)}\cdot Z_{\text{cyl}}(sR^-,R^+),\end{aligned}$$ where $s=q^T$. Thus, $$Z_{\text{cyl}}(R^{-},R^{+})=\prod_{n=1}^\infty\prod_{i=1}^T
{H(q^{i+(n-1)T}\operatorname{sh}^iR^-;R^+)} \lim_{n\to
\infty}{Z_{\text{cyl}}(s^nR^-,R^+)}.$$ From $$\lim_{n\to \infty}{Z_{\text{cyl}}(s^nR^-,R^+)}=\lim_{n\to
\infty}{Z_{\text{cyl}}(\text{trivial},R^+)}=\prod_{n=1}^\infty\frac{1}{1-s^n}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\prod_{i=1}^T{H(q^i\operatorname{sh}^iR^-,R^+)}&=&
\prod_{l=1}^T\left[\prod_{k=l+1}^{T}H(q^{k-l}R^-_k,R^+_l)\prod_{k=1}^lH(q^{T+k-l}R^-_k,R^+_l)\right]\\
&=&\prod_{k,\,l=1}^TH(q^{(k-l)_{(T)}}R^-_k,R^+_l),\end{aligned}$$ we conclude that (\[FormulaForZ\]) holds.
Observe that if in Theorem \[uvodcyl\] we let $T\to \infty$, i.e. the circumference of the cylinder tends to infinity then we recover (\[infiniteskew\]).
Concluding remarks
==================
In this paper, we determine the generating functions for plane overpartitions with several types of constraints. In particular, we can compute the generating function for plane overpartitions with at most $r$ rows and $c$ columns and the generating function for plane overpartitions with entries at most $n$. All the proofs can be done with symmetric functions, but we also highlight combinatorial proofs when these are simple. The natural question is therefore to put those constraints together and to compute the generating function of plane overpartitions with at most $r$ rows, $c$ columns and entries at most $n$. Unfortunately, this generating function cannot be written in terms of a product in the style of Theorems 1–8. For example, when $r=1$, this generating function can be written as $$\sum_{k=0}^n a^k q^{k+1\choose 2}\frac{(q)_{n-k+c}}{(q)_{n-k}(q)_k(q)_{c-k}}.$$ Computer experiments show that there is a large irreducible factor in the product. Let $\mathbb A$ be the alphabet $1+q+\cdots +q^n$ and $\mathbb B$ be the alphabet $-aq-aq^2-\cdots -aq^n$. We can write this generating function as $$\sum_{\lambda\subseteq c^r} s_{\lambda}(\mathbb A-\mathbb B)$$ where the sum is taken on partitions $\lambda$ such that all the parts of $\lambda'$ have the same parity as $r$.
In Section 6 we compute generating functions for cylindric partitions. Their generating functions are elegant products. In the case $t=0$ (cylindric partitions and $t=-1$ cylindric overpartitions, one could certainly adapt the ideas of Gansner [@G] to give a constructive proof of the result. It should be interesting to generalize the combinatorial techniques used in this paper in Sections 3 and 5 to understand the combinatorics of plane partitions for general $t$.
[99]{}
G. Andrews, *The theory of partitions*, Reprint of the 1976 original. Cambridge Mathematical Library. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1998), xvi+255 pp.
A. Berele, J. B. Remmel, *Hook flag characters and their combinatorics*, J. Pure Appl. Algebra 35 (1985), no. 3, 225–245.
E. A. Bender and D. E. Knuth, *Enumeration of plane partitions*, J. Combinatorial Theory Ser. A 13 (1972), 40–54.
A. Borodin, *Periodic Schur process and cylindric partitions*, Duke Math. J. 140 (2007), no. 3, 391–468.
F. Brenti, *Determinants of super-Schur functions, lattice paths, and dotted plane partitions*, Adv. Math. 98 (1993), no. 1, 27–64.
S. Corteel and J. Lovejoy, *Overpartitions*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 356 (2004), no. 4, 1623–1635
O. Foda and M. Wheeler, *BKP plane partitions*, J. High Energy Phys. (2007), no. 1, 075, 9 pp. (electronic).
O. Foda and M. Wheeler, *Hall-Littlewood plane partitions and KP.* Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (2009), no. 14, 2597–2619.
E. R. Gansner, *The Hillman-Grassl correspondence and the enumeration of reverse plane partitions*, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 30 (1981), no. 1, 71–89.
I. M. Gessel and C. Krattenthaler, *Cylindric partitions*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 349 (1997), no. 2, 429–479.
I. Gessel and G. Viennot, *Binomial determinants, paths, and hook length formulae*, Adv. in Math. 58 (1985), no. 3, 300–321.
I. Gessel and X. Viennot, *Determinants, paths, and plane partitions*, unpublished manuscript (1989).
P. N. Hoffman and J. F. Humphreys, *Projective representations of the symmetric groups. $Q$-functions and shifted tableaux*, Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Oxford Science Publications. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, (1992), xiv+304 pp.
K. Johansson, *The arctic circle boundary and the Airy process*, Ann. Probab. 33 (2005), no. 1, 1–30.
S. Karlin and J. McGregor, *Coincidence probabilities*, Pacific J. Math. 9 (1959), 1141–1164.
S. Karlin and J. McGregor, *Coincidence properties of birth and death processes*, Pacific J. Math. 9 (1959), 1109–1140.
D. Knuth, *Permutations, matrices, and generalized Young tableaux*, Pacific J. Math. 34 (1970), 709–727.
C. Krattenthaler, *A bijective proof of the hook-content formula for super Schur functions and a modified jeu de taquin*, The Foata Festschrift. Electron. J. Combin. 3 (1996), no. 2, Research Paper 14, 24 pp. (electronic)
C. Krattenthaler, *Advanced determinant calculus*, The Andrews Festschrift (Maratea, 1998). Sém. Lothar. Combin. 42 (1999), Art. B42q, 67 pp. (electronic)
C. Krattenthaler, private communication (2008).
A. Lascoux, *Symmetric functions and combinatorial operators on polynomials*, CBMS Regional Conference Series in Mathematics, 99. Published for the Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, Washington, DC; by the American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, (2003). xii+268 pp.
B. Lindström, *On the vector representations of induced matroids*, Bull. London Math. Soc. 5 (1973), 85–90.
I. G. Macdonald, *Symmetric functions and Hall polynomials*, Second edition. With contributions by A. Zelevinsky. Oxford Mathematical Monographs. Oxford Science Publications. The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, (1995). x+475 pp.
S. Okada, *$(q,t)$-deformations of multivariate hook product formulae*, Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics (March 2010) 1–18 (electronic) A. Okounkov and N. Reshetikhin, *Correlation function of Schur process with application to local geometry of a random 3-dimensional Young diagram*, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 16 (2003), no. 3, 581–603.
B. Sagan, *Shifted tableaux, Schur Q-functions, and a conjecture of R. P. Stanley*, J. Combin. Theory Ser. A 45 (1987), no. 1, 62–103.
C. Savelief, *Combinatoire des overpartitions planes*, Master thesis, Université Paris 7, (2007). Available on the first author website.
R. Stanley, *Enumerative combinatorics*, Vol. 2. With a foreword by Gian-Carlo Rota and appendix 1 by Sergey Fomin. Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, 62. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1999). xii+581 pp.
J. R. Stembridge, *Nonintersecting paths, Pfaffians, and plane partitions*, Adv. Math. 83 (1990), 96–131. M. Vuletić, *The shifted Schur process and asymptotics of large random strict plane partitions*, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN 2007, no. 14, Art. ID rnm043, 53 pp.
M. Vuletić, *A generalization of MacMahon’s formula*, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 361 (2009), no. 5, 2789–2804.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
RUNHETC-2003-30\
hep-th/0311177\
0.5cm
\
1.0cm
Satabhisa Dasgupta[^1]
0.5cm
[*Department of Physics and Astronomy, Rutgers University,\
Piscataway, NJ 08854, U.S.A.*]{}
0.5cm
Tathagata Dasgupta[^2]
0.5cm
[*New York University Physics Department,\
4 washington Place, New York, NY 10003, U.S.A.*]{}
1.0cm
Extending our recent work () we study the nonsinglet sector of $c=1$ matrix model by renormalization group analysis for a gauged matrix quantum mechanics on circle with an appropriate gauge breaking term to incorporate the effect of world-sheet vortices. The flow equations indicate BKT phase transition around the self-dual radius and the nontrivial fixed points of the flow exhibit black hole like phases for a range of temperatures beyond the self-dual point. One class of fixed point interpolate between $c=1$ for $R > 1$ and $c=0$ as $R \to 0$ via black hole phase that emerges after the phase transition. The other two classes of nontrivial fixed points also develop black hole like behavior beyond $R=1$. From a thermodynamic study of the free energy obtained from the Callan-Symanzik equations we show that all these unstable phases do have negative specific heat. The thermodynamic quantities indicate that the system does undergo a first order phase transition near the Hagedorn temperature, around which the new phase is formed, and exhibits one loop finite energy correction to the Hagedorn density of states. The flow equations also suggest a deformation of the target space geometry through a running of the compactification radius where the scale is given by the dilaton. Remarkably there is a regime where cyclic flow is observed.
Introduction
============
The $c=1$ matrix model have been proved to be very powerful in describing the two-dimensional string theory to all genus, both in string perturbation theory and in a nonperturbative sense [@GrossMiljkovic; @BKZamo; @GinsZ-J; @Parisi]. The underlying rich structure of the non-relativistic quantum mechanics of free fermions (exhibited by the singlet sector) makes the theory solvable to a very high degree and virtually renders any quantity calculable to all orders in genus expansion. Recently the $c=1$ matrix model is realized as the effective dynamics of $D$-branes in $c=1$ non-critical string theory which exhibits the duality between $c=1$ matrix model and $2D$ quantum gravity coupled to $c=1$ matter as an exact open/closed string duality [@mgv; @martinec; @kms; @mgtv; @akk; @TT; @DKKMMS; @sen-kyoto03; @dd-singlet]. The quantum mechanics of $SU(N)$ invariant matrix variables in an inverted oscillator potential is visualized as the quantum mechanics of open string tachyons attached to $N$ unstable $D0$ branes that decays into ([*i.e.*]{} dual to) Liouville theory coupled to $c=1$ matter describing $2D$ closed string theory together with its $D0$ branes.
The random surfaces mapped by the $c=1$ matrix model can also be embedded in a circle of radius $R$ as a compactified Euclidean theory or equivalently as a Minkowski signature string theory at finite temperature, where the free fermion representation is not sufficient due to the active role of the angular degrees of freedom belonging to the nontrivial representation of $SU(N)$ [@GK1; @GK2; @BoulKaza]. From matrix quantum mechanics analysis the states in the nontrivial representation of $SU(N)$, the nonsinglet sector, are understood to correspond to vortices on the world-sheet with wave functions given by the Young Tableaux of $SU(N)$. The number of boxes counts the vortex charge. Restricting the theory only to the $SU(N)$ singlet sector gives rise to the continuum limit where the effect of the world-sheet vortices are absent and the sum over the random surfaces obey T-duality [@GK1]. Keeping the vortices triggers Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition at self-dual radius that breaks the $R \to 1/R$ duality symmetry. Thus the states in the nontrivial representation of $SU(N)$ are important in understanding the dynamics of the world-sheet vortices and are expected to give rise to interesting phenomena like formation of $2D$ black hole [@KKK].
An interesting solution of the two-dimensional string theory, apart from the flat space background with linear dilaton, is the two-dimensional black hole [@RabiBH; @WadiaBH; @WittenBH]. Some of the early attempts to get matrix-model description of two-dimensional black hole are described in [@DMW1; @Russo; @Yoneya; @Das; @DMW2; @JevYon; @PolLH; @Dhar]. It was partially believed that the nonperturbative formulation of two-dimensional string theory in terms of an integrable theory of noninteracting nonrelativistic fermion representation of the matrix quantum mechanics can deal issues like black hole evaporation and gravitational collapse. But it turns out to be remarkably difficult to find a matrix model description of the two-dimensional black hole due to lack of clear understanding of the target space physics of linear dilaton background in the $c=1$ matrix model. The wave equation should carry information about the black hole supplemented by the dilaton. In free fermion representation, the [*time-of-flight coordinate*]{} $\tau$, related to the matrix model coordinate $\lambda$ by $\lambda = \sqrt{2\mu\alpha'}\cosh\tau$, cannot be identified with the Liouville coordinate $\phi$ although this identification arises naturally from the collective field theory approach [@DasJevicki; @Pol-collective]. This is due to the fact that the eigenvalue coordinate $\lambda$ has no obvious geometrical interpretation on the discretized world-sheet. According to [@Moore-macro; @MooreSeiberg-macro], the correct identification is through the loop operator $W(l)$, which has a clear geometrical meaning on the world-sheet, by an integral transform. Also it has been pointed out in [@Witten-cin] that exact solvable structure, especially the $W(\infty)$ symmetry of the $c=1$ model makes black hole hard to describe.
One would hope to understand the situation better by working in a more general representation including the world-sheet vortices. However, the study of world-sheet vortices is hard due to lack of solvable structure. In the spherical approximation, they could be studied in dual matrix description considering discrete time [@parisi; @zaugg1; @zaugg2]. In [@BoulKaza], using twisted boundary condition $\phi (2\pi R)=\Omega^\dagger \phi (0) \Omega$, the partition function was studied in a given representation for the standard matrix oscillator (with a stable quadratic potential). The partition function in the presence of the adjoint representation (a vortex-antivortex pair) in the double scaling limit was then studied by analytically continuing to the upside down oscillator . However, a direct analytical continuation is not possible as the standard oscillator has larger symmetry than the upside down one and does not have any information about the cut-off provided by the interaction terms in the matrix potential. Hence the analytical continuation had to be completed (in the spirit of [@Moore]) by a suitable guess about the cut-off dependence and was argued to work at least for the adjoint representation.
Based on the above approach of connecting the world-sheet vortices with the nonsinglet states of the matrix quantum mechanics, an integrable system has been constructed which is an integrable Toda chain hierarchy interpolating between the usual $c=1$ string and the Sine-Liouville background [@KKK][^3]. Using the duality conjecture by Fateev, Zamolodchikov and Zamolodchikov (FZZ) [@FZZ-duality], it was proposed to be a matrix model (the KKK model) for two-dimensional black hole at $R=3/2$ that relates the two-dimensional black hole background ($SL(2,R)/U(1)$ coset CFT) to the condensation of vortices (interpreted as the winding modes around the Euclidean time). The effect of the winding modes on the world-sheet were incorporated in the matrix quantum mechanics path integral by integrating over the twist variables (the matrix holonomy factor around the compactification circle) along with an appropriate measure and the twisted partition function. The FZZ correspondence allows one to consider the winding mode condensation from the Sine-Liouville side to construct the appropriate matrix model for the black hole background, avoiding dealing directly more complicated black hole geometry. However, not considering the black hole background directly has some disadvantages for the following reason. Although FZZ conjecture has been tested by calculating various correlators, it is not clear how to get information about the black hole metric from the Sine-Liouville side. On the other hand, considering the thermodynamics of two-dimensional string theory above the temperature corresponding to the Berezinski-Kosterlitz-Thouless (BKT) phase transition [@BKT1; @BKT2; @BKT3], it has been proposed [@KKK] that the nonsinglet states (or the vortices on the world-sheet) fills the Hagedorn density of black holes $\rho (E) \sim E^{-s_1}e^{\beta_H E}$, since the perturbative spectrum of two-dimensional string theory has very few states, namely the massless tachyon. The Hagedorn spectrum of states should then be obtained by a direct counting of the nonsinglet states in the $c=1$ matrix model. From a Hamiltonian point of view, to count the states in a given energy interval one needs to diagonalize the Hamiltonians for representations corresponding to the large Young tableaux. This is difficult due to Calogero type of interaction of the eigenvalues with the $SU(N)$ spin structure. Also, there are other important questions like understanding black hole phases at any radius other than the fixed radius $R=3/2$ (to which the unstable black hole can decay to), the possibility of observing Hawking radiation and the like.
The main motivation of the present paper is to address above questions from an explicit study of the nonsinglet sector and the BKT phase transition directly from the matrix quantum mechanics path integral with periodic boundary condition. Instead of working in any particular representation let us have recourse to the renormalization group approach that we developed in a recent paper [@dd-singlet] for the $c=1$ matrix model on a circle of radius $R$. There we described a detail analysis of how the two coupling constants in the double scaling limit with critical exponent flow with the change in length scale. The motivation came from an earlier work of Brézin and Zinn-Justin [@BZ-J] on large $N$ RG analysis of $c=0$ matrix model. The scheme reproduces the known results of the solvable sub-sector of the matrix quantum mechanics, namely a non-trivial fixed point with the correct string susceptibility exponent of the $c=1$ model, T-dulaity and the expected logarithmic scaling violation of the free energy. Also it exhibits, qualitatively, the physically interesting situations due to the effects of nonsinglet sector, which can not be simplified because of the lack of the solvable structure. For example, from the running of the prefactor of the partition function, written in the renormalized couplings, analogous to the running due to the wave function renormalization, the free energy is observed to change sign near $R=1$ for small value of the critical coupling. This is reminiscent of the BKT transition at self-dual radius triggered by the liberation of the world-sheet vortices. We would like to understand the detail nature of the nontrivial fixed points of the flow that describes the physics beyond this transition.
To capture the effect of vortices on the flows and the fixed points more clearly and to introduce a new coupling that would act like vortex fugacity, in this paper we analyze the behavior of the following gauged matrix model with simple periodic boundary condition and with an appropriate gauge breaking term
&&\_[N]{}\[g,,R\]=\_[\_[N]{}(2R)=\_[N]{}(0)]{} \^[(N)\^2]{}A\_[N]{}(t) \^[(N)\^2]{}\_[N]{}(t)\
&&,\
\[AZ1N\] where the covariant derivative $D$ is defined with respect to the pure gauge $A(t) = \Omega(t)^\dagger\dot\Omega(t)$ by $D\phi = \partial_t \phi + [A,\phi]$. Unlike taking the course of integration over the twist fields with a proper measure incorporating winding modes around the Euclidean time in the path integral (as considered in [[@KKK]]{}), here the integration over the gauge field $A(t)=\Omega^\dagger \dot \Omega (t)$ with an appropriate measure provided by the gauge breaking term inserts world-sheet vortices in the partition function where $\alpha$ acts as the vortex fugacity. This can happen through the insertion of operator of the form $\exp (- \alpha J^2)$ that counts vortex number, where $J^2 \sim n N$. Without the gauge breaking term the system is projected to the singlet sector. We observe that one class of nontrivial fixed points of the flow give rise to a pair of $c=1$ fixed points at large $R$ with one unstable direction. As $R$ is decreased the flow passes through Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transition at $R=1.03$, where the operators coupled to the vortex fugacity become relevant indicating the liberation of the world-sheet vortices as expected at the self dual radius $R=1$ [@GK2]. Between $0.67 \le R \le
0.7$ the pair of fixed points become purely repulsive fixed points of large coupling and exhibit negative specific heat and one loop correction to the Hagedorn density of states very similar to those exhibited by an unstable Euclidean black hole in flat space time. The change of entropy exhibits a discontinuity at $R=0.73$, little above the BKT temperature, indicating the Hagedorn transition to be first order. As $R$ is further decreased the flow ends up into a pair of $c=0$ fixed points. The other two classes of fixed points also show black hole like behavior beyond the BKT phase transition. This indicates he existence of other black hole phases at other radii of compactification. Also a running of the compactification radius with the scale, thought as dilaton, suggests a deformation of the target space geometry that might be crucial to visualize those black holes. We observe cyclic flow below the BKT temperature presumably due to resonance of high spin states indicating stringy behavior [@LeClair]. In fact, beyond the phase transition, where different nontrivial fixed points exhibit black hole like behavior, the cycles become very complicated. The phase structure probed by the RG analysis thus remarkably captures the expected properties and looks promising in understanding the much unexplored physics of the nonsinglet sector. The dynamics in the neighborhood of the black hole like fixed point needs to be studied in detail to understand its explicit nature. In this paper we will motivate such studies regarding the role of the nonsinglet sector from the observations from our Renormalization group analysis.
The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 2 we describe the RG calculation for our model (\[AZ1N\]). In section 3 we analyze the flow and discuss the phase structure. We observe the BKT phase transition near the self dual radius (or a Hagedorn transition little below the BKT radius) and existence of a black hole like fixed point past the transition. In section 4 we analyze the thermodynamics of the black hole like fixed point and comment on the sense in which it resembles the thermodynamics of an unstable (thermal) Euclidean black hole. In section 5 we conclude with discussion and open questions.
The Large $N$ RG Calculation
============================
In this section we will summarize the renormalization group calculation for the $c=1$ gauged matrix model on a circle, with a gauge breaking term appropriate for capturing the nonsinglet physics. The details of the method for the ungauged model with periodic boundary condition is studied in [@dd-singlet].
Let us consider the partition function for the $N+1$ dimensional matrix variables &&\_[N+1]{}\[g,,R\]=\_[\_[N+1]{}(2R)=\_[N+1]{}(0)]{} \^[(N+1)\^2]{}A\_[N+1]{}(t) \^[(N+1)\^2]{}\_[N+1]{}(t)\
&&.\
\[AZ1\_[N+1]{}\] The covariant derivative $D$ and the gauge field $A(t)$ are defined respectively as D= \_t + \[A,\], A(t) = (t)\^(t), U(N). \[defA\] Expanding the covariant derivative, the partition function is rewritten as \_[N+1]{}\[g,,R\]&=&\_[\_[N+1]{}(2R)=\_[N+1]{}(0)]{} \^[(N+1)\^2]{}A\_[N+1]{}(t) \^[(N+1)\^2]{}\_[N+1]{}(t)\
&&.\
&& \[expAZ1\_[N+1]{}\] The $A_{N+1}(t)[\phi_{N+1}(t),\dot\phi_{N+1}(t)]$ term above is crucial to study the nonsinglets. Even though they are present, the gauge invariance tries to project the system to the singlet sector while the gauge breaking term prevents to do so. In [@GK1], a finitely large radius representation of singlet sector was obtained by throwing this particular term by hand as the nonsinglets are confined at small temperature. In [@BoulKaza], the partition function for one vortex/anti-vortex pair, [*i.e.*]{} in the adjoint representation was calculated by analytical continuation from the twisted partition function of the standard harmonic oscillator to that of the upside down oscillator. For $\alpha =0$, the gauge fields are forced to vanish and the partition function reduces to that of ungauged matrix quantum mechanics on circle.
Because of the gauge breaking term, the integration over all possible configurations of $A(t)$ formally inserts (the gauge invariant) operator $\exp \mbox{Tr}(-\alpha J^2)$ in the partition function, dA (-+2iAJ) \~ (- J\^2) \~ (-Nn). Here $J^2$ is proportional to the quadratic Casimir invariant $C(n)
\approx Nn$. Characterizing the irreducible representations in terms of the number of the white boxes $n$ in the Young tableaux, the quadratic Casimir only depends on $n$ to the leading order in $N$. The reason for this behavior is that, $\exp \mbox{Tr}(-\alpha J^2)$ acts on the states $\vert\mbox{Adj}\rangle$ in the adjoint representation (belonging to the nonsinglet sector) of the MQM in the gauge invariant way, AJ\^n = n \^n. The parameter $\alpha$ behaves like the fugacity of vortices. The operator $\exp \mbox{Tr} (-\alpha J^2)$ therefore counts the vortex number.
Integrating out a column and a row of the matrices:
---------------------------------------------------
Now we decompose the $(N+1)\times (N+1)$ matrices into $N\times N$ blocks and $N$-vectors and scalars as follows
\_[N+1]{}(t) =
\_N(t) & v\_N(t) v\^\*\_N(t) &
, and A\_[N+1]{}(t) =
A\_N(t) & a\_N(t) a\^\*\_N(t) &
. The scalars $\epsilon$ and $\eta$ are of relative order $1/N$ and can be ignored in the double scaling limit. Even though the matrix elements are not independent ($\phi$ being hermitian and $A$ being antihermitian) one can always choose such decomposition for each value of $N$ which does not prevent the action to be written in the same form in terms of the covariant derivatives. The resulting partition function can be written as
\_N\[g,,R\]&=&\_[\_N(2R)=\_N(0)]{} \^[N\^2]{}A\_N(t) \^[N\^2]{}\_N(t)\
&&.\
&&\_[v,v\^\*(2R)=v,v\^\*(0)]{}\^Na(t)\^Na\^\*(t) \^Nv(t)\^Nv\^\*(t)\
&&. \[expAZ1\_N\] Rescaling the vectors $v(t) \rightarrow
\frac{v(t)}{\sqrt{2\pi R(N+1)}}$ and $a(t) \rightarrow
\frac{a(t)}{\sqrt{2\pi R(N+1)}}$, the $v$ and $a$ dependent part of the partition function turns out to be
I\[g,,\_N,A\_N,R\]&=&\_[v,v\^\*(2R)=v,v\^\*(0)]{} \^Na(t)\^Na\^\*(t) \^Nv(t)\^Nv\^\*(t)\
&&.
Using the following Fourier transformation
(t)=\_[m=-]{}\^\_m e\^[it]{}, \_m = \_0\^[2R]{} e\^[-it]{} (t), \[FourierTrfm\] with $$\delta_{mn} = \int_0^{2\pi R}\frac{dt}{2\pi
R}~e^{i\frac{(n-m)}{R}t}\,,~~~ \delta(t-t') = \frac{1}{2\pi
R}\sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}e^{i\frac{m}{R}(t-t')} \,,$$ the $(v,a)$-integration can be expressed as
&& I\[g,,\_N,A\_N,R\] = (\_m da\_m\^\*da\_m\^\*)(\_m dv\_n\^\*dv\_n\^\*)\
&&{-\_m(v\_m\^\*(+1)v\_m+)}\
&&{-\_[m,l]{}v\_m\^\*(-iA\_[m-l]{}-iA\_[m-l]{} +\_k A\_[m-l-k]{}A\_k - g\_[m-l]{})v\_l}\
&&{-\_[m,l]{} a\_m\^\*(\_k\_[m-l-k]{}\_k)a\_l}\
&&{-\_[m,l]{}v\_m\^\*(i\_[m-l]{}+i \_[m-l]{}+2\_k A\_[m-l-k]{}\_k - \_k \_[m-l-k]{} A\_k)a\_l}\
&&{-\_[m,l]{}a\_m\^\*(i\_[m-l]{}+i \_[m-l]{}+2\_k \_[m-l-k]{}A\_k - \_k A\_[m-l-k]{} \_k)v\_l},\
&& where we have neglected the $O(1/N)$ terms. The above integration, as an extra piece to the matrix integral, contains the vectors $v(t)$ (or quarks) generating boundaries on the Feynman diagrams. In fact in vanishing $\alpha$ limit, this is essentially equivalent to the model considered in [@Yang; @Minahan; @dd-singlet]. For generic value of $\alpha$, the above integral should insert nonsinglet boundaries on the world-sheet that arise after the BKT phase transition.
One loop Feynman diagrams
-------------------------
In order to carry out the $v$ and $a$ integration diagrammatically, let us now define the following operators
\_[mn]{}\^[v\^\*v]{} &=& (+1)\_[mn]{}, \_[mn]{}\^[a\^\*a]{} () = ,\
\_[m-l]{}\^[v\^\*v]{}(g,,A) &=&(-iA\_[m-l]{}+\_kA\_[m-l-k]{}A\_k-g\_[m-l]{}),\
\_[m-l]{}\^[a\^\*a]{}()&=&(\_k\_[m-l-k]{}\_k),\
\_[m-l]{}\^[v\^\*a]{}(,A)&=&(i\_[m-l]{} +2\_kA\_[m-l-k]{}\_k -\_k\_kA\_[m-l-k]{}),\
\_[m-l]{}\^[a\^\*v]{}(,A)&=&(i\_[m-l]{} +2\_k\_kA\_[m-l-k]{} -\_kA\_[m-l-k]{}\_k). The inverse of these operators define various propagators and vertices according to figure \[prop\].
![ The propagators and vertices. []{data-label="prop"}](prop.eps){width="450pt"}
Hence the integral becomes
I\[g,,\_N,A\_N,R,N\]&=& I\_0(,R,N), \[I1\] where the gaussian part is as follows
I\_0\[,R,N\]=(\_i da\_i\^\*da\_i)(\_jdv\_j\^\*dv\_j) . Performing the gaussian integration, we get
I\_0\[,R,N\]=(2R)\^[2N]{}\^[2N]{}. Inserting this into (\[I1\]), the $(v,a)$-integration becomes
I\[g,,\_N,A\_N,R,N\]=(,R,N) , \[I2\] where
(,R,N)=\^N . In (\[I2\]), $\Sigma[g,\alpha,\phi_N,A_N,R,N]$ represents sum of one loop Feynman diagrams as shown in figure \[feynman\].
![ The one loop diagrams contributing to $\Sigma$. []{data-label="feynman"}](feynman.eps){width="450pt"}
Evaluation of the diagrams
---------------------------
We evaluate the diagrams to express $\Sigma
[g,\alpha,\phi_N,A_N,R,N]$ as a series expansion in the couplings, $g$, $\alpha$, and the Fourier modes of the fields $\phi_{m}$, $A_{m}$. The full series expansion is given in the Appendix A. We will now discuss how to express this series into an expansion in $g$, $\alpha$, $\Phi(t)$ and $A(t)$ by suitable inverse Fourier transform.
In order to evaluate the one loop correction to the effective action, we inverse transform the Fourier modes according to the rule (\[FourierTrfm\]) and sum-up the set of infinite series using the formulae discussed below.
\_[m=-]{}\^ &=& , 0t2R ,\
\_[m=-]{}\^ &=& , 0< t< 2R ,\
&& iR , t 0 ,\
&& -iR , t 2R ,\
&& 0 , t=0=2R. Because of the discontinuity in the last series shown above, all other series, which look like higher derivatives of the above functions, has delta function or derivative of delta function like behavior. This behavior actually dominate over the regular part of those functions and hence dominate the contribution when the functions are integrated over :
\_[m=-]{}\^ & \~& 2R(t) , 0t2R,\
\_[m=-]{}\^ & \~& -2iR’(t) , 0<t<2R,\
\_[m=-]{}\^ & \~& -2R”(t) , 0t2R. One way to see the above behavior is as follows:
\_[m=-]{}\^ & \~& \_[m=-]{}\^= 2R(t) , 0t2R,\
\_[m=-]{}\^ &\~& \_[m=-]{}\^ 1 = 2R(0) . Also
\_[m=-]{}\^ & \~& \_[m=-]{}\^ = -2iR’(t) , 0<t<2R,\
\_[m=-]{}\^ & \~& \_[m=-]{}\^ = 0 ,\
\_[m=-]{}\^ & \~& \_[m=-]{}\^ =-2R”(t) , 0t2R .\
\_[m=-]{}\^ & \~& \_[m=-]{}\^ = -2R”(0) . Note that while integrating over these functions, we have to take into account their periodic nature and the intervals over which they are defined. We also have to deal with subtleties when these intervals are strictly inequalities.
These sums give the corrections to the coefficients of the various terms in the action, after $\Sigma[g,\alpha,\phi_N,A_N,R,N]$ is exponentiated and log-expanded around $\phi=0$ (small field approximation). Since after doing the inverse Fourier transform, the various terms containing $\phi(t)$ and $A(t)$ has nonlocal integrals over several one dimensional dummy time variables, we breakup the variables into center of mass and relative coordinates. Then we expand the functions about the center of mass coordinates, assuming the relative coordinates to be small enough, and consider integration over the relative coordinates.
Now taking into account all these considerations, after evaluating the integrations over relative time variables (see Appendix B), the expression for $\Sigma[g,\alpha,\phi_N,A_N,R,N]$ becomes
&&= 1+ F\_[g1]{}(R) g \_0\^[2R]{} dt (t)\
&&+{F\_[g2]{}(R) g\^2+F\_[2]{}(R) }\_0\^[2R]{}dt \^2 (t) +{\_[g2]{}(R) g\^2+\_[2]{}(R) }\_0\^[2R]{}dt \^2(t)\
&&+G\_2(R)\_0\^[2R]{}dt A\^2(t) +{G\_[g3]{}(R) g\^2 +G\_[3]{}(R)}\_0\^[2R]{}dt A(t) (t) (t)\
&&+{G’\_[g3]{}(R) g\^2 +G’\_[3]{}(R)}\_0\^[2R]{}dt A(t) (t) (t) +{F\_[g3]{}(R) g\^3\
&&+F\_[g3]{}(R) g}\_0\^[2R]{}dt \^3(t) +{G\_[4]{}(R) +G\_[g4]{}(R) g\^2}\_0\^[2R]{}dt A(t)(t)A(t)(t)\
&&+{G’\_[4]{}(R) +G’\_[g4]{}(R) g\^2}\_0\^[2R]{}dt A\^2(t)\^2(t).\
The functions $F(R)$s and $G(R)$s are defined as follows
F\_[g1]{}(R)&=& R, F\_[g2]{}(R)= (1+\^2R) +R2R\
F\_[2]{}(R) &=& -1/(R)+8 - 4 R, F\_[2]{}(R)= -4 R,\
F\_[g2]{}(R) &=& ((1+8\^2 R\^2) 4R-2R -4R),\
G\_[2]{}(R)&=& -3 R+ -(1+\^2R),\
F\_[g3]{}(R)&=& \[4R(3R+23R+25R\
&&+7R) +R +5R +27R+9R\],\
F\_[g3]{}(R)&=& (1+\^2R) -R ,\
G\_[g3]{}(R)&=& G\_[g3]{}’(R) = (R2R-2R),\
G\_[g4]{}(R)&=& -(\^2 R\^23R +5R+3R -R),\
G\_[3]{}(R)&=& G\_[3]{}’(R)=- R + (R +R),\
G\_[4]{}(R) &=& -2 R, G\_[4]{}’(R) = R, G\_[g4]{}’(R)=0. \[defhyperbolic\]
Elimination of the tadpole term
-------------------------------
The term proportional to $\int_0^{2\pi R}dt~\phi(t)$ is unwanted. To remove this term, we change the background by $\phi(t) \to
\phi(t)+f$, and set the net coefficient of the linear term to zero. This fixes the value of $f$ to be
f\_ &=& (g++)\^[-1]{}As $f_{+}\sim
O(1)$ and $f_{-} \sim O(1/N)$, we choose the smaller shift f\_[-]{} \~g F\_[g1]{}/N to suppress the contribution from the higher order terms. Note that the coefficient of $\phi^n(t)$ term would contribute a term proportional to $f$ in the coefficient of $\phi^{n-1}(t)$ term. Thus the coefficient of $\phi^3(t)$ in the coupling $g_3$ would have an $O(1/N)$ contribution in the coupling $g_4$ from the $\phi^4(t)$ term, if we had turned it on. Also the contribution from the $[A(t),\phi(t)]^2$ term in the coefficient of the $A^2(t)$ term can be ignored as it is of $O(1/N^2)$. After accommodating all such changes, the expression for $Z_{N+1}$ becomes
&&Z\_[N+1]{}=(,R,N) .\[renorm-action1\] Here the expression for $\mathscr{F}(\alpha,g,R,N)$ is given by
(,g,R,N) &=& f-(1+-)+(g +)\
&&\~g\^2 F\_[g1]{}\^2/N\^2+O(1/N\^3).
Rescaling of the fields and the variables
------------------------------------------
We will now rescale the fields and the variables (time $t$ and the conjugate momentum $1/R$) to restore the original cut-off (in the Wilsonian sense):
&& t t’(1+h dl), R R’(1+h dl),\
&&(t) ’(t’),\
&&A(t) (1-h dl) A’(t’), \[rescaling\] where, dl=1/N, h = h(R) + \_[i,j]{} c\_[ij]{} g\^i\^jh\_[ij]{}(R) . The exact functional form of $h$ can be guessed from the behavior of the Feynman diagrams. We will see that $h(R)$ is the scaling dimension of the operator coupled with mass parameter, the coefficient of the $\phi(t)^2/2$ term ($1/\alpha'$, we have set $\alpha'=1$ here), and is appearing in the universal term of the beta function equation of the mass parameter. It is interesting that we will also see $h(R)$ to appear in combination with other numbers as the scaling dimensions of the operators coupled with the cosmological constant $g$, and the fugacity $\alpha$. Therefore, being in the universal term of the beta function equations of the couplings $g$ and $\alpha$, $h(R)$ determines the radius at which the corresponding operators become relevant and could trigger a phase transition. The latter will happen if there is any discontinuous change in the free energy like the flipping of sign. In the world-sheet picture one expects a phase transition at the self dual radius $R=1$ due to the liberation of the world-sheet vortices [@GK1]. The world-sheet free energy changes sign at that radius due to a contest between the entropy of the liberated vortices and the energy of the system. We will come back to this in the discussion of the beta function equation of the fugacity parameter $\alpha$ and will see that its universal term do reflect such a transition. Also through the rescaling relation of $R$ (\[rescaling\]), $h(R)$ determines the change of the radius with the scale and hence will play a role in discussing the thermal properties of the fixed points of the RG flow.
Now in doing the rescaling of time, as shown in (\[rescaling\]), the field $A(t)$ automatically peaks up a factor of $(1-h~dl)$ because of the definition (\[defA\]). Since there is no other constraint on $A(t)$, we are here free to rescale it by an arbitray factor $\eta$. The rescaled action therefore looks like, S’=N \_[0]{}\^[2 R’]{} dt’ .\
The coefficients $\hat c_{i}$ and $c_{i}, ~i=2,3,4$ can be read off by comparing with that of the renormalized action in (\[renorm-action1\]). Setting the coefficient of the kinetic term $\dot\phi^2/2$ to one, $\rho$ can be fixed as
= 1+\[h-1+g\^2F\_[g2]{}+F\_[2]{}\]dl + O(dl\^2). Similarly setting the coefficients of $A(t)[\phi(t),\dot\phi(t)]$ and that of the $[A(t),\phi(t)]^2/2$ term respectively to one, we have = =1, \^2= \^2=1. In other words, this fixes $\eta$ to
= =1+\[(G\_[g3]{} -F\_[g2]{}) g\^2+(G\_[3]{}-F\_[\_2]{})\] dl+O(dl\^2), along with the constraints c\_[3]{}=c’\_[3]{}, c\_[4]{}=c’\_[4]{}, c\_[3]{}\^2=c\_[2]{} c\_[4]{}. Accordingly the coefficients of $\phi^2(t)/2$, $g\phi^3(t)/3$, and $(1/\alpha)A^2(t)$ respectively are modified as
c\_[2]{}+c\_[2]{}=(1+2 h dl) =1+\[2h+(F\_[g2]{}-F\_[g2]{}-F\_[g1]{}) g\^2 +(F\_[2]{}-F\_[g2]{})\] dl + O(dl\^2) ,
c\_[3]{}+c\_[3]{}= (1+5h/2 dl) =1+\[5h/2-1/2+(3F\_[g2]{}/2+F\_[g3]{}) g\^2+(3F\_[2]{}/2+F\_[g3]{})\] dl\
+ O(dl\^2) ,\
and, c\_[4]{}+c\_[4]{}=(1+h dl) =1+\[(1-h)+2(G\_[g3]{}-F\_[g2]{})g\^2+(2G\_[3]{} -2F\_[2]{}-G\_[2]{})\]dl + O(dl\^2).Setting the coefficient of $\phi(t)^2/2$ to one (this implies keeping the mass parameter at the fixed point with unit magnitude) results in an extra constraint c\_[2]{}=0.
Beta function equations
------------------------
The effective action is of the same form as the bare one, but with renormalized strength of the coupling and the fugacity. The resulting partition function is given by
\_[N+1]{}\[g’,’,R’\]&=&’\^[N\^2]{}\_[’\_[N+1]{}(2R’)=’\_[N+1]{}(0)]{} \^[(N+1)\^2]{}A’\_[N+1]{}(t’) \^[(N+1)\^2]{}’\_[N+1]{}(t’)\
&&,\
&& \[A’Z1\_[N+1]{}\] where ’\^[N\^2]{}=(R,N)\^[N\^2]{}.Neglecting the $O(dl^2)$ terms, the renormalized fugacities (couplings) and the vacuum energy (the prefactor of the partition function) are expressed in terms of the bare quantities as follows:
g’ &=& g+\[(5h/2-1/2)g+(3F\_[g2]{}/2+F\_[g3]{}) g\^3+(3F\_[2]{}/2+F\_[g3]{})g\] dl ,\
&=& +\[(1-h)+2(G\_[g3]{}-F\_[g2]{})+(2G\_[3]{}-2F\_[2]{}-G\_[2]{})\]dl\
’&=& 1+dl +dl. Here, in simplifying the part $\mc{C}(R,N)^{\frac{1}{N^2}}$ in the expression for $\lambda'$, we have assumed that for any value of $R$, (R,N)\^&&=\^\_[n , N ]{}\
&& 1+ ()+O(1/N\^2). \[prefactor\] Also, the term $\exp[-2\pi RN^2\mathscr{F}(g,N,R)]^{\frac{1}{N^2}}$ contributes only a factor of $1$ as $\mathscr{F}(g,N,R)\sim O(dl^2)$. Hence the resulting beta function equations are expressed as
\_g &=& = (h-)g +(F\_[2]{}+F\_[g3]{})g +(F\_[g2]{}+F\_[g3]{})g\^3,\
\_&=& = -(1-h)- (2G\_[3]{}-2F\_[2]{}-G\_2)\^2-2g\^2(G\_[g3]{}-F\_[g2]{}),\
\_&=&=+. \[beta1\]along with the constraints, (G’\_[3]{}-G\_[3]{})+g\^2(G’\_[g3]{}-G\_[g3]{})&=&0,\
(G’\_[4]{}-G\_[4]{})+g\^2(G’\_[g4]{}-G\_[g4]{})&=&0,\
(F\_[2]{}+G\_[4]{}-2G\_[3]{})+g\^2(F\_[g2]{}+G\_[g4]{} -2G\_[g3]{})&=&0,\
2h+g\^2(F\_[g2]{}-F\_[g2]{}-F\_[g1]{}) +(F\_[2]{}-F\_[2]{})&=&0 . \[constraints\] The relation (\[rescaling\]) indicates in some sense a running of the radius $R$ \_R = = -h R.\[betaR\]This suggests a deformation of the target space geometry if one considers the scale to be dilaton. In the above equations, all the functions $F$s and $G$s are hyperbolic nonlinear functions of $R$, as defined in (\[defhyperbolic\]).
Now before going to the detail analysis of the fixed points let us try to understand few things about the structure of the beta function equations. The much of the structure depends on understanding the quantity $h$. One can clearly see for $g=0$ and $\alpha=0$, the gaussian model is never expected to flow and hence for such a fixed point $h=0$ ([*i.e.*]{} corresponding to the trivial rescaling $t'=t$ and $R'=R$). The situation is different for a non-vanishing $h$. Demanding the mass parameter $M^2$ (the coefficient of the $\phi^2(t)/2$ term) to be set at some fixed value (we will use 1 for simplicity) and not running, one can easily determine some $h=h(R)$ for nontrivial fixed points from the set of the beta function equations and the set of constraints. This will be discussed in the next section. This is extremely interesting as it could indicate a phase transition at certain radius due to turning on the different operators coupled to the relevant couplings. Note that in (\[beta1\]) the linear term in $\alpha$ in $\beta_{\alpha}$ changes sign at $h=1$. This indicates that the coupling corresponding to the vortex fugacity becomes relevant in the $h \ge
1$ region. In the next section, we will study this as an indication of the liberation of the world-sheet vortices due to Kosterlitz-Thouless type of phase transition undergone by the $c=1$ matrix quantum mechanics with nonsinglet sector.
Keeping $M^2=1$ for simplicity is consistent with the value of the mass parameter ($M^2=\frac{1}{\alpha'}$) one originally works with in the matrix partition function to visualize the matrix path integral as the generator of the discretized version of the Polyakov path integral of $2D$ bosonic string. In recent identification of the matrix quantum mechanics with the quantum mechanics of open string tachyon on unstable $D0$-branes the mass parameter $M^2=\frac{1}{\alpha'}$ is identified with the open string tachyon mass. A framework of the flow of a general $M^2$ ([*i.e.*]{} $h=0$ ) could be interesting to discuss the presence of the boundaries.
Analysis of Flow Equations and Phase Transition
===============================================
The fixed points
----------------
The fixed points of the flow are given by the simultaneous solution of the beta function equations $\beta_g=\beta_{\alpha}=0$ . The Gaussian fixed point $\Lambda^*_0$ is given by
g\^\*=0, \^\*=0, h=0. \[lambda0\] The nontrivial fixed points of the flow $\Lambda^*_1(g^{*2} \ne 0, 0)$, $\Lambda^*_2(0, \alpha^* \ne 0)$ and $\Lambda^*_3(g^{*2}\ne 0, \alpha^* \ne 0)$ are as follows, &&\^\*\_1=(2/(F\_[g2]{}-F\_[g2]{}-F\_[g1]{}-2F\_[g3]{}-3G\_[g4]{}),0; R\_1),\
&&h=-, \[lambda1\] where $R_1$ is given by, G\_[g3]{}=G’\_[g 3]{}, G\_[g4]{}=G’\_[g4]{}. Similarly, &&\^\*\_2=(0,2/(F\_[2]{}-F\_[2]{}-3 G\_[4]{} +2 G\_[2]{}-2F\_[g3]{}); R\_2),\
&&h=-, \[lambda2\] where $R_2$ is given by, G\_[3]{}=G’\_[3]{}, G\_[4]{}=G’\_[4]{}. And lastly, $\Lambda^*_3(g^{*2}\ne 0, \alpha^* \ne 0)$ is given by, g\^[\*2]{}&=&2(F\_[2]{}+G’\_[4]{}-3G\_[3]{}+G’\_[3]{})\
&&/{(F\_[2]{}+G’\_[4]{}-3G\_[3]{}+G’\_[3]{}) (4F\_[g2]{}-F\_[g1]{}-F\_[g2]{}-6G\_[g3]{}-2F\_[g3]{})\
&&-(F\_[g2]{}+G’\_[g4]{}-3G\_[g3]{}+G’\_[g3]{}) (4F\_[2]{}-F\_[2]{}+3G\_2-6G\_[3]{}-2F\_[g3]{})},\
\^\*&=&2(F\_[g2]{}+G’\_[g4]{}-3G\_[g3]{}+G’\_[g3]{})\
&&/{(F\_[g2]{}+G’\_[g4]{}-3G\_[g3]{}+G’\_[g3]{}) (4F\_[2]{}-F\_[2]{}+3 G\_[2]{}-6 G\_[3]{}-2F\_[g3]{})\
&&-(F\_[2]{}+G’\_[4]{}-3G\_[3]{}+G’\_[3]{}) (4F\_[g2]{}-F\_[g1]{}-F\_[g2]{}-6G\_[g3]{}-2F\_[g3]{})},\
h&=&-{(F\_[2]{} -F\_[2]{})\^\*+(F\_[g2]{}-F\_[g2]{}-F\_[g1]{})g\^[\*2]{}}. \[lambda3\]
To have a better feeling about the structure of the flow we plot the flow diagrams for $R \sim 1_{-}$ and $R \sim 1_{+}$ in the ($g^2$, $\alpha$) plane (figure \[flow\], \[flow1\]), based on the nature of the scaling dimensions we discuss in the next sections. As we can extract all the quantities associated with the flow for any radius, in principle we can explore the behavior of the flow for a wide range of temperature. Remarkably we observe cyclic flow for $R > 1.03$, which is suggestive of resonances of high spin particles with a stringy behavior [@LeClair]. The cyclic flow structure becomes very complicated, where the nontrivial fixed points show black hole like behavior. Note that a cyclic flow should give periodic $c$-function. However as the multi-critical points of matrix models are not necessarily unitary, this does not contradict with $c$-theorem.
![Schematic flow diagram for $R\sim 1_-$ in ($g^2$, $\alpha$) plane with the fixed points $\Lambda_0^*(0,0)$, $\Lambda_2^*(0,\alpha^*)$, $\Lambda_3^*(g^{*2},0)$, $\Lambda_3^*(g^{*2},\alpha^*)$[]{data-label="flow"}](flow.eps){width="300pt"}
![Schematic flow diagram for $R\sim 1_+$ in ($g^2$, $\alpha$) plane with the fixed points $\Lambda_0^*(0,0)$, $\Lambda_2^*(0,\alpha^*)$, $\Lambda_3^*(g^{*2},0)$, $\Lambda_3^*(g^{*2},\alpha^*)$.[]{data-label="flow1"}](flow1.eps){width="300pt"}
The critical exponents
----------------------
Let us now go back to the matrix partition function we started with. After completing the RG transformations, it obeys the relation
Z\_[N+1]{}\[g,,R-R\] \^[N\^2]{} Z\_N\[g’=g+g, ’=+,R\] . This leads to the Callan-Symanzik equation
\[ g,,R \] r \[g, , R\] \[CZ\] for the string partition function ([*i.e.*]{} the world-sheet free energy)
\[g,,R\] = Z\[g,,R\] . The singular part of the world-sheet free energy $\mc{F}_s$ is given by the solution of the homogeneous Callan-Symanzik equation. The inhomogenous part defined by the change in the prefactor $\lambda$, contributes to subtleties in the free energy.
To discuss the critical exponents for the scaling variables, the renormalized bulk cosmological constant $\Delta=1-g/g^*$, and the renormalized fugacity for the vortices $\hat \alpha=(1-\alpha/\alpha^*)$, we introduce the scaling dimension matrix
\_[k,l]{} = . The eigenvalues $\Omega_i$ of this matrix represent the scaling dimensions of the relevant operators. The scaling dimensions at different fixed points are evaluated in the Appendix C. In terms of them, the homogeneous part of the Callan-Symanzik equation satisfied by the singular part of the free energy, around a fixed point, can be written as \_[s]{} \[ ,,R\] = 0 \[cs-scaling\]. The scaling of the free energy with respect to the renormalized cosmological constant, as one approaches the fixed point, goes as \_[s]{} \~\^[2/\_[1]{}]{} F\_1 , where $F_1$ is an arbitrary scaling function whose explicit form depends on the initial conditions. Comparing the above expression of $\mc{F}_{s}$ with the matrix model result $\mc{F}_{s} \sim \Delta
^{(2-\gamma_{0})} ~f[ N^{2/\gamma_{1}} \Delta]$, or using the standard definition of the susceptibility $\Gamma ~\sim \frac
{\partial^2 \mc{F}_{s}} {\partial \Delta^2} \arrowvert_{\hat \alpha=0}
~\sim \Delta ^{-\gamma_{0}}~$, the string susceptibility exponent $\gamma_{0}$ is given by
\_[0]{} \~(2-2/\_[1]{}). Note that in our analysis $2/\gamma_1 \sim \Omega_{1}$, [*i.e.*]{} $\gamma_1 \sim
2/\Omega_{1}$ is consistent with the matrix model relation $\gamma_0 + \gamma_1 = 2$. This relation is independent of the explicit values of $\gamma_0$ and $\gamma_1$ and is easily obtainable from the consideration of the torus. The string susceptibility exponent at genus $G$ is defined by
\_G = \_0 + G \_1 .
Analysis of the flow
--------------------
Now we will analyze the nature of the fixed points considering the behavior of the scaling dimensions with respect to the change of the compactification radius $R$. Since the flow equations and the constraints together give rise to complicated system of nonlinear simultaneous equations, it would be easier to analyze them by studying the behavior of all quantities as functions of temperature. We will also plot the relevant functions for the convenience of the analysis. Referring to the Appendix C we observe that, the nontrivial fixed point $\Lambda_1^*$ produces a [*pair of $c=1$ fixed points*]{} for $R \to \infty$, characterized by the asymptotic scaling dimensions {$\Omega_1=1,
~\Omega_2=-1.2$} (more precisely, the asymptotic values are true for $R \ge 1.08$ and $R \ge 2$ respectively, see figure \[O11\], \[O22\]) and hence the string susceptibility exponent $\gamma_0=(2-2/\Omega_1)=0$.
These fixed points have one unstable direction. The critical coupling for such fixed points is vanishingly small ($g^{*2} \to 0, \alpha^*=0$) and hence the pair of $c=1$ fixed points will be infinitesimally close to the gaussian fixed point, as we have already seen in the analysis of the ungauged model [@dd-singlet]. As the radius is increased $\Omega_1$ grows to infinity as $R \to 0.70$, and $\Omega_2$ flips sign from negative to positive at $R=1.03$ and also grows to infinity as $R \to
0.76$. This indicates that the operator coupled to the fugacity of vortices becomes relevant at $R=1.03$ and triggers the expected [*liberation of the world-sheet vortices by BKT transition*]{} at the self dual radius [@GK1; @GK2].
After this transition, the fixed point becomes purely repulsive up to $R \sim 0.67$. In the range $0.67\le R \le 0.70$, the critical coupling is infinitely large $(g^{*2} \to \infty , \alpha^* =0)$ as well as the scaling exponents $\Omega_1 \to \infty, \Omega_2
\to \infty$. As the quantity $h$ is also a large positive quantity here (figure \[h1\]), the fixed point $\Lambda_1^*$ in this region is characterized by a negative specific heat, reminiscent of [*Euclidean black hole*]{} in flat space-time. We will elaborate on this in the next section. These black hole like fixed points have a positive string susceptibility exponent $\gamma_0 =(2-2/\Omega_1)
\to 2$.
Between $0 < R \le 0.67$ the matrix coupling $g^{*2}$, $\alpha^*$ and both of the scaling dimensions are negative. Hence one gets a purely attractive fixed point with imaginary matrix coupling. However, as $R \to 0$, the couplings are vanishingly small, also $h \to 0$, and one reaches [*a pure gravity fixed point*]{} ($c=0$) with one unstable direction as $\Omega_1 \sim 0.8$ (such that $\gamma_0=2-2.5 \sim -0.5$) and $\Omega_2 \to -3.6$. Note that even though $\Lambda_1^*$ exhibits so many important features for a wide range of temperature, the constraint we have here allows us to look at it only around $R=1$ and around $R=0$. We need to improve over this constraint.
Similarly one can analyze the behavior of the fixed point $\Lambda_2^*$ with respect to the parameter $R$. It exhibits [*black hole like behavior*]{} ($h$ is large positive quantity) as $ 0 \le R \ge 0.25
0$. In this limit the fixed point $\Lambda_2^*(g^*=0, \alpha^*
\to \infty)$ is purely repulsive, $\Omega_1\to \infty, \Omega_2
\to \infty$, and hence $\gamma_0 \to 2$ (see figure \[h2\]). However, here the constraint on the radius is $R \ge 0.19$. For the fixed points $\Lambda_3^*$, there is also similar black hole like behavior with negative specific heat at $0.51\le R \ge 0.63$ and at $0.12\le R\ge 0.19$ and $\gamma_0=2$ (see figure \[h3\]). There is no constraint on the radius.
Comments On The Black Hole Fixed Point
======================================
To study the thermodynamic behavior of the fixed points we would like to solve for the free energy from the Callan-Symanzik equation as one approaches the BKT phase transition (or the Hagedorn transition) and analyze its thermal properties. From the analysis of the previous section, one can see that the fixed point $\Lambda_1^*$ has rather exotic behavior around $R_H \sim 0.73$, little below (above) the Kosterlitz-Thouless radius (temperature) $R_{KT}=1/(2 \pi T_{KT})=1$. Around this region the scaling dimensions $\Omega_1$, $\Omega_2$, and $h$, are large constants which simplifies the situation. However, as we proceed we will see that the black hole like behavior would emerge from the region where $h$ is a large positive constant. Thus around $R_H$ the free energy can be written as
\_s \~f\[(R-R\_H/R\_H)\^[1/h]{}, , , N\], where the inverse temperatures are defined by,
= 2R = , \_H = 2R\_H = . The thermodynamic quantities are given by
\_s (-\_H) &=& - F(-\_H) = Z(-\_H) ,\
E &=& = ,\
C\_v &=&-\^2 ()\_v. Using $\mc{F}_s$, we have
E &\~& \_H\^[-1]{} ()\^[1/h-1]{}.\
\[energy\] Since near the phase transition the fluctuation of energy is large, the canonical ensemble would diverge. In such situation, it is better to pass to the microcanonical ensemble with fixed energy and the temperature defined by
= . \[microtemp\] Using (\[energy\]) for large positive $h$, one can solve for $\beta$ in terms of $E$ as -\_H \~-. \[bh-entropy\] Combining this with the definition of temperature in the microcanonical ensemble (\[microtemp\]) one can calculate the near Hagedorn one loop finite energy correction to the usual definition of Hagedorn density of states, $\rho (E) = \exp[S(E)] \sim \exp[\beta_H E]$, and the usual inverse temperature, which is otherwise a constant $\partial S/\partial E = \beta_H$. The finite energy corrections are of the form
&=& = \_H + + O() ,\
(E) &\~& E\^[s\_1]{} . \[oneloopcorr\] Here the number $s_1$ would come from the one loop correction. If $s_1$ is negative, the specific heat is negative, [*i.e.*]{} increasing the energy of the system gives rise to the decrease of temperature, indicating [*Euclidean black hole like behavior in flat spacetime*]{}.
Integrating our equation (\[bh-entropy\]) to get the entropy and density of states we identify the one-loop correction as S(E) \~\_H E- E,\
(E) \~E\^[-]{} , s\_1=-1/h < 0. \[entropy-dos\] This behavior is true for large positive $h$ and the corresponding range of radius only. As we have analyzed in the previous section, we encounter such fixed points $\Lambda_1^*$ of very large and positive $h$ in the region $0.67 \le R \le 0.70$. These are pair of purely repulsive fixed points (over this region the scaling exponents $\Omega_1,
\Omega_2$ are also large positive constants like $h$) of large (diverging) coupling $g^{*2} \to \infty, \alpha^*=0$ and positive string susceptibility exponent $\gamma_0 \sim 2$. We therefore identify such fixed points as the [*Euclidean Black hole like fixed points*]{} in the continuum limit, with a negative specific heat (figure \[Cv1\])
C\_v \~- . \[sp-heat\] Using relations like $C_v=- \beta \Big(\frac{\partial S}
{\partial \beta}\Big)_v$ the entropy as a function of temperature is
S(-\_H) \~-((-\_H)- ). \[entropy-thermal\] The discontinuity in entropy (a measure of the latent heat of the transition) suggest that the Hagedorn transition is a first order phase transition at little higher temperature than the KT temperature, driving the system to an unstable black hole phase.
![ Behavior of the specific heat $C_v$ (for $\Lambda_1^*$) with respect to $x=\pi R$[]{data-label="Cv1"}](Cv.eps){width="250pt"}
Discussions
===========
In this paper, starting from a matrix quantum mechanics on a circle with a periodic boundary condition (\[AZ1N\]) (with gauge fields $A(t)=\Omega^\dagger \dot\Omega (t)$ as degrees of freedom apart from the matrix degrees of freedom $\phi(t)$ and also with the coupling $\alpha$ as the fugacity of vortices), we have analyzed the phase structure of the theory by a world-sheet renormalization group flow and observed following remarkable facts. The nontrivial fixed points of the flow does capture the known physics of the $2D$ string theory, namely a fixed point with the critical index of $c=1$ for large radius ($R>1$), and moreover reveals a new phase. In our previous paper [@dd-singlet] we have analyzed this $c=1$ fixed point in detail showing that it exhibits expected logarithmic scaling violation of the singlet free energy and the T-duality. Note that for this class of fixed point ($\Lambda_1^*$), a pair with $\alpha^*=0$, the vanishing $\alpha$ forces $A$ to be zero and the matrix quantum mechanics (\[AZ1N\]) reduces to the usual matrix quantum mechanics with periodic boundary condition studied in [@dd-singlet][^4]. The flow equations also exhibit indication of phase transition at $R=1.03$ as expected in BKT phase transition undergone by the $2D$ string theory due to liberation of world-sheet vortices. However, a new phase emerges beyond the phase transition at the self-dual radius. The fixed points $\Lambda_1^*$ exhibit an unstable black hole like phase with negative specific heat, between $0.67<R<0.7$. As $R \to
0$ they end up into $c=0$ fixed points which is consistent with the expectation. For another class of fixed points $\Lambda_3^*$, a pair with both nonzero $\alpha^*$ and $g^*$, there is unstable black hole like behavior with negative specific heat above the self-dual temperature (at $0.51<R<0.63$ and at $0.12<R<0.19$)[^5]. From a thermodynamic study of the free energy obtained from the Callan-Symanzik equations we show that all these unstable phases do have negative specific heat. The thermodynamic quantities indicate that the system does undergo a finite temperature phase transition around the Hagedorn temperature ($R_H=0.7$, around which the new phase is formed) and exhibits one loop finite energy correction to the Hagedorn density of states.
Thus the thermodynamics of the $2D$ string theory above the BKT phase transition at the self-dual radius is governed by the unstable black hole like phase with negative specific heat for a range of temperatures beyond the BKT phase transition point. The remarkable thing is that we observe phases of negative specific heat for a range of temperatures rather than at a particular temperature like the case in [@KKK] indicating that presumably there are many black holes at temperatures other than that of $2D$ [*cigar black hole*]{} described by dilaton gravity. It is then meaningful to ask where do the thermal black holes that we observe end up if they evaporate? Our analysis shows one class of these unstable objects evaporate to $c=0$, the other classes end up in other black holes at higher temperatures. In $1+1$ dimension, the string theory is integrable due to infinite number of conserved charges. Thus from continuum point of view it is possible that there are other black hole solutions not only characterized by mass and temperature but also by other values of conserved charges, in which case they might be at different temperatures. Here we can mention that the understanding that the integrability of the free fermion structure perhaps prevents the formation of $c=1$ black hole is consistent from the nature of the flow and the fixed points. The $c=1$ fixed points at large $R$, dominated by the singlet sector, does not exhibit any black hole like behavior.
To actually see that these objects are black holes and to deal with the questions like the formation and the unitarity of the scattering off the black hole one needs to study the dynamics of the nonsinglet states. As the observations indicate the nonsinglet states account for the entropy of the black hole, it would be nice to realize them as the excitations of the black hole. In black hole physics it was proposed that presumably the black hole entropy is due to open string with ends lying on the event horizon. It would be really interesting to study the nonsinglet boundaries of the matrix quantum mechanics in this context. The general framework of the world-sheet renormalization group approach is useful to study these objects, which is otherwise difficult. The Hamiltonian formalism, appropriate to address the questions of black hole dynamics in the Minkowski space, is complicated due to Calogero type of interaction. However, in the renormalization group approach one can utilize the Callan-Symanzic equations to calculate the wave functions for the nonsinglet boundaries or the macroscopic loops and can construct a $S$-matrix. The wave equation for the macroscopic loops should then contain the information regarding the metric of the black hole to “see” the black hole at all. In this regard one nice observation from the renormalization group analysis is that the running of the radius with scale implies a deformation in the target space geometry if one considers the scale to go like dilaton. Presumably this could help to illuminate further the issue of getting the metric. Also it is interesting to understand the localized wave function (microscopic loop) describing the the tip of the cigar black hole [@SeibergShenker]. The unique boundary associated to the inner core of the black hole is thought to be essential to understand the evaporation and the Hawking radiation [@HoroMalda]. We have work in progress on understanding the boundaries in this context.
Regarding our RG method, as we have already discussed in [@dd-singlet], it would be interesting to generalize the scheme for arbitrary couplings and to keep arbitrary powers of $\phi$ in the evaluation of the determinant obtained from the integration over the vector degrees of freedom ($v, v^*$). Here we will just mention that (as discussed in our previous papaer) because of these vectors our partition function (in the $\alpha\to 0$ limit) essentially looks like the model discussed in [@Yang; @Minahan] and thus is useful to understand the presence of the boundaries. As a simple step towards generalization we would like to study the flow with an additional coupling due to $\phi^4$ term. These might reveal finer observations and also would be helpful to test the convergence of the scheme as well. The cyclic flow structure also deserves a detail study, specially near the regime of the black hole like behavior of the nontrivial fixed points where the flow structure is complicated. We would also like to understand how the relevant operators driving our flow look like in the matrix quantum mechanics side and how they translate to the operators in the world-sheet.
1.0cm [**Acknowledgments**]{}
We would like to thank Michael Douglas for useful discussions, comments and constant support at all stages of the work. We would also like to thank Igor Klebanov, Massimo Porrati for discussions and especially Edouard Brézin for illuminating discussions, advices and reading an early draft. We thank the organizers of the string workshop at HRI, India for hospitality during early stages of this work where part of this work was reported. The research of SD was supported in part by DOE grant DE-FG02-96ER40959. The research of TD was supported in part by NSF grants PHY-0070787 and PHY-0245068. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
\[A1\]
Evaluating the diagrams, $\Sigma [g,\alpha,\phi_N,A_N,R,N]$ can be expressed as
&&= 1 + i + g + + \
&&-\
&&+i \
&&+i \
&&- \
&&-g \
&&+ \
&&- . \[SigmaFourier\]
\[A2\]
Here we evaluate and discuss the terms in different orders of the series $\Sigma [g,\alpha,\phi_N,A_N,R,N]$ (\[SigmaFourier\]) using the summation rules discussed in section (3.3) and the relation (\[FourierTrfm\]) for the inverse Fourier Transform.
The terms of order O($\Phi$):
-----------------------------
g =g (R) \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{}dt (t).
The terms of order O($A$):
--------------------------
i =0.
This is because,
$$\sum_n \frac{n/R}{(\frac{n^2}{R^2}+1)}=0\,.$$
The terms of order O($\Phi$$\Phi$):
-----------------------------------
(1)&& \
&&= ( (t\_[1]{})(t\_[2]{})) .\
Now, changing the variables to ’center of mass’ and ’relative’ coordinates defined respectively by T=, =, we have, dt\_[1]{} dt\_[2]{}= J () dT d=2 dT d. Hence, && \
&&= \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT \_[-R]{}\^[R]{}d ( (T+)(T-)) \_[m,n]{}\
&& \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT \_[-R]{}\^[R]{}d ( (T)\^2-\^2 (T)\^2) \_[m,n]{}\
&& g\^2 F\_[g2]{} (R) \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT ((T)\^2/2)+g\^2F\_[g2]{} (R) \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT ((T)\^2/2), where, F\_[g2]{} (R)&=&\_[-R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[m,n]{}\
&=&\_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} d’ \_[m,n]{} , (’=2 )\
&=& \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} d’(R+ ’) (R- ’)\
&=& , and, F\_[g2]{}(R)&=&-\_[-R]{}\^[R]{} d \^2 \_[m,n]{}\
&=&-\_[o]{}\^[2 R]{} d’ ’\^2\_[m,n]{} , (’=2 )\
&=&-\_[o]{}\^[2 R]{} d’ ’\^2(R+) (R-)\
&=& .\
(2)&& = ((t\_[1]{})(t\_[2]{}))\
&&\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT\_[-R]{}\^[R]{} d ( (T+) (T-))\
&&\
&& \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT\_[-R]{}\^[R]{} d ( (T)\^2-\^2 (T)\^2)\
&&\
Now, &&\_[-R]{}\^[R]{} d\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} d’\_[m,n]{}\
&&\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} d’ , (’=2 )\
&&=\
&&=(4-2 R),\
and, &&\_[-R]{}\^[R]{} d \^2\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} d’ ’\^2 \_[m,n]{}\
&&\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} d’ , (’=2 )\
&&=-\
&&=-2 R. &&(3)\
&&- \_k\_k\_[-k]{}=- dt\_[1]{} dt\_[2]{} ((t\_[1]{})(t\_[2]{})) \_k (i (t\_[1]{}-t\_[2]{}))\
&&=- \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT (T)\^2.\
Hence, in $O(\alpha)$, the coefficients of the $O(\Phi \Phi)$ terms are given by comparing with the expression F\_[2]{}(R)\_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT ((T)\^2)+ F\_[2]{}\_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT ((T)\^2), where, after collecting all the results, F\_[2]{}(R)=-+8-4 R, F\_[2]{}=-4 R.
The terms of order O($\Phi$$\Phi$$\Phi$):
-----------------------------------------
(1) && \
&&= ( (t\_[1]{})(t\_[2]{})(t\_[3]{}))\
&&.\
Using redefinition of the variables into the “center of mass” and the “relative coordinates”, $$T=\frac{1}{3}(t_{1}+t_{2}+t_{3})\,,
~~~\tau_{1}=(t_{1}-t_{2})\,,~~~~\tau_{2}=(t_{1}-t_{3})\,,$$ $$dt_{1} ~dt_{2} ~dt_{3}
= J \Big(\frac{t_{1},t_{2},t_{3}}{T,\tau_{1},\tau_{2}}
\Big)~dT~d\tau_{1} ~d\tau_{2}=dT ~d\tau_{1} ~d\tau_{2}\,.$$ Considering $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ to be small and keeping the order $O( \phi^3)$ term, above series could be evaluated as, && \
&&= \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{}\
&&( (T+) (T-\_[1]{}+ \_[2]{})(T+\_[1]{}-\_[2]{}))\
&&\
&& g\^3 F\_[g3]{}(R) \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT ((T)\^3/3) where, && F\_[g3]{}(g,R)\
&&=\_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{}\
&&=\_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{} (R - \_1) (R+ \_2)\
&& \_k\
&&= \_[- 2 R]{}\^[2 R]{} dT \_[-2 R]{}\^[2 R]{} d ((2 R +)+) \_k\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} d\
&&= \[ 4 R (3 R + 2 3 R\
&&+2 5 R + 7 R ) + R + 3 R+ 5 R+ 2 7 R\
&&+ 9 R \]
(2) &&-g \
&&=-g ((t\_[1]{})(t\_[2]{})(t\_[3]{})) .\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{}\
&&( (T+) (T-\_[1]{}+ \_[2]{})(T+\_[1]{}-\_[2]{}))\
&&\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT (t)\^3\_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{}
Now, && \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{}\
&&= \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{} 2R (t\_2) \_[m,n,l]{}\
&&\
&&=.
Also, && \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{}\
&&= \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{} \
&&=\_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} (R+\_1)(R-\_1)\
&&\_[0, 0]{}( ((+)-(-))/)\
&&=.
The last but one term can be evaluated as, && \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{}\
&&= \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{} \
&&= \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} (R+\_1)(R-\_1) \_[0]{}/\
&&=.
Thus combining all the terms,
-g =F\_[g 3]{} g \_0\^[2 R]{} dt \^2(t)/3, where, F\_[g 3]{}=( R- ).
The terms of order O($A$$A$):
-----------------------------
\(1) -= R \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dt (A\^2(t))
(2)&&-\
&&=-\_[0]{}\^[2R]{} dt\_1 dt\_2 (A(t\_1)A(t\_2)) \_[m,n]{} (im(t\_2-t\_1)/R)\
&& (in(t\_1-t\_2)/R)\
&&-\_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT (A\^2(T)) \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d \_[m,n]{}\
&&((i2m/R) (-i2n/R)+\
&&(-i2m/R) (i2n/R)+ (i2m/R) (i2n/R)+(-i2m/R) (-i2n/R))\
&&=-4 R \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT (A\^2(T))- \_[0]{}\^[R]{}d(2 (R-)(R +)+\
&&(R-)(R-)+(R+)(R +)) \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT (A\^2(T))\
&&=-(4 R+ R (1+\^2R)-R-) \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT (A\^2(T)) Hence, the terms of O($A$$A$) are given by, G\_2(R) dt A\^2(t), where, G\_2(R)=(-3 R- R (1+\^2R)+).
The terms of order O($A$$\Phi$$\Phi$):
--------------------------------------
\(1) &&i \
&&=i ( A(t\_[1]{}) (t\_[2]{})(t\_[3]{}))\
&&\
Now we will use the following redefinition of the variables into the “center of mass” and “relative coordinates”, $$T
=\frac{1}{3}(t_{1}+t_{2}+t_{3})\,,
~~~\tau_{1}=(t_{1}-t_{2})\,,~~~~\tau_{2}=(t_{1}-t_{3})\,,$$ $$dt_{1} ~dt_{2}
~dt_{3}= J \Big(\frac{t_{1},t_{2},t_{3}}{T,\tau_{1},\tau_{2}}
\Big)~dT~d\tau_{1} ~d\tau_{2}=dT ~d\tau_{1} ~d\tau_{2}\,.$$ Considering $\tau_{1}$ and $\tau_{2}$ to be small and neglecting the terms of the order $O(A(t) \Phi(t)^2)$, $O(A(t) \dot
\Phi(t)^2)$, $O(A(t) \dot \Phi(t) \Phi(t))$, and $O(A(t) \Phi(t)
\dot \Phi(t))$, and keeping terms of the form $O(A(t) [ \Phi(t),
\dot \Phi(t)])$ only, above series could be evaluated as, &&i \
&&=i \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{} ( A(T+) (T-\_[1]{}+\_[2]{}) (T+\_[1]{}-\_[2]{}))\
&&\
&& i \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT A(T) \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{} ()\
&&\
&&= (R 2R-2R ), Where, &&\_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{} ()\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{}\_[m,n,l]{}\
&&=-i \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{} (\_[1]{} 2\_[1]{} 2\_[2]{}-\_[2]{} 2\_[2]{} 2\_[1]{})\
&&=-i \^3 R\^3 \^2 R (R 2R-2R ). (2) &&-i \
&&=-i ( A(t\_[1]{}) (t\_[2]{})(t\_[3]{}))\
&&= - \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{} ( A(T+) (T-\_[1]{}+\_[2]{})(T+ \_[1]{}-\_[2]{}))\
&&\
&&- \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT A(T) \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{} ( )\
&&\
Now contribution of the different terms on the above sum can be evaluated as, (2.a) &&- \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{} (\_[1]{}-\_[2]{})\
&&=-i \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[1]{} (\_[1]{})\_[l]{}\
&&=0.
(2.b) &&- \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{} (\_[1]{}-\_[2]{})\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{}\_[m,n,l]{}\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[1]{} (’(-\_[1]{})\_[l]{} -’(\_[1]{})\_[l]{} )\
&&=- R.
(2.c) &&- \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{} (\_[1]{}-\_[2]{})\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{}\_[m,n,l]{}\
&&=\_l \_0\^[R]{}d\_1 \_0\^[R]{} d\_2 =0
(2. d) &&- \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[- R]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{} (\_[1]{}-\_[2]{})\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_[1]{} \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_[2]{}\_[m,n,l]{}\
&&= \_0\^[R]{} d\_1 \_0\^[R]{} d\_2 \
&&=- ( R+ R )
\(3) &&i \_[m,n,k]{} { -} A\_[m-n-k]{}\_k\_[n-m]{}\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dt\_1 dt\_2 dt\_3 (A(t\_1)(t\_2)(t\_3)) \_[m,n,k]{}{ -}\
&&(ik(t\_1-t\_2)/R) (im(t\_3-t\_1)/R) (in(t\_1-t\_3)/R)\
&&= \_[0]{}\^[2 R]{} dT (A(T)\[(T),(T)\]) \_[-R]{}\^[R]{} d\_1 d\_2 (\_1-\_2) \_[m,n,k]{}{ -}\
&&(ik(\_2-\_1)/R) (im\_1/R) (-in\_1/R)\
&&=0. As the overall behavior of the function is proportional to $\int_{-\pi R}^{\pi
R}~d\tau_1~d\tau_2~(\tau_1-\tau_2) \delta(\tau_1-\tau_2)$ , therefore the contribution vanishes. Similarly the contribution of the other term with similar sum i \_[m,n,k]{} { -} A\_[m-n-k]{}\_[n-m]{}\_k vanishes also. Thus, the O$(A[\phi,\dot \phi])$ term is given by
$$(G_{g3}~g^2+G_{\alpha 3}~\alpha) \int dt~A(t)[\phi(t),\dot \phi(t)]\,,$$ where, &&G\_[g3]{}(R)=(R 2 R- 2 R)\
&&G\_[3]{}(R)=- R-(R+R).
The terms of order O($A^2\Phi^2$)
---------------------------------
(1). &&2 \
&&= \_0\^[2 R]{} dt\_1 dt\_2 dt\_3 dt\_4 (A(t\_1)(t\_2)(t\_3)A(t\_4) ) \_[m,n,l,k]{}\
&&(i(t\_3-t\_4)) (i(t\_3-t\_1)) (i(t\_1-t\_2)) (i(t\_2-t\_3)) \
Again using the usual redefinition of the variables into the “center of mass” and “relative coordinates”, $$T=\frac{1}{4}(t_{1}+t_{2}+t_{3}+t_{4})\,,~~~\tau_{1}
=(t_{4}-t_{1})\,,~~~~\tau_{2}=(t_{4}-t_{2})
~~~~\tau_{3}=(t_{4}-t_{3})\,,$$ $$dt_{1} ~dt_{2} ~dt_{3}~dt_{4}= J \Big(\frac{t_{1},t_{2},
t_{3},t_{4}}{T,\tau_{1},\tau_{2},\tau_{3}} \Big)~dT
~d\tau_{1} ~d\tau_{2}~d\tau_{3}=dT ~d\tau_{1} ~d\tau_{2}~d\tau_{3}\,.$$ Considering $\tau_{1}$, $\tau_{2}$ and $\tau_{4}$ to be small and keeping terms of the form $O(A(t)^2\Phi(t)^2)$ only, above series could be evaluated as, &&2 \
&& \_[-R]{}\^[R]{} d\_1 d\_2 \_[m,n,l]{} (i(\_1)) \
&&(i(\_2-\_1)) (-i(\_2)) \_0\^[2 R]{} dT (\^2(T) A\^2(T))\
&&=\_0\^[2 R]{} dT (\^2(T) A\^2(T)) \_[m,n,l]{}\
&& \_[-R]{}\^[R]{} d\_1 d\_2 (i(\_1+\_2)) (-i 2 \_2) (i(\_2-\_1)) \
The terms containing powers of $n$ in the numerator of the sum inserts higher and higher derivatives of delta function over time variables and are eventually computed to be zero. The only non-vanishing contribution comes from the term without $n$ in the numerator. &&\_0\^[2 R]{} dT (\^2(T) A\^2(T)) \_[m,n,l]{}\
&&\_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_1 d\_2 ((i (\_1+\_2)) (-i2\_2) (i(\_2-\_1))\
&&+(i(\_1-\_2)) (i(2\_2)) (-i(\_2+\_1))+(-i(\_1-\_2))\
&& (i(-2 \_2)) (i(\_2+\_1)) + (-i(\_1+\_2)) (i(2 \_2) (-i(\_2-\_1)))\
&&=-\_0\^[2 R]{} dT (\^2(T) A\^2(T)) \_0\^[R]{} d \_1 ((R-\_1) (R + \_1) )\
&&=- (R 2 R- 2 R) \_0\^[2 R]{} dT (\^2(T) A\^2(T))
(2) Similarly, &&-2 \
&&= \_0\^[2 R]{} dt\_1 dt\_2 dt\_3 dt\_4 ((t\_1)A(t\_2)A(t\_3)(t\_4)) \_[m,n,l,k]{}\
&&(i(t\_3-t\_4)) (i(t\_2-t\_3)) (i(t\_3-t\_1)) (i(t\_1-t\_2)) \
&& \_0\^[2 R]{} dT ((T)A(T)A(T)(T)) \_[-R]{}\^[R]{} d\_1 d\_2 \_[m,n,l,k]{}\
&&(-i\_2) (i\_1) (i(\_2-\_1)) \
&&( R-2 R (1+\^2 R) ) \_0\^[2 R]{} dT ((T)A(T)A(T)(T)) In evaluating above expression again we see that the term containing (any power of) $n$ in the numerator of the sum is not contributing. Again, &&2 \
&&= \_0\^[2 R]{} dt\_1 dt\_2 dt\_3 dt\_4 (A(t\_1)(t\_2)(t\_3)A(t\_4)) \_[m,n,l,k]{}\
&&(i(t\_4-t\_3)) (i(t\_1-t\_2)) (i(t\_2-t\_4)) (i(t\_4-t\_1)) \
&&\_0\^[2 R]{} dT (A(T)(T)(T)A(T)) \_[-R]{}\^[R]{} d\_1 d\_2 \_[m,n,l,k]{}\
&&(i\_1) (-i\_2) (i(\_2-\_1)).\
Exchanging $l \leftrightarrow m$ and $\tau_1
\leftrightarrow -\tau_2$, this gives equal and opposite contribution to the previous expression and hence all the similar pair of sums &&-\_[m,n,l,k]{} (2A\_[l-n-k]{}\_k\_[n-m]{}A\_[m-l]{}-\_kA\_[l-n-k]{} \_[n-m]{}A\_[m-l]{})\
&&+\_[m,n,l,k]{} (2\_[l-n]{}\_kA\_[n-m-k]{}A\_[m-l]{} -\_[l-n]{}A\_[n-m-k]{}\_kA\_[m-l]{}),\
give zero contribution.
(3) && \
&&= \_0\^[2 R]{} dt\_1 dt\_2 dt\_3 dt\_4 (A(t\_1)(t\_2)(t\_3)A(t\_4) ) \_[m,n,k,k’]{}( +)\
&&(i(t\_1-t\_2)) (i (t\_4-t\_3)) (i(t\_1-t\_4)) (i(t\_4-t\_1)) \
&& R \_0\^[2 R]{} dT (A(T)(T)(T)A(T) )
(4) Similraly, &&- \
&&= \_0\^[2 R]{} dt\_1 dt\_2 dt\_3 dt\_4 (A(t\_1)(t\_2)A(t\_3) (t\_4) ) \_[m,n,k,k’]{}()\
&&{(i(t\_2-t\_1)) (i(t\_4-t\_3)) (i(t\_2-t\_4)) (i(t\_4-t\_2)) \
&&+(i(t\_4-t\_1)) (i(t\_2-t\_3)) (i(t\_4-t\_2)) (i(t\_2-t\_4))}\
&&-2 R \_0\^[2 R]{} dT (A(T)(T)A(T) (T))
\(5) &&- \
&&=- \_0\^[2 R]{} dt\_1 dt\_2 dt\_3 dt\_4 (A(t\_1)(t\_2)A(t\_3) (t\_4) ) \_[m,n,l,k]{}\
&&(i(t\_3-t\_4)) (i(t\_3-t\_1)) (i(t\_1-t\_2)) (i(t\_2-t\_3)) \
&&-\_0\^[2 R]{} dT (A(T)(T)A(T) (T)) \_[m,n,l,]{}\
&&\_[-R]{}\^[R]{} d\_1 d\_2 (-i \_2) (i\_1) (i(\_2-\_1)) ,\
where, &&- \_[m,n,l,]{} \_[-R]{}\^[R]{} d\_1 d\_2 (-i \_2) (i\_1) (i(\_2-\_1))\
&&=- \_[m]{} \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_1 d\_2 ((R+\_2) (R -\_1)(i(\_2-\_1))+\
&&(R+\_2)(R +\_1)(i(\_2+\_1)))\
&&=- \_[m]{} \_[0]{}\^[R]{} d\_1 d\_2 (((2R+\_2-\_1)- (\_1+\_2))\
&&(i(\_2-\_1))+\
&&((2R+\_1+\_2)-(\_1-\_2)) (i(\_2+\_1)))\
&&=- \_[m]{} \_[0]{}\^[R]{} dT \_[-R/2]{}\^[R/2]{} d (((2R+2 )- (2 T))(i )+\
&&((2R+2 T)-(2 ))(i T))\
&&=- \
&&=- \_[0]{}\^[R]{} dT\
&&=- ( \^2 R\^2 3R+ 5 R+ 3 R\
&&- R + \^2 2 R-\^2 R)\
Collecting all the terms, the O$(A\phi A\phi)$ and the O$(\phi^2 A^2)$ terms are given by $$(G_{g4}g^2+G_{\alpha 4}\alpha\int dt~\mbox{Tr}A(t)\phi(t)A(t)\phi(t)+(G'_{g4}g^2
+G'_{\alpha 4}\alpha) \int dt~\mbox{Tr}A^2(t)\phi^2(t)\,,$$ where, &&G\_[g4]{}(R)=- ( \^2 R\^2 3R + 5 R+ 3 R - R\
&&+ \^2 2 R-\^2 R)\
&&G’\_[g4]{}(R)=0\
&&G\_[4]{}(R)=-2 R\
&&G’\_[4]{}(R)= R.
\[A3\]
For $\Lambda^*_1$, &&\_[11]{}=,\
&&\_[12]{}=,\
&&\_[21]{}=0,\
&&\_[22]{}=-2 ().
For $\Lambda^*_2$, &&\_[11]{}=,\
&&\_[12]{}=0,\
&&\_[21]{}=0,\
&&\_[22]{}=.
[99]{}
D.J. Gross and N. Miljkovic, “A Nonperturbative Solution of D = 1 String Theory”, Phys. Lett. [**B238**]{}, 217 (1990).
E. Brezin, V.A. Kazakov, and A. B. Zamolodchikov, “Scaling Violation in a Field Theory of Closed Strings in One Dimension”, Nucl. Phys. [**B338**]{}, 673 (1990).
P. Ginsparg and J. Zinn-Justin, “2-D Gravity 1-D Matter”, Phys. Lett. [**B240**]{}, 333 (1990).
G. Parisi, “On the One-Dimensional Discretized String”, Phys. Lett. [**B238**]{}, 209 (1990).
J. McGreevy and H. verlinde, “Strings from Tachyons: the c=1 Matrix Reloaded”; .
E.J. Martinec, “The Annular Report on Non-Critical String Theory”; .
I.R. Klebanov, J. Maldacena and N. Seiberg, “D-brane Decay in Two-Dimensional String Theory, JHEP [**0307**]{}, 045 (2003).
J. McGreevy, J. Teschner and H. Verlinde, “Classical and Quantum D-branes in 2D String Theory”; .
S.Yu. Alexandrov, V.A. Kazakov and D. Kutasov, “Non-Perturbative Effects in Matrix Models and D-branes”; .
T. Takayanagi and N. Toumbas, “A matrix model dual of type 0B string theory in two dimensions,” JHEP [**0307**]{}, 064 (2003) . M. R. Douglas, I. R. Klebanov, D. Kutasov, J. Maldacena, E. Martinec and N. Seiberg, “A new hat for the c = 1 matrix model,” . A. Sen, “Open-Closed Duality: Lessons from the Matrix Model”; .
S. Dasgupta and T. Dasgupta, “Renormalization group approach to c = 1 matrix model on a circle and D-brane decay,” . D. J. Gross and I. R. Klebanov, “One-Dimensional String Theory On A Circle,” Nucl. Phys. B [**344**]{}, 475 (1990). D. J. Gross and I. R. Klebanov, “Vortices And The Nonsinglet Sector Of The C = 1 Matrix Model,” Nucl. Phys. B [**354**]{}, 459 (1991). D. Boulatov and V. Kazakov, “One-dimensional string theory with vortices as the upside down matrix oscillator,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**8**]{}, 809 (1993); . V. Kazakov, I. K. Kostov and D. Kutasov, “A matrix model for the two-dimensional black hole,” Nucl. Phys. B [**622**]{}, 141 (2002); . S. Elitzur, A. Forge and E. Rabinovici, “Some Global Aspects Of String Compactifications,” Nucl. Phys. B [**359**]{}, 581 (1991). G. Mandal, A. M. Sengupta and S. R. Wadia, “Classical solutions of two-dimensional string theory,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**6**]{}, 1685 (1991). E. Witten, “On string theory and black holes,” Phys. Rev. D [**44**]{}, 314 (1991). A. Dhar, G. Mandal and S. R. Wadia, “Stringy quantum effects in two-dimensional black hole,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**7**]{}, 3703 (1992); . J. G. Russo, “Black hole formation in c = 1 string field theory,” Phys. Lett. B [**300**]{}, 336 (1993); . T. Yoneya, “Matrix models and 2-D critical string theory: 2-D black hole by c = 1 matrix model,” . S. R. Das, “Matrix Models And Nonperturbative String Propagation In Two-Dimensional Black Hole Backgrounds,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**8**]{}, 1331 (1993); . A. Dhar, G. Mandal and S. R. Wadia, “Wave propagation in stringy black hole,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**8**]{}, 1701 (1993); . A. Jevicki and T. Yoneya, “A Deformed matrix model and the black hole background in two-dimensional string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [**411**]{}, 64 (1994); . J. Polchinski, “What is string theory?,” . A. Dhar, “The emergence of space-time gravitational physics as an effective theory from the c = 1 matrix model,” Nucl. Phys. B [**507**]{}, 277 (1997); . S. R. Das and A. Jevicki, “String Field Theory And Physical Interpretation Of D = 1 Strings,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A [**5**]{}, 1639 (1990). J. Polchinski, “Critical Behavior Of Random Surfaces In One-Dimension,” Nucl. Phys. B [**346**]{}, 253 (1990). G. W. Moore, “Double scaled field theory at c = 1,” Nucl. Phys. B [**368**]{}, 557 (1992). G. W. Moore and N. Seiberg, “From loops to fields in 2-D quantum gravity,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**7**]{}, 2601 (1992). E. Witten, “Two-dimensional string theory and black holes,” . G. Parisi, “On The One-Dimensional Discretized String,” Phys. Lett. B [**238**]{}, 209 (1990). A. Matytsin and P. Zaugg, “Kosterlitz-Thouless phase transitions on discretized random surfaces,” Nucl. Phys. B [**497**]{}, 658 (1997); . A. Matytsin and P. Zaugg, “The two-dimensional O(2) model on a random planar lattice at strong coupling,” Nucl. Phys. B [**497**]{}, 699 (1997); . G. W. Moore, “Double scaled field theory at c = 1,” Nucl. Phys. B [**368**]{}, 557 (1992). R. Dijkgraaf, G. W. Moore and R. Plesser, “The Partition function of 2-D string theory,” Nucl. Phys. B [**394**]{}, 356 (1993); . V. Fateev, A.B. Zamolodchikov, Al.B. Zamolodchikov, [*unpublished*]{}.
V.L. Berezinski, JETP [**34**]{}, 610 (1972).
J. M. Kosterlitz and D. J. Thouless, “Ordering, Metastability And Phase Transitions In Two-Dimensional Systems,” J. Phys. CC [**6**]{} (1973) 1181. J. Villain, “Theory Of One-Dimensional And Two-Dimensional Magnets With An Easy Magnetization Plane. 2. The Planar, Classical, Two-Dimensional Magnet,” J. Phys. (France) [**36**]{}, 581 (1975). E. Brezin and J. Zinn-Justin, “Renormalization group approach to matrix models,” Phys. Lett. B [**288**]{}, 54 (1992); . A. Leclair, J. M. Roman and G. Sierra, “Russian doll renormalization group, Kosterlitz-Thouless flows, and the cyclic sine-Gordon model,” . Z. Yang, “Dynamical Loops In D = 1 Random Matrix Models,” Phys. Lett. B [**257**]{} (1991) 40. J. A. Minahan, “Matrix models and one-dimensional open string theory,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**8**]{}, 3599 (1993); . N. Seiberg and S. H. Shenker, “A Note on background (in)dependence,” Phys. Rev. D [**45**]{}, 4581 (1992); . G. T. Horowitz and J. Maldacena, “The black hole final state,” .
[^1]: [[email protected]]{}
[^2]: [[email protected]]{}
[^3]: The description is related by T-duality to the Toda integrable structure of the $c=1$ string theory perturbed by purely tachyon source [@DMP].
[^4]: Working with (\[AZ1N\]) and then having $\alpha^*=0$ seems to improve the critical exponent in studying $c=1$ fixed point with a nonzero $h$. However, we still need to improve on the constraint for $\Lambda_1^*$ which allows us to look at this particular fixed point around $R=1$ and around $R=0$ only.
[^5]: Though for $\Lambda_2^*$, a pair of fixed points with nonzero $\alpha^*$, the behavior is seen for radii $0<R<0.25$, there is a constraint to get the fixed point which renders $R \ge 0.19$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[Fixed points and fusion rings. Part 1]{}
Elaine Beltaos
[*Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Grant MacEwan University*]{}
[*10700 - 104 Ave, Edmonton, AB CANADA T5J 4S2*]{}
[email protected]
[**Abstract.**]{} In the first of this two-part series, we find ‘fixed point factorisation’ formulas, towards an understanding of the fusion ring of WZW models. Fixed-point factorisation refers to the simplifications in the data of a CFT involving primary fields fixed by simple-currents. Until now, it has been worked out only for SU($n$), where it has developed into a powerful tool for understanding the fusion rings of WZW models of CFT — e.g. it has lead to closed formulas for NIM-reps and D-brane charges and charge-groups. In this paper, we generalise these formulas to the other classical algebras, laying the groundwork for future applications to fusion rings (Part 2). We also discuss connections with the twining characters of Fuchs-Schellekens-Schweigert.
[**Keywords:**]{} Conformal and W Symmetry, Conformal Field Models in String Theory
Introduction {#sIntro}
============
The primary fields of a WZW model correspond to fixed level $k$ highest weight representations $\lambda$ of the underlying affine algebra. Their characters are holomorphic functions of a complex number $\tau \in \mathbb{H}$, the upper half plane of complex numbers with positive imaginary part; more precisely, $$\chi_\lambda(\tau) = q^{-c/24} \mbox{Tr}_\lambda q^{L_0} \ ,$$ where $q = e^{2\pi {\mathrm{i}}\tau}$, $c$ is the central charge, and $L_0$ is the energy operator. As with all RCFTs, they satisfy a modularity property $$\begin{aligned}
\chi_\lambda(-1/\tau) &=& \sum_\mu S_{\lambda\mu} \chi_\mu(\tau) \ ; \label{charmodS} \\
\chi_\lambda(1+\tau) &=& \sum_\mu T_{\lambda\mu} \chi_\mu(\tau) \ , \label{charmodT}\end{aligned}$$ where the sum is over all primaries $\mu$, and $S_{\lambda\mu}$, $T_{\lambda\mu}$ are complex numbers. The matrices $S$ and $T$ defined by , resp. generate a representation of the modular group SL$_2(\mathbb{Z}) = \left\{ \left( \begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ c & d \end{array} \right) \ | \ a,b,c,d \in \mathbb{Z}, \det A = 1\right\}$; they are called *modular data*, and they satisfy many properties which we will discuss in Section \[sBackground\]. Modular data also occur in various other contexts in physics and mathematics (e.g. finite groups, VOAs, subfactors — see [@moddata] for more).
The $S$-matrix is the more important of the two, and is a fundamental quantity of an RCFT, as the matrix governing the modular transformation $\tau \mapsto -1/\tau$ of the RCFT characters, and through Verlinde’s formula (see ), expressing the fusion coefficients of the fusion ring. In this paper, we are interested in simplifying the entries $S_{\lambda{\varphi}}$ of the $S$-matrix corresponding to an affine Kac-Moody algebra where ${\varphi}$ is a fixed point — by ‘fixed point’, we mean a primary fixed by nontrivial simple-current symmetries. For the WZW models, simple-current symmetries correspond directly with the centre of the Lie group and to symmetries of the extended Coxeter-Dynkin diagram [@Fuchs].[^1] Fixed points can complicate many phenomena — e.g. calculating NIM-rep coefficients, or see the modular invariant partition function classification of [@SU3; @Revisited] — so it is important to have tools to handle these difficulties. The $S$-matrix simplification we address in this paper is referred to as ‘fixed point factorisation’ (see Theorem 3.1 for details). A simplification to this task is provided by the observation that the ratio $S_{\lambda\mu}/S_{0 \mu}$ is a polynomial in ratios $S_{\Lambda_n \, \mu}/S_{0\mu}$ , where $\Lambda_n$ are the fundamental representations and $0$ denotes the vacuum primary (this will be explained more precisely in Section \[sBackground\]). Thus we need only find an explicit fixed point factorisation at entries $S_{\Lambda_n , {\varphi}}$ to establish that one exists.
Fixed point factorisation was first found to exist, for SU($n$), by Gannon-Walton [@FPF] — they found that the $S$-matrix entries involving fixed points factored into $S$-matrix entries of SU($n/d$), where $d$ is a proper divisor of $n$, and $n/d$ is the order of the simple-current fixing ${\varphi}$. We give a brief review of this case in Section \[ssA\]. Gaberdiel-Gannon later used fixed point factorisation to find NIM-rep coefficients (a NIM-rep is a nonnegative integer matrix representation of a fusion ring — see e.g. [@moddata; @GNIM] for an introduction to NIM-reps; a Lie-theoretic interpretation for the WZW models was given in [@GG]) — and their D-brane charges on non-simply connected Lie groups SU($n$)/$\mathbb{Z}_d$, where $d$ is a proper divisor of $n$ and the $\mathbb{Z}_d$ are subgroups of the group of simple-currents of SU($n$)[@GG2; @GG1]. One consequence of this is a beautiful and unexpected relation between string theories on non-simply connected Lie groups and simply connected groups of smaller rank.
Our fixed point factorisation formulas, given in Section \[sfpf\], address the important first step of providing the tool to determine NIM-reps and their D-brane charges for all WZW models — these will follow in [@BGW]. Current work in this direction has already yielded surprisingly simple expressions for the associated NIM-rep coefficients. Just as the partition function of a torus yields a modular invariant, the partition function associated to a cylinder yields a NIM-rep (though not every NIM-rep is a cylindrical partition function for a consistent CFT — e.g. the tadpole NIM-reps occurring for $A_1^{(1)}$ at odd level [@DiFZ]). The NIM-rep coefficients satisfy a Verlinde-like formula; however an explicit proof that this formula yields nonnegative integers (for simple-current invariants) has not yet been found in the literature. Our expressions could provide the groundwork for such a proof of integrality.[^2]
As mentioned above, the SU($n$) fixed point factorisation formula involved factors of type SU($n/d$). It was not clear a priori whether a fixed point factorisation would exist in other cases, and if so, which algebras should play the role of the smaller-rank algebras, or what the formulas would look like. However, the answer that has emerged yields a remarkable twist — not only are the smaller-rank algebras not of the same family as the original algebra (indeed, nontwisted algebras can yield twisted algebras and vice-versa), but they are precisely the orbit Lie algebras of Fuchs-Schellekens-Schweigert [@FSS; @FRS]![^3] Given a simple or affine Lie algebra $\mathfrak{g}$, its orbit Lie algebra $\breve{\mathfrak{g}}$ is obtained from $\mathfrak{g}$ through a diagram-folding, or matrix-folding technique. What they found was that the twining characters of $\mathfrak{g}$ could be expressed in terms of true characters of $\breve{\mathfrak{g}}$ (twining characters are characters that have been ‘twisted’ by an automorphism of $\mathfrak{g}$). We note that orbit Lie algebras have appeared before in a related context to ours. When *both* primaries involved are fixed points, the matrices $S^J$ of [@FSS2], giving the $S$-matrix for the simple-current extended theory, can be identified with the $S$-matrix for the orbit Lie algebra associated with the simple-current $J$.
We remark that the exceptional cases — namely $E_6^{(1)}$ and $E_7^{(1)}$ — are yet to be worked out. Their Weyl groups are irregular, but preliminary work on this, with the aid of Maple, suggests that their orbit Lie algebras ($G_2^{(1)}$ and $F_4^{(1)}$ resp.) again should be the smaller-rank fixed point factorisation algebras. With some further techniques, we expect that explicit formulas should also be within reach.
#### Notation.
We use the notation of [@Kac] for the affine algebras: by $X_{r}^{(i)}$, where $X \in \{A, B, C, D, E, $ $F, G\}$ and $i \in \{1,2\}$, we mean the affine algebra with underlying rank-$r$ simple finite dimensional algebra $X_r$, twisted by an automorphism of order $i$. We identify an $X_r$ representation with its Dynkin labels: $\lambda = (\lambda_1, \dots , \lambda_r)$, and similarly, for $X_r^{(i)}$, $\lambda=(\lambda_0; \dots , \lambda_r)$. We denote the $n{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{th}}}}$ fundamental weight by $\Lambda_n$; that is, $\Lambda_n = (0, \dots ,1, \dots 0)$, where the ‘1’ is in the $n{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{th}}}}$ position.
We let $P_+^k(X_r^{(i)})$ denote the set of level $k$ integrable highest weights for $X_r^{(i)}$ (the primaries); that is, $$P_+^k(X_r^{(i)}) = \left\{ (\lambda_0; \dots , \lambda_r) \in \mathbb{N}^{r+1} \ : \ \sum_{\ell=0}^r a_\ell^\vee \lambda_\ell = k \right\} \ .$$ The $a^\vee_\ell$ are the dual Coxeter labels of $X_r^{(i)}$. For example, for $X=A,C$, and $i = 1$, $a_\ell^\vee = 1$ for all $0 \leq \ell \leq r$.
Throughout this paper, we let $\mathbb{N}$ be the set of nonnegative integers, and $^*$ denote complex conjugation.
WZW modular data and simple-currents {#sBackground}
====================================
In this section, we review the necessary information about WZW data and affine algebras. Most of these properties hold for general RCFT as well. In Section \[sApp\], we give the relevant information for the specific algebras involved in the fixed point factorisation formulas. We assume general knowledge of Lie algebras and their representations — some references are [@Kac; @FH; @FS].
Review and definitions {#subsec:SimpCur}
----------------------
As we mentioned in the introduction, the matrices $S$ and $T$ defined in and generate a representation of SL$_2(\mathbb{Z})$. More precisely, the representation is $\displaystyle{ \left(\begin{array}{lr} 0& -1 \\ 1&0\end{array}\right) \mapsto S }$ and $\displaystyle{ \left(\begin{array}{lr} 1&1 \\ 0&1\end{array}\right) \mapsto T}$. The $S$-matrix is our main interest. It is unitary and symmetric, i.e. $SS^* = I$, although we are also interested in the twisted $A$-algebras, for which symmetry fails — we address the specifics of these cases in Section \[sApp\]. The matrix $S^2 =: C$ is a permutation matrix called charge-conjugation; it associates a $\mathcal{V}$-module to its dual (where $\mathcal{V}$ is the vertex operator algebra of holomorphic quantum fields). The $S$-matrix satisfies the following symmetry with respect to charge-conjugation: $$\label{moddatsymmetries2} S_{C\lambda, \mu} = S_{\lambda,C\mu} = S^*_{\lambda\mu} \ .$$
The WZW models are unitary RCFTs, which means that we also have $$\label{unitaryvacuum} S_{0\mu} \geq S_{00} > 0$$ for all primaries $\mu$, where $0$ denotes the vacuum. Equality occurs for primaries called simple-currents (defined below); they also correspond to permutations of the set $P_+^k(X_r^{(i)})$ of primaries. The most important property of the $S$-matrix is that the numbers $N_{\lambda\mu}^\nu$ defined by Verlinde’s formula $$\label{Verlinde} N_{\lambda\mu}^\nu = \sum_{\alpha} \frac{S_{\lambda\alpha}S_{\mu\alpha}S^*_{\nu\alpha}}{S_{0\alpha}}$$ are nonnegative integers. These numbers are called *fusion coefficients*, and are structure constants for a commutative associative ring called the *fusion ring*. One consequence of the integrality of the fusion coefficients is a powerful Galois symmetry of the $S$-matrix (see [@Nonunitary]).
A *simple-current* is a primary $\lambda$ for which there exists a permutation $J$ of $P_+^k(X_r^{(i)})$ such that $$\label{simpcurrdefn} N_{\lambda, \mu}^\nu = \delta_{\nu, J\mu}$$ with $\lambda = J0$. We will also call the permutation $J$ a simple-current. The simple-currents are precisely those primaries for which equality occurs in (\[unitaryvacuum\]); they form an Abelian group, which we denote by $\mathcal{J}$. For each $J \in \mathcal{J}$, there exists a rational number $Q_J(\mu)$ for each $\mu \in P_+^k(X_r^{(i)})$, such that [@SY] $$\label{SsymwrtQchargea} S_{J\lambda, \mu} = \exp[2 \pi {\mathrm{i}}Q_J(\mu)] S_{\lambda\mu} \ .$$ The number $Q_J(\mu)$ has the expression $Q_J(\mu) = h(\mu) + h(J) - h(J\mu)$ (mod $\mathbb{Z}$) in terms of conformal weights. In all cases except for $E_8^{(1)}$ at level 2, the simple-current group is isomorphic to the centre of the (universal cover of the) corresponding Lie group, and the simple-currents correspond to automorphisms of the extended Dynkin diagram.[^4] An expression for the $S$-matrix of a nontwisted affine Kac-Moody algebra $X_r^{(1)}$ [@KP] is $$\label{Sdetform} S_{\lambda\mu} = \kappa^{-r/2}s \sum_{w\in \overline{W}} (\det w) \exp \left[-2\pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{w(\overline{\lambda + \rho}) \cdot (\overline{\mu + \rho})}{\kappa}\right],$$ where $\overline{W}$ is the $X_r$ Weyl group, $\overline{\lambda} = (\lambda_1, \dots , \lambda_r)$, $\overline{\rho} = (1, \dots ,1)$ is the Weyl vector, and $\kappa$ and $s$ are constants depending on $r$ and $k$. We are using bars to emphasize that the quantities are of the underlying finite dimensional simple algebra $X_r$. The $S$-matrix is closely related to the $X_r$ characters $\mbox{ch}_{\overline{\lambda}}$ evaluated at elements of finite order, via the Weyl character formula (see e.g. Chapter 10 of [@Kac]), and this is the key to our fixed point factorisation formulas. More precisely, $$\label{Sratio} \chi_\lambda(\mu) := \frac{S_{\lambda\mu}}{S_{0\mu}} = \mbox{ch}_{\overline{\lambda}} \left(-2\pi {\mathrm{i}}\ \frac{(\overline{\mu + \rho})}{\kappa}\right) \ .$$
The characters of a Lie algebra form a ring, called the *character ring*. A classical result (see e.g. Chapitre IV-VI of [@Bour]) is that the character ring of $X_r$ is generated by the characters at the fundamental weights $\overline{\Lambda}_n$; that is, for any integrable highest weight representation $\overline{\lambda}$ of $X_r$, $\mbox{ch}_{\overline{\lambda}}$ is some polynomial $P_{\overline{\lambda}}$ in the variables $\mbox{ch}_{\overline{\Lambda}_n}$. Due to , this reduces the question of the existence of a fixed point factorisation at $S_{\lambda {\varphi}}$ to that of one at $S_{\Lambda_n, {\varphi}}$, where $\Lambda_n = (k-1) \overline{\Lambda}_0 + \overline{\Lambda}_n$, and so this is our focus.
Specific data for the algebras {#sApp}
------------------------------
In this section, we give specialised data for the classical WZW models, as well as relevant data for the twisted algebras.[^5] Much of the information is presented in the form of tables, for ease of presentation. We will use $\lambda$ to denote both $X_r$ and $X_r^{(1)}$ weights, as it will be clear from the context which is intended.
In many cases, it will be more convenient to use the *orthogonal coordinates* $\lambda[i]$, rather than Dynkin labels, of $\lambda$ — for the $B$, $D$ ($A$), algebras, these are coordinates of $\lambda$ with respect to an orthonormal basis $\{e_i\}$ of $\mathbb{R}^r$ ($\mathbb{R}^{r+1}$), and for the $C$-series, it is more convenient to use an orthogonal basis $\{e_i\}$ all of whose elements have length $\sqrt{2}$. We will mostly work with the *shifted orthogonal coordinates* $(\lambda + \rho)[i] =: \lambda^+[i]$. They are given for each algebra in Tables \[tab:HW\] and \[tab:HWtw\] below, along with the expression for the level $k$ in terms of Dynkin labels, as well as the number $\kappa$ appearing in . In the first row of Table \[tab:HW\], $1 \leq i \leq r+1$; in all other rows, $1 \leq i \leq r$, and in Table \[tab:HWtw\], $1 \leq i, j \leq r$.
The simple-current groups and their generators are given in Table \[tab:SimpCur\] below. The permutation $J_v$ is also a simple-current for $D_r^{(1)}$ when $r$ is odd — in that case, $J_v=J_s^2$. When $r$ is even, we also have the simple-current $J_c := J_v + J_s$. For the $D$-series, we will use the following conjugation (a conjugation is a graph symmetry fixing the zeroth node): $$\label{DChargeConj} C_1: (\lambda_0; \dots , \lambda_r) \mapsto (\lambda_0; \dots , \lambda_{r-2}, \lambda_r, \lambda_{r-1}) \ .$$ When $r$ is odd, this is the charge-conjugation $C$ in (charge-conjugation for $r$ even is trivial).
[llll]{}\
$\mathfrak{g}$ & Level $k$ & $\lambda^+[i]$ & $\kappa$\
\
$A_r^{(1)}$ & $\sum_{\ell=0}^r\lambda_\ell$ & $r + 1 - i + \sum_{\ell=i}^r \lambda_\ell$ & $k + r + 1$\
$B_r^{(1)}$ & $\lambda_0 + \lambda_1 + 2\sum_{\ell=2}^{r-1} \lambda_\ell + \lambda_r $ & $r + \frac{1}{2} - i + \sum_{\ell=i}^{r-1} \lambda_\ell + \frac{\lambda_r}{2}$ & $k + 2r - 1$\
$C_r^{(1)}$ & $\sum_{\ell=0}^r\lambda_\ell$ & $r + 1 - i + \sum_{\ell=i}^r \lambda_\ell$ & $k+r+1$\
$D_r^{(1)}$ & $\lambda_0 + \lambda_1 + 2\sum_{\ell=2}^{r-2}\lambda_\ell + \lambda_{r-1} + \lambda_r$ & $r-i + \sum_{\ell = i}^{r-1} \lambda_\ell + \frac{\lambda_r - \lambda_{r-1}}{2}$ & $k + 2r -2$\
$A_{2r}^{(2)}$ & $\lambda_0 + 2\sum_{\ell=1}^r\lambda_\ell$ & $r + 1 - i + \sum_{\ell = i}^r \lambda_\ell$ & $k + 2r + 1$\
[llll]{}\
$\mathfrak{g}$ & Level $k$ & $\nu^+[i]$, $\lambda^+[j]$ & $\kappa$\
\
$A_{2r-1}^{(2)}$ & $\nu_0 + \nu_1 + 2\sum_{\ell=2}^r\nu_\ell$ & $r + 1 - i + \sum_{\ell = i}^r \nu_\ell$ & $k + 2r$\
& $\lambda_0 + 2\sum_{\ell=1}^{r-1}\lambda_\ell + \lambda_r$ & $2r + 1 - 2j + 2\sum_{\ell = j}^{r-1} \lambda_\ell + \lambda_r$ &\
$D_{r+1}^{(2)}$ & $\nu_0 + 2\sum_{\ell=1}^{r-1}\nu_\ell + \nu_r$ & $2r+1 - 2i + 2\sum_{\ell=i}^{r-1} \nu_\ell + \nu_r$ & $k+2r$\
& $\lambda_0 + \lambda_1 + 2\sum_{\ell=2}^r\lambda_\ell$ & $r+1-j + \sum_{\ell=j}^r \lambda_\ell$ &\
[lll]{}\
$\mathfrak{g}$ & $\mathcal{J}$ & Generators of $\mathcal{J}$\
\
$A_r^{(1)}$ & $\mathbb{Z}_{r+1}$ & $J: \lambda \mapsto (\lambda_r; \lambda_0, \dots ,\lambda_{r-1})$\
$B_r^{(1)}$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $J: \lambda \mapsto (\lambda_1; \lambda_0, \lambda_2, \dots ,\lambda_r)$\
$C_r^{(1)}$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $J: \lambda \mapsto (\lambda_r; \dots , \lambda_0)$\
$D_r^{(1)}$, $r$ odd & $\mathbb{Z}_4$ & $J_s: \lambda \mapsto (\lambda_{r-1}; \lambda_r, \lambda_{r-2}, \dots, \lambda_0)$\
$D_r^{(1)}$, $r$ even & $\mathbb{Z}_2 \times \mathbb{Z}_2$ & $J_s: \lambda \mapsto (\lambda_r; \dots , \lambda_0)$\
& & $J_v: \lambda \mapsto (\lambda_1; \lambda_0, \lambda_2, \dots , \lambda_{r-2}, \lambda_r, \lambda_{r-1})$\
$A_{2r-1}^{(2)}$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $J: \nu \mapsto (\nu_1; \nu_0, \nu_2, \dots , \nu_r)$\
$D_{r+1}^{(2)}$ & $\mathbb{Z}_2$ & $J: \nu \mapsto (\nu_r; \dots , \nu_0)$\
The characters of the fundamental weights of $X_r$ can be expressed in terms of elementary symmetric polynomials (see e.g. Chapter 23 of [@FH]). The $d{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{th}}}}$ elementary symmetric polynomial $E_d$ in variables $a_1, \dots , a_n$, is defined as $$\label{Esym} E_d(a_1, \dots , a_n) = \sum_{1 \leq i_1 < \cdots < i_d \leq n} a_{i_1} \cdots a_{i_d} \ ,$$ where $E_0(a_1, \dots , a_n) = 1$, $E_{-d}(a_1, \dots , a_n) = 0$ if $d>0$, and $E_d(a_1, \dots , a_n) = 0$ if $n < d$. We also define $E_d(\emptyset)$ to be the polynomial in zero variables, with $E_d(\emptyset) = 0$ if $d \neq 0$ and $E_0(\emptyset) = 1$.
Explicit expressions for the $S$-matrix for the nontwisted algebras can be found in [@Alg]; an expression for the $A_{2r}^{(2)}$ $S$-matrix is due to [@FSS]. In the case of $A_{2r-1}^{(2)}$ and $D_{r+1}^{(2)}$, the $S$-matrix is not symmetric — explicit expressions for these appear in [@GG]. We now remark on the latter two algebras. The rows and columns of $S$ are indexed by $(r+1)$-tuples $\nu$ and $\lambda$ respectively (see Table \[tab:HWtw\]). We set $$\label{Sratiotw} \chi_{\lambda}(\nu) := S_{\nu \lambda}/S_{\nu 0} \ ,$$ where $\nu$, $\lambda$ are as in Table \[tab:HWtw\]. Simple-currents act on the weights $\nu$.
We are interested in the ratios , of the $S$-matrix. Evaluating these yields the following expressions in terms of elementary symmetric polynomials:
*The algebra $B_r^{(1)}$.* $$\label{Bcharsym} \chi_{\Lambda_n}(\mu) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} E_n(1, z_1, \dots , z_r, z_1^{-1}, \dots , z_r^{-1}) & \mbox{ if } 1 \leq n \leq r-1 \\ E_r( z_1^{1/2} + z_1^{-1/2}, \dots , z_r^{1/2} + z_r^{-1/2}) & \mbox{ if } n=r \end{array} \right. \ ,$$ where $z_j = \exp\left[-2\pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{\mu^+[j]}{\kappa}\right]$.
*The algebra $C_r^{(1)}$.* $$\label{Ccharsym} \chi_{\Lambda_n}(\mu) = E_n(z_1, \dots ,z_r, z_1^{-1}, \dots ,z_r^{-1}) - E_{n-2}(z_1, \dots ,z_r, z_1^{-1}, \dots ,z_r^{-1}) \ ,$$ where $z_j = \exp\left[- \pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{\mu^+[j]}{\kappa}\right]$.
*The algebra $D_r^{(1)}$.* $$\label{Dsymchar} \chi_{\Lambda_n}(\mu) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} E_n(z_1, \dots , z_r, z_1, \dots , z_r^{-1}) & \mbox{ if } 0 \leq n \leq r-2 \\ \sum z_1^{\pm 1/2} \cdots z_r^{\pm 1/2} \mbox{ \small{for an odd number of minus signs}} & \mbox{ if } n = r-1 \\ \sum z_1^{\pm 1/2} \cdots z_r^{\pm 1/2} \mbox{ \small{for an even number of minus signs}} & \mbox { if } n = r \end{array} \right. \ ,$$ where $z_j = \exp\left[-2 \pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{\mu^+[j]}{\kappa}\right]$.
*The algebra $A_{2r}^{(2)}$.* $$\label{AtwSymChar} \chi_{\lambda}(\mu) = E_n(z_1, \dots , z_r, z_1^{-1}, \dots ,z_r^{-1}) - E_{n-2}(z_1, \dots , z_r, z_1^{-1}, \dots , z_r^{-1}) \ ,$$ where $z_j := \exp\left[-2 \pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{\mu^+[j]}{\kappa}\right]$.
*The algebra $A_{2r-1}^{(2)}$.* $$\label{Atw2charsym} \chi_{\Lambda_n}(\nu) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} E_n(1, z_1, \dots , z_r, z_1^{-1}, \dots , z_r^{-1}) & \mbox{ if } 0 \leq n \leq r-1 \\ E_r( z_1^{1/2} + z_1^{-1/2}, \dots , z_r^{1/2} + z_r^{-1/2}) & \mbox{ if } n=r \end{array} \right. \ ,$$ where $z_i = \exp\left[-2\pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{\nu^+[i]}{\kappa}\right]$.
*The algebra $D_{r+1}^{(2)}$.* $$\label{Dtwcharsym} \chi_{\Lambda_n}(\nu) = E_n(z_1, \dots , z_r, z_1^{-1}, \dots , z_r^{-1}) - E_{n-2}(z_1, \dots , z_r, z_1^{-1}, \dots , z_r^{-1}) \ ,$$ where $z_i = \exp\left[-\pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{\nu^+[i]}{\kappa}\right]$.
The fixed point factorisation formulas {#sfpf}
======================================
We will prove the following theorem:
\[thm:FPF\] Let $S$ be the modular $S$-matrix for the WZW model corresponding to $X_{r}^{(i)}$, level $k$, where $X_r^{(i)}$ is given in the first column of Table \[table:fpf\]. Let $\mathcal{J}$ be its group of simple-currents, and let ${\varphi}$ be a primary for $X_r^{(i)}$ that is fixed by a subgroup of $\mathcal{J}$. Then for any $\lambda \in P_+^k(X_r^{(i)})$, $S_{{\varphi}\lambda}$ can be expressed in terms of the $S$-matrix for the algebra $Y_{s}^{(j)}$ at level $\ell$, given in the third and fourth columns of Table \[table:fpf\]. Explicit formulas for the case that $\lambda$ is a fundamental weight are given in , , , , , , , , , and .
The proof of eqn was done in [@FPF].
The proof of Theorem \[thm:FPF\] is surprisingly straightforward, once the challenge of realising that a fixed point factorisation exists and what it will look like has been overcome. Earlier work on this was done in [@ThesisP]. The key to the proof is the relationship between the $S$-matrix and the characters of the underlying simple finite dimensional algebra, and the fact that the latter (at the fundamental weights) can be expressed through symmetric polynomials.
The table below summarizes the algebras, their simple-current group generators, and the smaller-rank algebras, which we call the ‘fixed point factorisation (FPF) algebra’, involved in each case.
[lcll]{}\
$X_r^{(i)}$, level $k$ & Simple-current & FPF algebra & Level\
\
$A_r^{(1)}$ & $J^d$ & $A_{d-1}^{(1)}$ & $\frac{kd}{r+1}$\
$B_r^{(1)}$ & $J$ & $A_{2(r-1)}^{(2)}$ & $k$\
$C_r^{(1)}$, $r$ odd & $J$ & $C_{\frac{r-1}{2}}^{(1)}$ & $\frac{k}{2}$\
$C_r^{(1)}$, $r$ even & $J$ & $A_{2\left(\frac{r}{2}\right)}^{(2)}$ & $k$\
$D_r^{(1)}$ & $J_v$ & $C_{r-2}^{(1)}$ & $\frac{k}{2}$\
\[.25cm\] $D_r^{(1)}$, $r$ odd & $J_s$ & $C_{\frac{r-3}{2}}^{(1)}$ & $\frac{k}{4}$\
$D_r^{(1)}$, $r$ even & $J_s$ & $B_{\frac{r}{2}}^{(1)}$ & $\frac{k}{2}$\
$A_{2r-1}^{(2)}$ & $J$ & $C_{r-1}^{(1)}$ & $\frac{k}{2}$\
$D_{r+1}^{(2)}$, $r$ odd & $J$ & $A_{2\left(\frac{r-1}{2}\right)}^{(2)}$ & $\frac{k}{2}$\
$D_{r+1}^{(2)}$, $r$ even & $J$ & $D_{r+1}^{(2)}$ & $\frac{k}{2}$\
Useful facts {#subsec:UsefulFacts}
------------
We collect here some basic results which we will use in the proofs of the fixed point factorisation formulas, before turning to the formulas themselves. The first is a convenient source of zeros in the $S$-matrix, and the remaining two are properties of elementary symmetric polynomials.
Let ${\varphi}$ be a fixed point for a simple-current $J$. Then (\[SsymwrtQchargea\]) yields the symmetry $ S_{{\varphi}\lambda} = \exp[2\pi {\mathrm{i}}Q_J(\lambda)] S_{{\varphi}\lambda}$, which in turn yields the useful fact:
\[fact:charge\] $S_{{\varphi}\mu} = 0$ whenever $Q_J(\mu) \not \in \mathbb{Z}$.
Recall the definition of $E_d$ in . The following two equations are immediate consequences of the definition:
\[Erecursion\] For any variables $a, b_1, \dots , b_n$, $$\begin{aligned}
E_d(a, b_1, \dots , b_n) &=& aE_{d-1}(b_1, \dots ,b_n) + E_d(b_1 , \dots b_n) \ , \nonumber \\ E_d(a, -a, b_1, \dots b_n ) &=& -a^2E_{d-2}(b_1, \dots , b_n) + E_d(b_1, \dots b_n) \ . \nonumber \end{aligned}$$
\[lemma:Eeven\] Let $m \geq 0$. Then $$\nonumber E_{2m}(a_1, -a_1, a_1^{-1}, -a_1^{-1}, \dots ,a_n, -a_n, a_n^{-1}, -a_n^{-1}) = (-1)^m E_m(a_1^2, a_1^{-2}, \dots a_n^2, a_n^{-2}) \ ,$$ for any variables $a_1, \dots ,a_n$.
*Proof of Fact \[lemma:Eeven\].* Let $d=2m$, and define $E_{(j; \ell)} := E_j(a_\ell, -a_\ell, a_\ell^{-1}, -a_\ell^{-1})$, and $E'_{(j; \ell)} := E_j(a_\ell^2, a_\ell^{-2})$. Then $E_{(0; \ell)} = E_{(4; \ell)} = 1$; $E_{(1; \ell)} = E_{(3; \ell)} = 0$; $E_{(2; \ell)} = -E'_{(1; \ell)}$, and $E_{(j; \ell)}$ is zero for $j > 4$. Thus, for each $j \in \{0, 2, 4\}$, $E_{(j; \ell)} = (-1)^{j/2} E'_{(\frac{j}{2}; \ell)}$ .
Let $[d_1, \dots , d_n]$ be an ordered partition of $d$. We will be interested only in those partitions with $d_i \in \{0, 2, 4\}$. Let $d':=d/2$ and $d'_i = d_i/2$. Let $E_d$ denote the $d{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{th}}}}$ elementary symmetric polynomial in variables $a_1$, $-a_1$, $a_1^{-1}$, $-a_1^{-1}, \dots, a_n$, $-a_n$, $a_n^{-1}$, $-a_n^{-1}$. Then the calculation $$\begin{aligned}
E_d &=& \sum_{\stackrel{[d_1, \dots , d_n]}{d_i \in \{0,2,4\}}} E_{(d_1; 1)} \cdots E_{(d_n; n)} \nonumber \\ &=& (-1)^{d'} \sum_{\stackrel{[d'_1, \dots , d'_n]}{d'_i \in \{0,1,2\}}} E'_{(d'_1; 1)} \cdots E'_{(d'_n; n)} \nonumber \\ &=& E_{d'}(a_1^2, a_1^{-2}, \dots , a_n^2, a_n^{-2}) \nonumber \end{aligned}$$ establishes the result. $\square$
The algebra $A_r^{(1)}$ {#ssA}
-----------------------
For completeness, we summarize the $A_r^{(1)}$ fixed point factorisation. This was done in [@FPF], where a fixed point factorisation was found for $S_{\lambda {\varphi}}$ for all weights $\lambda$. We include the formula for the case that $\lambda$ is a fundamental weight.
Let $n:= r+1$. The Coxeter-Dynkin diagram for $A_r^{(1)}$ is a regular $n$-gon. Let $J$ be the rotation of $2\pi/n$ radians: the group of simple-currents is the group $\langle J \rangle \cong \mathbb{Z}_{n}$ generated by $J$. There is a fixed point factorisation for $J^d$ where $d|n$, in which case the order of $J^d$ is $n/d$. The case $d=n$ is trivial ($J = id$), and the case $d=1$ is degenerate (the fixed point factorisation formulas work with $S' = \chi' = 1$). The $A$-series is the only case where the order of the simple-current group grows with the rank of the algebra.
Suppose $d|n$, and let ${\varphi}\in P_+^k(A_r^{(1)})$ be a fixed point for $J^d$. Define the truncated weight $$\label{Aphiprime} \widetilde{{\varphi}} = ({\varphi}_0; {\varphi}_1, \dots , {\varphi}_{d - 1}) $$ it lies in $P_+^{\frac{kd}{n}}(A_{d - 1}^{(1)})$, and the fixed point factorisation involves $\frac{n}{d}$ copies of the $S$-matrix for $A_{d-1}^{(1)}$ at level $kd/n$. The *$n$-ality* of a weight $\lambda$ is defined by $t(\lambda) = \sum_{i=1}^r i\lambda_i$. By Fact \[fact:charge\], $S_{\lambda{\varphi}} = 0$ whenever $t(\lambda) \not \equiv 0$ (mod $\frac{n}{d}$). We then have the following:
Let $n=r+1$, and let $d$ be a proper divisor of $n$. Let ${\varphi}$ be fixed by the subgroup $\langle J^{n/d} \rangle$ of the simple-current group, and let ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ be as in . We then have $$\label{FPFAfundweights} \chi_{\Lambda_\ell}({\varphi}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \chi'_{\Lambda'_{\frac{\ell d}{n}}}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) & \mbox{if } \frac{n}{d} | \ell \\ 0 & \mbox{if } \frac{n}{d} \nmid \ell \end{array}\right. \ ,$$ where primes denote $A_{d-1}^{(1)}$ level $kd/n$ quantities.
The algebra $B_r^{(1)}$ {#ssB}
-----------------------
A fixed point is of the form $$\label{Bfixedpointphi} {\varphi}= ({\varphi}_1; {\varphi}_1, {\varphi}_2, \dots ,{\varphi}_r) \ ;$$ they satisfy $$\label{Bweightaddupfixed} 2({\varphi}_1 + \cdots + {\varphi}_{r-1}) + {\varphi}_r = k \ .$$
Let $$\label{Atwistevenphiprime} {\widetilde}{{\varphi}} = ({\varphi}_r; {\varphi}_{r-1}, \dots ,{\varphi}_1) \ .$$ Then by , ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}} \in P_+^k\left(A_{2(r-1)}^{(2)}\right)$.
\[prop:BFPF\] Let $0 \leq n \leq r$, and let ${\varphi}$, ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ be as in (\[Bfixedpointphi\]), (\[Atwistevenphiprime\]) respectively. Then $$\label{BFPF} \chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} (-1)^n \left(\chi'_{\Lambda'_n}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) + \chi'_{\Lambda'_{n-1}}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) \right) & \mbox{if } 0 \leq n < r \\ 0 & \mbox{if } n = r. \end{array} \right. ,$$ where primes denote $A_{2(r-1)}^{(2)}$ level $k$ quantities.
*Proof.* By Fact \[fact:charge\], $\chi_{\Lambda_r}({\varphi}) = 0$. Let $n \in \{0, \dots ,r-1\}$, and define ${\varphi}^j := j + \sum_{\ell=1}^j \varphi_\ell$ , with ${\varphi}^0 = 0$. By Equation , the shifted orthogonal coordinates of ${\varphi}$ are given by ${\varphi}^+[j] = \kappa/2 - {\varphi}^{j-1}$, for $1 \leq j \leq r$. Let $\xi_j := \exp\left[2 \pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{{\varphi}^j}{\kappa}\right]$, for $1 \leq j \leq r-1$. Then putting $\mu = {\varphi}$ into , we have $z_1 = -1$, and $z_j = -\xi_{j-1}$, for $2 \leq j \leq r$. Thus, $\chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi})$ is the $n{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{th}}}}$ elementary symmetric polynomial in variables $1, -1, -1$, $-\xi_1^{\pm 1}, \dots ,-\xi_{r-1}^{\pm 1}$. Let ${\varepsilon}_n := E_n(\xi_1, \dots , \xi_{r-1}, \xi_1^{-1}, \dots , \xi_{r-1}^{-1})$. Then applying Fact \[Erecursion\] (and factoring out $(-1)^n$) to $\chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi})$ yields: $$\label{Bcharclean} \chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi}) = (-1)^n ({\varepsilon}_n + {\varepsilon}_{n-1} - {\varepsilon}_{n-2} - {\varepsilon}_{n-3}) \ .$$
The shifted orthogonal coordinates of ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ are ${\varphi}^+[r-j] = {\varphi}^j$, for $1 \leq j \leq r-1$. By , the $A_{2(r-1)}^{(2)}$ level $k$ $S$-ratios are given by $\chi'_{\Lambda'_n}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) = {\varepsilon}_n - {\varepsilon}_{n-2}$. $\square$
The algebra $C_r^{(1)}$ {#ssC}
-----------------------
The fixed points and fixed point factorisation algebra depend on whether $r$ is odd or even, and are given in each case. Throughout this section, we let ${\varphi}^j = j + \sum_{\ell=0}^{j-1} {\varphi}_\ell$ , $\zeta_j = \exp\left[\pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{{\varphi}^+[j]}{\kappa}\right]$ and $\xi_j = \zeta_j^2$.
#### When $r$ is odd.
Fixed points are of the form $$\label{Coddphi} {\varphi}= ({\varphi}_0; {\varphi}_1, \dots, {\varphi}_{(r-1)/{2}}, {\varphi}_{(r-1)/{2}}, \dots, \varphi_1, {\varphi}_0) \ ,$$ with $$\label{Coddfixedweightaddup} {\varphi}_0 + \cdots + \varphi_{(r-1)/{2}} = k/2 \ .$$ Let $$\label{Coddphiprime} {\widetilde}{{\varphi}} = ({\varphi}_{(r-1)/{2}}; \dots , \varphi_1, {\varphi}_0) \ .$$ By , ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}} \in P_+^{\frac{k}{2}}\left(C_{\frac{r-1}{2}}^{(1)}\right)$.
\[corollary:CoddFundFPF\] Let $r$ be odd, and let $m \in \{ 0, \dots , \frac{r-1}{2}\}$. Then $$\label{Coddfundweightfpf}
\chi_{\Lambda_{n}}({\varphi}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} (-1)^m \chi'_{\Lambda'_m}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) & \mbox{ if } n=2m \\ 0 & \mbox{ if } n = 2m+1 \end{array} \right. \ ,$$ where ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ is as in , and primes denote $C_{\frac{r-1}{2}}^{(1)}$ level $k/2$ quantities.
*Proof.* Fact \[fact:charge\] implies $\chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi}) = 0$ whenever $n$ is odd. Let $r' = (r-1)/2$. By Equation , the shifted orthogonal coordinates of ${\varphi}$ are $$\label{Coddorthcoords} {\varphi}^+[j] = \kappa - {\varphi}^j \ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \ {\varphi}^+[r+1-j] = {\varphi}^j$$ for $j = 1, \dots , r'$ , and ${\varphi}^+[(r+1)/2] = \kappa/2$. Substituting $\mu = {\varphi}$ in Equation yields $z_j = -\zeta_j$, $z_{r+1-j} = \zeta_j^{-1}$ for $1 \leq j \leq r'$, and $z_{\frac{r+1}{2}} = -{\mathrm{i}}$.
Let $E_n$ be the $n{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{th}}}}$ elementary symmetric polynomial in the variables ${\mathrm{i}}$, $-{\mathrm{i}}$, $\pm \zeta_j$, $\pm \zeta_j^{-1}$, for $j \in \{1, \dots , r'\}$, and ${\varepsilon}_n := E_n(\xi_1, \xi_1^{-1}, \dots , \xi_{r'}, \xi_{r'}^{-1})$. Then Facts \[Erecursion\] and \[lemma:Eeven\] yield $$\label{Coddcharexp} \chi_{\Lambda_{2m}}({\varphi}) = E_{2m} - E_{2(m-1)} = (-1)^m ({\varepsilon}_m - {\varepsilon}_{m-2}) \ .$$
Consider $C_{r'}^{(1)}$ at level $k/2$. The shifted orthogonal coordinates of ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ are ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}^+[r'+1 - j] = {\varphi}^j$, for $1 \leq j \leq r'$. The $m{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{th}}}}$ elementary symmetric polynomial in variables $z'_j = \exp\left[\pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{{\widetilde}{{\varphi}}^+[j]}{\kappa'}\right]$ (where $\kappa' = \kappa/2$), is ${\varepsilon}_m$. Thus, by , $$\label{Coddprimcharexp} \chi'_{\Lambda'_m}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) = {\varepsilon}_m - {\varepsilon}_{m-2} \ .$$ The fixed point factorisation formula follows from and . $\square$
#### When $r$ is even.
When $r$ is even, there is a fixed point factorisation at all levels $k$. The fixed points of $J$ are weights $$\label{evenphi}{\varphi}= ({\varphi}_0; \dots, {\varphi}_{\frac{r}{2} - 1}, {\varphi}_{\frac{r}{2}}, {\varphi}_{\frac{r}{2}-1}, \dots , {\varphi}_0) \ ,$$ where $$\label{Cevenphiweightaddup} 2({\varphi}_0 + \dots + {\varphi}_{\frac{r}{2} - 1}) + {\varphi}_{\frac{r}{2}} = k \ .$$
Let $$\label{Cevphiprime} {\widetilde}{{\varphi}} = ({\varphi}_{\frac{r}{2}}; \dots, {\varphi}_0) \ .$$ By , ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}} \in P_+^k(A_{2\left(\frac{r}{2}\right)}^{(2)})$. We have:
\[theorem:Crevenfpf\] Let $r$ be even, and let ${\varphi}$, ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ be as in , resp. Let $0 \leq m \leq \frac{r}{2}$. Then $$\label{Crevfpf} \chi_{\Lambda_{2m}}({\varphi}) = (-1)^m \sum_{\ell=0}^m \chi'_{\Lambda'_\ell}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) \ ,$$ where primes denote $A_{2\left(\frac{r}{2}\right)}^{(2)}$ level $k$ quantities.
*Proof.* The shifted orthogonal coordinates of ${\varphi}$ are given in , for $1 \leq j \leq \frac{r}{2}$. Putting $\mu = \varphi$ into , the set of variables $\{z_j, z_j^{-1} \ | \ 1 \leq j \leq r \}$, is the set $\{\zeta_j, \zeta_j^{-1}, -\zeta_j, -\zeta_j^{-1} \ | \ 1 \leq j \leq \frac{r}{2} \}$. Equation and Fact \[lemma:Eeven\] then imply that $$\label{Cevcharclean} \chi_{\Lambda_{2m}}({\varphi}) = (-1)^m({\varepsilon}_m + {\varepsilon}_{m-1}) \ ,$$ where ${\varepsilon}_m := E_m(\xi_1, \dots , \xi_{\frac{r}{2}}, \xi_1^{-1}, \dots , \xi_{\frac{r}{2}}^{-1})$.
Let $r' = r/2$. Consider the algebra $A_{2\left(\frac{r}{2}\right)}^{(2)}$ level $k$. The shifted orthogonal coordinates of ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ are ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}^+[r' + 1 - j] = {\varphi}^j$, for $1 \leq j \leq r'$. Let $z'_j := \exp\left[-2 \pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{{\widetilde}{{\varphi}}^+[j]}{\kappa}\right]$ (here, $\kappa' = \kappa$). Then the set $\{z'_j, {z'}_j^{-1}\}_{1 \leq j \leq r/2} = \{\xi_j, \xi_j^{-1}\}_{1 \leq j \leq r/2}$ , so by , $$\label{Cevcharprimclean} \chi'_{\Lambda'_m}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) = {\epsilon}_m - {\epsilon}_{m-2} \ .$$ Equations and now establish . $\square$
The algebra $D_r^{(1)}$ {#ssD}
-----------------------
The nontrivial simple-currents are $J_v$, $J_s$ and $J_vJ_s$ (see Table \[tab:SimpCur\]). Throughout this section, we let $\xi_j = \exp\left[2\pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{\varphi^j}{\kappa}\right]$, with the relevant $\kappa$ and $\varphi^j$ (given in each case).
#### The simple-current $J_v$.
The simple-current $J_v$ has fixed points $$\label{DJvfixedpt} {\varphi}= ({\varphi}_1; {\varphi}_1, {\varphi}_2, \dots, \varphi_{r-2}, {\varphi}_{r-1}, {\varphi}_{r-1}) \ ,$$ with $$\label{DJvfixedptweightaddup} {\varphi}_1 + \dots + \varphi_{r-1} = \frac{k}{2} \ .$$
Define $$\label{DJvphiprime} {\widetilde}{{\varphi}} := ({\varphi}_{r-1}; {\varphi}_{r-2}, \dots , {\varphi}_1) \ .$$ Then ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}} \in P_+^{\frac{k}{2}}(C_{r-2}^{(1)})$. The fixed point factorisation in this case is:
\[proposition:FPFDJv\] Let $1 \leq n \leq r$, and let ${\varphi}$, ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ be as in , respectively. Then $$\label{FPFDJv} \chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} (-1)^n \left( \chi'_{\Lambda'_n} ({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) - \chi'_{\Lambda'_{n-2}} ({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) \right) & \mbox{if } 0 \leq n \leq r-2 \\ 0 & \mbox{if } n = r-1, \ r \end{array} \right. \ ,$$ where primes denote $C_{r-2}^{(1)}$ level $\frac{k}{2}$ quantities.
*Proof.* By Fact \[fact:charge\], $\chi_{\Lambda_{r-1}}({\varphi}) = \chi_{\Lambda_r}({\varphi}) = 0$. Let ${\varphi}^j = j + \sum_{\ell = 1}^j \varphi_\ell$ , with ${\varphi}^0 = 0$. The orthogonal coordinates of the fixed point ${\varphi}$ are ${\varphi}^+[j] = \frac{\kappa}{2} - {\varphi}^{j-1}$, for $1 \leq j \leq r$. Putting $\mu = {\varphi}$ into yields $z_1 = -1$, $z_r=1$, and $z_j = -\xi_{j-1}$ for $2 \leq j \leq r-1$. Thus, $\chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi})$ is the $n{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{th}}}}$ elementary symmetric polynomial in variables $-1$, $-1$, $1$, $1$, and $-\xi_j^{\pm 1}$ for $1 \leq j \leq r-2$. Let ${\varepsilon}_n := E_n(\xi_1, \xi_1^{-1}, \dots , \xi_{r-2}, \xi_{r-2}^{-1})$. Then by Facts \[Erecursion\] and \[lemma:Eeven\], $$\label{DJvcharclean}\chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi}) = (-1)^n ({\varepsilon}_n - 2{\varepsilon}_{n-2} + {\varepsilon}_{n-4}) \ .$$
Now consider $C_{r-2}^{(1)}$ at level $k/2$. Here, $\kappa' = \kappa/2$, and the shifted orthogonal coordinates of ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ are given by ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}^+[r-1-j] = {\varphi}^j$, for $1 \leq j \leq r-2$. Let ${z'}_j = \exp\left[-\pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{{\widetilde}{{\varphi}}^+[j]}{\kappa'}\right]$ as in . Then the set of variables $\{{z'}_1^{\pm 1}, \dots , {z'}_{r-2}^{\pm 1} \}$ is $\{\xi_1^{\pm 1}, \dots , \xi_{r-2}^{\pm 1} \}$, and so $\chi'_{\Lambda'_n}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}})$ is the difference ${\varepsilon}_{n} - {\varepsilon}_{n-2}$. This coupled with establishes . $\square$
#### The simple-current $J_s$ when $r$ is odd.
There are fixed points when $4 | k$. The simple-current $J_s$ has fixed points are $$\label{DoddJsfix} {\varphi}= ({\varphi}_1; {\varphi}_1, {\varphi}_2, \dots, {\varphi}_{\frac{r-1}{2}}, {\varphi}_{\frac{r-1}{2}}, \dots , {\varphi}_2, {\varphi}_1, {\varphi}_1) \ ,$$ with $$\label{DoddJsphiaddup} {\varphi}_1 + \dots + {\varphi}_{\frac{r-1}{2}} = \frac{k}{4} \ .$$ Let $$\label{Doddsphiprim} {\widetilde}{{\varphi}} = ( {\varphi}_{\frac{r-1}{2}}; \dots , {\varphi}_1) \ .$$ Then by , ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}} \in P_+^{\frac{k}{4}}\left(C_{\frac{r-3}{2}}^{(1)}\right)$.
Our fixed point factorisation formula is:
\[Droddfpf\] Let $r$ be odd, and let ${\varphi}$, ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ be as in , respectively. Then $$\label{Droddfpfeqn} \chi_{\Lambda_{n}}({\varphi}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} (-1)^m \left( \chi'_{\Lambda'_m}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) + \chi'_{\Lambda_{m-1}}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) \right) & \mbox{ if } 0 \leq n=2m \leq r-3 \\ 0 & \mbox{ otherwise} \end{array} \right. \ ,$$ where primes denote $C_{\frac{r-3}{2}}^{(1)}$ level $k/4$ quantities.
*Proof.* By Fact \[fact:charge\], $\chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi}) = 0$ whenever $n$ is odd, or $n=r-1$. Let ${\varphi}^j := j + \sum_{\ell=1}^{j} \varphi_\ell$. The shifted orthogonal coordinates of ${\varphi}$ are:
$$\label{Dphiorthcoords}
{\varphi}^+[j] = \frac{\kappa}{2} - {\varphi}^{j-1} \ \ \ \ ; \ \ \ \ {\varphi}^+[r+1-j] = {\varphi}^{j-1} \ ,$$
where $1 \leq j \leq \frac{r-1}{2}$, and ${\varphi}^+[(r+1)/2] = \kappa/4$.
Let $\xi_j := \exp\left[2 \pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{{\varphi}^j}{\kappa}\right]$. Then putting $\mu = {\varphi}$ into , we have $z_1 = -1$, $z_r = 1$, $z_{(r+1)/2} = -{\mathrm{i}}$, $z_j = -\xi_{j-1}$, and $z_{r+1-j} = \xi_{j-1}^{-1}$ for $2 \leq j \leq (r-1)/2$. Let $r':= \frac{r-3}{2}$ . The $S$-ratio $\chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi})$ is the $n{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{th}}}}$ elementary symmetric polynomial in variables $\pm 1$, $\pm 1$, $\pm {\mathrm{i}}$, and $\pm \xi_j$, $\pm \xi_j^{-1}$, for $1 \leq j \leq r'$. Define ${\epsilon}_m = E_m(\xi_1^2, \xi_1^{-2}, \dots , \xi_{r'}^2, \xi_{r'}^{-2})$. Let $0 \leq m \leq r'$. Then Facts \[Erecursion\] and \[lemma:Eeven\] yield the expression $$\label{Dsoddcharclean} \chi_{\Lambda_{2m}}({\varphi}) = (-1)^m ({\epsilon}_m + {\epsilon}_{m-1} - {\epsilon}_{m-2} - {\epsilon}_{m-3}) \ .$$
Consider $C_{r'}^{(1)}$ at level $k/4$. The shifted orthogonal coordinates of ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ are ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}^+[r'+1-j] = \varphi^{j}$, for $1 \leq j \leq r'$. By , the character $\chi'_{\Lambda'_m}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}})$ is the difference $E_m - E_{m-2}$ of symmetric polynomials in the variables $z'_j$ and ${z'_j}^{-1}$, with $z'_j = \exp\left[\pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{{\widetilde}{{\varphi}}^+[j]}{\kappa'}\right]$, where $\kappa' = \kappa/4$. That is, $$\label{Dsoddcharprimeclean} \chi'_{\Lambda'_m}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) = {\epsilon}_m - {\epsilon}_{m-2} \ .$$ The result now follows from and . $\square$
#### The simple-current $J_s$ when $r$ is even.
The simple-current generator $J_s$ has fixed points when $k$ is even. They are the set of all weights $$\label{DevenJsfixpt} {\varphi}= ({\varphi}_0; \dots, {\varphi}_{\frac{r}{2} - 1}, {\varphi}_{\frac{r}{2}}, \varphi_{\frac{r}{2} -1}, \dots , {\varphi}_0),$$ with $$\label{DevenJsphiweightaddup} {\varphi}_0 + {\varphi}_1 + 2({\varphi}_2 + \dots + {\varphi}_{\frac{r}{2} -1}) + {\varphi}_{\frac{r}{2}} = k/2 \ .$$
Define $$\label{DevenJsphiprime} {\widetilde}{{\varphi}} := ({\varphi}_0; {\varphi}_1, \dots , {\varphi}_{\frac{r}{2}}) \ .$$ By , ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}} \in P_+^{\frac{k}{2}}\left(B_{\frac{r}{2}}^{(1)}\right)$.
We have:
\[Drevenfpf\] Let $r$ be even, and let ${\varphi}$, ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ be as in , respectively. Then $$\label{Drevenfpfeqn} \chi_{\Lambda_{n}}({\varphi}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} (-1)^{m} \sum_{\ell = 0}^m \chi'_{\Lambda'_\ell}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) & \mbox{ if } 0 \leq n=2m \leq r-2 \\ (-1)^{\frac{r}{2}}\chi'_{\Lambda'_{\frac{r}{2}}} & \mbox{ if } n = r-1 \mbox{ and } 2 ||r \mbox{ , or } n=r \mbox{ and } 4|r \\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right. \ ,$$ where primes denote $B_{\frac{r}{2}}^{(1)}$, level $k/2$ quantities.
*Proof.* By Fact \[fact:charge\], $\chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi}) = 0$ whenever $n$ is odd and $1 \leq n \leq r-3$. If $4|r$, then $\chi_{\Lambda_{r-1}}({\varphi}) = 0$, and if $4 \nmid r$, then $\chi_{\Lambda_r}({\varphi}) = 0$. Let $\displaystyle{{\varphi}^j := j + \sum_{\ell=1}^{j} {\varphi}_\ell + \frac{{\varphi}_0 - {\varphi}_1}{2}}$ . By , the shifted orthogonal coordinates of ${\varphi}$ are given by , for $1 \leq j \leq \frac{r}{2}$. Let $\xi_j = \exp\left[2\pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{{\varphi}^{j-1}}{\kappa}\right]$. Putting $\mu = {\varphi}$ into yields $z_j = -\xi_j$ and $z_{r+1-j} = \xi_j^{-1}$, for $1 \leq j \leq \frac{r}{2}$ . Let ${\epsilon}_m = E_m(\xi_1^2, \xi_1^{-2}, \dots ,\xi_{\frac{r}{2}}^2, \xi_{\frac{r}{2}}^{-2})$, where $m \in \{0, \dots , \frac{r}{2}-1\}$. Then and Fact \[lemma:Eeven\] implies $$\label{Dsevcharclean} \chi_{\Lambda_{2m}} = (-1)^m{\epsilon}_m \ .$$
Now consider $B_{\frac{r}{2}}^{(1)}$ at level $k/2$. Here, $\kappa' = \kappa/2$, and the shifted orthogonal coordinates of ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ are ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}^+[j] = \kappa/4 - {\varphi}^{j-1}$, for $1 \leq j \leq \frac{r}{2}$ . By , $\chi'_{\Lambda'_m}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}})$ is the $m{^{\mbox{\scriptsize{th}}}}$ elementary polynomial in the variables 1, $-\xi_j^2$, and $-\xi_j^{-2}$, $1 \leq j \leq \frac{r}{2}$ . Then Fact \[Erecursion\] yields $$\label{Dsevencharprimclean} \chi'_{\Lambda'_m}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) = (-1)^m({\epsilon}_m - {\epsilon}_{m-1}) \ .$$ Thus for $0 \leq n \leq r-2$, the result follows from and .
It remains to consider the case $n=r-1, r$. By , $$\label{Dsevlastcharseqn} \chi_{\Lambda_r}(\mu) + \chi_{\Lambda_{r-1}}(\mu) = E_{r}(z_1^{1/2} + z_1^{-1/2}, \dots , z_r^{1/2} + z_r^{-1/2}) \ .$$
Suppose that $4|r$, and let $\mu = {\varphi}$ in . Let $\zeta_j = \exp\left[\pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{{\varphi}^{j-1}}{\kappa}\right]$. Then Fact \[fact:charge\] implies that $\chi_{\Lambda_r}({\varphi}) = E_{r}(z_1^{1/2} + z_1^{-1/2}, \dots , z_r^{1/2} + z_r^{-1/2})$, where $z_j^{1/2} + z_j^{-1/2} = {\mathrm{i}}(\zeta_j^{-1} - \zeta_j)$, and $z_{r+1-j}^{1/2} + z_{r+1-j}^{-1/2} = (\zeta_j^{-1} + \zeta_j)$, for $1 \leq j \leq \frac{r}{2}$ . By , $\chi'_{\Lambda'_{\frac{r}{2}}}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) = \prod_{j=1}^{\frac{r}{2}}({z'_j}^{1/2} + {z'_j}^{-1/2})$, where ${z'_j}^{1/2} + {z'_j}^{-1/2} = {\mathrm{i}}(\zeta_j^{-2} - \zeta_j^2)$. Finally, if $4 \nmid r$, then Equation now implies that $\chi_{\Lambda_{r-1}}({\varphi}) = E_{r}(z_1^{1/2} + z_1^{-1/2}, \dots , z_r^{1/2} + z_r^{-1/2})$, and so the above argument applies. $\square$
#### The simple-current $J_vJ_s$, $r$ even.
Recall the conjugation $C_1$ in ; we will denote it by $C$ in this section. The identity $J_vJ_s = CJ_sC$ implies that ${\varphi}$ is a fixed point of $J_vJ_s$ if and only if $C{\varphi}$ is a fixed point for $J_s$. Therefore, the fixed points for $J_vJ_s$ are all points ${\varphi}= C{\varphi}_s$ such that $J_s {\varphi}_s = {\varphi}_s$.
By Fact \[fact:charge\], $\chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi}) = 0$ whenever $n$ is odd, or $n = r-1$ ($2 || r$), $n=r$ ($4|r$). Let $0 \leq m \leq \frac{r-2}{2}$. Then $$\chi_{\Lambda_{2m}}({\varphi}) = \chi_{\Lambda_{2m}}(C{\varphi}_s) = \frac{S_{\Lambda_{2m}, C{\varphi}_s}}{S_{0, C{\varphi}_s}} = \frac{S_{C \Lambda_{2m}, {\varphi}_s}}{S_{C0, {\varphi}_s}} = \chi_{\Lambda_{2m}}({\varphi}_s) \ , \nonumber$$ where the last equality is because $C$ acts trivially on $\Lambda_{2m}$ and $0$. Now suppose $2||r$. Then $$\chi_{\Lambda_r}({\varphi}) = \chi_{\Lambda_r}(C{\varphi}_s) = \frac{S_{\Lambda_r, C{\varphi}_s}}{S_{0, C{\varphi}_s}} =\frac{S_{\Lambda_{r-1}, {\varphi}_s}}{S_{0, {\varphi}_s}} = \chi_{\Lambda_{r-1}}({\varphi}_s) \ , \nonumber$$ and similarly, if $4|r$, then $\chi_{\Lambda_{r-1}}({\varphi}) = \chi_{\Lambda_r}({\varphi}_s)$.
Thus we have the fixed point factorisation:
\[FPF:DreJvJs\] Let ${\varphi}$ be a fixed point for $J_vJ_s$, and let ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ be as in . Then $$\label{Drevenfpfvseqn} \chi_{\Lambda_{n}}({\varphi}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} (-1)^{m} \sum_{\ell = 0}^m \chi'_{\Lambda'_\ell}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) & \mbox{ if } 0 \leq n=2m \leq r-2 \\ (-1)^{\frac{r}{2}}\chi'_{\Lambda'_{\frac{r}{2}}} & \mbox{ if } n = r-1 \mbox{ and } 4|r \mbox{ , or } n=r \mbox{ and } 2||r \\ 0 & \mbox{otherwise} \end{array} \right. \ ,$$ where primes denote $B_{\frac{r}{2}}^{(1)}$, level $k/2$ quantities.
The algebra $A_{2r-1}^{(2)}$
----------------------------
Fixed points are of the form $$\label{Atwphi} {\varphi}= ({\varphi}_1; {\varphi}_1, \dots , {\varphi}_r) \ ,$$ where $${\varphi}_1 + \cdots {\varphi}_r = k/2 \ .$$ Define $$\label{Atwphiprime} {\widetilde}{{\varphi}} = ({\varphi}_r; \dots , {\varphi}_1) \ ;$$ this is a level $k/2$, $C_{r-1}^{(1)}$ weight.
The fixed point factorisation is
\[fpf:Atw\] Let ${\varphi}$, ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ be as in equations , respectively. Then $$\label{Atwfpfeqn} \chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} (-1)^n \left(\chi'_{\Lambda'_n}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) + \chi'_{\Lambda'_{n-1}}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}})\right) & \mbox{ if } 0 \leq n \leq r-1 \\ 0 & \mbox{ if } n=r \end{array} \right. \ ,$$ where primes denote $C_{r-1}^{(1)}$ level $k/2$ quantities.
*Proof.* Let ${\varphi}^j = j + \sum_{\ell=1}^j$, with ${\varphi}^0 = 0$, and $\xi_j := \exp\left[2 \pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{{\varphi}^j}{\kappa}\right]$. The orthogonal coordinates are ${\varphi}^+[j] = \kappa/2 -{\varphi}^{j-1}$, for $j = 1, \dots , r$. Fact \[fact:charge\] implies $\chi_{\Lambda_r}({\varphi}) = 0$, and putting $\nu = {\varphi}$ into , we find that for $0 \leq n \leq r-1$, $$\label{Atwcharsimp} \chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi}) = (-1)^n ({\varepsilon}_n + {\varepsilon}_{n-1} - {\varepsilon}_{n-2} - {\varepsilon}_{n-3}) \ ,$$ where ${\varepsilon}_n = E_n(\xi_1, \dots ,\xi_{r-1}, \xi_1^{-1}, \dots ,\xi_{r-1}^{-1})$. Now consider $C_{r-1}^{(1)}$, level $k/2$. The orthogonal coordinates of ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ are ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}^+[r-j] = {\varphi}^{r-j}$ for $j = 1, \dots , r-1$, and putting $\mu = {\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ into yields $$\label{Atwprimecharsimp} \chi'_{\Lambda'_n}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) = {\varepsilon}_n - {\varepsilon}_{n-2} \ .$$ Equations and give the fixed point factorisation . $\square$
The algebra $D_{r+1}^{(2)}$
---------------------------
Fixed points of $J$ are of the form $$\label{Dtwphi} {\varphi}= ({\varphi}_0; {\varphi}_1, \dots , {\varphi}_1, {\varphi}_0) \ .$$ The fixed point factorisation depends on whether $r$ is odd or even. In both cases, Fact \[fact:charge\] implies that $\chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi}) = 0$ whenever $n$ is odd.
Throughout this section, we will let ${\varphi}^j = 2j-1 + {\varphi}_0 + 2 \sum_{\ell=1}^{j-1}$; $\zeta_j = \exp\left[\pi {\mathrm{i}}\frac{{\varphi}^+[j]}{\kappa}\right]$, $\xi = \zeta^2$, and ${\varepsilon}_m := E_m(\xi_1, \dots ,\xi_{r'}, \xi_1^{-1}, \dots ,\xi_{r'}^{-1})$, where $r'$ is given in each case.
#### The case $r$ is odd.
Let $r':= (r-1)/2$. The weight ${\varphi}$ satisfies $$\label{Dtwphiweightaddup} {\varphi}_0 + 2({\varphi}_1 + \cdots + {\varphi}_{r'}) = k/2 \ .$$ Define $$\label{Dtwphiprime} {\widetilde}{{\varphi}} = ({\varphi}_0; \dots , {\varphi}_{\frac{r-1}{2}}) \ .$$ Then ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ is a $A_{2\left(\frac{r-1}{2}\right)}^{(2)}$, level $k/2$ weight. We have the fixed point factorisation
\[fpf:Dtw\] Let $m \in \{0, \dots , \frac{r-1}{2}\}$, and let ${\varphi}$, ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ be as in eqns , respectively. Then $$\label{Dtwfpfeqn} \chi_{\Lambda_{n}}({\varphi}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \chi'_{\Lambda'_m}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) & \mbox{ if } n=2m \\ 0 & \mbox{ if } n \mbox{ is odd } \end{array} \right. ,$$ where primes denote $A_{2\left(\frac{r-1}{2}\right)}^{(2)}$ level $k/2$ quantities.
*Proof.* Let $n=2m$, where $0 \leq m \leq r'$. By , the orthogonal coordinates of ${\varphi}$ are: ${\varphi}^+[j] = \kappa - {\varphi}^j$ and ${\varphi}^+[r+1-j] = {\varphi}^j$ for $1 \leq j \leq r'$, and ${\varphi}[r'+1] = \kappa/2$. Thus, putting $\nu = {\varphi}$ in and using Facts \[Erecursion\] and \[lemma:Eeven\] yields the expression $$\label{Dtwcharsimp} \chi_{\Lambda_n({\varphi})} = (-1)^m ({\varepsilon}_m - {\varepsilon}_{m-2}) \ .$$ Consider $A_{2r'}^{(2)}$ at level $k/2$. Equation gives the orthogonal coordinates of ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ as ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}^+[j] = \kappa/4 - {\varphi}^j/2$, for $j= 1, \dots , r'$. Putting $\nu = {\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ into \[AtwSymChar\] yields the expression $\chi'_{\Lambda'_m}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) = (-1)^m ({\varepsilon}_m-{\varepsilon}_{m-2})$. Comparing with gives the fixed point factorisation . $\square$
#### The case $r$ is even.
Let $r'= r/2$. Fixed points satisfy $$\label{Dtwevphiweightaddup} {\varphi}_0 + 2({\varphi}_1 + \cdots + \varphi_{r'-1}) + {\varphi}_{r'} = k/2 \ .$$ Define $$\label{Dtwevphiprime} {\widetilde}{{\varphi}} = ({\varphi}_0; \dots , {\varphi}_{r'}) \ ;$$ then ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ is a $D_{\frac{r}{2}+1}^{(2)}$ weight, at level $k/2$.
The fixed point factorisation is
Let $m \in \{0, \dots , r/2\}$, and let ${\varphi}$, ${\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ be as in eqns , respectively. Then $$\label{fpfeqnDtwev} \chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi}) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \sum_{i=0}^m (-1)^i \chi'_{\Lambda'_{m-i}}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}}) & \mbox{ if } n=2m \\ 0 & \mbox{ otherwise} \end{array} \right. \ ,$$ where primes denote $D_{r+1}^{(2)}$, level $k/2$ quantities.
*Proof.* Let $n=2m$, where $m \in \{0, \dots , r/2\}$. By the same argument as above, the orthogonal coordinates become ${\varphi}^+[j] = \kappa - \varphi^j$ and ${\varphi}^+[r+1-j] = {\varphi}^j$, for $1 \leq j \leq r/2$, and the characters evaluated at ${\varphi}$ are $$\label{Dtwevchareqnsimp} \chi_{\Lambda_n}({\varphi}) = (-1)^m ({\varepsilon}_m + {\varepsilon}_{m-1}) \ .$$
Putting $\nu = {\widetilde}{{\varphi}}$ into gives the expression $$\label{Dtwevprimchareqnsimp} (-1)^m({\varepsilon}_m - {\varepsilon}_{m-2})$$ for the characters of the fixed point factorisation algebra. Eqns and now yield $\chi_{\Lambda_{2m}}({\varphi}) + \chi_{\Lambda_{2(m-1)}}({\varphi}) = \chi'_{\Lambda'_m}({\widetilde}{{\varphi}})$, from which follows. $\square$
Concluding remarks
==================
This paper, together with [@FPF], establishes that a fixed point factorisation exists for the classical WZW models. The motivation for this paper was the development of the tool which allows us to calculate NIM-reps, D-brane charges and charge groups, which will follow in Part 2. However, the existence of this $S$-matrix feature for the WZW models raises some further questions. Among them:
- Does fixed point factorisation occur in other contexts? For example, what would a fixed point factorisation look like for finite group modular data? Their data looks quite different from the WZW data (an introduction to finite group modular data is given in [@FinGroup]). Ultimately, we would like to know whether fixed point factorisation is a feature of all RCFTs.
- What is the connection between the fixed point factorisation algebras and the orbit Lie algebras?
- What is a conceptual explanation for fixed point factorisation?
As we mentioned in the introduction, fixed points can be a source of difficulty, and it is our hope that, beyond the applications explored in Part 2 of this paper, fixed point factorisation will be used as a tool elsewhere in mathematics and physics.
[**Acknowledgements**]{} We are grateful to Terry Gannon for helpful discussions during this research and writing of the paper.
[99]{}
T. Gannon, Modular data: the algebraic combinatorics of rational conformal field theory, *J. Alg. Combin.* **22** (2005) 211.
J. Fuchs, Simple WZW currents, *Commun. Math. Phys.* **136** (1991) 345.
T. Gannon., The classification of affine SU(3) modular invariant partition functions, *Commun. Math. Phys.*, **161** (1994) 233.
T. Gannon, The classification of affine SU(3) modular invariants revisited, *Ann. Inst. Henri Poincaré: Phys. Théor* **65** (1996) 15.
T. Gannon and M. Walton, On fusion algebras and modular matrices, *Commun. Math. Phys.* **206** (1999) 1.
T. Gannon, Boundary conformal field theory and fusion ring representations, *Nucl. Phys. B* **627** (2002) 506.
M. R. Gaberdiel and T. Gannon, Boundary states for WZW models, *Nucl. Phys. B.* **639** (2002) 471.
M.R. Gaberdiel and T. Gannon, D-brane charges on non-simply connected groups, *J. High Energy Phys.* JHEP04(2004)030.
M.R. Gaberdiel and T. Gannon, Twisted brane charges for non-simply connected groups, *J. High Energy Phys.* JHEP035(2007)1.
E. Beltaos, T. Gannon and M. Walton, Fixed points and fusion rings. Part 2, in preparation.
P. Di Francesco and J.-B. Zuber, SU($N$) lattice integrable models associated with graphs, *Nucl. Phys. B* **338** (1990) 602.
J. Fuchs, B. Schellekens and C. Schweigert, From Dynkin diagram symmetries to fixed point structures, *Commun. Math. Phys.* **180** (1996) 39.
J. Fuchs, V. Ray and C. Schweigert, Some automorphisms of generalized Kac-Moody algebras, *J. Algebra* **191** (1997) 518.
J. Fuchs, N. Schellekens and C. Schweigert, A matrix $S$ for all simple current extensions, *Nucl. Phys. B* **473** (1996) 323.
V.G. Kac, *Infinite dimensional Lie algebras, 3rd edn.*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990).
W. Fulton and J. Harris, *Representation Theory: A First Course*, Springer-Verlag, New York (1991).
J. Fuchs and C. Schweigert, *Symmetries, Lie algebras and representations: A graduate course for physicists*, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997).
T. Gannon, Comments on nonunitary conformal field theories, *Nucl. Phys. B* **670** (2003) 335.
A.N. Schellekens and S. Yankielowicz, Modular invariants from simple currents. An explicit proof, *Phys. Lett. B* **227** (1989) 387.
V.G. Kac and D. Peterson, Infinite-dimensional Lie algebras, theta functions and modular forms, *Adv. Math.* **53** (1984) 125.
N. Bourbaki, *Groupes et Algèbres de Lie IV-VI*, Hermann, Paris (1968).
T. Gannon, *Algorithms for affine Kac-Moody algebras*, arXiv:hep-th/0106123v2
E. Beltaos, *Fixed point factorization and NIM-reps for the affine Kac-Moody algebras, and the non-unitary $W_3$ minimal models*, PhD Thesis, University of Alberta (2009).
A. Coste, T. Gannon and P. Ruelle, Finite group modular data, *Nucl. Phys. B*, **581** (2000) 679.
[^1]: With the exception of $E_8^{(1)}$ at level 2.
[^2]: As we have explicit formulas only at the fundamental weights, positivity of all NIM-rep coefficients would not follow from positivity of those involving fundamental weights.
[^3]: This was pointed out to the author by Terry Gannon.
[^4]: However, not all symmetries of the extended diagram are simple-currents.
[^5]: We use the notation of Kac [@Kac] for the twisted algebras.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'I utilize the Petrov-Galerkin formulation and develop a new method for solving the unsteady collisionless Boltzmann equation in both the linear and nonlinear regimes. In the first order approximation, the method reduces to a linear eigenvalue problem which is solved using standard numerical methods. I apply the method to the dynamics of a model stellar disk which is embedded in the field of a soft-centered logarithmic potential. The outcome is the full spectrum of eigenfrequencies and their conjugate normal modes for prescribed azimuthal wavenumbers. The results show that the fundamental bar mode is isolated in the frequency space while spiral modes belong to discrete families that bifurcate from the continuous family of van Kampen modes. The population of spiral modes in the bifurcating family increases by cooling the disk and declines by increasing the fraction of dark to luminous matter. It is shown that the variety of unstable modes is controlled by the shape of the dark matter density profile.'
author:
- Mir Abbas Jalali
title: 'UNSTABLE DISK GALAXIES. I. MODAL PROPERTIES'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Dynamics of self-gravitating stellar systems and plasma fluids are governed by the collisionless Boltzmann equation (CBE) [@BT87]. Finding a general solution of the CBE has been a challenging problem in various disciplines of physical sciences. Due to existing difficulties of the general problem, finding a solution to the linearized CBE became the center of attraction in the twentieth century when @L46 and van Kampen (1955) discovered the normal modes of collisionless ensembles. Later in 1970’s, @K71 [@K77] developed a matrix theory that was capable of computing normal modes of stellar systems through solving a nonlinear eigenvalue problem. His theory remained as the only analytical perturbation theory used by the community of galactic dynamicists over the past three decades.
@K77 assumed an exponential form $\exp(-{\rm i}\omega t)$ for the time-dependent part of physical quantities where ${\rm i}=\sqrt{-1}$, and solved the linearized CBE for the perturbed distribution function (DF) $f_1$ in terms of the perturbed potential $V_1$. After expanding the potential and density functions in terms of bi-orthogonal basis sets in the configuration space, he used the weighted residual form of the fundamental equation $$f_1 d \textbf{\textit{v}} d \textbf{\textit{x}}=
\Sigma_1 d \textbf{\textit{x}},$$ to obtain a nonlinear eigenvalue problem for the complex eigenfrequency $\omega$. For self-consistent perturbations the surface density $\Sigma_1=\int f_1 d \textbf{\textit{v}}$ is related to $V_1$ through Poisson’s integral, and the symbols $ d \textbf{\textit{v}}$ and $ d \textbf{\textit{x}}$ denote the elements of velocity and position vectors.
@Z76 used Kalnajs’s theory to compute the modes of the isothermal disk [@M63], which has the astrophysically important property of a flat rotation curve. His analysis was then extended by @ER98a [@ER98b] to general scale-free disks with arbitrary cusp slopes. Application of Kalnajs’s theory to soft-centered models of stellar disks has been mainly focused on the isochrone and Kuzmin-Toomre disks [@K78; @H92; @PC97]. A disk with exponential light profile and an approximately flat rotation curve was also investigated by @VD96. More recently Jalali & Hunter (2005a, hereafter JH) gave new results for soft-centered models of stellar disks. They showed the importance of a boundary integral in the modal properties of unidirectional disks and computed a fundamental bar mode and a secondary spiral mode for the isochrone, Kuzmin-Toomre and a newly introduced family of cored exponential disks. JH also extended Kalnajs’s first order perturbation theory to the second order, and illustrated energy and angular momentum content of different Fourier components. Their bar charts showed that only a few number of expansion terms in the radial angle govern the perturbed dynamics.
Implementation of Kalnajs’s (1977) theory, however, has some technical problems due to the nonlinear dependency of his matrix equations on $\omega$. Most computational methods that deal with nonlinear eigenvalue problems are iterative. They start with an initial guess of the solution and continue with a search scheme in the frequency space. Newton’s method is perhaps the most efficient technique that guarantees a quadratic convergence should the initial guess be close enough to the solution. The key issue in success of any iterative scheme is the attracting or repelling nature of an eigenvalue. It is obvious that only attracting eigenvalues can be captured by iterative methods while we have no priori knowledge of their basins of attraction in order to make our initial guess. The mentioned computational difficulties make it a formidable task to explore all normal modes of a stellar system, which include growing modes as well as stationary van Kampen modes. Moreover, it is not easy to develop a general nonlinear theory based on Kalnajs’s method for studying the interaction of modes.
@P04 [@P05] introduced an alternative method for the normal mode calculation of stellar disks whose outcome was a linear eigenvalue problem for $\omega$. His method is capable of finding all eigenmodes of a stellar disk should one use fine grids in the action space. Polyachenko’s method is somehow costly because it results in a large linear system of equations to assure point-wise convergence in the action space and mean convergence of Fourier expansions in the space of the radial angle. Extension of his method to nonlinear regime is another challenging problem yet to be investigated. @T05 has also followed an approach similar to @P05 and studied the instability of stellar disks surrounding massive objects. His eigenvalue equations involve action variables, and practically, need to be solved over a discretized grid in the space of actions.
Recent developments in fluid mechanics [@DG95; @MS99] inspired me to formulate the dynamics of stellar systems in a new framework, which is capable of solving the CBE not only in the linear regime, but also in its full nonlinear form. The method systematically searches for smooth solutions of the CBE by expanding the perturbed DF using Fourier series of angle variables and an appropriate set of trial functions in the space of actions. Coefficients of expansion are unknown time-dependent amplitude functions whose evolution equations are obtained by the Petrov-Galerkin projection [@F72] of the CBE. That is indeed taking the weighted residual form of the CBE by integration over the action-angle space and deriving a system of nonlinear ordinary differential equations (ODEs) for the amplitude functions. The associated first order system of ODEs leads to a linear eigenvalue problem, which is solved using standard numerical methods.
In this paper I present my new method and apply it to explore the modal properties of a model galaxy. In a second paper, I will address the nonlinear evolution of modes and wave interactions. The paper is organized as follows. In sections \[sec::dynamical-theory\] and \[sec::linear-theory\], I use the Petrov-Galerkin method to project the CBE to a system of ODEs in the time domain and derive a system of linear eigenvalue equations. Section \[sec:modes-exp-disk\] presents the eigenfrequency spectra and their corresponding mode shapes of the cored exponential disk of JH. The stars of this model move in the field of a soft-centered logarithmic potential. I also investigate the effect of physical parameters of the equilibrium model on the modal content. In section \[sec:final-discussions\], I discuss on the nature of a self-gravitating mode and compare the performance of my method with other theories. Some fundamental achievements of this work are summarized in section \[sec:conclusions\].
NONLINEAR THEORY {#sec::dynamical-theory}
================
I use the usual polar coordinates $\textbf{\textit{x}}=(R,\phi)$ and assume that the temporal evolution of the DF and gravitational potential starts from an axisymmetric equilibrium state described by $f_0(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}})$ and $V_0(R)$ so that $$\begin{aligned}
f(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}},t) &=&
f_0(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}})+
f_1(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}},t), \\
%
V(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}},t) &=&
V_0(R)+V_1(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}},t).
\label{eq:perturbations}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\textbf{\textit{p}}=\left (p_R,p_\phi \right )$ is the momentum vector conjugate to $\textbf{\textit{x}}=\left (R,\phi \right )$. Motion of stars in the equilibrium state is governed by the zeroth order Hamiltonian $${\cal H}_0=\frac 12 \left ( p_R^2+\frac {p_\phi^2}{R^2}\right
)+V_0(R). \label{eq:zeroth-order-H}$$ For bounded orbits, $R$ and $\phi$ become librating and rotating, respectively. One can therefore describe the dynamics using the action variables $\textbf{\textit{J}}=\left (J_R,J_\phi \right )$, $$J_R=\oint p_R d R,~~J_\phi=\oint p_\phi
d \phi=p_\phi,\label{eq:define-actions}$$ and their conjugate angles $\Theta=(\theta_R,\theta_\phi)$. A transformation $(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}})\rightarrow
(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})$ leaves the Hamiltonian ${\cal H}_0$ as a function of actions only, ${\cal H}_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})$, and therefore, the phase space flows of the equilibrium state lie on a two dimensional torus $\textbf{\textit{J}}=\textbf{\textit{c}}$ with $\textbf{\textit{c}}$ being a constant 2-vector. An action-angle transformation can locally be found for any bounded regular orbit, but it is a global transformation if only one orbit family occupies the phase space. The axisymmetric potential $V_0(R)$ supports only rosette orbits. Radial and circular orbits are the limiting cases of rosette orbits with $J_\phi=0$ and $J_R=0$, respectively. By representing $f$ in terms of the action-angle variables, the CBE reads $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial t}+[ f,{\cal H} ]=0,
\label{eq:CBE-action-angle}$$ where $[,]$ denotes a Poisson bracket taken over the action-angle space. According to Jeans theorem [@J1915; @L-B62] $f_0$ depends on the phase space coordinates through the integrals of motion, which are the actions in the present formulation, and one obtains $[f_0,{\cal H}_0]=0$. Subsequently, equation (\[eq:CBE-action-angle\]) may be rewritten as $$\frac{\partial f_1}{\partial t}=-\left [f_1,{\cal H}_0 \right ]-
\left [ f_0,{\cal H}_1 \right ]-\left [f_1,{\cal H}_1 \right ],
\label{eq:CBE-perturbed}$$ where ${\cal H}_1$ is the perturbed Hamiltonian. A dark matter halo contributes both to ${\cal H}_0$ and to ${\cal H}_1$ if it is live, i.e., if it exchanges momentum/energy with the luminous stellar component. In this paper I confine myself to a rigid halo that only contributes to ${\cal H}_0$ through $V_0$ and assume that ${\cal H}_1=V_1$ is the perturbed potential due to self-gravity.
Let me expand $f_1$ and $V_1$ in Fourier series of angle variables and write $$\begin{aligned}
f_1(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}},t) &=& \!\!
\sum_{m,l=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} d^{ml}_j(t)
\Phi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})e^{{\rm i}\left(m\theta_\phi+l\theta_R
\right)},
\label{eq:expansion-f1} \\
V_1(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}},t) &=& \!\!
\sum_{m,l=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} b^{ml}_j(t)
\Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})e^{{\rm i}\left(m\theta_\phi+l\theta_R
\right)}, \label{eq:expansion-V1}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Phi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})$ and $\Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})$ are some trial functions in the space of action variables, and $d^{ml}_j(t)$ and $b^{ml}_j(t)$ are time-dependent amplitude functions. On the other hand, one can expand $V_1$ and its corresponding surface density $\Sigma_1$ in the configuration space as $$\begin{aligned}
\Sigma_1(R,\phi,t) &=& \!\!
\sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty} a^m_j(t)
\sigma^{|m|}_j(R)e^{{\rm i}m\phi},
\label{eq:expansion-sigma1-config} \\
V_1(R,\phi,t) &=& \!\! \sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
a^m_j(t) \psi^{|m|}_j(R)e^{{\rm i}m\phi}. \label{eq:expansion-V1-config}\end{aligned}$$ Here $\psi^{|m|}_j(R)$ and $\sigma^{|m|}_j(R)$ are bi-orthogonal potential–surface density pairs that satisfy the relation $$\label{eq:Djk-definition}
2\pi \int\limits_{0}^{\infty}
\psi^{|m|}_j(R)\sigma^{|m'|}_{j'}(R)R d R = D_j(m)\delta
_{m,m'}\delta_{j,j'},$$ where $\delta_{m,m'}$ is the Kronecker delta and $D_j(m)$ are some constants. It is remarked that the real parts of $\Sigma_1$, $V_1$ and $f_1$ describe physical solutions. In this work I utilize the @CB72 functions $$\begin{aligned}
\psi^{|m|}_j &=&
-\frac {1}{b} \left (\! {1-\xi \over 2}\! \right )^{1/2} \!\!
P^{|m|}_i(\xi),~~\xi={R^2-b^2\over R^2+b^2}, \\
\sigma^{|m|}_j &=& \left (\! {2|m|+2j+1\over 2\pi b^2}\! \right )
\left ( {1-\xi \over 2}\right )^{3/2}\!\!
P^{|m|}_i(\xi),\end{aligned}$$ that yield [@AI78; @H80] $$D_j(m)=D_j(-m)= -{(2|m|+j)!\over 2b j!}.$$ $P^{|m|}_i(\xi)$ are associated Legendre functions with $i=|m|+j$. Clutton-Brock functions have a length scale $b$, which makes them suitable for reproducing the potential and surface density of soft-centered models. The choice of this parameter is an important step in the calculation of normal modes. I will discuss on this issue later in §\[sec:modes-exp-disk\].
Equating (\[eq:expansion-V1\]) and (\[eq:expansion-V1-config\]), multiplying both sides of the resulting equation by $\exp[-{\rm i}(l\theta_R+m\theta_{\phi})]$ and integrating over the $\left (\theta_R,\theta_{\phi} \right )$-space, lead to (see also Kalnajs 1977 and Tremaine & Weinberg 1984) $$\begin{aligned}
&{}& \!\!\! \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} b^{ml}_j(t) \Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\!=\! \sum_{j=0}^{\infty} a^m_j(t) \tilde \Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}}),
\label{eq:relation-b-and-a} \\
%
&{}& \!\!\! \tilde \Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \!=\!
{1\over \pi}\int\limits_{0}^{\pi}
\psi^{|m|}_j(R) \cos [l\theta_R+m(\theta_{\phi}-\phi)] d \theta _R,
\label{eq:fourier-coeffs}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde \Psi^{ml}_j$ are the Fourier coefficients of the basis potential functions in the configuration space. The trial functions used in the expansion of $V_1$ in the action-angle space are not necessarily identical to $\tilde \Psi^{ml}_j$. However, subsequent mathematical derivations are greatly simplified by setting $\Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})= \tilde
\Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})$, which implies $b^{ml}_j(t)=a^m_j(t)$. To build a relation between $d^{ml}_j(t)$ and $a^m_j(t)$, I use the fundamental equation $$f_1(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}},t) d \textbf{\textit{J}} d \Theta
=\Sigma_1(R,\phi,t) R dR d \phi,
\label{eq:fundamental-equation}$$ where $ d \textbf{\textit{J}} d \Theta$ is the volume of an infinitesimal phase space element. On substituting (\[eq:expansion-f1\]) and (\[eq:expansion-sigma1-config\]) in (\[eq:fundamental-equation\]), multiplying both sides of the resulting equation by $\psi^{|m|}_j(R)e^{-{\rm i}m\phi}$ and integrating, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
a^m_j(t)&=& \frac
{4\pi^2}{D_j(m)}\sum_{l=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{p=0}^{\infty}
\Lambda^{ml}_{jp}d^{ml}_p(t),\label{eq:a-versus-d} \\
%
\Lambda^{ml}_{jp} &=& \int
\Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\Phi^{ml}_p(\textbf{\textit{J}}) d \textbf{\textit{J}},\end{aligned}$$ which is inserted in (\[eq:expansion-V1\]) to represent $V_1$ in terms of the amplitude functions $d^{ml}_j(t)$ as $$V_1 \! =\!\!\!\!
\sum_{m,l,k=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{j,p=0}^{\infty}\frac
{4\pi^2}{D_j(m)}\Lambda^{mk}_{jp}\Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})
d^{mk}_p(t)
e^{{\rm i}\left(m\theta_\phi+l\theta_R \right)}.
\label{eq:expansion-V1-vs-dmlj}$$ It would be computationally favorable to collect $d^{ml}_j(t)$ in a single vector $\textbf{\textit{z}}(t)=\{z_n(t)\}$ by defining a map $(m,l,j)\rightarrow n$. In practice the infinite sums in (\[eq:expansion-f1\]) are truncated and approximated by finite sums so that $-l_{\rm max}\le l \le l_{\rm max}$, $-m_{\rm max}\le m\le m_{\rm max}$ and $0\le j\le
j_{\rm max}$. For $1\le n\le n_{\rm max}$, a simple map between indices will be $$\begin{aligned}
n &=& \left ( m+m_{\rm max}\right )
\left ( 2l_{\rm max}+1\right )(j_{\rm max}+1)
\nonumber \\
&{}& + \left (l+l_{\rm max}\right )(j_{\rm max}+1)+j+1,
\label{eq:map-mlj-to-i} \\
n_{\rm max} &=& \left ( 2m_{\rm max}+1\right )
\left ( 2l_{\rm max}+1\right )
(j_{\rm max}+1). \label{eq:maximum-n}\end{aligned}$$ One can now use (\[eq:expansion-f1\]) and (\[eq:expansion-V1-vs-dmlj\]) in (\[eq:CBE-perturbed\]) and apply the Petrov-Galerkin method to construct the weighted residual form of the CBE. That is to multiply (\[eq:CBE-perturbed\]) by some weighting functions $W^{ml}_j(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})$ and to integrate the identity over the action-angle space. The outcome is the following system of nonlinear ODEs $${\rm i} { d z_p\over d t}\!=\! \sum_{q=1}^{n_{\rm max}}
\! A_{pq} z_q \!+ \!\! \sum_{q,r=1}^{n_{\rm max}}
\! B_{pqr} z_q z_r,~~p=1,2,\cdots,n_{\rm max},
\label{eq:nonlinear-ODE}$$ for the amplitude functions $z_n(t) \equiv d^{ml}_j(t)$. The elements of $A_{pq}$ and $B_{pqr}$ have been determined in Appendix A. Each equation in (\[eq:nonlinear-ODE\]) is the projection of the CBE on a subspace spanned by a weighting function. Therefore, the left hand side of (\[eq:nonlinear-ODE\]) is the projection of $\partial
f_1/\partial t$, the summation over first order terms is the projection of $-\left [f_1,{\cal H}_0 \right ]- \left [ f_0,{\cal
H}_1 \right ]$, and the second order terms are the projections of $-\left [f_1,{\cal H}_1 \right ]$. The second order terms of amplitude functions, characterized by $B_{pqr}$, show the interaction of modes in both the radial and azimuthal directions.
Distribution of angular momentum between different Fourier components provides useful information of the disk dynamics. I compute the rate of change of the total angular momentum ${\cal L}$ using (see Appendix B in JH) $${ d {\cal L}\over d t}=-\frac {1}{4}
\int\int \left ( f_1+\overline{f}_1 \right )
{\partial \over \partial \theta_{\phi} }
\left ( V_1+\overline{V}_1 \right ) d \textbf{\textit{J}} d \Theta,
\label{eq:rate-change-L-one}$$ where a bar denotes complex conjugate. Substituting (\[eq:expansion-f1\]) and (\[eq:expansion-V1-vs-dmlj\]) in (\[eq:rate-change-L-one\]) and evaluating the integrals, yield $$\begin{aligned}
{ d {\cal L}\over d t} &=& {\rm i}\pi^2 \!\!\!
\sum_{m,l=-\infty}^{\infty}\sum_{j,p=0}^{\infty}
\biggl \{ m\left [ a^{(-m)}_{j}(t)
+\overline{a^{m}_{j}}(t) \right ] \Lambda^{ml}_{jp}
d^{ml}_{p}(t) \nonumber \\
&{}& - m\left [ a^{m}_{j}(t)
+\overline{a^{(-m)}_{j}}(t) \right ] \Lambda^{ml}_{jp}
\overline{d^{ml}_{p}}(t) \biggr \}. \label{eq:rate-change-L-two}\end{aligned}$$ Define $a^m_j(t)=u^m_j(t)+{\rm i}v^m_j(t)$ with $u^m_j(t)$ and $v^m_j(t)$ being real functions of time. According to identity (\[eq:a-versus-d\]), one may further simplify equation (\[eq:rate-change-L-two\]) to $$\begin{aligned}
{ d {\cal L}\over d t} &=&
\sum_{m=-\infty}^{\infty} L_m(t),
\label{eq:rate-change-L-three} \\
L_m(t) &=& -\frac {m}{2}\sum_{j=0}^{\infty}
D_j(m) \nonumber \\
&{}& \times \left [ u^m_j(t)v^{-m}_j(t)+u^{-m}_j(t)v^m_j(t) \right ].
\label{eq:rate-change-L-four}\end{aligned}$$ The share of the $m$th mode from $ d {\cal L}/ d t$ is thus determined by $L_m(t)$. As one could anticipate for an isolated stellar disk, $ d {\cal L}/ d t$ vanishes and the total angular momentum remains constant because the terms $L_m(t)$ and $L_{-m}(t)$ cancel each other in (\[eq:rate-change-L-three\]), and $L_0(t)$ is annulled by the factor $m$ in (\[eq:rate-change-L-four\]).
Trial and Weighting Functions {#sec::trial-and-test-fncs}
-----------------------------
Choosing the trial functions $\Phi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})$ is the most delicate step in the reduction of the CBE to a system of ODEs. One possible way is to set $\partial f_1/\partial t=0$ in (\[eq:CBE-perturbed\]) and solve the first order equation $$\left [f_1,{\cal H}_0 \right ]+\left [f_0,{\cal H}_1 \right ]=0,
\label{eq:CBE-linear-equilibrium}$$ for $f_1$. Substituting (\[eq:expansion-f1\]) and (\[eq:expansion-V1\]) in (\[eq:CBE-linear-equilibrium\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
d^{ml}_j\Phi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}}) &=& b^{ml}_j
\varrho^{ml}_{0}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}}),
\label{eq:trial-functions-one} \\
\varrho^{ml}_{0}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) &=& {l\frac {\partial f_0}{\partial
J_R}+ m\frac {\partial f_0}{\partial J_\phi} \over
l\Omega_R+m\Omega_\phi },\end{aligned}$$ where $$\Omega_R(\textbf{\textit{J}})=\frac {\partial {\cal H}_0}{\partial J_R},~~
\Omega_\phi(\textbf{\textit{J}})=\frac {\partial {\cal H}_0}{\partial J_\phi}.$$ Equation (\[eq:trial-functions-one\]) suggests to choose $$\Phi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})=\varrho^{ml}_{0}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}}),\label{eq:trial-functions-two}$$ as the trial functions (in the space of actions) for an unsteady $f_1(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}},t)$. These functions have integrable singularities for resonant orbits with $l\Omega_R+m\Omega_{\phi}=0$. For unidirectional disks with only prograde orbits, they also include a term with the Dirac delta function $\delta(J_\phi)$ (see JH). One should therefore avoid the partial derivatives of $\Phi^{ml}_j$ with respect to the actions by evaluating the weighted residual form of $[f_1,{\cal H}_1]$ through integration by parts (Appendix A).
For deriving the relation between $a^m_j$ and $d^{ml}_{j}$ in (\[eq:a-versus-d\]), the fundamental equation (\[eq:fundamental-equation\]) was multiplied by the complex conjugates of the basis functions used in the expansion of $V_1(R,\phi,t)$. One may follow a similar approach for obtaining the weighted residual form of the CBE and set $$W^{ml}_j(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})=\Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})
e^{-{\rm i}(m\theta_\phi+l\theta_R)},\label{eq:weight-functions}$$ which are the complex conjugates of the basis functions used in the expansion of $V_1(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}},t)$ in the action-angle space. The trial and weighting functions introduced as above, are not orthogonal but they result in a simple form for the linear part of the reduced CBE as I explain in §\[sec::linear-theory\].
LINEAR THEORY {#sec::linear-theory}
=============
In a first order perturbation analysis, the second order terms of the amplitude functions are ignored. The evolution of modes is then governed by the linear parts of (\[eq:ODE-for-z-one\]) as $${\rm i} \textbf{\textit{M}}\cdot { d \over d t}
\textbf{\textit{z}}(t) =
\textbf{\textit{C}}\cdot \textbf{\textit{z}}(t).
\label{eq:ODE-for-z-linear}$$ A general solution of (\[eq:ODE-for-z-linear\]) has the form $\textbf{\textit{z}}(t)=e^{-{\rm i}\omega t}\textbf{\textit{z}}_0$, which leads to the following linear eigenvalue problem $$\textbf{\textit{C}}(m)\cdot \textbf{\textit{z}}_0=
\omega \textbf{\textit{M}}(m)\cdot \textbf{\textit{z}}_0,
\label{eq:eigenvalue-problem-one}$$ for a prescribed azimuthal wavenumber $m$. Operating $\textbf{\textit{M}}^{-1}$ on (\[eq:eigenvalue-problem-one\]) yields $$\textbf{\textit{A}}(m)\cdot \textbf{\textit{z}}_0=
\omega \textbf{\textit{z}}_0,
\label{eq:eigenvalue-problem-two}$$ where $\textbf{\textit{A}}$ is a general non-symmetric matrix. A reduction to Hessenberg form followed by the QR algorithm [@Press01] gives all real and complex eigenvalues. Real eigenvalues correspond to van Kampen modes and complex eigenvalues, which occur in conjugate pairs, give growing/damping modes. I utilize the method of singular value decomposition for finding the eigenvectors and perform the decomposition $\textbf{\textit{A}}-\omega \textbf{\textit{I}}=\textbf{\textit{U}}\cdot
\textbf{\textit{S}}\cdot \textbf{\textit{V}}^T$ where $\textbf{\textit{I}}$ is the identity matrix and the diagonal matrix $\textbf{\textit{S}}$ is composed of the singular values $S_j$ ($j=1,2,\cdots,n_{\rm max}$). The column of $\textbf{\textit{V}}$ that corresponds to the smallest $S_j$ is the eigenvector associated with $\omega$.
Calculation of $\textbf{\textit{C}}$ and $\textbf{\textit{M}}$ involves evaluation of some definite integrals in the action space. There will be two types of such integrals (instead of three) if one uses the trial functions defined in (\[eq:trial-functions-two\]). Let me introduce the auxiliary integral $${\cal I}^{ml}_{jk}=
\int d \textbf{\textit{J}} \left ( l{\partial f_0\over \partial J_R}+
m{\partial f_0\over \partial J_\phi} \right )
\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Psi^{ml}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}}),$$ and apply the trial functions $\Phi^{ml}_{j}=\varrho^{ml}_0\Psi^{ml}_{j}$ in (\[eq:A-tensor\]). The elements of $\textbf{\textit{M}}$ and $\textbf{\textit{C}}$ are thus computed from $$\begin{aligned}
M_{pq} &=& \delta_{l,l'}\Lambda^{ml}_{jj'}, \label{eq:bar-M-matrix} \\
C_{pq} &=& \delta_{l,l'}{\cal I}^{ml}_{jj'}-
\sum_{k=0}^{j_{\rm max}} \left [ {4\pi^2\over D_{k}(m)}\right ]
{\cal I}^{ml}_{jk}\Lambda^{ml'}_{kj'}. \label{eq:bar-A-matrix}\end{aligned}$$ Both $\Lambda^{ml}_{jk}$ and ${\cal I}^{ml}_{jk}$ consist of boundary integrals when the unperturbed stellar disk is unidirectional with the DF $f_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})=H(J_\phi)f^P_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})$. Here $H$ is the Heaviside function. The boundary terms are $$\begin{aligned}
\tilde \Lambda^{ml}_{jk} &=& \int_{0}^{\infty} d J_R\left [
{mf^P_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Psi^{ml}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \over
l\Omega_R(\textbf{\textit{J}})+m\Omega_{\phi}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) }
\right ]_{J_{\phi}=0}, \\
%
{\tilde {\cal I}}^{ml}_{jk} &=& \int_{0}^{\infty} d J_R\left [
mf^P_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Psi^{ml}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \right
]_{J_{\phi}=0}.\end{aligned}$$ Dynamics of modes with different azimuthal wavenumbers are decoupled in the linear regime and the matrix $\textbf{\textit{A}}$ is an odd function of the wavenumber $m$. i.e., $\textbf{\textit{A}}(-m)=-\textbf{\textit{A}}(m)$. An immediate result of this property is $a^{-m}_j(t)=\overline {a^m_j}(t)$. Consequently, $L_m(t)$ becomes equal to zero for all $|m|\ge 0$ and each mode individually conserves the total angular momentum.
The present theory has three major advantages over Kalnajs’s formulation. Firstly, all eigenmodes relevant to a prescribed azimuthal wavenumber are obtained at once with classical linear algebraic algorithms. This makes it possible to explore and classify all families of growing modes beside pure oscillatory van Kampen modes. Secondly, the constituting integrals of the elements of $M_{pq}$, $C_{pq}$ and $K_{pqr}$ (Appendix \[app::Petrov-Galerkin\]) are regular at exact resonances when the condition $l\Omega_R+m\Omega_\phi-\omega=0$ holds. Finally, nonlinear interaction of modes, and the mass and angular momentum exchange between them, can be readily monitored by integrating the system of nonlinear ODEs given in (\[eq:nonlinear-ODE\]). In the proceeding section I will be concerned with the calculation and classification of modes in the linear regime.
MODES OF THE CORED EXPONENTIAL DISK {#sec:modes-exp-disk}
===================================
JH calculated barred and spiral modes of certain stellar disks for the wavenumber $m=2$. Among the models studied in JH, the cored exponential disk with the surface density profile $$\Sigma_D(R)=\Sigma_s \exp \left ( -\lambda
\sqrt{1+R^2/R_C^2}\right ),~~\lambda=\frac{R_C}{R_D},
\label{eq:density-exp-disk}$$ and embedded in the field of the soft-centered logarithmic potential $$V_0(R)=v_0^2\ln \sqrt{1+R^2/R_C^2},
\label{eq:potential-cored-logarithmic}$$ is a viable model that resembles most features of realistic spirals. Here $R_C$ is the core radius, $R_D$ is the length scale of the exponential decay, and $\Sigma_s$ is a density scaling factor. The velocity of circular orbits in this model rises from zero at the galactic center and approaches to the constant value $v_0$ in outer regions where the light profile falls off exponentially. @JHb have derived the gravitational potential corresponding to $\Sigma_D(R)$. I denote this potential by $V_D(R)$. The gradient $$F_H=\frac{d}{dR}\left [V_0(R)-V_D(R)\right ],$$ will give the gravitational force of a spherical dark matter component, computed inside the galactic disk. The density profile of the dark component, $\rho_H$, can then be determined using $F_H$. The positiveness of $\rho_H$ imposes some restrictions on the physical values of $\lambda$ and $\alpha=G\Sigma_s R_D/v_0^2$ as Figure 5 in JH shows. For a given $\lambda$, $\alpha$ cannot exceed a critical value $\alpha_{cr}$. The parameter $\lambda$ determines the shape of the dark matter density profile. A model with $\lambda=1$ and $\alpha=\alpha_{cr}$ is maximal in the region where the rotation curve is rising. i.e., there is no dark matter in that region. Models with $\lambda >1$ and $\alpha=\alpha_{cr}$ are still maximal but only in the vicinity of the center for $R<R_D$. In such models the rotational velocity of stars due to dark matter ($v_H=\sqrt{R F_H}$) has a monotonically rising profile. For $\lambda<1$, dark matter penetrates into the galactic center and its density profile becomes cuspy in the limit of $\lambda \rightarrow 0$. The role of the parameter $\alpha$ is to control the fraction of dark to luminous matter. Models with $\alpha \ll \alpha_{cr}$ are dominated by dark matter.
JH introduced a family of equilibrium DFs that reproduces $\Sigma_D(R)$ and depends on an integer constant $N$. This parameter controls the population of near-circular orbits and the disk temperature: the parameter $Q$ of @T64 decreases by increasing $N$. The DFs of JH have an isotropic part that determines the fraction of radial orbits. That isotropic part, which reconstructs the central density of the equilibrium state, shrinks to central regions of the galaxy as $N$ increases.
I apply my new method to the cored exponential disks of JH and calculate the spectrum of $\omega=\omega_R+{\rm i}\omega_I$. Subsequently, the eigenvector $\textbf{\textit{z}}_0$ is calculated from (\[eq:eigenvalue-problem-two\]) and it is used in (\[eq:a-versus-d\]) to compute $a^m_j(t)=e^{-{\rm i}\omega t}a^m_j(0)$ and the perturbed density $$\Sigma_1(R,\phi,t)= e^{\omega_I t} P_m(R) \cos \left [
m\phi \!-\! \omega_R t \!+\! \vartheta_m(R)\right ],
\label{eq:mode-shape}$$ which is the real part of (\[eq:expansion-sigma1-config\]). $P_m(R)$ and $\vartheta_m(R)$ are the amplitude and phase functions of an $m$-fold circumferential wave that travels with the angular velocity $\omega_R/m$. The factor $e^{\omega_I t}$ shows the exponential growth/decay of the wave amplitude. I normalize all length, velocity, and time variables to $R_C$, $v_0$ and $R_C/v_0$, respectively, and set $G=R_C=v_0=1$.
I begin my case studies in §\[sec:maximal-disk\] with a near maximal disk of $(N,\lambda,\alpha)$=$(6,1,0.42)$ and compute its eigenfrequency spectra for the wavenumbers $0\le m\le 5$. I then classify unstable $m=2$ modes of this model and investigate their evolution as the parameter $\alpha$ is varied. In §\[sec:variations-of-lambda\] and §\[sec:variation-of-N\], I study the behavior of unstable $m=2$ waves as the parameters $\lambda$ and $N$ are changed. The eigenfrequency spectrum of a model with an inner cutout is also computed and discussed in §\[sec:cutout-models\].
A Near Maximal Disk {#sec:maximal-disk}
-------------------
I pick up the first model from Table 4 of JH with $(N,\lambda,\alpha)=(6,1,0.42)$ and start solving the eigensystem (\[eq:eigenvalue-problem-two\]) with $(l_{\rm max},j_{\rm max})=(2,4)$ and increase these limits until complex eigenfrequencies converge. For an error threshold of $1\%$ the program terminates when $(l_{\rm max},j_{\rm max})=(10,15)$, which gives a size of $336\times 336$ for the matrix $\textbf{\textit{A}}$. In such a circumstance, out of $336$ eigenfrequencies of $\textbf{\textit{A}}$ (for each wavenumber $m$), less than 15 pair have non-zero growth rates ($\omega_I\not =0$). Further increasing of $l_{\rm max}$ and $j_{\rm max}$ does not alter the number and location of complex eigenfrequencies in the $\omega$-plane. This shows that unstable modes do not constitute a continuous family.
Figure \[pic:full-spectra\] displays the eigenfrequency spectra for the azimuthal wavenumbers $0\le m\le 5$. Eigenfrequencies on the real axis are oscillatory van Kampen modes. Their calculation requires evaluation of Cauchy’s principal value [@V03] if one uses Kalnajs’s first order theory. In the present formalism, van Kampen modes are found together with growing modes without any special treatment. More van Kampen modes are obtainable by increasing the truncation limit $l_{\rm max}$ of Fourier terms in the $\theta_R$-direction. Toomre’s $Q$ is marginally greater than 1 for the model (Figure 7[*b*]{} in JH), and therefore, one could expect that the disk is stable for $m=0$ excitations (see top-left panel in Figure \[pic:full-spectra\]). The model is highly unstable for $m>0$ excitations although the average growth rate of unstable modes decreases for larger wavenumbers. It is evident that either unstable modes are isolated or they are grouped in [*discrete families*]{}. Depending on the wavenumber, there may be one or more discrete families. The most prominent family bifurcates from van Kampen modes. Members of this family have spiral patterns with multiple peaks in their $P_m(R)$ functions. The (global) fastest growing mode belongs to the spectrum of $m=2$. That is the bar mode of a two-member unstable family.
The length scale of Clutton-Brock functions has been set to $b=1.5$ for $m=2$ and $b=2$ for other wavenumbers. Changing this length scale slightly displaces the eigenfrequencies although the spectrum maintains its global pattern. Large values of $b$ lead to a better computation accuracy of extensive modes (with smaller pattern speeds), while compact bar modes show a rapid convergence for small values of $b$. Moreover, the suitable value of $b$ differs from one azimuthal wavenumber to another. Finding an optimum length scale that gives the best results for all modes and wavenumbers is an open problem yet to be investigated precisely. For the cored exponential disks with $0.5 \le R_C,R_D\le 2$, working in the range $1\le b\le 2.5$ gives reasonable results.
For $m=2$, I have zoomed out and plotted in Figure \[pic:spectrum-m2-unstable\][*a*]{} the portion of the spectrum that contains growing modes. The first and second modes reported in Table 4 of JH have been shown by circles in the same figure. The most unstable mode (labeled as B1) is a compact, rapidly rotating bar. The majority of unstable modes belong to a discrete spiral family that bifurcates from a van Kampen mode with $\omega \approx
0.43$. I have labeled these modes by S1,$\cdots$,S6. The number of density peaks along the spiral arms is proportional to the integer number in the mode name. Both B2 and G are double peaked spirals but I have classified B2 as a bar mode, and collected it with B1 in a two member family, for it takes a bar-like structure when it is stabilized by decreasing $\alpha$. I classify mode G as an isolated mode because it does not behave similar to either of S- or B-modes as the model parameters vary. There is another isolated mode in the spectrum, C1, which exhibits a spiral pattern. By decreasing $\lambda$, mode C1 joins a new family of spiral modes, which are accumulated near the galactic center (see §\[sec:variations-of-lambda\]).
Reducing $\alpha$ increases the abundance of dark matter and according to [@T81] and JH the growth rate of modes should decrease. My calculations show that by reducing $\alpha$, spiral modes are affected sooner and more effective than the bar mode, and they join to the stationary modes, one by one from the location of the bifurcation point until the whole S-family disappears. This is a generic scenario for all $\lambda \ge 1$ models regardless of the disk temperature controlled by $N$. Solid lines in Figure \[pic:spectrum-m2-unstable\][*b*]{} show the [*eigenfrequency loci*]{} of a model with $(N,\lambda)=(6,1)$ as $\alpha$ increases from $0.2$ to $0.42$. It is evident that mode B1 is destabilized through a pitchfork bifurcation while the loci of modes B2 and C1, and S-modes exhibit a tangent bifurcation. All modes except mode G are stable for $\alpha <0.23$. Surprisingly, mode G resists against stabilization even for very small values of $\alpha$. This indicates that mode G is not characterized by the fraction of dark to luminous matter. In §\[sec:variations-of-lambda\] and §\[sec:variation-of-N\], I will show that this mode is highly sensitive to the variations of $\lambda$ and $N$. According to my computations (e.g., Figure \[pic:spectrum-m2-unstable\][*b*]{}), by increasing $\alpha$ all S-modes are born at the same bifurcation frequency $\omega_{S}\approx 0.43$, but mode B2 comes out from a van Kampen mode with $\omega_{B}\approx 0.83$. This result completely rules out any skepticism that mode B2 is a member of S-family.
Figure \[pic:mode-shape-m2\] displays the wave patterns and amplitude functions of modes B1, B2, G, S1, S2 and S3. It is seen that the patterns of S-modes rotate slower and become more extensive as the mode number increases. Mode S6, which is at the bifurcation point of the spiral family, has the largest extent. Eight wave packets of this mode are distributed by a phase shift of 90 degrees along major spiral arms. Mode G has at most two density peaks on its major spiral arms but the magnitude of its second peak increases as the disk is cooled. Modes B1, B2, S1, S2 and S3 are, respectively, analogous to modes A, B, C, E and F of a Gaussian disk explored in @T81. There are three low-speed modes in Figure 11 of @T81 that have not been labeled, but they are analogs of modes S4, S5 and S6. Mode G and Toomre’s mode D also have some similarities but are of different origins (see §\[sec:final-discussions\]). None of them can be stabilized only by increasing the fraction of dark matter.
Figure \[pic:spectrum-m2-unstable\][*a*]{} shows that the fundamental mode obtained by JH coincides with mode B1. The wave pattern of mode B1 (displayed in Figure \[pic:mode-shape-m2\]) is identical to the mode shape computed using Kalnajs’s theory and demonstrated in Figure 8 of JH. JH found a secondary mode which lies between modes B2 and G. That mode is also a double-peaked spiral and it is not easy to identify its true nature unless we investigate its evolution as the model parameters vary. By comparing Figure 10[*a*]{} of JH with Figure \[pic:spectrum-m2-unstable\][*b*]{}, one can see that both mode B2 and the secondary mode of JH are destabilized through a tangent bifurcation while mode G has a different nature. The bifurcation frequency of mode B2 that I find ($\omega_{B}\approx 0.83$) matches very well with the frequency of the stabilized secondary mode of JH (see Figure 10[*a*]{} in JH but note that their vertical axis indicates $\Omega_p=\omega_R/2$). Therefore, I conclude that the secondary mode of JH is indeed mode B2 although it seems to be closer to mode G. The existing discrepancy is due to different length scale of Clutton-Brock functions that JH have used for finding the secondary mode. By adjusting $b$ one can improve the location of B2. However, this is an unnecessary attempt given the fact that mode B2 has already been identified, and the computation accuracy of other eigenfrequencies has an impressive level.
Variations of $\lambda$ {#sec:variations-of-lambda}
-----------------------
The parameter $\lambda$ controls the density profile of the dark matter component, specifically near the galactic center. The fraction of dark to luminous matter has its minimum value in marginal models with $\alpha\approx \alpha_{cr}$. I choose a marginal $\lambda <1$ model with $(N,\lambda,\alpha)=(6,0.625,0.34)$, which has also been investigated by JH. Figure \[pic:spectrum-m2-vary-lambda\][*a*]{} shows the portion of the spectrum that contains complex eigenfrequencies of this model. The spectrum has been computed for $b=1.5$. Although $m=2$ bar and spiral modes survive in this model, their pattern speeds and growth rates drop considerably. Mode G has been wiped out of existence by dark matter penetration into the center, and four unstable modes (C1, C2, C3 and C4) have emerged that constitute a new family of spiral modes. They populate the central regions of the disk in most of $\lambda <1$ models. Again, the location of eigenfrequencies obtained by JH have been marked by circles. The agreement between the results of JH and the present study is very good and the variance is less than $2\%$.
The population of spiral modes is changed by varying $\alpha$, and the eigenfrequencies of unstable modes are altered significantly. Solid lines in Figure \[pic:spectrum-m2-vary-lambda\][*a*]{} show the loci of growing modes as $\alpha$ increases from $0.2$ to $\alpha_{cr}\approx 0.36$. Similar to the previous $\lambda=1$ model, S-modes and mode B1 are destabilized through tangent and pitchfork bifurcations, respectively. All C-modes are born by a pitchfork bifurcation although some minor modes of the same nature come and go as $\alpha$ varies. The loci of modes B1 and S1 (in Figure \[pic:spectrum-m2-vary-lambda\][*a*]{}) are in harmony with the results of Kalnajs’s method plotted in Figure 10[*b*]{} of JH. It is noted that the locus of mode B1 steeply joins the real axis, well before stabilizing the S-modes. This is how slowly growing spirals may dominate a stellar disk.
There are no new families of growing modes in $\lambda>1$ models. Dark matter in these models induces a rising rotation curve on the disk stars (see Figure 6 in JH) and the population of S-modes declines. The growth rate of mode B2 increases proportional to $\lambda$, but that of mode G falls off although mode G is still robust against the variations of $\alpha$. Mode G has its maximum growth rate in $\lambda=1$ models, which suggests that it must be a self-gravitating response of the luminous matter that involves only the potential of the disk, $V_D$. The function $P_2(R)$ of mode C1 loses its minor peaks and becomes smoother as $\lambda$ increases. Figure \[pic:spectrum-m2-vary-lambda\][*b*]{} shows the eigenfrequency loci of models with $(N,\lambda)=(6,2)$ as $\alpha$ increases from $0.25$ to $\alpha_{cr}\approx 0.6$. The eigenfrequency loci of modes C1 and B2, and S-modes (as $\alpha$ varies) are similar to $\lambda=1$ models, but the locus of mode B1 loses its steepness and stretches towards small pattern speeds in an approximately linear form until it joins the real $\omega_R$-axis. The bifurcation frequency of mode B2 differs from S-modes and it is larger.
Figure \[pic:mode-shape-m2-SR34\] shows the wave patterns of modes B1, B2, S1, C1, C2 and C3 for the model with $(N,\lambda,\alpha)=(6,0.625,0.34)$. The (isolated) mode B1 is still a single-peaked bar although its edge is more extensive as the flat part of its $P_2(R)$ plot indicates. Mode S1 is a triple-peaked spiral (as before) and mode B2 is being stabilized ($\omega_{\rm
B2}=0.775+0.007{\rm i}$). It is seen that mode B2 has a bar-like structure, which justifies its classification as the secondary bar mode. The pattern of S1 and its $P_2(R)$ plot can be compared with Figure 9 in JH. The agreement is quite satisfactory. There is a remarkable difference between the patterns of C- and S-modes although both families have spiral structures. In contrast to S-modes that become more extensive as their growth rate decays, C-modes are shrunk to central regions because their pattern speed increases. C-modes are also a bifurcating family, but their bifurcation point lies on large pattern speeds associated with the azimuthal frequency ($\Omega_\phi$) of central stars.
The parameters $\alpha$ and $\lambda$ are essentially controlling the fraction and density profile of dark matter component, respectively. However, the radial velocity dispersion $\sigma_R$ of the equilibrium state is also playing an important role in the perturbed dynamics. $\sigma_R$ is an indicator of the initial temperature of the disk. @ER98b had already pointed out that the pitch angle of spiral patterns decreases when $\sigma_R\rightarrow 0$ (see their Figure 7). Apart from this morphological implication, can the variation in the disk temperature affect the modal content? In the following subsection, I trace the evolution of growing waves by changing the disk temperature and show that the population of S-modes is larger in rotationally supported, cold disks.
Variations of the Disk Temperature {#sec:variation-of-N}
----------------------------------
The parameter $N$ of the DFs of JH controls the disk temperature by adjusting the size of the isotropic core and the population of near circular orbits. As $N$ increases, the streaming velocity $\langle
v_{\phi}\rangle$ approaches the rotational velocity of circular orbits and the stellar disk is cooled. Figure \[pic:spectrum-vary-N\] displays the eigenfrequencies of previous $(\lambda,\alpha)=(1,0.42)$ and $(\lambda,\alpha)=(0.625,0.34)$ models for $N=4$ and $N=8$. The spectra for the intermediate value of $N=6$ have already been shown in Figures \[pic:spectrum-m2-unstable\][*a*]{} and \[pic:spectrum-m2-vary-lambda\][*a*]{}.
Increasing $N$ gives birth to more S-modes while the bifurcation point of the family is preserved. As a new member is born at the bifurcation point, other members including mode S1, are pushed away from the real axis on a curved path. This behavior is observed in both models but the branch of S-family in the model with $(\lambda,\alpha)=(0.625,0.34)$ stays closer to the real axis than the other model. The growth rates of C-modes increase remarkably as the disk is cooled. Despite mode B1 which rotates and grows faster in cold disks, mode B2 grows faster in warmer disks. Variation in the disk temperature changes the eigenfrequency of mode G more effective than what $\alpha$ could, but nothing is more influential than the role of $\lambda$.
Another consequence of cooling the stellar disk is that $m=0$ waves are no longer stable. The parameter $Q$ of Toomre was marginally greater than unity for $N=6$ models. For $N=8$, I find $Q<1$ over an annular region because the plot of $Q$ versus $R$ exhibits a minimum at some finite radius (e.g., Figure 7 of JH). For instance, I find three growing $m=0$ modes for the model $(N,\lambda,\alpha)=(8,1,0.42)$. They correspond to pure complex eigenfrequencies $\omega_1=0.621{\rm i}$, $\omega_2=0.494{\rm i}$ and $\omega_3=0.238{\rm i}$. Mode shapes have (obviously) ringed structures but the number of rings, which is identical to the number of peaks of $P_0(R)$, depends on the growth rate. The modes associated with $\omega_1$, $\omega_2$ and $\omega_3$ have three, four and five rings, respectively. Ring modes are very sensitive to the variations of model parameters and they are suppressed by decreasing $\lambda$ and $\alpha$.
The Effect of an Inner Cutout {#sec:cutout-models}
-----------------------------
In order to simulate an immobile bulge, which does not respond to density perturbations, JH utilized an inner cutout function of the form $$H_{\rm cut}=1-e^{-\left(J_\phi/L_0\right)^2},$$ where $L_0$ is an angular momentum scale. Multiplying $H_{\rm cut}$ by the self-consistent DF of the equilibrium state, prohibits the stars with $J_{\phi}< L_0$ from participating in the perturbed dynamics. Consequently, incoming waves are reflected at some finite radius and the innermost wave packets of multiple-peaked modes are diminished. My calculations show that all S-modes survive in cutout models, mode G disappears, and the growth rate of mode B2 increases. The pattern speed of mode B1 is boosted so that the corotation resonance is destroyed, but its growth rate drops drastically. Figure \[pic:spectrum-cutout\] shows the eigenfrequency spectrum of a model with $L_0=0.1$ and $(N,\lambda,\alpha)=(6,1,0.42)$. Circles show the eigenfrequencies found by JH. Again, the agreement between the results of JH and the present work is very good. The reason that I have identified mode B2 as the second member of B-family, and not the most unstable S-mode, is that its $P_2(R)$ function has an evolved double-peaked structure (see Figure 11 in JH) and its locus versus $\alpha$ does not emerge from the same bifurcation frequency of S-modes. Disappearance of mode G in cutout models confirms my earlier note that it is a self-gravitating mode.
DISCUSSIONS {#sec:final-discussions}
===========
There are similarities between mode G of this study and Toomre’s (1981) mode D. Both of these modes resist against stabilization by increasing the fraction of dark to luminous matter and they have at most double peaks on their spiral arms. Nonetheless, these modes are not the same because mode G is amplified through a feedback from the galactic center but Toomre’s mode D has been identified as an edge mode. A question remains to be answered: why Toomre (1981) did not detect mode G and I do not find an edge mode? The most convincing explanation is that to excite a self-gravitating wave inside the core of the stellar component, the governing potential in that region should mainly come from the self-gravity of stars. This requirement is fulfilled in my $\lambda\ge 1$ models for $R<R_D$. However, the completely flat rotation curve imposed by Toomre (1981) nowhere follows the rotational velocity induced by the self-gravity of stars and it prohibits the Gaussian disk from developing a G-like mode. On the other hand, I don’t find an edge mode because the density profile of the cored exponential disk does not decay as steep as the Gaussian disk to create an outer boundary at some finite radius for reflecting the outgoing waves.
Similar to the first order analysis of §\[sec::linear-theory\], Polyachenko’s (2005) approach results in the full spectrum of eigenfrequencies for a given azimuthal wavenumber. There are some differences between his method and the present formulation. Polyachenko directly uses Poisson’s integral to establish a point-wise relation in the action space between the Fourier components of the perturbed DF and its self-consistent potential. Combination of equations (5) and (9) in his paper is analogous to equation (\[eq:expansion-V1-vs-dmlj\]) in this paper. The main departure of the two theories is in the way that the linearized CBE is treated. Polyachenko forces a point-wise fulfillment of the CBE in the action space while the present method works with a weighted residual form of the CBE.
A point-wise formulation poses a challenge for the numerical calculation of the eigenvalues and their conjugate eigenvectors. According to the bar charts of JH, at least ten Fourier components ($-3 \le l \le 6$) are needed in the $\theta_R$-direction to assure a credible convergence of $f_1$ in a typical soft-centered galaxy model. Therefore, if one chooses a grid of $n_a\times n_a$ in the action space, Polyachenko’s eigenvector $\textbf{\textit{F}}$ will have a dimension of $10\times n_a\times n_a$. Therefore, for a [*very coarse*]{} grid with $n_a=21$ that Polyachenko uses, the unknown eigenvector will have a dimension of 4410. This number must be compared with the dimension of $\textbf{\textit{z}}_0$ in equation (\[eq:eigenvalue-problem-two\]). That is indeed $n_{\rm max}=336$ for the most accurate calculations carried out by setting $(l_{\rm max},j_{\rm max})=(10,15)$ which means that $21$ Fourier components in the $\theta_R$-direction and $16$ expansion terms in the $R$-direction have been taken into account. Noting that the definite integrals ${\cal I}^{ml}_{jk}$ and $\Lambda^{ml}_{jk}$ are independently evaluated over the action space with any desired accuracy, the present theory proves to be more efficient for eigenmode calculation (in the linear regime) than other existing alternatives.
The agreement between the results of this work and those of JH, who have used Kalnajs’s method, is impressive. There is only a discrepancy in the results for a double-peaked spiral mode of $\lambda=1$ models. In fact, these models have two double-peaked modes, modes B2 and G, and JH find mode B2. The origin of discrepancies was attributed to the length scale of Clutton-Brock functions, $b$, which is a fixed number for the whole spectrum of a given azimuthal wavenumber. Provided that JH optimized $b$ for each growing mode that they calculated (see also §\[sec:maximal-disk\]), some minor deviations from the results of this paper are reasonable. In most cases the algorithm used by JH converges to mode B1 and the fastest rotating S-mode. They capture mode B2 only if its growth rate is large enough. Other modes remain unexplored because Newton’s method needs an initial guess of $\omega$, which has a little chance to be in the basin of attraction of the other members of S-family. The separation of eigenfrequencies near the bifurcation point of S-modes is very small and one could anticipate complex boundaries for the basins of attraction of these eigenfrequencies. Thus, there is no guarantee that successive Newton’s iterations keep an estimated eigenfrequency on the same basin that it was initially. Nevertheless, in Kalnajs’s formulation, a systematic search for all growing modes is possible by introducing the mathematical eigenvalue [@Z76; @ER98b] and investigating its loci as the pattern speed and growth rate vary.
CONCLUSIONS {#sec:conclusions}
===========
After three decades of Kalnajs’s (1977) publication, it was not known exactly whether growing modes of stellar systems appear as distinct roots in the eigenfrequency space or they belong to continuous families as van Kampen modes do. In this paper, I attempted to answer this question using the Galerkin projection of the CBE and unveiled the full eigenfrequency spectrum of a stellar disk. I showed that similar to gaseous disks [@AJ06], majority of growing modes emerge as [*discrete families*]{} through a bifurcation from stationary modes. There are some exceptions for this rule, the most important of which are the isolated bar and G modes.
The model that I used to test my method allows for dark matter presence as a spherical component, whose potential inside the galactic disk contributes to the rotational velocity of stars. By varying the parameters of the model, and investigating the eigenfrequencies and their associated mode shapes, I showed that it is not the fraction of dark to luminous matter that controls the variety of growing modes. What determines that variety is indeed the shape of the dark matter density profile controlled by the parameter $\lambda=R_C/R_D$. My survey in the parameter space revealed that the concentration of dark matter in the galactic center ($\lambda <1$) destroys mode G and weakens the growth of B-modes substantially. Emergence of spiral C-modes that accumulate near the galactic center is another remarkable consequence of dark matter presence in central regions of a cored stellar disk.
Although the solution of the Galerkin system showed a credible convergence of the series expansions, the existence of strong solutions for the CBE, in its full nonlinear form, is still an open problem. It has been known for years that van Kampen modes make a complete set [@C59], and therefore, they may be used for a series representation of stationary oscillations. But there is not a mathematical proof for the completeness of the discrete families of growing modes. In other words, whether an observed galaxy can be assembled using the modes of a linear eigensystem, requires further analysis.
In the second part of this study, I will investigate the mechanisms of wave interactions in the nonlinear regime and will probe the mass and angular momentum transfer between waves of different Fourier numbers.
I am indebted to Chris Hunter for his instructive and valuable comments since the beginning of this work. I also thank the referee for helpful suggestions that improved the presentation of the results. This work was partially supported by the Research Vice-Presidency at Sharif University of Technology.
WEIGHTED RESIDUAL FORM OF THE COLLISIONLESS BOLTZMANN EQUATION {#app::Petrov-Galerkin}
==============================================================
Let me define a nonlinear operator ${\cal A}$ and denote $\textbf{\textit{u}}^{(\ell)}$ as the $\ell$th prolongation [@OL93] of the physical quantity $u$ in the domain of independent variables. Assume a (nonlinear) partial differential equation $${\cal A} \left ( u^{(\ell)}, x,t \right )=0,
\label{eq:general-operator-prolonged}$$ and its associated initial and boundary conditions that govern the evolution of $u(x,t)$ in the domain of the spatial variable $x$ and the time $t$. A weighted residual method [@F72] attempts to find an approximate solution of the form $$u(x,t)=
\sum_{k=1}^{k_{\rm max}} a_{k}(t)
\varphi_{k}(x),
\label{eq:expansion-for-u-general}$$ through determining the time-dependent functions $a_k(t)$ for a given set of trial (basis) functions $\varphi_{k}(x)$. The trial functions should satisfy the boundary conditions and be linearly independent. Using (\[eq:expansion-for-u-general\]) and taking the inner product of (\[eq:general-operator-prolonged\]) by some weighting functions $W_{k'}(x)$, yield the determining equations of $a_k(t)$ as $$\left ( {\cal A},W_{k'} \right ) \equiv
\int {\cal A} W_{k'} dx=0,~~
k'=1,2,\cdots,k_{\rm max}.
\label{eq:weighted-residual-form-general}$$ There are several procedures for choosing $W_{k'}(x)$ and each procedure has its own name. The method with $W_{k'}=\varphi_{k'}$ is called the Bubnov-Galerkin, or simply the Galerkin method. The Petrov-Galerkin method is associated with $W_{k'}\not=\varphi_{k'}$. The well-known collocation method uses Dirac’s delta functions for the weighting purpose. There is an alternative interpretation for the inner product $\left ({\cal A},W_{k'} \right )=0$. That is projecting the equation ${\cal A}=0$ on a subspace spanned by the weighting function $W_{k'}$. Therefore, equation (\[eq:weighted-residual-form-general\]) is often called the [*Galerkin projection*]{} of (\[eq:general-operator-prolonged\]). In what follows, I use the Petrov-Galerkin method and construct the weighted residual form of the CBE.
Assume the functions $U(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})$ and $V(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})$, and define their inner product over the action-angle space as $$\left (U,V \right )=\int\int
U(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})V(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})
d \textbf{\textit{J}} d \Theta.$$ Taking the inner product of the perturbed CBE by the weighting functions $W^{ml}_{j}(\Theta,\textbf{\textit{J}})=
\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})e^{-{\rm i}
\left (l\theta_R+m\theta_\phi \right)}$ gives $$\left (\frac{\partial f_1}{\partial t},W^{ml}_{j}\right )=
-\left ( \left [f_1,{\cal H}_0 \right ],W^{ml}_{j}\right )
-\left ( \left [f_0,{\cal H}_1 \right ],W^{ml}_{j} \right )-
\left ( \left [f_1,{\cal H}_1 \right ],W^{ml}_{j}\right ).
\label{eq:CBE-weighted-residual-1}$$ Note that the CBE is the governing equation of the perturbed DF whose trial functions are $\Phi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})$. With my choice of the weighting function (as above) I am following the Petrov-Galerkin method. On substituting (\[eq:expansion-f1\]) and (\[eq:expansion-V1-vs-dmlj\]) in (\[eq:CBE-weighted-residual-1\]) and after some rearrangements of summations, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
&{}& {\rm i}\sum_{m',l'}^{}\sum_{j'}^{} \delta_{m,m'}\delta_{l,l'}{{\rm
d}\over d t}d^{m'l'}_{j'}(t)\int d \textbf{\textit{J}}
\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}})=
\nonumber \\
%
&{}& \sum_{m',l'}^{}\sum_{j'}^{}
\delta_{m,m'}\delta_{l,l'}d^{m'l'}_{j'}(t)
\int d \textbf{\textit{J}} \left ( l'\Omega_R+m'\Omega_\phi \right
)\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\nonumber \\
%
&-& \sum_{m',l'}^{}\sum_{j'}^{} \delta_{m,m'} d^{m'l'}_{j'}(t)
\sum_{k}^{} \left [ {4\pi^2\over D_k(m')}\right ] \Lambda^{m'l'}_{kj'}
\int d \textbf{\textit{J}} \left ( l{\partial f_0\over \partial J_R}
+m'{\partial f_0\over \partial J_{\phi}} \right
)\Psi^{m'l}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Psi^{m'l}_k(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\nonumber \\
%
&+& \sum_{m',l'}^{}\sum_{j'}^{}
\sum_{m'',l''}^{}\sum_{j''}^{}
\delta_{m'',(m-m')} d^{m'l'}_{j'}(t) d^{m''l''}_{j''}(t)
\sum_{k}^{} \left [ {4\pi^2\over D_k(m'')} \right ]
\Lambda ^{m''l''}_{kj''} \nonumber \\
%
&\times& \Biggl [ \int d \textbf{\textit{J}}
\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\left ( l'{\partial \over \partial J_R}+
m'{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )
\Psi^{m''(l-l')}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \nonumber \\
%
&{}& \qquad -\int d \textbf{\textit{J}}
\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\Psi^{m''(l-l')}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\left ( (l-l'){\partial \over \partial J_R} +
m''{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )
\Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \Biggr ],
\label{eq:weighted-residual-expan}
%\end{aligned}$$ where $-m_{\rm max}\le m,m',m''<m_{\rm max}$, $-l_{\rm max}\le l,l',l''\le l_{\rm max}$ and $0 \le
j,j',j'',k\le j_{\rm max}$. Using equation (\[eq:map-mlj-to-i\]) and carrying out the index mappings $(m,l,j)\rightarrow p$, $(m',l',j')\rightarrow q$ and $(m'',l'',j'')\rightarrow r$ one may introduce the arrays $$\begin{aligned}
M_{pq}&=& \delta_{m,m'}\delta_{l,l'}\int d \textbf{\textit{J}}
\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}}),
\label{eq:M-tensor} \\
%
C_{pq}&=& \delta_{m,m'} \Biggl [ \delta_{l,l'}
\int d \textbf{\textit{J}}
\left ( l'\Omega_R+m'\Omega_\phi \right )\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \nonumber \\
&{}& \qquad \qquad -\sum_{k=0}^{j_{\rm max}}
\left [ {4\pi^2\over D_k(m')}\right ]
\Lambda^{m'l'}_{kj'} \int d \textbf{\textit{J}} \left ( l{\partial
f_0\over \partial J_R} +m'{\partial f_0\over \partial J_{\phi}}
\right )\Psi^{m'l}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\Psi^{m'l}_k(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Biggr ],
\label{eq:A-tensor} \\
%
K_{pqr}&=& \delta_{m',(m-m'')} \delta_{l',(l-l'')}
\sum_{k=0}^{j_{\rm max}} \left [ {4\pi^2\over
D_k(m'')} \right ] \Lambda ^{m''l''}_{kj''} \nonumber \\
&{}& \times \Biggl [ \int d \textbf{\textit{J}}
\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\left ( l'{\partial \over \partial J_R}+
m'{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )
\Psi^{m''l''}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \nonumber \\
%
&{}& \qquad -\int d \textbf{\textit{J}}
\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\Psi^{m''l''}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\left ( l''{\partial \over \partial J_R} +
m''{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )
\Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \Biggr ].\label{eq:B-tensor}
%\end{aligned}$$ Consequently, equation (\[eq:weighted-residual-expan\]) takes the following matrix form $${\rm i}\sum_{q=1}^{n_{\rm max}} M_{pq} { d \over d t}z_q(t) =
\sum_{q=1}^{n_{\rm max}} C_{pq}z_q(t)+\sum_{q,r=1}^{n_{\rm max}}
K_{pqr}z_q(t)z_r(t),~~z_p(t)\equiv d^{ml}_j(t),~~
p=1,2,\cdots,n_{\rm max}.
\label{eq:ODE-for-z-one}$$ Let the matrix $\textbf{\textit{M}}^{-1}=[M^{-1}_{pq}]$ be the inverse of $\textbf{\textit{M}}=[M_{pq}]$ and left-multiply (\[eq:ODE-for-z-one\]) by $\textbf{\textit{M}}^{-1}$ to get $${\rm i} { d \over d t}z_p(t) =
\sum_{q=1}^{n_{\rm max}} A_{pq}z_q(t)+\sum_{q,r=1}^{n_{\rm max}} B_{pqr}
z_q(t)z_r(t),~~\textbf{\textit{A}}=\textbf{\textit{M}}^{-1}
\cdot \textbf{\textit{C}},~~
B_{pqr}=\sum_{s=1}^{n_{\rm max}}M^{-1}_{ps}K_{sqr}.
\label{eq:ODE-for-z-two}$$ Evaluation of the integrands in (\[eq:B-tensor\]) will be considerably simplified if one avoids the partial derivatives of $\Phi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})$ through integrating (\[eq:B-tensor\]) by parts. That gives $$\begin{aligned}
K_{pqr}= &{}& \delta_{m',(m-m'')} \delta_{l',(l-l'')}
\sum_{k=0}^{j_{\rm max}} \left [ {4\pi^2\over
D_k(m'')} \right ] \Lambda ^{m''l''}_{kj''} \nonumber \\
\times \biggl \{ &{}& \int {\rm
d}\textbf{\textit{J}} \Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\left ( l{\partial \over \partial J_R}+
m{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )
\Psi^{m''l''}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \nonumber \\
%
&+& \int d \textbf{\textit{J}}
\Phi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\Psi^{m''l''}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\left ( l''{\partial \over \partial J_R} +
m''{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )
\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\biggr \}.\label{eq:B-tensor-by-parts}\end{aligned}$$ When all stars move on prograde orbits, the equilibrium DF takes the form $f_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})=H(J_\phi)f^P_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})$ where $H$ is the Heaviside function. Upon using (\[eq:trial-functions-two\]), this contributes a term including Dirac’s delta function $\delta(J_\phi)$ to the trial functions. Thus, the following boundary terms $$\begin{aligned}
K^b_{pqr} \! &=& \! \delta_{m',(m-m'')} \delta_{l',(l-l'')}
\sum_{k=0}^{j_{\rm max}}
\left [ {4\pi^2\over D_k(m'')} \right ]
\Lambda ^{m''l''}_{kj''} \nonumber \\
%
\times \Biggl \{ \int_{0}^{\infty} \!\! & d J_R &
\left [ {m' f^P_0(\textbf{\textit{J}})\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\Psi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \over
l'\Omega_R(\textbf{\textit{J}})+m'\Omega_\phi(\textbf{\textit{J}})
}
\left ( l{\partial \over \partial J_R}+
m{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )
\Psi^{m''l''}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \right ]_{J_{\phi}=0} \nonumber \\
%
+ \int_{0}^{\infty} \!\! & d J_R & \left [
{m' f^P_0(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \Psi^{m''l''}_{k}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\Psi^{m'l'}_{j'}(\textbf{\textit{J}})
\over l'\Omega_R(\textbf{\textit{J}})+m'\Omega_\phi(\textbf{\textit{J}})
}
\left ( l''{\partial \over
\partial J_R} +
m''{\partial \over \partial J_\phi} \right )
\Psi^{ml}_{j}(\textbf{\textit{J}}) \right ]_{J_\phi=0}
\Biggr \}, \label{eq:B-tensor-boundary}\end{aligned}$$ must be added to $K_{pqr}$ when the equilibrium disk is unidirectional. The partial derivatives of $\Psi^{ml}_j(\textbf{\textit{J}})$ needed for equations (\[eq:B-tensor-by-parts\]) and (\[eq:B-tensor-boundary\]) are calculated by differentiating equation (\[eq:fourier-coeffs\]) partially with respect to an action: $$\begin{aligned}
{\partial \Psi^{ml}_j\over \partial J_{\nu}} &=&
{1\over \pi} \int\limits_{0}^{\pi} \biggl \{
{\partial \psi^{|m|}_j \over \partial R}{\partial R \over
\partial J_{\nu}}\cos [l\theta _R+m(\theta _\phi -\phi)] \nonumber \\
&{}& \qquad -m\psi^{|m|}_j(R){\partial \over \partial J_\nu}
\left(\theta_{\phi}-\phi\right)
\sin [l\theta _R+m(\theta _\phi -\phi)] \biggr \}
d \theta _R,~~\nu \equiv R,\phi. \label{eq::deriv-fourier-coeff}\end{aligned}$$ Jalali & Hunter (2005b) encountered these partial derivatives in their second order perturbation theory devised for computing the energy of eigenmodes. I adopt their technique for calculating the quantities $\partial R/\partial J_{\nu}$ and $\partial \left( \theta_{\phi}-\phi \right )/\partial J_{\nu}$. The variables $R$, $(\theta _\phi -\phi)$, and $p_R$ are regarded as functions of $(J_R,J_{\phi},\theta_R)$ because the action-angle transformation $(\textbf{\textit{x}},\textbf{\textit{p}})\rightarrow
(\textbf{\textit{J}},\Theta)$ is defined in the phase space of an axisymmetric state. From $v_R=dR/dt=(\partial R/\partial \theta_R)\Omega_R$ one may write $$\label{eq::dRdJ}
\frac{ d }{ d t}\left[{\partial R \over \partial J_\nu}\right]=
{\partial^2 R \over \partial \theta_R \partial J_\nu}\frac{d\theta_R}{dt}
=\Omega_R\frac{\partial}{\partial J_\nu}
\left({\partial R \over \partial \theta_R}\right)
=\Omega_R\frac{\partial}{\partial J_\nu}\left(\frac{v_R}{\Omega_R}\right)
={\partial v_R \over \partial J_\nu}-\frac{v_R}{\Omega_R}
{\partial \Omega_R \over \partial J_\nu}.$$ Similarly, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{ d }{ d t}\left[{\partial \over \partial J_\nu}
(\theta _\phi -\phi)\right]
&=& {\partial \Omega_{\phi} \over \partial J_\nu}
-\frac{\delta_{\nu,\phi}}{R^2}
+{2J_{\phi} \over R^3}{\partial R \over \partial J_\nu}
-\frac{1}{\Omega_R}\left[\Omega_{\phi}-\frac{J_{\phi}}{R^2}\right]
{\partial \Omega_R \over \partial J_\nu}, \label{eq::dthetadJ} \\
\frac{ d }{ d t}\left[{\partial v_R \over \partial J_\nu}\right]
&=& {2J_{\phi} \over R^3}\delta_{\nu,\phi}
-\left[{3J_{\phi}^2 \over R^4}+V_0^{\prime\prime}(R)\right]
{\partial R \over \partial J_\nu}
-\frac{1}{\Omega_R}\left[{J_{\phi}^2 \over R^3}-V_0^{\prime}(R)\right]
{\partial \Omega_R \over \partial J_\nu}. \label{eq::dvdJ}\end{aligned}$$ The set of three equations (\[eq::dRdJ\]) through (\[eq::dvdJ\]) can be integrated along an orbit, and they provide the additional values needed to evaluate the partial derivatives (\[eq::deriv-fourier-coeff\]). Initial values are $\partial v_R/\partial J_\nu=
\partial(\theta_{\phi}-\phi)/\partial J_\nu=0$ at $\theta_R=t=0$ where $R=R_{\rm min}$ because $v_R=\theta_{\phi}-\phi=0$ for all orbits. However the initial $R_{\rm min}$ values change with the actions, and initial values for the derivatives of $R$ with respect to the actions are $$\left[ {\partial R \over \partial J_R}\right]_{R=R_{\rm min}}=
\frac{R^3_{\rm min}\Omega_R}
{R^3_{\rm min}V_0^{\prime}(R_{\rm min})-J^2_{\phi}}, ~~
\left[ {\partial R \over \partial J_{\phi}}\right]_{R=R_{\rm min}}=
\frac{R_{\rm min}(R^2_{\rm min}\Omega_{\phi}-J_{\phi})}
{R^3_{\rm min}V_0^{\prime}(R_{\rm min})-J^2_{\phi}}.$$ They are obtained by differentiating the zeroth order energy equation.
Aoki, S., & Iye, M. 1978, , 30, 519
Asghari, N. M., & Jalali, M. A. 2006, , 373, 337
Binney, J., & Tremaine, S. 1987, Galactic Dynamics (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press)
Case, K. M. 1959, Annals of Physics, 7, 349
Clutton-Brock, M. 1972, Ap&SS, 16, 101
Doering, C. R., & Gibbon, J. D. 1995, Applied Analysis of the Navier-Stokes Equations (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
Evans, N. W., & Read, J. C. A. 1998a, , 300, 83
Evans, N. W., & Read, J. C. A. 1998b, , 300, 106
Finlayson, B. A. 1972, The Method of Weighted Residuals and Variational Principles (New York: Academic Press)
Hunter, C. 1980, , 32, 33
Hunter, C. 1992, in Astrophysical Disks, ed S. F. Dermott, J. H. Hunter Jr., & R. E. Wilson (New York: Annals NY Acad. Sci. 675), 22
Jalali M. A., & Hunter, C. 2005a, , 630, 804
Jalali M. A., & Hunter, C. 2005b, astro-ph/0503255
Jeans, J. H. 1915, , 76, 70
Kalnajs, A. J. 1971, , 166, 275
Kalnajs, A. J. 1977, , 212, 637
Kalnajs, A. J. 1978, in IAU Symp. 77, Structure and Properties of Nearby Galaxies, ed. E. M. Berhuijsen & R. Wielebinski (Dordrecht: Reidel) 113
Landau, L. D. 1946, J. Phys. USSR, 10, 25
Lynden-Bell, D. 1962, , 124, 1
Mattingly, J. C., & Sinai, Ya. G. 1999, Commun. Contemp. Math., 1, 497
Mestel, L. 1963, , 126, 553
Olver, P. J. 1993, Applications of Lie Groups to Differential Equations (New York: Springer-Verlag)
Pichon, C., & Cannon, R. C. 1997, , 291, 616
Polyachenko, E. V. 2004, , 348, 345
Polyachenko, E. V. 2005, , 357, 559
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., & Flannery, B. P. 2001, Numerical Recipes in Fortran 77 (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
Toomre, A. 1964, , 139, 1217
Toomre, A. 1981, in Structure and Evolution of Normal Galaxies, ed S. M. Fall & D. Lynden-Bell (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 111
Tremaine, S., 2005, , 625, 143
Tremaine, S., & Weinberg, M. D. 1984, , 209, 729
Vandervoort, P., 2003, , 339, 537
van Kampen, N. G. 1955, Physica, 31, 949
Vauterin, P., & Dejonghe, H. 1996, A&A, 313, 465
Zang, T. A. 1976, PhD Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
Let $0\le u_0(x)\in L^1({{\mathbb{R}}}^2)\cap L^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^2)$ be such that $u_0(x)
=u_0(|x|)$ for all $|x|\ge r_1$ and is monotone decreasing for all $|x|\ge r_1$ for some constant $r_1>0$ and $\mbox{ess}\inf_{{\overline}{B}_{r_1}(0)}u_0\ge\mbox{ess}
\sup_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\setminus B_{r_2}(0)}u_0$ for some constant $r_2>r_1$. Then under some mild decay conditions at infinity on the initial value $u_0$ we will extend the result of P. Daskalopoulos, M.A. del Pino and N. Sesum [@DP2], [@DS2], and prove the collapsing behaviour of the maximal solution of the equation $u_t=\Delta\log u$ in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (0,T)$, $u(x,0)=u_0(x)$ in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2$, near its extinction time $T=\int_{R^2}u_0dx/4\pi$ without using the Hamilton-Yau Harnack inequality.
author:
- |
Kin Ming Hui\
Institute of Mathematics, Academia Sinica,\
Nankang, Taipei, 11529, Taiwan, R. O. C.
date: 'May 27, 2011'
title: Collapsing behaviour of a singular diffusion equation
---
0.2truein
Key words: collapsing behaviour, maximal solution, singular diffusion equation\
-0.2truein AMS Mathematics Subject Classification: Primary 35B40 Secondary 35K57, 35K65
0.2truein
Introduction
============
Recently there is a lot of study on the equation, $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
&u_t=\Delta\log u, u>0,\quad\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (0,T)\\
&u(x,0)=u_0\qquad\qquad\,\,\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}^2
\end{aligned}\right.$$ by P. Daskalopoulos, M.A. del Pino and N. Sesum [@DP1], [@DP2], [@DS1], [@DS2], S.Y. Hsu [@Hs1], [@Hs2], [@Hs3], [@Hs4], J.R. Esteban, A. Rodriguez and J.L. Vazquez [@ERV1], [@ERV2], K.M. Hui [@Hu1], [@Hu2], and L.F. Wu [@W1], [@W2], etc. Equation (0.1) arises in the model of thin films of fluid speading on a solid surface [@G] when the fourth order term is neglected. It also arises in the study of the Ricci flow on surfaces [@W1], [@W2], and as the singular limit of the porous medium equation, $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
&u_t=\Delta\left(\frac{u^m}{m}\right), u>0,\quad\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (0,T)\\
&u(x,0)=u_0(x)\qquad\qquad\,\,\,\mbox{in }{{\mathbb{R}}}^2
\end{aligned}\right.$$ as $m\to 0$ [@Hu2], [@ERV2]. In [@DP1] and [@Hu1] P. Daskalopoulos and M.A. del Pino and K.M. Hui proved that corresponding to each $0\le u_0\in L^p({{\mathbb{R}}}^2)\cap L^1({{\mathbb{R}}}^2)$, $p>1$, and $2\le f\in L^1(0,\infty)$ there exists a classical solution $u$ of (0.1) in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^n\times (0,T)$ satisfying the mass loss equation, $$\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^2}u(x,t)\,dx=\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^2}u_0\,dx-2\pi\int_0^tf(s)\,ds\quad\forall
0\le t<T$$ where $T>0$ given by $$\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^2}u_0\,dx=2\pi\int_0^Tf(s)\,ds$$ is the extinction time for the solution $u$. Note that the maximal solution of (0.1) is the solution of (0.1) that satisfies (0.2) with $f\equiv 2$. When $f\equiv\gamma>2$ is a constant, the asymptotic behaviour of the solution $u$ is studied by S.Y. Hsu in [@Hs3] and [@Hs4]. In [@Hs3] S.Y. Hsu proved that if $u_0$ is radially symmetric and monotone decreasing and $u$ is the solution of (0.1) in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (0,T)$ that satisfies (0.2), (0.3), with $f\equiv 4$, then the rescaled solution $$v(x,s)=\frac{u(x,t)}{T-t},\quad, s=-\log (T-t)$$ will converge uniformly on every compact subsets of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ to the function $$\frac{8\lambda}{(\lambda +|x|^2)^2}$$ as $s\to\infty$ for some constant $\lambda>0$. For the general case $f\equiv\gamma>2$ S.Y. Hsu [@Hs4] proved that if $u_0$ is radially symmetric and monotone decreasing and $u$ is the solution of (0.1) in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (0,T)$ that satisfies (0.2) and (0.3) with $f\equiv\gamma$ and $$\lim_{r\to\infty}\frac{ru_r(r,t)}{u(r,t)}=-\gamma\quad\mbox{ uniformly
on $[a,b]$}\quad\forall 0<a<b<T$$ where $T$ is given by (0.3) with $f\equiv\gamma$, then there exist unique constants $\alpha>0$, $\beta>-1/2$, $\alpha =2\beta +1$, depending only on $\gamma$ such that the rescaled function $$v(y,s)=\frac{u(y/(T-t)^{\beta},t)}{(T-t)^{\alpha}}$$ where $$s=-\text{log }(T-t)$$ will converge uniformly on every compact subset of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ to $\phi_{\lambda ,\beta}(y)$ for some constant $\lambda>0$ as $s\to\infty$ where $\phi_{\lambda ,\beta}(y)
=\phi_{\lambda ,\beta}(|y|)$ is radially symmetric and satisfies the following O.D.E. $$\frac{1}{r}\biggl (\frac{r\phi '}{\phi}\biggr )'+\alpha\phi
+\beta r\phi '=0\quad\text{ in }(0,\infty)$$ with $$\phi (0)=1/\lambda,\phi'(0)=0.$$ However as observed by J.R. King [@K] using formal asymptotic analysis as $t$ approaches $T$ the vanishing behaviour for the finite mass solution of (0.1) which corresponds to the case $f\equiv 2$ is very different from the vanishing behaviour for the case $f\equiv\gamma>2$. J.R. King find that for compactly supportly finite mass initial value the maximal solution of (0.1) behaves like $$\frac{(T-t)^2}{\frac{T}{2}|x|^2+e^{\frac{2T}{(T-t)}}}$$ in the inner region $(T-t)\log |x|\le T$ and behaves like $$\frac{2t}{|x|^2(\log |x|)^2}$$ in the outer region $(T-t)\log |x|\ge T$ as $t\nearrow T$. In [@DP2] P. Daskalopoulos and M.A. del Pino give a rigorous proof of an extension of this formal result for radially symmetric initial value $u_0(r)$ satisfying the conditions, $$\mbox{$u_0(x)=u_0(|x|)$ is decreasing on $r=|x|\ge r_1$ for
some constant $r_1>0$}$$ $$u_0(x)=\frac{2\mu}{|x|^2(\log |x|)^2}(1+o(1))\quad\mbox{ as }
|x|\to\infty,$$ for some constant $\mu>0$ and $$R_0(x):=-\frac{\Delta\log u_0}{u_0}\ge -\frac{1}{\mu}\quad\mbox{ on }
{{\mathbb{R}}}^2.$$ Note that (0.1) is equivalent to the Ricci flow equation ([@W2]) $$\frac{{\partial}}{{\partial}t}g_{ij}=-2R_{ij}\quad\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (0,T)$$ where $g_{ij}(t)=g_{ij}(x,t)=u(x,t)\delta_{ij}$ is an evolving metric on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ and $R_{ij}(x,t)$ is the Ricci curvature of the metric $g_{ij}(t)$. Then the scalar curvature $R(x,t)$ with respect to the metric $g_{ij}(x,t)$ is given by $$R(x,t)=-\frac{\Delta\log u}{u}.$$ Thus (0.6) says that the initial scalar curvature is greater than or equal to $-1/\mu$ on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2$.
In [@DS2] P. Daskalopoulos and N. Sesum extend the result to the case of compactly supported $0\le u_0\in L^1({{\mathbb{R}}}^2)\cap
L^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^2)$. However their proof of the behaviour of the maximal solution in the outer region near the extinction time is very difficult and uses the Hamilton-Yau Harnack inequality [@HY].
In this paper we will extend their result to the case of initial value $0\le u_0\in L^1({{\mathbb{R}}}^2)\cap L^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^2)$ that satisfies (0.4), (0.5), and (0.6) for some constant $\mu\ge 0$ with the right hand side being replaced by $-\infty$ if $\mu=0$ and $$\mbox{ess}\inf_{{\overline}{B}_{r_1}(0)}u_0
\ge\mbox{ess}\sup_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\setminus B_{r_2}(0)}u_0$$ for some constant $r_2>r_1$. Note that (0.7) is automatically satisfied if $u_0$ has compact support in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2$. We will prove the behaviour of the maximal solution in the outer region near the extinction time by elementary method without using the difficult Hamilton-Yau Harnack inequality for surfaces [@HY]. We will also prove the behaviour of the maximal solution in the inner region as the extinction time is approached.
In this paper we will assume that the initial value $u_0$ satisfies $0\le u_0\in L^1({{\mathbb{R}}}^2)\cap L^{\infty}({{\mathbb{R}}}^2)$, (0.4), (0.5), (0.6) and (0.7) for some constants $r_2>r_1>0$ and $\mu\ge 0$ with the right hand side being replaced by $-\infty$ if $\mu=0$. We will assume that $u$ is the maximal solution of (0.1) in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (0,T)$ that satisfies (0.2) with $f\equiv 2$ and $$T=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^2}u_0\,dx$$ for the rest of the paper. For any $x_0\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ and $r_0>0$ let $B_{r_0}(x_0)=\{x\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2:|x-x_0|<r_0\}$ and $B_{r_0}=B_{r_0}(0)$. Note that by [@Hu1] $u$ satisfies the Aronson-Bénilan inequality, $$\frac{u_t}{u}\le\frac{1}{t}\quad\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (0,T).$$
The plan of the paper is as follows. In section 1 we will prove the behaviour of the maximal solution in the inner region. In section two we will prove the behaviour of the maximal solution in the outer region.
Inner region behaviour
======================
In this section we will prove the behaviour of the maximal solution in the inner region near the extinction time using a modification of the argument of [@DP2] and [@DS2].
The solution $u$ satisfies $$u(x,t)\ge u(y,t)$$ for any $t\in (0,T)$ and $x,y\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ such that $|y|\ge |x|+2r_2$.
We will use a modification of the proof of Lemma 2.1 of [@CF] to prove the lemma.
For any $x^0,y^0\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ such that $|y^0|\ge |x^0|+2r_2$ let $\Pi$ be the hyperplane of points in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ which are equidistance from $x^0$ and $y^0$. Then (cf. Lemma 2.1 of [@CF]), $$\Pi=\{x\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2:x\cdot (x^0-y^0)=\mbox{{\small$\frac{1}{2}$}}
(x^0+y^0)\cdot (x^0-y^0)\}$$ and $$\mbox{dist}(\Pi,\{0\})=\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{|y^0|^2-|x^0|^2}{|x^0-y^0|}
\ge\frac{1}{2}\cdot\frac{|y^0|^2-|x^0|^2}{|x^0|+|y^0|}
\ge\frac{1}{2}(|y^0|-|x^0|)\ge r_2.$$ We write ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2\setminus\Pi=\Pi_+\cup\Pi_-$ where $\Pi_+$ and $\Pi_-$ are the two half-spaces with respect to $\Pi$ with $0\in\Pi_-$. By (1.1) $\{x^0\}\cup B_{r_2}\subset\Pi_-$ and $y^0\in\Pi_+$. By rotation we may assume without loss of generality that $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\Pi=\{(x_1,x_2)\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2:x_1=a_0\}\\
&\Pi_-=\{(x_1,x_2)\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2:x_1<a_0\}\\
&\Pi_+=\{(x_1,x_2)\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2:x_1>a_0\}
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where $a_0=\mbox{dist}(\Pi,\{0\})$. For any $x=(x_1,x_2)\in\Pi_-$ let ${\widetilde}{x}=(2a_0-x_1,x_2)$ be the reflection point of $x$ about $\Pi$. Then if $x\in{\overline}{B}_{r_1}$, by (0.7) and (1.2) $$u_0(x)\ge u_0({\widetilde}{x}).$$ If $x\in\Pi_-\setminus{\overline}{B}_{r_1}$, then $$\begin{aligned}
2a_0-x_1>|x_1|\quad\Rightarrow\quad&|{\widetilde}{x}|\ge |x|>r_1\\
\Rightarrow\quad&u_0(x)\ge u_0({\widetilde}{x})\quad\mbox{(by (0.4))}.\end{aligned}$$ Hence (1.2) holds for any $x\in\Pi_-$. By the maximum principle for the equation $$u_t=\Delta\log u$$ in the half-space $\Pi_-$ (cf. Lemma 2.5 of [@ERV2]), $$u(x,t)\ge u({\widetilde}{x},t)\quad\forall x\in\Pi_-, 0<t<T.$$ Hence $$u(x^0,t)\ge u(y^0,t)$$ and the lemma follows.
By Lemma 1.1 for any $0<t<T$ there exists $x_t\in {\overline}{B}_{2r_2}$ such that $$u(x_t,t)=\max_{x\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2}u(x,t).$$ Similar to [@DP2] we let $${\overline}{u}(x,\tau)=\tau^2u(x,t),\qquad\tau=\frac{1}{T-t},\tau>1/T.$$ Then ${\overline}{u}$ satisfies [@DP2], $${\overline}{u}_{\tau}=\Delta\log{\overline}{u}+\frac{2{\overline}{u}}{\tau}\quad\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times
(1/T,\infty).$$ Let $R_{max}(t)=\max_{x\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2}R(x,t)$ and let $W(t)$ be the width function with respect to the metric $g_{ij}(t)$ as defined by P. Daskalopoulos and R. Hamilton in [@DH]. We recall a result of [@DH].
[@DH] There exist positive constants $c>0$ and $C>0$ such that
1. $c(T-t)\le W(t)\le C(T-t)$
2. $\frac{c}{(T-t)^2}\le R_{max}(t)\le\frac{C}{(T-t)^2}$
hold for any $0<t<T$.
Let $${\overline}{R}(x,\tau)=-\frac{\Delta\log{\overline}{u}}{{\overline}{u}}.$$ Similar to the argument on P.862–863 of [@DP2] by Theorem 1.2, (1.4) and the Aronson-Bénlian inequality (0.8), $$\begin{aligned}
&-\frac{1}{\tau^2t}\le{\overline}{R}(x,\tau)\le C\quad\forall (x,\tau)\in
{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (1/T,\infty), t=T-(1/\tau)\nonumber\\
\Rightarrow\quad&-\frac{2}{\tau^2T}\le{\overline}{R}(x,\tau)\le C\quad\forall
(x,\tau)\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (2/T,\infty).\end{aligned}$$ By (1.5) and (1.6), $$\begin{aligned}
C\ge&{\overline}{R}(x,\tau)=-\frac{\Delta\log{\overline}{u}}{{\overline}{u}}
=\frac{-{\overline}{u}_{\tau}+\frac{2{\overline}{u}}{\tau}}{{\overline}{u}}
=-\frac{{\overline}{u}_{\tau}}{{\overline}{u}}+\frac{2}{\tau}\ge-\frac{2}{\tau^2T}
\quad\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (2/T,\infty)\\
\Rightarrow\qquad&\frac{2}{\tau}+\frac{2}{\tau^2T}
\ge\frac{{\overline}{u}_{\tau}}{{\overline}{u}}\ge-C+\frac{2}{\tau}
\ge-C\qquad\quad\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (2/T,\infty).\end{aligned}$$
For any sequence $\{\tau_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$, $\tau_k\to\infty$ as $k\to\infty$, let $x_{t_k}\in {\overline}{B}_{2r_2}$ be given by (1.3) with $t=t_k$ and $${\overline}{u}_k(y,\tau)=\alpha_k{\overline}{u}(\alpha_k^{\frac{1}{2}}y+x_{t_k},\tau+\tau_k),
\quad y\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2,\tau>-\tau_k+T^{-1}$$ where $$t_k=T-\tau_k^{-1}\quad\forall k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$$ and $$\alpha_k=1/{\overline}{u}(x_{t_k},\tau_k).$$ Then $\{{\overline}{u}_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ has a subsequence $\{{\overline}{u}_{k_i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ that converges uniformly on $C^{\infty}(K)$ for any compact set $K\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (-\infty,\infty)$ as $i\to\infty$ to a positive solution $U$ of equation $$U_{\tau}=\Delta\log U\quad\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (-\infty,\infty)$$ with uniformly bounded non-negative scalar curvature and uniformly bounded width on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (-\infty,\infty)$ with respect to the metric ${\widetilde}{g}_{ij}(t)=U(\cdot,t)\delta_{ij}$.
We first observe that by (1.5), $${\overline}{u}_{k,\tau}=\Delta\log{\overline}{u}_k+\frac{2{\overline}{u}_k}{\tau+\tau_k}\quad
\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (-\tau_k+(1/T),\infty)$$ with $${\overline}{u}_k(0,0)=1\quad\mbox{ and }\quad{\overline}{u}_k(y,0)\le 1\quad\forall
y\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2.$$ Since $(\log{\overline}{u}_k)_{\tau}=(\log{\overline}{u})_{\tau}$, by (1.8), $$-C\le\frac{{\overline}{u}_{k,\tau}}{{\overline}{u}_k}\le\frac{2}{\tau+\tau_k}
+\frac{2}{(\tau+\tau_k)^2T}\le\frac{3T}{2}\quad\mbox{ in }
{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (2/T-\tau_k,\infty).$$ For any $-\infty<a<0<b<\infty$ we choose $k_0\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ such that $-\tau_k+(2/T)<a$ for any $k\ge k_0$. Then by (1.14) and (1.15) there exists a constant $M_1>0$ such that $${\overline}{u}_k(x,\tau)\le M_1\quad x\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2,a\le\tau\le b,k\ge k_0.$$ By (1.15) and (1.16) there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$|{\overline}{u}_{k,\tau}(x,\tau)|\le CM_1\quad x\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2,a\le\tau\le b,k\ge k_0.$$ To complete the proof of the theorem we need the following two technical lemmas.
There exists a constant $C_1>0$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
-C_1R_1^2M_1+\log\biggl(\frac{1}{{\overline}{u}_k(x_0,\tau)}\biggr )
\le&\frac{1}{|B_{R_1}|}\int_{B_{R_1}(x_0)}\log
\biggl(\frac{1}{{\overline}{u}_k(x,\tau)}\biggr )\,dx\nonumber\\
\le&C_1R_1^2M_1+\log\biggl(\frac{1}{{\overline}{u}_k(x_0,\tau)}\biggr )\end{aligned}$$ holds for any $R_1>0$, $x_0\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2$, $a\le\tau\le b$ and $k\ge k_0$.
We will use a modification of the proof of Lemma 6 of [@V] and Lemma 2.6 of [@Hu1] to proof the lemma. Let $$G_{R_1}(x)=\log (R_1/|x-x_0|)+\frac{1}{2}R_1^{-2}
(|x-x_0|^2-R_1^2)$$ be the Green function for $B_{R_1}(x_0)$. Then $G_{R_1}\ge 0$ and $\Delta G_{R_1}=2R_1^{-2}-2\pi\delta_0$ where $\delta_0$ is the delta mass at the origin. By (1.13), $$\begin{aligned}
&\int_{B_{R_1}(x_0)}G_{R_1}(x){\overline}{u}_{k,\tau}(x,\tau)\,dx\nonumber\\
=&\int_{B_{R_1}(x_0)}G_{R_1}(x)\left(\Delta\log{\overline}{u}_k(x,\tau)
+\frac{2{\overline}{u}_k(x,\tau)}{\tau+\tau_k}\right)\,dx\nonumber\\
=&2\pi\left(\log\left(\frac{1}{{\overline}{u}_k(x_0,\tau)}\right)
-\frac{1}{|B_{R_1}|}\int_{B_{R_1}(x_0)}
\log\left(\frac{1}{{\overline}{u}_k(x,\tau)}\right)\,dx\right)\nonumber\\
&\qquad +\frac{2}{\tau+\tau_k}\int_{B_{R_1}(x_0)}G_{R_1}(x)
{\overline}{u}_k(x,\tau)\,dx\qquad\forall\tau\ge-\tau_k+\frac{2}{T},k\ge k_0.\end{aligned}$$ Since $$\int_{B_{R_1}(x_0)}G_{R_1}(x)\,dx\le CR_1^2,$$ by (1.16), (1.17), and (1.19) we get (1.18) and the lemma follows.
For any $R_1>0$ there exists a constant $C_2>0$ such that $$\sup_{\tiny\begin{array}{c}
|y|\le R_1\\
a\le\tau_1\le b\end{array}}{\overline}{u}_k(y,\tau_1)^9
\le C_2\inf_{\tiny\begin{array}{c}
|x|\le R_1\\
a\le\tau_2\le b\end{array}}{\overline}{u}_k(x,\tau_2)\quad\forall k\ge k_0.$$
Let $|x_0|,|y_0|\le R_1$, $\tau_1,\tau_2\in [a,b]$ and $k\ge k_0$. Since $B_{R_1}(x_0)\subset B_{3R_1}(y_0)$, by Lemma 1.4, $$\begin{aligned}
\log\left(\frac{1}{{\overline}{u}_k(x_0,\tau_1)}\right)
\le&\frac{1}{|B_{R_1}|}\int_{B_{R_1}(x_0)}
\log\left(\frac{1}{{\overline}{u}_k(x,\tau_1)}\right)\,dx+C_1M_1R_1^2\\
\le&\frac{9}{|B_{3R_1}|}\int_{B_{3R_1}(y_0)}
\log\left(\frac{1}{{\overline}{u}_k(x,\tau_1)}\right)\,dx+C_1M_1R_1^2\\
\le&9\log\left(\frac{1}{{\overline}{u}_k(y_0,\tau_1)}\right)+C'M_1R_1^2\end{aligned}$$ for some constants $C_1>0$ and $C'=82C_1$. Hence $$\frac{1}{{\overline}{u}_k(x_0,\tau_1)}
\le\frac{e^{C'M_1R_1^2}}{{\overline}{u}_k(y_0,\tau_1)^9}\quad
\Rightarrow\quad{\overline}{u}_k(y_0,\tau_1)^9\le e^{C'M_1R_1^2}
{\overline}{u}_k(x_0,\tau_1).$$ Now by (1.15) there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $${\overline}{u}_k(x,\tau_1')\le C{\overline}{u}_k(x,\tau_2')\quad\forall x\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2,
\tau_1',\tau_2'\in [a,b],k\ge k_0.$$ By (1.20) and (1.21), $${\overline}{u}_k(y_0,\tau_1)^9\le C_2{\overline}{u}_k(x_0,\tau_2)$$ holds for some constant $C_2>0$ and the lemma follows.
We will now continue with the proof of Theorem 1.3. By (1.14) and Lemma 1.5 for any $R_1>0$ there exist constants $C_3>0$ and $C_4>0$ such that $$C_3\le{\overline}{u}_k(x,\tau_1)\le C_4\quad\forall |x|\le R_0,a\le\tau\le b,
k\ge k_0.$$ Hence the equation (1.13) for ${\overline}{u}_k$ is uniformly parabolic on ${\overline}{B}_{R_1}\times [a,b]$ for all $k\ge k_0$. By the parabolic Schauder estimates [@LSU] ${\overline}{u}_k$ are uniformly Holder continuous in $C^{2\gamma,1\gamma}({\overline}{B}_{R_1}\times [a,b])$ for any $\gamma\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$. By the Ascoli theorem and a diagonalization argument the sequence $\{{\overline}{u}_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ has a subsequence which we may assume without loss of generality to be the sequence itself that converges uniformly in $C^{\infty}(K)$ as $k\to\infty$ for any compact set $K\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (-\infty,\infty)$ to some positive function $U$ that satisfies (1.12).
Let $${\overline}{R}_k=-\frac{\Delta\log{\overline}{u}_k}{{\overline}{u}_k}.$$ Then ${\overline}{R}_k$ converges uniformly on every compact subset of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (-\infty,\infty)$ as $k\to\infty$ to the scalar curvature ${\widetilde}{R}=-(\Delta\log U)/U$ of the metric ${\widetilde}{g}_{ij}(\tau)
=U(\cdot,\tau)\delta_{ij}$. Note that by (1.6), $$\begin{aligned}
&-\frac{2}{(\tau+\tau_k)^2T}\le{\overline}{R}_k(y,\tau)\le C\quad\forall
(y,\tau)\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (2/T-\tau_k,\infty)\\
\Rightarrow\quad&0\le{\widetilde}{R}(y,\tau)\le C\quad\forall
(y,\tau)\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (-\infty,\infty)\quad\mbox{ as }k\to\infty.\end{aligned}$$ Finally similar to the argument on P.10 of [@DS2] by Theorem 1.2 and an approximation argument the width function with respect to the metric ${\widetilde}{g}_{ij}(\tau)=U(\cdot,\tau)\delta_{ij}$ is uniformly bounded on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (-\infty,\infty)$.
For any sequence $\{\tau_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$, $\tau_k\to\infty$ as $k\to\infty$, let ${\overline}{u}_k$ be given by (1.9). Then $\{{\overline}{u}_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ has a subsequence $\{{\overline}{u}_{k_i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ that converges uniformly in $C^{\infty}(K)$ for any compact set $K\subset {{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times
(-\infty,\infty)$ as $i\to\infty$ to $$U(y,\tau)=\frac{1}{\lambda|y|^2+e^{4\lambda\tau}}.$$ for some constant $\lambda>0$.
By Theorem 1.3 $\{{\overline}{u}_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ has a subsequence $\{{\overline}{u}_{k_i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ that converges uniformly in $C^{\infty}(K)$ for any compact set $K\subset {{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times
(-\infty,\infty)$ as $i\to\infty$ to a solution $U(y,\tau)$ of (1.12). By Theorem 1.3 and the result of [@DS1], $$U(y,\tau)=\frac{2}{\beta(|y-y_0|^2+\delta e^{2\beta\tau})}$$ for some $y_0\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ and constants $\beta>0$, $\delta>0$. Since ${\overline}{u}_{k_i}$ converges uniformly on every compact subset of ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (-\infty,\infty)$ to $U(y,\tau)$ and ${\overline}{u}_k(y,0)$ attains its maximum at $y=0$, $U(y,0)$ will attain its maximum at $y=0$. Hence $y_0=0$. By (1.14), $$U(0,0)=1\quad\Rightarrow\quad 1=\frac{2}{\beta\delta}.$$ By (1.24) and (1.25) we get (1.23) with $\lambda=\beta/2>0$.
We now let $$\alpha (\tau)=1/{\overline}{u}(x_t,\tau)$$ where $\tau=1/(T-t)$, $\tau>1/T$, and $x_t\in{\overline}{B}_{2r_2}$ satisfies (1.3).
There exist constants $\delta>0$ and $\tau_0>1/T$ such that $$\liminf_{\delta'\to 0^+}\biggl(
\frac{\log\alpha(\tau)-\log\alpha (\tau-\delta')}{\delta'}\biggr)>\delta
\quad\forall\tau\ge\tau_0.$$
Suppose (1.27) does not hold. Then there exist a sequence of positive numbers $\{\delta_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$, $\delta_k\to 0$ as $k\to\infty$, and a sequence $\{\tau_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$, $\tau_k>1/T$ for all $k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ and $\tau_k\to\infty$ as $k\to\infty$, such that $$\liminf_{\delta'\to 0^+}\biggl(
\frac{\log\alpha(\tau_k)-\log\alpha (\tau_k-\delta')}{\delta'}\biggr)
\le\delta_k\quad\forall k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+.$$ Hence for each $k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ there exists a sequence of positive numbers $\{\delta_{k,j}\}_{j=1}^{\infty}$, $\delta_{k,j}\to 0$ as $j\to\infty$, such that $$\frac{\log\alpha(\tau_k)-\log\alpha (\tau_k-\delta_{k,j})}{\delta_{k,j}}
<2\delta_k\quad\forall k,j\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+.$$ Let $t_k$ be given by (1.10) and let $t_{k,j}=T-(\tau_k-\delta_{k,j})^{-1}$. Let $x_{t_k}$ and $x_{t_{k,j}}$ be given by (1.3) with $t=t_k, t_{k,j}$ respectively. Then by (1.26) and (1.28), $$\frac{\log{\overline}{u}(x_{t_{k,j}},\tau_k-\delta_{k,j})-\log{\overline}{u}(x_{t_k},\tau_k)}{\delta_{k,j}}
<2\delta_k\quad\forall k,j\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+.$$ Since $${\overline}{u}(x_{t_k},\tau_k-\delta_{k,j})\le\max_{z\in{{\mathbb{R}}}^2}{\overline}{u}
(z,\tau_k-\delta_{k,j})
={\overline}{u}(x_{t_{k,j}},\tau_k-\delta_{k,j}),$$ by (1.29), $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{\log{\overline}{u}(x_{t_k},\tau_k-\delta_{k,j})-\log{\overline}{u}(x_{t_k},\tau_k)}{\delta_{k,j}}
<2\delta_k\quad\forall k,j\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+\nonumber\\
\Rightarrow\quad&\frac{{\overline}{u}_{\tau}}{{\overline}{u}}(x_{t_k},\tau_k)
\ge -2\delta_k\quad\forall k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+\quad\mbox{ as }j\to\infty
\nonumber\\
\Rightarrow\quad&\frac{\Delta\log{\overline}{u}}{{\overline}{u}}(x_{t_k},\tau_k)
+\frac{2}{\tau_k}\ge -2\delta_k\quad\forall k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+\qquad
(\mbox{by (1.5)})\nonumber\\
\Rightarrow\quad&-{\overline}{R}(x_{t_k},\tau_k)
+\frac{2}{\tau_k}\ge -2\delta_k\quad\forall k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+.\end{aligned}$$ Let ${\overline}{u}_k$ be given by (1.9) with $\alpha_k=\alpha (\tau_k)$ and ${\overline}{R}_k$ be given by (1.22). Since ${\overline}{R}_k(0,0)={\overline}{R}(x_{t_k},\tau_k)$, by (1.30), $${\overline}{R}_k(0,0)\le 2\delta_k+\frac{2}{\tau_k}\quad\forall k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+.$$ By Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.6 ${\overline}{u}_k$ has a subsequence which we may assume without loss of generality to be the sequence itself that converges uniformly on $C^{\infty}(K)$ for any compact set $K\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times
(-\infty,\infty)$ as $k\to\infty$ to some function $U(y,\tau)$ given by (1.23) for some $\lambda>0$. Then $${\overline}{R}_k(0,0)\to -\frac{\Delta\log U}{U}(0,0)=4\lambda\quad\mbox{ as }
k\to\infty.$$ Letting $k\to\infty$ in (1.31), by (1.32) we get $$4\lambda\le 0.$$ Since $\lambda>0$, contradiction arises. Hence there exist constants $\delta>0$ and $\tau_0>1/T$ such that (1.27) holds.
Let $\delta>0$ and $\tau_0>1/T$ be as given by Lemma 1.7. Then $$\alpha(\tau)\ge\alpha (\tau_0)\,e^{\delta(\tau-\tau_0)}\quad\forall\tau
\ge\tau_0.$$
By Lemma 1.7 there exists constants $\delta>0$ and $\tau_0>1/T$ such that (1.27) holds. Let $\tau>\tau_0$. By (1.27) there exists a constant $\delta_0'>0$ such that $$\log\alpha(\tau)-\log\alpha (\tau-\delta')>\delta\delta'
\quad\forall 0<\delta'\le\delta_0'.$$ Let $$\delta_0=\sup\{\delta_1>0:\log\alpha(\tau)-\log\alpha (\tau-\delta')
\ge\delta\delta'\quad\forall 0<\delta'\le\delta_1\}.$$ Then by (1.33) $\delta_0\ge\delta_0'$. We claim that $\delta_0\ge\tau -\tau_0$. Suppose not. Then $\delta_0<\tau -\tau_0$. By continuity, $$\log\alpha(\tau)-\log\alpha (\tau-\delta')\ge\delta\delta'
\quad\forall 0<\delta'\le\delta_0.$$ Since $\tau -\delta_0>\tau_0$, by (1.27) there exists a constant $\delta_1'>0$ such that $$\log\alpha(\tau-\delta_0)-\log\alpha (\tau-\delta_0-\delta')
>\delta\delta'\quad\forall 0<\delta'\le\delta_1'.$$ By (1.34) and (1.35), $$\begin{aligned}
&\log\alpha(\tau)-\log\alpha (\tau-(\delta_0+\delta'))
>\delta(\delta_0+\delta')\quad\forall 0<\delta'\le\delta_1'\\
\Rightarrow\quad&\log\alpha(\tau)-\log\alpha (\tau-\delta')
\ge\delta\delta'\qquad\qquad\qquad\,\,\,
\forall 0<\delta'\le\delta_0+\delta_1'.\end{aligned}$$ This contradicts the definition of $\delta_0$. Hence $\delta_0\ge\tau -\tau_0$. Thus $$\begin{aligned}
&\log\alpha(\tau)\ge\log\alpha (\tau_0)+\delta(\tau-\tau_0)\quad\forall
\tau\ge\tau_0\\
\Rightarrow\quad&\alpha(\tau)\ge\alpha (\tau_0)e^{\delta(\tau-\tau_0)}
\quad\forall\tau\ge\tau_0\end{aligned}$$ and the corollary follows.
Let $\alpha_k$ be as in Theorem 1.3. Then $\alpha_k\to\infty$ as $k\to\infty$.
Let $\tau_k$, $\tau_{k_i}$, $\alpha_k$, $U(y,\tau)$ and $\lambda>0$ be as in Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.6. Let $$q_k(y,\tau)=\alpha_k{\overline}{u}(\alpha_k^{\frac{1}{2}}y,\tau+\tau_k)$$ where ${\overline}{u}$ is given by (1.4). Then $q_{k_i}(y,\tau)$ converges uniformly in $C^{\infty}(K)$ for every compact set $K\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ to the function $U(y,\tau)$ as $\tau\to\infty$.
Let ${\overline}{u}_k(y,\tau)$ be given by (1.9) with $x_{t_k}$, $t_k$, given by (1.3) and (1.10). Then by Theorem 1.3 and Theorem 1.6 ${\overline}{u}_k(y,\tau)$ has a subsequence which we may assume without loss of generality to be the sequence itself that converges uniformly on $C^{\infty}(K)$ for every compact set $K\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ to the function $U(y,\tau)$ given by (1.23) for some $\lambda>0$ as $k\to\infty$.
By Corollary 1.9 there exists $k_0\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ such that $\alpha_k\ge 1$ for all $k\ge k_0$. Let $K\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (-\infty,\infty)$ be a compact set. Without loss of generality we may assume that $K={\overline}{B}_{r_0}\times [\tau_0,\tau_0']$ for some $r_0>0$ and $\tau_0<\tau_0'$. Then for any $|y|\le r_0$ and $k\ge k_0$, we have $$|y-\alpha_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}x_{t_k}|\le r_0+2r_2.$$ Since $$q_k(y,\tau)={\overline}{u}_k(y-\alpha_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}x_{t_k},\tau),$$ by Theorem 1.6, $$q_k(y,\tau)-U(y-\alpha_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}x_{t_k},\tau)\to 0\quad
\mbox{ uniformly on }C^{\infty}(K)\quad\mbox{ as }k\to\infty.$$ Now $$\begin{aligned}
|U(y,\tau)-U(y-\alpha_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}x_{t_k},\tau)|
\le&\frac{\lambda}{(\lambda\rho_0+e^{4\lambda\tau})^2}
||y-\alpha_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}x_{t_k}|^2-|y|^2|\nonumber\\
\le&\lambda e^{-8\lambda\tau_0}\alpha_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}|x_{t_k}|
(2|y|+\alpha_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}|x_{t_k}|)\nonumber\\
\le&4\lambda e^{-8\lambda\tau_0}r_2(r_0+r_2)\alpha_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}\end{aligned}$$ holds for any $|y|\le r_0$ and $\tau_0\le\tau\le\tau_0'$ where $\rho_0$ is some constant between $|y|^2$ and $|y-\alpha_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}x_{t_k}|^2$. Similarly for any $\gamma_0$, $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+\cup\{0\}$, $$|{\partial}_{\tau}^{\gamma_0}{\partial}_{y_1}^{\gamma_1}{\partial}_{y_2}^{\gamma_2}U(y,\tau)
-{\partial}_{\tau}^{\gamma_0}{\partial}_{y_1}^{\gamma_1}{\partial}_{y_2}^{\gamma_2}
U(y-\alpha_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}x_{t_k},\tau)|
\le C\alpha_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}$$ holds for some constant $C>0$ and any $|y|\le r_0$, $\tau_0\le\tau
\le\tau_0'$. Since $\alpha_k\to\infty$ as $k\to\infty$ by Corollary 1.9, by (1.38) $$U(y,\tau)-U(y-\alpha_k^{-\frac{1}{2}}x_{t_k},\tau)\to 0\quad
\mbox{ uniformly on }C^{\infty}(K)\quad\mbox{ as }k\to\infty.$$ By (1.37) and (1.39) the theorem follows.
Let $\{\tau_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ be a sequence such that $\tau_k>1/T$ for all $k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ and $\tau_k\to\infty$ as $k\to\infty$. Let $$\beta (\tau)=1/{\overline}{u}(0,\tau),$$ $\beta_k=\beta (\tau_k)$ and $${\overline}{q}_k(y,\tau)=\beta_k{\overline}{u}(\beta_k^{\frac{1}{2}}y,\tau+\tau_k)$$ where ${\overline}{u}$ is given by (1.4). Then ${\overline}{q}_k$ has a subsequence ${\overline}{q}_{k_i}$ that converges uniformly on $C^{\infty}(K)$ for any compact set $K\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (-\infty,\infty)$ to some function $U(y,\tau)$ given by (1.23) for some $\lambda>0$ as $\tau\to\infty$. Moreover $\beta_k\to\infty$ as $k\to\infty$.
Let $q_k(y,\tau)$ be given by (1.36) with $\alpha_k$ given by (1.11). Let $K\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (-\infty,\infty)$ be a compact set. As before we may assume without loss of generality that $K={\overline}{B}_{r_0}\times [\tau_0,\tau_0']$ for some $r_0>0$ and $\tau_0<\tau_0'$. By Lemma 1.10 $q_k(y,\tau)$ has a subsequence which we may assume without loss of generality to be the sequence itself that converges uniformly on $C^{\infty}(K)$ as $k\to\infty$. Then $$\frac{\alpha_k}{\beta_k}=q_k(0,0)\to U(0,0)=1\quad\mbox{ as }
k\to\infty.$$ Hence there exists $k_0\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ and constants $c_2>c_1>0$ such that $$c_1\le\frac{\beta_k}{\alpha_k}\le c_2\quad\forall k\ge k_0.$$ Now $${\overline}{q}_k(y,\tau)=\frac{\beta_k}{\alpha_k}
q_k((\beta_k/\alpha_k)^{\frac{1}{2}}y,\tau).$$ Then for any $|y|\le r_0$, by (1.43), $$(\beta_k/\alpha_k)^{\frac{1}{2}}|y|\le c_2^{\frac{1}{2}}r_0
\quad\forall k\ge k_0.$$ Hence by Lemma 1.10 $$q_k((\beta_k/\alpha_k)^{\frac{1}{2}}y,\tau)\to
U((\beta_k/\alpha_k)^{\frac{1}{2}}y,\tau)$$ uniformly on $C^{\infty}(K)$ as $k\to\infty$. By (1.23), (1.42), (1.44), (1.45) and Corollary 1.9 the theorem follows.
Let $\tau_k$, $\tau_{k_i}$, $\beta_k$, $U(y,\tau)$ and $\lambda>0$ be as in Theorem 1.11. Then for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ and $M>0$ there exist $n_1\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ and $C>0$ such that $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\left|u(x,t_{k_i})-\frac{(T-t_{k_i})^2}{\lambda |x|^2+\beta_{k_i}}\right|
<u(0,t_{k_i}){\varepsilon}\quad\forall |x|\le\beta_{k_i}^{\frac{1}{2}}M,
i\ge n_1\\
&u(0,t_{k_i})\le C(T-t_{k_i})^2\qquad\qquad\qquad\,\,\,\,\forall i\ge n_1.
\end{aligned}\right.$$ where $t_k$ is given by (1.10).
Let ${\overline}{q}_k$ be given by (1.41) and $k_0$ be as in the proof of Theorem 1.11. By Theorem 1.11 ${\overline}{q}_k$ has a subsequence ${\overline}{q}_{k_i}$ that converges uniformly on $C^{\infty}(K)$ for any compact $K\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (-\infty,\infty)$ to some function $U(y,\tau)$ given by (1.23) as $k\to\infty$. Then there exists $n_1\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ such that $k_i\ge k_0$ for all $i\ge n_1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
&\left|{\overline}{q}_{k_i}(y,0)-\frac{1}{\lambda |y|^2+1}\right|<{\varepsilon}\quad\forall |y|\le M,i\ge n_1\\
\Rightarrow\quad&\left|\beta_{k_i}\tau_{k_i}^2u(x,t_{k_i})
-\frac{1}{\lambda\beta_{k_i}^{-1}|x|^2+1}\right|<{\varepsilon}\quad\forall |x|\le\beta_{k_i}^{\frac{1}{2}}M,i\ge n_1\\
\Rightarrow\quad&\left|u(x,t_{k_i})-\frac{(T-t_{k_i})^2}{\lambda |x|^2+\beta_{k_i}}\right|<u(0,t_{k_i}){\varepsilon}\quad\forall |x|
\le\beta_{k_i}^{\frac{1}{2}}M,i\ge n_1.\end{aligned}$$ By Corollary 1.8 and (1.43) there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\beta_{k_i}>C\quad\forall i\ge n_1$$ and the lemma follows.
Since the scalar curvature $R(x,t)$ satisfies $$R_t=\Delta_{g(t)}R+R^2\quad\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (0,T)$$ where $\Delta_{g(t)}=\frac{1}{u}\Delta$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator with respect to the metric $g_{ij}(t)$, by (0.6) and the maximum principle, $$R(x,t)\ge-\frac{1}{t+\mu}\quad\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (0,T).$$ Then by an argument similar to the proof of Lemma 3.5 of [@DS2] but with Lemma 2.4, Lemma 3.4, and $k(t)$ in the proof there being replaced by Lemma 1.1, Lemma 1.12, and $1/[2(t+\mu)]$ we have the following lemma.
The constant $\lambda$ in Theorem 1.11 satisfies $$\lambda\ge\frac{T+\mu}{2}.$$
By Lemma 1.13 and an argument similar to the proof of Lemma 3.5 of [@DP2] we have the following lemma.
Let $\beta(\tau)$ be given by (1.40). Then $$\liminf_{\tau\to\infty}\frac{\beta'(\tau)}{\beta(\tau)}\ge 2(T+\mu).$$
Let $\beta(\tau)$ be given by (1.40). Then $$\beta(\tau)\ge e^{2(T+\mu)\tau+o(\tau)}\quad\mbox{ as }\tau\to\infty.$$
As in [@DS2] we consider the cylindrical change of variables, $$v(\zeta,\theta,t)=r^2u(r,\theta,t),\quad\zeta=\log r, r=|x|$$ and let $${\widetilde}{v}(\xi,\theta,\tau)=\tau^2 v(\tau\xi,\theta,t),\quad\tau=1/(T-t),
\tau\ge 1/T.$$ Then ${\widetilde}{v}$ satisfies $$\tau{\widetilde}{v}_{\tau}=\frac{1}{\tau}(\log{\widetilde}{v})_{\xi\xi}
+\tau(\log{\widetilde}{v})_{\theta\theta}+\xi{\widetilde}{v}_{\xi}+2{\widetilde}{v}
\quad\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}\times [0,2\pi]\times (1/T,\infty).$$
With the same notation as Theorem 1.11 for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists $n_1\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ such that $$\left|{\widetilde}{v}(\xi,\theta,\tau_{k_i})
-\frac{e^{2\tau_{k_i}\xi}}{\lambda e^{2\tau_{k_i}\xi}+\beta_{k_i}}
\right|
<\frac{e^{2\tau_{k_i}\xi}}{\beta_{k_i}}{\varepsilon}\quad\forall\xi\le\frac{\log\beta_{k_i}}{2\tau_{k_i}},
\theta\in [0,2\pi],i\ge n_1.$$
Let ${\varepsilon}>0$. By Lemma 1.12 there exists $n_1\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ such that (1.46) holds with $M=1$. Since $${\widetilde}{v}(\xi,\theta,\tau_{k_i})=\tau_{k_i}^2e^{2\tau_{k_i}\xi}
u(e^{\tau_{k_i}\xi},\theta,t_{k_i})$$ where $t_{k_i}$ is given by (1.10) with $k=k_i$, by (1.46), $$\left|{\widetilde}{v}(\xi,\theta,\tau_{k_i})
-\frac{e^{2\tau_{k_i}\xi}}{\lambda e^{2\tau_{k_i}\xi}+\beta_{k_i}}
\right|
<\tau_{k_i}^2e^{2\tau_{k_i}\xi}u(0,t_{k_i})\,{\varepsilon}=\frac{e^{2\tau_{k_i}\xi}}{\beta_{k_i}}{\varepsilon}$$ holds for any $\xi\le\log\beta_{k_i}/(2\tau_{k_i})$, $\theta\in
[0,2\pi]$ and $i\ge n_1$ and the lemma follows.
By (0.5), Corollary 1.15, Lemma 1.16, and an argument similar to the proof of Proposition 3.7 of [@DP2] we have the following result.
Let $\beta(\tau)$ be given by (1.40). Then $$\lim_{\tau\to\infty}\frac{\log\beta(\tau)}{\tau}=2(T+\mu).$$
Let $\beta(\tau)$ be given by (1.40). Then $$\lim_{\tau\to\infty}\frac{\beta'(\tau)}{\beta (\tau)}=2(T+\mu).$$
Since $$(\log\beta(\tau))_{\tau}=-(\log{\overline}{u}(0,\tau))_{\tau}
=-\frac{{\overline}{u}_{\tau}(0,\tau)}{{\overline}{u}(0,\tau)},$$ by (1.8) and (1.51), $$C\ge\frac{\beta'(\tau)}{\beta(\tau)}\ge-\frac{2}{\tau^2T}-\frac{2}{\tau}
\ge-\frac{3T}{2}\quad\forall\tau\ge 2/T.$$ By (1.52) any sequence $\{\tau_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$, $\tau_k\to\infty$ as $k\to\infty$, will have a subsequence $\{\tau_{k_i}\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ such that the limit $$\lim_{i\to\infty}\frac{\beta'(\tau_{k_i})}{\beta(\tau_{k_i})}$$ exists. By the L’Hospital rule and Proposition 1.17, $$\lim_{i\to\infty}\frac{\beta'(\tau_{k_i})}{\beta(\tau_{k_i})}
=2(T+\mu).$$ Since the sequence $\{\tau_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ is arbitrary, (1.50) holds.
Let $\tau_k$, ${\overline}{q}_k$, be as given in Theorem 1.11 and let $${\widetilde}{R}_k=-\frac{\Delta\log{\overline}{q}_k}{{\overline}{q}_k}$$ Then $$\lim_{\tau\to\infty}{\widetilde}{R}_k(0,0)=2(T+\mu).$$
By (1.5) ${\overline}{q}_k$ satisfies $${\overline}{q}_{k,\tau}=\Delta\log{\overline}{q}_k+\frac{2{\overline}{q}_k}{\tau+\tau_k}\quad
\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}^2\times (-\tau_k+(1/T),\infty).$$ By (1.41), (1.51) and (1.54), $${\widetilde}{R}_k(0,0)=\frac{\beta'(\tau_k)}{\beta(\tau_k)}+\frac{2}{\tau_k}.$$ Letting $k\to\infty$ in (1.55), by Proposition 1.18 the corollary follows.
The constant $\lambda$ in Theorem 1.11 is equal to $(T+\mu)/2$.
Let $\tau_k$, ${\overline}{q}_{k}$, ${\overline}{q}_{k_i}$, and $U(y,\tau)$ be as in Theorem 1.11 and let ${\widetilde}{R}_k$ be given by (1.53). Then by Theorem 1.11, $$\lim_{i\to\infty}{\widetilde}{R}_{k_i}(0,0)=-\lim_{i\to\infty}
\frac{\Delta\log{\overline}{q}_{k_i}}{{\overline}{q}_{k_i}}(0,0)
=-\frac{\Delta\log U}{U}(0,0)=4\lambda.$$ By Proposition 1.19 and (1.56) the corollary follows.
By Theorem 1.11 and Corollary 1.20 we have the following main theorem of this section.
Let $\beta(\tau)$ be given by (1.40) and let $${\overline}{q}(y,\tau)=\beta (\tau){\overline}{u}(\beta(\tau)^{\frac{1}{2}}y,\tau)$$ where ${\overline}{u}$ is given by (1.4). Then ${\overline}{q}(y,\tau)$ converges uniformly on $C^{\infty}(K)$ for any compact set $K\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}^2$ to the function $$U_{\mu}(y)=\frac{1}{\frac{(T+\mu)}{2}|y|^2+1}$$ as $\tau\to\infty$.
Since $$(\log\beta(\tau))_{\tau}={\overline}{R}(0,\tau)-\frac{2}{\tau},$$ by (1.5), by Proposition 1.18 we have the following result.
Let $\beta(\tau)$ be given by (1.40). Then $$\lim_{\tau\to\infty}{\overline}{R}(0,\tau)=2(T+\mu).$$
By Theorem 1.21 and an argument similar to the proof of Lemma 1.16 we have the following result.
Let $\beta(\tau)$ be given by (1.40) and let ${\widetilde}{v}$ be given by (1.48). Then for any ${\varepsilon}>0$ there exists $\tau_0>1/T$ such that $$\left|{\widetilde}{v}(\xi,\theta,\tau)
-\frac{e^{2\tau\xi}}{\frac{T+\mu}{2}e^{2\tau\xi}+\beta (\tau)}
\right|
<\frac{e^{2\tau\xi}}{\beta(\tau)}{\varepsilon}\quad\forall\xi
\le\frac{\log\beta (\tau)}{2\tau},\theta\in [0,2\pi],\tau\ge\tau_0.$$
By Corollary 1.15, Proposition 1.17 and Lemma 1.23 we get the following result.
Let $\beta(\tau)$ be given by (1.40) and let ${\widetilde}{v}$ be given by (1.48). Then $$\int_{-\infty}^{\xi^-}\int_0^{2\pi}{\widetilde}{v}(\xi,\theta,\tau)\,d\theta
\,d\xi\to 0\quad\mbox{ as }\tau\to\infty$$ and $$\lim_{\tau\to\infty}{\widetilde}{v}(\xi,\theta,\tau)=0\quad\mbox{ uniformly on }
(-\infty,\xi^-]\times [0,2\pi]$$ for any $\xi^-<T+\mu$.
Outer region behaviour
======================
In this section we will prove the behaviour of the maximal solution in the outer region without using the Hamilton-Yau Harnack inequality for surfaces [@HY]. By (0.5), Proposition 1.17, Lemma 1.23, Corollary 1.24 and an argument similar to the proof of Lemma 4.1 of [@DS2] we have the following lemma.
Let $\xi(\tau)=(\log\beta(\tau))/2\tau$ with $\beta (\tau)$ given by (1.40). Let ${\widetilde}{v}$ be given by (1.48). Then there exists constants $C_1>0$, $C_2>0$, $C_3>0$ and $\tau_0>1/T$ such that the following holds.
1. ${\widetilde}{v}(\xi,\theta,\tau)\le C_1\quad\forall\xi\in{{\mathbb{R}}},
\theta\in [0,2\pi],\tau\ge 1/T$
2. ${\widetilde}{v}(\xi,\theta,\tau)\ge\frac{C_2}{\xi^2}\quad
\forall\xi\ge\xi(\tau),
\theta\in [0,2\pi],\tau\ge\tau_0$
3. ${\widetilde}{v}(\xi,\theta,\tau)\le\frac{C_3}{\xi^2}\quad
\forall\xi>0,
\theta\in [0,2\pi],\tau\ge\tau_0$.
Moreover $$\xi (\tau)=T+\mu+o(1)\quad\mbox{ as }\tau\to\infty.$$
For any $b>a>T+\mu$, there exist constants $C>0$ and $\tau_1>1/T$ such that $$\max_{a\le\xi\le b}\left|\int_0^{2\pi}(\log{\widetilde}{v})_{\xi}
(\xi,\theta,\tau)\,d\theta\right|\le C\quad\forall
\tau\ge\tau_1.$$
Let $\delta=(a-(T+\mu))/2$. By direct computation the scalar curvature $R$ in polar coordinates satisfies $$\begin{aligned}
&R(e^{\tau\xi},\theta,t)=-\frac{(\log{\widetilde}{v})_{\xi\xi}
+\tau^2(\log{\widetilde}{v})_{\theta\theta}}{{\widetilde}{v}}(\xi,\theta,\tau)
\nonumber\\
\Rightarrow\quad&(\log{\widetilde}{v})_{\xi\xi}(\xi,\theta,\tau)
+\tau^2(\log{\widetilde}{v})_{\theta\theta}(\xi,\theta,\tau)
=-R(e^{\tau\xi},\theta,t){\widetilde}{v}(\xi,\theta,\tau)\end{aligned}$$ where $\tau=1/(T-t)$. Integrating (2.2) over $(\theta,\xi)\in
[0,2\pi]\times [\xi_1,\xi_2]$, $T+\mu+\delta\le\xi_1
<\xi_2\le b+1$, by (1.47) and Lemma 2.1, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{2\pi}(\log{\widetilde}{v})_{\xi}(\xi_2,\theta,\tau)\,d\theta
=&-\int_{\xi_1}^{\xi_2}\int_0^{2\pi}R(e^{\tau\xi},\theta,t){\widetilde}{v}
(\xi,\theta,\tau)\,d\theta\,d\xi\nonumber\\
&\qquad +\int_0^{2\pi}(\log{\widetilde}{v})_{\xi}(\xi_1,\theta,\tau)
\,d\theta\nonumber\\
\le&C_1+\int_0^{2\pi}(\log{\widetilde}{v})_{\xi}(\xi_1,\theta,\tau)
\,d\theta\quad\forall\tau>1/T\end{aligned}$$ for some constant $C_1>0$. Let $\tau_0>1/T$ be as given in Lemma 2.1. By Lemma 2.1 there exists $\tau_1>\tau_0$ such that $$\xi(\tau)<T+\mu+\delta\quad\forall\tau\ge\tau_1.$$ Integrating (2.3) over $\xi_1\in (a-\delta,a)$, by (2.4) and Lemma 2.1, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{2\pi}(\log{\widetilde}{v})_{\xi}(\xi_2,\theta,\tau)\,d\theta
\le&\frac{1}{\delta}\left(C_1
+\left.\int_0^{2\pi}(\log{\widetilde}{v})(\xi_1,\theta,\tau)
\,d\theta\right|_{\xi_1=a-\delta}^{\xi_1=a}\right)\nonumber\\
\le&\frac{C'}{\delta}\qquad\forall a\le\xi_2\le b,
\tau\ge\tau_1.\end{aligned}$$ Integrating (2.3) over $\xi_2\in (b,b+1)$, by (2.4) and Lemma 2.1, $$\begin{aligned}
\int_0^{2\pi}(\log{\widetilde}{v})_{\xi}(\xi_1,\theta,\tau)\,d\theta
\ge&-C_1+\left.\int_0^{2\pi}(\log{\widetilde}{v})(\xi_1,\theta,\tau)
\,d\theta\right|_{\xi_1=b}^{\xi_1=b+1}\nonumber\\
\ge&-C''\qquad\forall a\le\xi_1\le b,\tau\ge\tau_1.\end{aligned}$$ By (2.5) and (2.6) we get (2.1) and the lemma follows.
We now let $$w(\xi,\theta,s)={\widetilde}{v}(\xi,\theta,\tau)$$ with $$s=\log\tau=-\log (T-t).$$ Then as in [@DS2] by (1.49), $$w_s=e^{-s}(\log w)_{\xi\xi}+e^s(\log w)_{\theta\theta}
+\xi w_{\xi}+2w
\quad\mbox{ in }{{\mathbb{R}}}\times [0,2\pi]\times (-\log T,\infty).$$
As $\tau\to\infty$, the function ${\widetilde}{v}$ given by (1.48) converges to the function $$V(\xi)=\left\{\begin{aligned}
&\frac{2(T+\mu)}{\xi^2}\quad\forall\xi>T+\mu\\
&0\qquad\qquad\,\,\,\forall\xi<T+\mu.
\end{aligned}\right.$$ Moreover the convergence is uniform on $(-\infty,a]$ for any $a<T+\mu$ and on $[\xi_0,\xi_0']$ for any $\xi_0'>\xi_0>T+\mu$.
By Corollary 1.24 we only need to prove the convergence of the function ${\widetilde}{v}$ to $2(T+\mu)/\xi^2$ for $\xi>T+\mu$. Let $\tau_0$, $\tau_1$, be given by Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 respectively. Let $s_0
=\max(\log\tau_0,\log\tau_1)$ and $\{s_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ be a sequence such that $s_k\to\infty$ as $k\to\infty$. Let $$w_k(\xi,\theta,s)=w(\xi,\theta,s+s_k)\quad\forall\xi\in{{\mathbb{R}}},
0\le\theta\le 2\pi,s\ge-\log T-s_k.$$ Then by (2.8), $$w_{k,s}=e^{-(s+s_k)}(\log w_k)_{\xi\xi}
+e^{s+s_k}(\log w_k)_{\theta\theta}+\xi w_{k,\xi}+2w_k$$ in ${{\mathbb{R}}}\times [0,2\pi]\times (-\log T-s_k,\infty)$. Since $$\int_{{{\mathbb{R}}}^2}u(x,t)\,dx=4\pi (T-t)\quad\forall 0<t<T,$$ by (1.48), (2.7) and (2.9), $$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_0^{2\pi}w_k(\xi,\theta,s)\,
d\theta\,d\xi=4\pi\quad\forall s>-\log T-s_k,k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+.$$ Let $$W_k^b(\eta,s)=\int_{\eta}^b\int_0^{2\pi}w_k(\xi,\theta,s)
\,d\theta\,d\xi\quad\forall b\ge\eta>T+\mu,s>-\log T-s_k
,k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$$ and $$W_k(\eta,s)=\int_{\eta}^{\infty}\int_0^{2\pi}w_k(\xi,\theta,s)
\,d\theta\,d\xi\quad\forall \eta>T+\mu,s>-\log T-s_k,k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+.$$ Then $$(W_k^b)_{\eta}(\eta,s)=-\int_0^{2\pi}w_k(\eta,\theta,s)
\,d\theta\quad\forall b\ge\eta>T+\mu,s>-\log T-s_k,k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+.$$ Hence by (2.11) and Lemma 2.1 there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$|W_k^b(\eta,s)|,|(W_k^b)_{\eta}(\eta,s)|\le C\quad\forall
b\ge\eta>T+\mu,s>s_0-s_k,k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+.$$ Now by (2.10), (2.12) and (2.13), $$\begin{aligned}
(W_k^b)_s(\eta,s)=&e^{-(s+s_k)}\int_{\eta}^b\int_0^{2\pi}(\log w_k)_{\xi\xi}
(\xi,\theta,s)\,d\theta\,d\xi+\int_{\eta}^b\int_0^{2\pi}\xi
w_{k,\xi}(\xi,\theta,s)\,d\theta\,d\xi\nonumber\\
&\qquad+2W_k^b\nonumber\\
=&e^{-(s+s_k)}\int_0^{2\pi}(\log w_k)_{\xi}
(b,\theta,s)\,d\theta-e^{-(s+s_k)}\int_0^{2\pi}(\log w_k)_{\xi}
(\eta,\theta,s)\,d\theta\nonumber\\
&\qquad +b\int_0^{2\pi}w_k(b,\theta,s)\,d\theta
-\eta\int_0^{2\pi}w_k(\eta,\theta,s)\,d\theta
+W_k^b\nonumber\\
=&e^{-(s+s_k)}\int_0^{2\pi}(\log w_k)_{\xi}
(b,\theta,s)\,d\theta-e^{-(s+s_k)}\int_0^{2\pi}(\log w_k)_{\xi}
(\eta,\theta,s)\,d\theta\nonumber\\
&\qquad +b\int_0^{2\pi}w_k(b,\theta,s)\,d\theta
+\eta(W_k^b)_{\eta}(\eta,s)+W_k^b.\end{aligned}$$ By (2.14), Lemma 2.1, and Lemma 2.2 for any $a\in (T+\mu,b]$ there exists a constant $C_{a,b}>0$ such that $$|(W_k^b)_s(\eta,s)|\le C_{a,b}(1+b^{-1}+\eta)\quad\forall a\le\eta
\le b,s>s_0-s_k,k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+.$$ By (2.14) and (2.16) the sequence $\{W_k^b\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ is equi-Holder continuous on $[a,b]\times [-s',\infty]$ for any $a\in (T+\mu,b]$, $s'>0$, and $k$ large such that $s_k-s_0>s'$.
We choose a sequence $\{b_i\}_{i=1}^{\infty}$ of monotonically increasing sequence such that $b_i>T+\mu$ for any $i\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ and $b_i\to\infty$ as $i\to\infty$. By the Ascoli theorem and a diagonalization argument the sequence $\{W_k^{b_1}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ has a subsequence $\{W_{j_{1,k}}^{b_1}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ such that $W_{j_{1,k}}^{b_1}$ converges uniformly on every compact subset of $(T+\mu,b_1]\times
(-\infty,\infty)$ to some function $W^{b_1}\in C((T+\mu,b_1]\times
(-\infty,\infty))$ as $k\to\infty$ .
Similarly the sequence $\{W_{j_{1,k}}^{b_2}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ has a subsequence $\{W_{j_{2,k}}^{b_2}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ with $j_{1,1}<j_{2,1}$ such that $W_{j_{2,k}}^{b_2}$ converges uniformly on every compact subset of $(T+\mu,b_2]\times (-\infty,\infty)$ to some function $W^{b_2}\in C((T+\mu,b_2]\times (-\infty,\infty))$ as $k\to\infty$ . Repeating the above argument for any $i\ge 2$ the sequence $\{W_{j_{i-1,k}}^{b_i}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ has a subsequence $\{W_{j_{i,k}}^{b_i}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ with $j_{i-1,1}<j_{i,1}$ such that $W_{j_{i,k}}^{b_i}$ converges uniformly on every compact subset of $(T+\mu,b_i]\times (-\infty,\infty)$ to some function $W^{b_i}\in C((T+\mu,b_i]\times (-\infty,\infty))$ as $k\to\infty$.
For any $k\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ let $j_k=j_{k,1}$. Then $\{j_k\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ is a subsequence of $\{j_{i,k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ for any $i\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$. Hence for any $i\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$, the sequence $\{W_{j_k}^{b_i}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ converges uniformly on every compact subset of $(T+\mu,b_i]\times
(-\infty,\infty)$ to $W^{b_i}$ as $k\to\infty$. Thus we may assume without loss of generality that for any $i\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ $\{W_k^{b_i}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ converges uniformly on every compact subset of $(T+\mu,b_i]\times (-\infty,\infty)$ to $W^{b_i}$ as $k\to\infty$.
Now by Lemma 2.1 for each $s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$, $w_k(\cdot,\cdot,s)$ will have a subsequence which we may assume without loss of generality to be the sequence itself that converges weakly in $L^{\infty}(K)$ to some non-negative function ${\overline}{w}(\cdot,\cdot,s)$ as $k\to\infty$ for any compact set $K\subset [T+\mu,\infty)\times [0,2\pi]$. Putting $b=b_i$ and letting $k\to\infty$ in (2.12), $$W^{b_i}(\eta,s)=\int_{\eta}^{b_i}\int_0^{2\pi}{\overline}{w}(\xi,\theta,s)
\,d\theta\,d\xi\quad\forall b\ge\eta\ge T+\mu,s\in{{\mathbb{R}}},i\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+.$$ By (2.17) as $i\to\infty$, $W^{b_i}$ will increase monotonically to the function, $$W(\eta,s):=\int_{\eta}^{\infty}\int_0^{2\pi}{\overline}{w}(\xi,\theta,s)
\,d\theta\,d\xi\quad\forall \eta\ge T+\mu,s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}.$$ By Lemma 2.1, $${\overline}{w}(\xi,\theta,s)\le\frac{C}{\xi^2}\quad\forall\xi>0,\theta
\in [0,2\pi],s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}.$$ Then by (2.19), $$0\le W(\eta,s)-W^{b_i}(\eta,s)\le\int_{b_i}^{\infty}\int_0^{2\pi}{\overline}{w}
(\xi,\theta,s)\,d\theta\,d\xi\le\int_{b_i}^{\infty}\int_0^{2\pi}
\frac{C}{\xi^2}\,d\theta\,d\xi\le\frac{C'}{b_i}$$ holds for any $s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $i\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$.
$\underline{\text{\bf Claim 1}}$: $W_k$ converges uniformly to $W$ on every compact set $K\subset
(T+\mu,\infty)\times (-\infty,\infty)$ as $k\to\infty$.
[:]{} Let $K$ be a compact subset of $(T+\mu,\infty)\times (-\infty,\infty)$. By Lemma 2.1, (2.19) and (2.20), $$\begin{aligned}
\|W_k-W\|_{L^{\infty}(K)}\le&\|W_k-W_k^{b_i}\|_{L^{\infty}(K)}
+\|W_k^{b_i}-W^{b_i}\|_{L^{\infty}(K)}
+\|W^{b_i}-W\|_{L^{\infty}(K)}\nonumber\\
\le&\int_{b_i}^{\infty}\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{C}{\xi^2}\,d\theta\,d\xi
+\|W_k^{b_i}-W^{b_i}\|_{L^{\infty}(K)}+\frac{C'}{b_i}\nonumber\\
\le&\frac{C''}{b_i}+\|W_k^{b_i}-W^{b_i}\|_{L^{\infty}(K)}\qquad\qquad\forall
i\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+.\end{aligned}$$ Letting $k\to\infty$ in (2.21), $$\begin{aligned}
&\limsup_{k\to\infty}\|W_k-W\|_{L^{\infty}(K)}
\le\frac{C''}{b_i}\quad\forall i\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+\\
\Rightarrow\quad&\lim_{k\to\infty}\|W_k-W\|_{L^{\infty}(K)}
=0\quad\mbox{ as }i\to\infty\end{aligned}$$ and Claim 1 follows.
By Corollary 1.24, Lemma 2.1, (2.7), (2.9), (2.11) and Claim 1, $$W((T+\mu)^+,s)=4\pi\quad\forall s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}.$$ Let $a_2>a_1>T+\mu$ and $s_1'<s_2'$. We choose $k_0\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ such that $s_1'>s_0-s_k$ for any $k\ge k_0$. Then by (2.15) for any $e^{-s}\zeta_0\in [a_1,a_2]$, $b>a_2$, $s_2'
\ge s\ge s_1'$ and $k\ge k_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
&\frac{d}{ds}(e^{-s}W_k^b(e^{-s}\zeta_0,s))\nonumber\\
=&e^{-s}(W_{k,s}^b(e^{-s}\zeta_0,s)-e^{-s}\zeta_0W_{k,\eta}^b
(e^{-s}\zeta_0,s)-W_k^b(e^{-s}\zeta_0,s))\nonumber\\
=&e^{-(2s+s_k)}\int_0^{2\pi}(\log w_k)_{\xi}(b,\theta,s)\,d\theta
-e^{-(2s+s_k)}\int_0^{2\pi}(\log w_k)_{\xi}(e^{-s}\zeta_0,\theta,s)
\,d\theta\nonumber\\
&\qquad +be^{-s}\int_0^{2\pi}w_k(b,\theta,s)\,d\theta\end{aligned}$$ By Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2, $$\left|\frac{d}{ds}(e^{-s}W_k^b(e^{-s}\zeta_0,s))\right|
\le C_be^{-(2s+s_k)}+C\frac{e^{-s}}{b}$$ for some constants $C_b>0$ depending on $b$ and $C>0$. By (2.24) for any $s_2'>s_1'>s_0-s_k$, $\zeta_0>e^{s_2'}(T+\mu)$ and $b>e^{-s_1'}
\zeta_0$, $$\begin{aligned}
|e^{-s_1'}W_k^b(e^{-s_1'}\zeta_0,s_1')-e^{-s_2'}W_k^b(e^{-s_2'}
\zeta_0,s_2')|
=&\left|\int_{s_1'}^{s_2'}\frac{d}{ds}(e^{-s}W_k^b(e^{-s}\zeta_0,s))
\,ds\right|\nonumber\\
\le&\max_{s_1'\le s\le s_2'}\left|\frac{d}{ds}(e^{-s}W_k^b
(e^{-s}\zeta_0,s))\right|(s_2'-s_1')\nonumber\\
\le&\left(C_be^{-(2s_1'+s_k)}+C\frac{e^{-s_1'}}{b}\right)(s_2'-s_1')\end{aligned}$$ Putting $b=b_i$ and letting first $k\to\infty$ and then $i\to\infty$ in (2.25), $$e^{-s_1'}W(e^{-s_1'}\zeta_0,s_1')=e^{-s_2'}W(e^{-s_2'}\zeta_0,
s_2')$$ holds for any $s_1',s_2'\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ and $\zeta_0>\max(e^{s_1'},e^{s_2'})
(T+\mu)$.
Let $\eta,{\overline}{\eta}>T+\mu$ and $s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$. Let $\zeta_0=e^s\eta$ and choose ${\overline}{s}$ such that ${\overline}{\eta}
=e^{-{\overline}{s}}\zeta_0$. Then $\eta/{\overline}{\eta}=e^{{\overline}{s}-s}$. Hence by (2.26), $$\eta W(\eta ,s)={\overline}{\eta}W({\overline}{\eta},{\overline}{s})\quad\forall
\eta,{\overline}{\eta}>T+\mu,s,{\overline}{s}\in{{\mathbb{R}}}.$$ Letting ${\overline}{\eta}\to T+\mu$ in (2.27), by (2.22) we get $$W(\eta ,s)=\frac{4\pi(T+\mu)}{\eta}\quad\forall
\eta>T+\mu,s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}.$$ We now fix $s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$. By (2.28) and an argument similar to the proof on P.588 of [@DS2] $w_k(\xi,\theta,s)$ converges to $2(T+\mu)/\xi^2$ in $L^p([\xi_0,\infty)\times [0,2\pi])$ as $k\to\infty$ for any $p\ge 1$ and $\xi_0>T+\mu$. Hence by passing to a subsequence we may assume without loss of generality that $$w_k(\xi,\theta,s)\to\frac{2(T+\mu)}{\xi^2}\quad\mbox{ a.e. }
(\xi,\theta)\in (T+\mu,\infty)\times [0,2\pi]\quad\mbox{ as }k
\to\infty.$$ Let $$Z_k(\xi,s)=\int_0^{2\pi}\log w_k(\xi,\theta,s)\,d\theta.$$ $\underline{\text{\bf Claim 2}}$: For any $s\in{{\mathbb{R}}}$ the sequence $Z_k(\xi,s)$ has a subsequence that converges uniformly on $[a,b]$ for any $b>a>T+\mu$ to $$Z(\xi,s)=2\pi\log\frac{2(T+\mu)}{\xi^2}.$$
[:]{} We will use a modification of the proof of Lemma 4.10 of [@DS2] to prove the claim. By Lemma 2.1 and Lemma 2.2 for any $b>a>T+\mu$ there exist constants $C>0$ and $k_1=k_1(s)\in{{\mathbb{Z}}}^+$ such that $$\left\{\begin{aligned}
&|Z_{k,\xi}(\xi,s)|=\left|\int_0^{2\pi}(\log w_k(\xi,\theta,s))_{\xi}
\,d\theta\right|\le C\quad\forall a\le\xi\le b,k\ge k_1\\
&|Z_k(\xi,s)|\le C\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad
\quad\forall a\le\xi\le b,k\ge k_1.
\end{aligned}\right.$$ By (2.31), the Ascoli theorem, and a diagonalization argument the sequence $Z_k(\xi,\theta,s)$ has a subsequence that converges uniformly on $[a,b]$ for any $b>a>T+\mu$ to some function $Z(\xi,s)$ which is continuous in $\xi>T+\mu$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $Z_k(\xi,s)$ converges uniformly on $[a,b]$ for any $b>a>T+\mu$ to $Z(\xi,s)$ as $k\to\infty$. Since $$\int_{\eta}^{\eta+A}\int_0^{2\pi}\log w_k(\xi,\theta,s)\,d\theta
\,d\xi\to\int_{\eta}^{\eta+A}Z(\xi,s)\,d\xi\quad\forall\eta>T+\mu,
A>0
\quad\mbox{ as }k\to\infty,$$ by (2.29), Lemma 2.1, and the Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, $$\int_{\eta}^{\eta+A}Z(\xi,s)\,d\xi
=\int_{\eta}^{\eta+A}\int_0^{2\pi}\log\frac{2(T+\mu)}{\xi^2}\,d\theta
\,d\xi
=2\pi\int_{\eta}^{\eta+A}\log\frac{2(T+\mu)}{\xi^2}\,d\xi$$ holds for any $\eta>T+\mu$, $A>0$. Dividing both sides of (2.32) by $A$ and letting $A\to 0$ we get (2.30) and Claim 2 follows.
By Lemma 1.1, $$\begin{aligned}
w_k(\eta,\theta,s)=&{\widetilde}{v}(\eta,\theta,\tau_k(s))
=\tau_k(s)^2v(\tau_k(s)\eta,\theta,\tau_k(s))\nonumber\\
=&\tau_k(s)^2e^{2\tau_k(s)\eta}u(e^{\tau_k(s)\eta},\theta,t_k(s))
\nonumber\\
\le&\tau_k(s)^2e^{2\tau_k(s)\eta}u(e^{\tau_k(s)\eta}-2r_2,\theta,t_k(s))
\nonumber\\
=&\tau_k(s)^2e^{2\tau_k(s)\eta}u(e^{\tau_k(s)\eta}(1-2r_2e^{-\tau_k(s)\eta}),
\theta,t_k(s))\nonumber\\
=&\frac{\tau_k(s)^2}{(1-2r_2e^{-\tau_k(s)\eta})^2}v(\tau_k(s)\eta
+\log (1-2r_2e^{-\tau_k(s)\eta}),\theta,t_k(s))\nonumber\\
=&(1-2r_2e^{-\tau_k(s)\eta})^{-2}{\widetilde}{v}
(\eta+\tau_k(s)^{-1}\log (1-2r_2e^{-\tau_k(s)\eta}),\theta,\tau_k(s))
\nonumber\\
=&(1-2r_2e^{-\tau_k(s)\eta})^{-2}w_k
(\eta+\tau_k(s)^{-1}\log (1-2r_2e^{-\tau_k(s)\eta}),\theta,s)\nonumber\\\end{aligned}$$ for all $k$ large satisfying $e^{\tau_k(s)\eta}>2r_2$ where $$\tau_k(s)=e^{s+s_k}\quad\mbox{ and }t_k(s)=T-\tau_k(s)^{-1}.$$ By Claim 2, (2.33), and an argument similar to the proof on P.590 of [@DS2], $w_k(\eta,\theta,s)$ converges uniformly on every compact subset of $(T+\mu,\infty)\times [0,2\pi]$ to $$\frac{2(T+\mu)}{\eta^2}$$ as $k\to\infty$. Since the sequence $s_k$ is arbitrary, ${\widetilde}{v}(\eta,\theta,\tau)$ converges unfiormly to $2(T+\mu)/\eta^2$ on every compact subset of $(T+\mu,\infty)\times [0,2\pi]$ as $\tau\to\infty$ and the theorem follows.
[99]{}
D.G. Aronson and L.A. Caffarelli, [*The initial trace of a solution of the porous medium equation*]{}, Transactions A.M.S. 280 (1983), no. 1, 351–366.
P. Daskalopoulos and R. Hamilton, [*Geometric estimates for the logarithmic fast diffusion equation*]{}, Comm. Anal. Geom. 12 (2004), nos. 1–2, 143–164.
P. Daskalopoulos and M.A. del Pino, [*On a singular diffusion equation*]{}, Comm. Anal. Geom. 3 (1995), no. 3, 523–542.
P. Daskalopoulos and M.A. del Pino, [*Type II collapsing of maximal solutions to the Ricci flow in ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2$*]{}, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linaire 24 (2007), 851–874.
P. Daskalopoulos and N. Sesum, [*Eternal solutions to the Ricci flow on ${{\mathbb{R}}}^2$*]{}, Int. Math. Res. Not. 2006, Art. ID 83610, 20 pp.
P. Daskalopoulos and N. Sesum, [*Type II extinction profile of maximal solutions to the Ricci flow equation*]{}, J. Geom. Anal. 20 (2010), no. 3, 565–591.
J.R. Esteban, A. Rodriguez and J.L. Vazquez, [*The fast diffusion equation with logarithmic nonlinearity and the evolution of conformal metrics in the plane*]{}, Advances in Differential Equations 1 (1996), no. 1, 21–50.
J.R. Esteban, A. Rodriguez and J.L. Vazquez, [*The maximal solution of the logarithmic fast diffusion equation in two space dimensions*]{}, Advances in Differential Equations 2 (1997), no. 6, 867–894.
P.G. de Gennes, [*Wetting: statics and dynamics*]{}, Rev. Modern Phys. 57 (1985), no. 3, 827–863.
R. Hamilton and S.T. Yau, [*The Harnack estimate for the Ricci flow - revisited*]{}, Asian J. Math 1 (1997), no. 3, 418–421.
S.Y. Hsu, [*Large time behaviour of solutions of the Ricci flow equation on $R^2$*]{}, Pacific J. Math 197 (2001), no. 1, 25–41.
S.Y. Hsu, [*Asymptotic profile of a singular diffusion equation as $t\to\infty$*]{}, Nonlinear Analysis TMA 48 (2002), no. 6, 781–790.
S.Y. Hsu, [*Asymptotic behaviour of solutions of the equation $u_t=\Delta\log u$ near the extinction time*]{}, Advances in Differential Equations 8 (2003), no. 2, 161–187.
S.Y. Hsu, [*Behaviour of solutions of a singular diffusion equation near the extinction time*]{}, Nonlinear Analysis TMA 56 (2004), no. 1, 63–104.
K.M. Hui, [*Existence of solutions of the equation $u_t=\Delta\log u$*]{}, Nonlinear Analysis, TMA 37 (1999), no. 7, 875–914.
K.M. Hui, [*Singular limit of solutions of the equation $u_t=\Delta (u^m/m)$ as $m\to 0$*]{}, Pacific J. Math. 187 (1999), no. 2, 297–316.
J.R. King, [*Self-similar behaviour for the equation of fast nonlinear diffusion*]{}, Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. London, Series A 343 (1993), 337–375.
O.A. Ladyzenskaya, V.A. Solonnikov, and N.N. Uraltceva, [*Linear and quasilinear equations of parabolic type*]{}, Transl. Math. Mono. Vol 23, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I., U.S.A., 1968.
J.L. Vazquez, [*Nonexistence of solutions for nonlinear heat equations of fast-diffusion type*]{}, J. Math. Pures Appl. 71 (1992), 503–526.
L.F. Wu, [*A new result for the porous medium equation derived from the Ricci flow*]{}, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 28 (1993), 90–94.
L.F. Wu, [*The Ricci flow on $R^2$*]{}, Comm. Anal. Geom. 1 (1993), 439–472.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The key aspect determining the post-formation luminosity of gas giants has long been considered to be the energetics of the accretion shock at the planetary surface. We use one-dimensional radiation-hydrodynamical simulations to study the radiative loss efficiency and to obtain post-shock temperatures and pressures and thus entropies. The efficiency is defined as the fraction of the total incoming energy flux which escapes the system (roughly the Hill sphere), taking into account the energy recycling which occurs ahead of the shock in a radiative precursor. We focus here on a constant equation of state to isolate the shock physics but use constant and tabulated opacities. While robust quantitative results will require a self-consistent treatment including hydrogen dissocation and ionization, the results presented here show the correct qualitative behavior and can be understood semi-analytically. The shock is found to be isothermal and supercritical for a range of conditions relevant to core accretion (CA), with Mach numbers ${{\mathcal{M}}}\gtrsim3$. Across the shock, the entropy decreases significantly, by a few entropy units (${{k_{\textnormal{B}}}}/\mbox{baryon}$). While nearly 100 percent of the incoming kinetic energy is converted to radiation locally, the efficiencies are found to be as low as roughly 40 percent, implying that a meaningful fraction of the total accretion energy is brought into the planet. For realistic parameter combinations in the CA scenario, a non-zero fraction of the luminosity always escapes the system. This luminosity could explain, at least in part, recent observations in the young LkCa 15 and HD 100546 systems.'
author:
- 'Gabriel-Dominique Marleau, Hubert Klahr, Rolf Kuiper, Christoph Mordasini'
title: |
The [[planetary accretion shock]{}]{}:\
I. Framework for radiation-hydrodynamical simulations and first results
---
Introduction
============
Starting with the discovery of planetary and low-mass companions to 2M 1207, 1RXS 1609, HR 8799, and $\beta$ Pic in the last decade [@chauvin04; @lafreniere08; @marois08; @lagrange09], photometric and spectroscopic direct observations of several dozen young ($\lesssim20$–100-Myr-old) objects have challenged and enriched our knowledge about exoplanets, providing access to their theirmodynamic state, chemically complex atmospheres, and otherwise unobtainable information on the outer ($\gtrsim20$ au) architecture of planetary systems. One major limitation, however, has been the difficulty of determining the masses of these objects, which is of particular importance in the light of recent or upcoming surveys expected to detect several young objects (e.g., LEECH, SPHERE, GPI, Project 1640, CHARIS; see @skemer14a [@zurlo14; @macintosh14; @opp12; @peterslimbach13] and references therein) as they seek to provide constraints on the mass distribution [[of planetary or very-low-mass companions]{}]{} [e.g. @biller13; @brandt14; @clantongaudi15]. While the uncertainty on the age of the parent star often remains considerable, it is, to first order, presumably random. However, the conversion of a luminosity to a mass entails a theoretical, probably *systematic* uncertainty: that of the luminosity of a planet or low-mass object at the end of its formation, as it enters into the evolutionary ‘cooling’ phase[^1]. This is a major source of uncertainty [@bowler16]. Indeed, at those young ages, cooling has not yet erased traces of the formation process, as reflected in a planet’s luminosity and radius (and thus also spectrum); this happens on the Kelvin–Helmholtz timescale $t_{\rm KH}\equiv G{{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}^2/RL\sim10^7$–$10^9$ yr. Formation models up to now [e.g., @marl07; @morda12_I] have only made predictions in the limiting cases of ‘hot’ and ‘cold starts’, as discussed below, without [[however attempting to model the shock in detail]{}]{}.
What is thought to be the key process setting the entropy of the gas is the accretion shock in the runaway gas accretion phase [@marl07; @spiegel12]. This accretion shock is traditionally associated with core accretion but it might also occur in some circumstances in the context of gravitational instability (see the discussion in Section 8.1 of [@morda12_I]). When the planet becomes massive enough, it detaches from the local disk and gas falls freely onto it. The question is usually put in terms of what happens to the kinetic energy of the gas, namely whether it is radiated away at the shock or whether it gets added as thermal energy to the planet. The extreme outcome of full radiative loss leads to ‘cold starts’, while the limiting case of no radiative loss leads to ‘hot starts’, as the resulting planets are then respectively colder or hotter [@marl07].
@morda13 found that the mass of the solid core (in the core-accretion framework) correlates with post-formation luminosity but, as explained there, this is due to a self-amplifying process based on the shock. Thus the shock (or at least its computational treatment in formation calculations) is crucial is setting the post-formation radius and luminosity.
It has been shown [@mc14] how to place joint constraints on the mass and initial entropy of an object from a luminosity and age measurement. Now, however, we take a first step towards *predicting* this initial entropy by presenting simulations of the shock efficiency, considering snapshots of the formation process. In this first paper, we focus on the physics at the accretion shock and the upstream region. Since ionization and dissociation act as energy sinks [@zeldovich67], we focus on an ideal-gas equation of state (EOS) with constant heat capacity and mean molecular weight to isolate the shock physics from the microphysics. However, we use both constant and more realistic opacities. Also to simplify the analysis, we assume here that the gas and the radiation couple perfectly and therefore use ‘one-temperature’ (1-$T$) radiation transport (discussed below). A forthcoming paper will be concerned with the effects of dissociation and ionization and will also address the importance of 2-$T$ radiation transport. Finally, a subsequent work will also discuss how the shock results can be used in formation calculations and perform this coupling. Only with this will it be possible to predict directly post-formation entropies and thus the luminosities and radii of young gas giants.
Model {#Theil:Modell}
=====
Physical picture
----------------
Each simulation is meant as a snapshot of the accretion process when the planet [[is at]{}]{} a radius ${{R_{\textnormal{p}}}}={{r_{\rm shock}}}$, the shock radius. To follow gas accretion onto a growing planet which is detached from the nebula, we let our simulation box extend from the top-most layers of the planet to a large fraction of its accretion radius ${{R_{\textnormal{acc}}}}$, defined through [@boden00] $$\label{Gl:RAkk}
\frac{1}{{{R_{\textnormal{acc}}}}} = \frac{1}{{{k_{\textnormal{Lissauer}}}}{{R_{\textnormal{Hill}}}}} + \frac{1}{{{R_{\textnormal{Bondi}}}}},$$ where $${{R_{\textnormal{Hill}}}}= a \left(\frac{{{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}}{3{{M_{*}}}}\right)^{1/3},\;\;\;{{R_{\textnormal{Bondi}}}}= \frac{G{{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}}{{c_\infty}^2}$$ are the Hill and Bondi radii, respectively, with $a$ the semi-major axis of the planet of mass ${{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}$ around a star of mass ${{M_{*}}}$ and $c_\infty$ the sound speed in the disk at the planet’s location. The factor ${{k_{\textnormal{Lissauer}}}}=1/3$ accounts for the findings of @lissauer09 that only the inner part of the material in the planet’s Roche lobe is bound to it, most of the gas in the volume flowing with the material in the disk [@morda12_I]. The sphere of radius ${{R_{\textnormal{acc}}}}$ is thus the approximate region where gas should become bound to the planet, both in terms of gravitational force compared to that from the star (${{R_{\textnormal{Hill}}}}$) and thermal energy compared to the planet’s potential energy (${{R_{\textnormal{Bondi}}}}$). In the runaway phase, the ${{R_{\textnormal{Hill}}}}$ term usually (though marginally) dominates. While global and local disk simulations have shown that the accretion onto the protoplanet is highly three-dimensional [@ab09a; @tanigawa12; @dangeloboden13; @ormel15b; @fung15; @szul16] and possibly affected by magnetic fields in the gap and protoplanetary disk [e.g., @uribe13; @keith15], we take a first step here by using a spherically-symmetric set-up and neglecting magnetic fields. This allows us to model in detail the last stages of the accretion process on small scales around the proto-planetary object ($r \lesssim30~{{R_{\textnormal{J}}}}$). This stages should remain similar in more complex geometries.
Note that, in the detached runaway phase, the continued accretion of solids (dust and planetesimals) by the planet is important for setting the final mass of the core [@morda13]. However, this accretion rate of solids is several orders of magnitude smaller than that of gas and is therefore neglected here.
Methods {#Theil:Kode}
-------
For our one-temperature radiation hydrodynamics simulations, we use the static-grid version of the modular hydrodynamics code `PLUTO` (version 3; [@mignone07; @mignone12]) combined with the grey, 1-$T$ flux-limited diffusion (FLD) radiation transport module [[`Makemake`]{}]{} described and tested in @kuiper10 and @kuiperklessen13, without ray tracing. We use the HLL hydrodynamical solver and the flux limiter $\lambda$ from @lever81 given by $$\label{Gl:lambdaFLD}
\lambda(R) = \frac{2+R}{6+3R+R^2},$$ where the radiation parameter $R$ is defined through
$$\begin{aligned}
{{F_{\rm rad}}}&= -{{D_{\textnormal{F}}}}{\mathbf{\nabla}}{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}},\label{Gl:FStrahl}\\
{{D_{\textnormal{F}}}}&\equiv \frac{\lambda(R) c}{{{\kappa_{\textnormal{R}}}}\varrho},\\
R &\equiv \frac{\| {\mathbf{\nabla}}\ln {{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}\|}{{{\kappa_{\textnormal{R}}}}\,\varrho},\label{Gl:RDef} $$
where ${{F_{\rm rad}}}$ and ${{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}$ are the radiation flux and energy density, respectively, ${{\kappa_{\textnormal{R}}}}$ the Rosseland mean opacity, $\rho$ the density, and $c$ the speed of light. There is some freedom in the choice of the flux limiter’s functional form but it is required to behave asymptotically as [@lever84] $$\lambda(R) \rightarrow \begin{cases}
\frac{1}{3}, & R\ll1~~~\textnormal{(diffusion limit)}\\
\frac{1}{R}, & R\gg1~~~\textnormal{(free-streaming limit)}
\end{cases}$$ to recover the limiting regimes of pure diffusion, where ${{F_{\rm rad}}}=\frac{1}{3}c\nabla{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}/{{\kappa_{\textnormal{R}}}}\rho$, and free-streaming, where ${{F_{\rm rad}}}=c{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}$ in the direction opposite to the ${{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}$ gradient.
The local radiation quantity $R(\varrho,T,{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}})$ defined in Equation (\[Gl:RDef\]) compares the photon mean free path ${{\lambda_{\rm phot}}}=1/\kappa\varrho$ to the ‘radiation energy density scale height’ ${{H_{{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}}}}={{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}/(\partial{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}/\partial r)$; in spherical coordinates it is given by
\[Gl:Rpraktisch\] $$\begin{aligned}
R &= \frac{1}{\kappa\varrho{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}} \left|\frac{\partial{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}}{\partial r}\right| = \left|\frac{\partial\ln{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}}{\partial\tau}\right|\\
&= \frac{{{\lambda_{\rm phot}}}}{{{H_{{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}}}}}.\end{aligned}$$
Large $R$ values mean that the radiation energy density—and thus, in the 1-$T$ approximation, the temperature—changes over a shorter distance than photons get absorbed and re-emitted.
Set-up
------
We use a semi-open box fixed at some height in the atmosphere of the planet, with a closed left, inner edge (towards the centre of the planet) at $r={{r_{\rm min}}}$, and start with an atmosphere of some arbitrary small height (e.g., 0.5 ${{R_{\textnormal{J}}}}$), onto which gas falls from the outer edge of the grid at ${{r_{\rm max}}}$. For the initial set-up, we calculate an atmosphere in hydrostatic equilibrium with a constant luminosity ${{L_{\textnormal{p}}}}=10^{-3}~{{L_{\odot}}}$ using the usual equations of stellar structure (but Equation (\[Gl:HydrostatStrukt\_dLdr0\]) as appropriate for an atmosphere):
\[Gl:HydrostatStrukt\] $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{{\rm d}}m_r}{{{\rm d}}r} &= 4\pi r^2 \varrho, \\
\frac{{{\rm d}}T}{{{\rm d}}r} &= {{\nabla_{\!\textnormal{act}}}}\frac{T}{P} \frac{{{\rm d}}P}{{{\rm d}}r},\\
\frac{{{\rm d}}P}{{{\rm d}}r} &= -\varrho \frac{G m_r}{r^2},\\
\frac{{{\rm d}}L}{{{\rm d}}r} &= \frac{{{\rm d}}m_r}{{{\rm d}}r}\left( \varepsilon - T \frac{{{\rm d}}S}{{{\rm d}}r}\right),\notag\\
&= 0,\label{Gl:HydrostatStrukt_dLdr0} $$
where $m_r$ is the mass interior to $r$ (dominated by ${{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}$), $P$, $T$, and $S$ are respectively the pressure, the temperature, and the entropy per mass, $L=4\pi r^2{{F_{\rm rad}}}$ is the luminosity, $G$ the universal gravitational constant, and $\varepsilon$ the energy generation rate. The actual, adiabatic, and radiative gradients are given respectively by
$$\begin{aligned}
{{\nabla_{\!\textnormal{act}}}}&= \min({{\nabla_{\!\textnormal{ad}}}},{{\nabla_{\!\textnormal{rad}}}})\label{Gl:Schwarzschild}\\
{{\nabla_{\!\textnormal{ad}}}}&= \frac{\gamma-1}{\gamma},\\
{{\nabla_{\!\textnormal{rad}}}}&= \frac{3 L P \kappa}{64\pi{{\sigma}}G m_r T^4}.\end{aligned}$$
Equation (\[Gl:Schwarzschild\]) is the Schwarzschild criterion. [[(Note that convection therefore plays a role only in the initial profile; in the radiation-hydrodynamical simulations proper there is no convection because of the assumption of spherical symmetry.)]{}]{} We use an adaptive step size for the integration to resolve accurately the pressure and temperature gradients. This atmosphere is then smoothly joined onto a calculated accretion flow for $\varrho$ and $v$. (See Equations (\[Gl:vFf\]ff) below.) The goal of these efforts is (i) to provide a numerically sufficiently smooth initial profile while (ii) beginning with a certain atmospheric mass to speed up the computation.
The grid is uniform from ${{r_{\rm min}}}$ to ${{r_{\rm min}}}+\Delta r$ [[and has a high resolution]{}]{} to resolve sufficiently well the pressure gradient in the innermost part, using by default $\Delta r=0.5~{{R_{\textnormal{J}}}}$ and $N=500$ cells there. The other grid patch is a stretched segment out to ${{r_{\rm max}}}$, with usually also $N=500$, i.e., a much smaller resolution. This has proven to be stable and accurate.
[[As gas is added to the simulation domain, quasi-hydrostatic equilibrium establishes below the shock. The shock position ${{r_{\rm shock}}}$ defining the top of the planet’s atmosphere is simply given by the location where the gas pressure is equal to the ram pressure. The shocks moves in time as gas is added (inward or outward depending on the simulation), usually at a negligible speed, i.e., $d{{r_{\rm shock}}}/dt\ll \vSch$, where $\vSch$ is the pre-shock velocity. Nevertheless, we always take this term into account when calculating mass or energy fluxes; this possibly leads to slightly non-nominal effective accretion rates but allows for a more accurate verification of energy conservation.]{}]{} We consider only data from after an early adjustment phase, once the [[lab-frame]{}]{} accretion rate at the shock is equal to the one set through the outer boundary conditions, described below.
Boundary conditions
-------------------
For the hydrodynamics, reflective (zero-gradient) boundary conditions are used at ${{r_{\rm min}}}$ in the density, pressure, and velocity, i.e., $$\frac{{\rm d}P}{{\rm d}r} = \frac{{\rm d}\rho}{{\rm d}r} = \frac{{\rm d}v}{{\rm d}r}=0$$
Since the condition ${\rm d}v/{\rm d}r=0$ ensures that no mass flows over the boundary, it is not necessary to enforce hydrostatic equilibrium at ${{r_{\rm min}}}$. In the radiation transport also, we prevent the flow of energy over ${{r_{\rm min}}}$ by using $$\frac{{\rm d}{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}}{{\rm d}r} = 0.$$
The outer edge of the grid ${{r_{\rm max}}}$ is set well outside of the atmosphere and away from the shock. For the hydrodynamics, we choose an accretion rate and approximate the velocity as the free-fall velocity: $$\label{Gl:vFf}
v(r) = {{v_{\textnormal{ff}}}}({{r_{\rm max}}}) = \sqrt{2G{{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}\left(\frac{1}{{{r_{\rm max}}}} - \frac{1}{{{R_{\textnormal{acc}}}}}\right)},$$ with ${{R_{\textnormal{acc}}}}$ defined in Equation (\[Gl:RAkk\]). Mass conservation then determines the ‘free-fall density’: $$\label{Gl:rhoFf}
{{\varrho_{\textnormal{ff}}}}({{r_{\rm max}}}) = \frac{{{\dot{M}}}}{4\pi r^2 |v({{r_{\rm max}}})|}.$$ The pressure gradient here too is required to vanish: $$\left.\frac{{\rm d}P}{{\rm d}r}\right|_{{r_{\rm max}}}= 0.$$ We considered for some simulations a Dirichlet boundary condition with $P=P({{\varrho_{\textnormal{ff}}}}({{r_{\rm max}}}),$ ${{T_{\textnormal{neb}}}})$ for a nebula temperature ${{T_{\textnormal{neb}}}}$, taken as ${{T_{\textnormal{neb}}}}=150$ K [e.g., @miz80]. This did not change the results significantly.
Finally, the radiation outer boundary condition is usually set to the flux-divergence-free condition $$\label{Gl:SRB_lambdaklein}
\frac{\upartial r^2{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}}{\upartial r}=0,$$ which corresponds to a constant luminosity if the reduced flux ${{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}$, defined in Section \[Theil:Deltatau,fred\], is sufficiently close to 1. However, even when the flux at the outer edge is rather in the diffusion regime, we obtain similar results for a simple Dirichlet boundary condition on the radiation temperature.
Microphysics
------------
To isolate the shock physics, we consider in this work a constant equation of state (EOS). The EOS enters into the radiation-hydrodynamical simulations through the effective heat capacity ratio $\gamma\equiv {{c_{\textnormal{p}}}}/{{c_{\textnormal{v}}}}= P/{{E_{\textnormal{int}}}}+1$, where ${{E_{\textnormal{int}}}}$ is the internal energy [[per volume]{}]{}, and through the mean molecular weight $\mu$. Estimates presented in Appendix \[Anh:Schockabschaetzung\] suggest that the hydrogen will be in molecular or atomic form at the shock. Accordingly, $\gamma=1.44$ and $\gamma=1.1$ bracket the expected range, while $\mu$ varies from $2.353$ to $1.23$ (see Figure \[Abb:ungefSchPopSynth\_kalt\]).
We consider both constant and tabulated opacities. The contribution of the dust to the opacity dominates below approximately 1400–1600 K, at which temperature the refractory components (olivine, silicates, pyroxene, etc.) evaporate [@poll94; @semenov03]. The standard opacity tables we use are the smoothed @bl94 [hereafter ] tables. We can also make use of the @malygin14 gas opacities combined with the dust opacities from @semenov03 and compare these in Figure \[Abb:kappaSchnitt\].
Note that the @bl94 lacks water opacity lines just above the dust destruction temperatures (M. Malygin, priv. comm.; see also Figure 1 of [@ab06]); as a consequence, their opacities reach down to ${{\kappa_{\textnormal{R}}}}\sim10^{-6}$ cm$^2$g$^{-1}$ for $\rho=10^{-11}$ gcm$^{-3}$, where ${{\kappa_{\textnormal{R}}}}$ is the Rosseland mean, some four orders of magnitude smaller than in more recent calculations [@freed08; @malygin14]. Figure \[Abb:ungefSchPopSynth\_kalt\] shows that for low masses and accretion rates, the shock temperature should be ${{T_{\textnormal{s}}}}\lesssim1500$ K, in which case the dust is not destroyed and the opacity is relatively high. When higher temperatures are reached, the opacity is lower by orders of magnitude, so that the total (gas and dust) Rosseland opacities range from ${{\kappa_{\textnormal{R}}}}\sim10^{-2}$ to 10 cm$^2$g$^{-1}$ overall. This provides approximate values when considering constant opacities. Since 1-$T$ requires only the Rosseland mean, the subscript on ${{\kappa_{\textnormal{R}}}}$ will be dropped hereafter.
Quantities to be measured
-------------------------
### Efficiencies {#Theil:etaDef}
The main goal of this study is to determine the radiative loss efficiency of the accretion shock. There are several ways of defining this. The classical definition, $\etaklassisch$, indicates what fraction of the inward-[[directed]{}]{} kinetic energy flux is converted into a jump in outgoing radiative flux [e.g., @hartmann97; @baraffe12; @zhu15]. This kinetic-energy luminosity is [[at most]{}]{} $$\begin{aligned}
\Lkin &= 4\pi{{R_{\textnormal{p}}}}^2 \frac{1}{2} \varrho v^3 = \frac{1}{2}{{\dot{M}}}v^2\\
&\approx \frac{G{{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}{{\dot{M}}}}{{{R_{\textnormal{p}}}}},\end{aligned}$$ where ${{\dot{M}}}=4\pi r^2 \varrho v$ is the mass accretion rate (neglecting the sign of $v$) and the last expression is valid for free fall from a large radius. Therefore, the energy actually radiated away at the shock is written as $${{L_{\rm acc}}}= \etaklassisch \frac{G{{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}{{\dot{M}}}}{{{R_{\textnormal{p}}}}}$$ and it is usually assumed that $\etaklassisch=100$ percent (i.e., full loss). This is called ‘cold accretion’. Note that this $\etaklassisch$ corresponds to the quantity $(1-\eta)$ of @spiegel12, $\alpha_{\rm h}$ of @morda12_I, $(1-\alpha)$ of @hartmann97, and $X$ of @commer11.
We present here and use a second definition based on the total energy available. This efficiency $\etaphys$ measures what fraction of the total energy flowing towards the planet actually remains below the shock, i.e., is [[absorbed]{}]{} by the [[embryo]{}]{}: $$\label{Gl:etaphys_DeltaLE}
\etaphys \equiv \frac{ {{\dot{E}}}({{r_{\rm max}}}) - {{\dot{E}}}({{r_{\rm shock}}}^-) }{ {{\dot{E}}}({{r_{\rm max}}}) },$$ where ${{r_{\rm shock}}}^-$ is immediately downstream of the shock and [[the outer edge of the computation domain]{}]{} ${{r_{\rm max}}}$ [[is used as a proxy for]{}]{} the accretion radius ${{R_{\textnormal{acc}}}}$ corresponding to the location of the nebula. The material-energy flow rate is defined as $$\label{Gl:EPkt(r)}
{{\dot{E}}}(r) \equiv -|{{\dot{M}}}|\left[{{e_{\textnormal{kin}}}}(r) + h(r) + \Delta\Phi(r,{{r_{\rm shock}}})\right], $$ where ${{e_{\textnormal{kin}}}}=\frac{1}{2}v^2$, ${{e_{\textnormal{int}}}}$, and $h={{e_{\textnormal{int}}}}+P/\rho$ are respectively the kinetic [[energy]{}]{}, internal energy density, and the enthalpy [[per unit mass]{}]{} and $\Phi$ the external potential. The $\Delta\Phi$ term in Equation (\[Gl:EPkt(r)\]) accounts for the work done by the potential on the gas down to the shock, with [[the potential difference from $r_0$ to $r$ given by]{}]{} $$\label{Gl:DeltaPhi}
\Delta\Phi(r,r_0) = -G{{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}\left(\frac{1}{r} - \frac{1}{r_0}\right).$$ Thus $\etaphys$ measures how much of the incoming energy flow ${{\dot{E}}}({{r_{\rm max}}})$ in the gas is still flowing inward [[once it has passed through]{}]{} the shock; if both are equal (${{\dot{E}}}({{r_{\rm shock}}}^-)={{\dot{E}}}({{r_{\rm max}}})$), $\etaphys=0$ and the accretion would be thought of as ‘hot’. If in the other extreme case none of the energy traverses the shock, $\etaphys=100$ percent, implying that the energy must have been entirely converted to outward-traveling radiation. [[This therefore automatically reflects the fact that the (non-)heating of the planet is determined by the *imbalance* between the amount of kinetic energy converted to internal energy and the re-emitted radiation.]{}]{}
By energy conservation, the numerator [[of $\etaphys$]{}]{} should be equal to the difference ${{\dot{E}}}({{r_{\rm shock}}}^+)-{{\dot{E}}}({{r_{\rm shock}}}^-)$ between the material energy [[flow rate directly]{}]{} across the shock. [[This is true]{}]{} for a zero-temperature gas (infinite Mach number), [[for which]{}]{} the potential energy is entirely converted in kinetic energy by the external potential. For finite temperatures, however, a (small) pressure gradient builds up ahead of the shock; in this case, only part of the change in potential energy serves to increase the kinetic energy, the remainder going into internal energy and thus, outside of phase transitions, into pressure. Also by energy conservation, $\Delta{{\dot{E}}}({{r_{\rm shock}}}^\pm)$ measured in the shock frame should be equal (up to a sign) to the change in the luminosity $\Delta L$ across the shock. However, in the case that the [[radiative]{}]{} precursor [@zeldovich67] is contained within the accretion region—roughly the Hill sphere—, it is not true anymore that ${{\dot{E}}}({{r_{\rm shock}}}^+)={{\dot{E}}}({{r_{\rm max}}})$. In fact, the luminosity upstream of the precursor [[can be]{}]{} smaller than downstream (i.e., the planet is invisible, at least in the grey approximation), which would lead to a negative efficiency if using $\Delta L$. Thus, $\Delta{{\dot{E}}}$ is a more useful numerator because it is intuitive and applicable both when the precursor reaches to ${{r_{\rm max}}}$ and not.
Note finally that the definition of Equation (\[Gl:etaphys\_DeltaLE\]) [[ takes into account the fact that even if the entire kinetic energy is converted to luminosity, the net efficiency can still be zero]{}]{} if this radiation is absorbed by the incoming material. This was seen by @vaytet13 in the case of Larson’s second core and estimated by @baraffe12 to be the case at high accretion rates in the context of magnetospheric accretion onto stars.
Thus, we will focus in this study on the efficiencies as defined above: on the classical, ‘kinetic’ efficiency $\etaklassisch$, which makes a direct statement about the energy conversion at the shock, with $\etaklassisch<100$ percent for either an isothermal shock at Mach number ${{\mathcal{M}}}\lesssim2.5$ [@commer11] or an non-isothermal shock; and on the ‘physical’ efficiency $\etaphys$, which indicates how much the upstream gas is able to recycle the energy liberated at the shock [@drake06].
### Post-shock entropy
The post-shock temperature and thus entropy depend on the thermal profile of the layers below the shock, which are expected to adjust to carry the luminosity from deeper down [@paxton13]. Since however we do not attempt to predict this luminosity accurately with our set-up of a truncated atmosphere, the reported temperature values will serve only as an indication. Moreover, there is a non-trivial relationship between the post-shock entropy values and their influence on the entropy of the planet’s deep adiabat; in particular, the post-shock material does not simply set, weigthed by mass, the interior entropy. This question is the subject of separate studies ([@berardo16], Marleau et al., in prep.), which however require the obtained post-shock entropies as boundary conditions.
Results: radial profiles and efficiencies
=========================================
We have performed a large number of simulations, varying physical parameters (mass, radius, accretion rate) but also computational or numerical settings (technique for accreting gas into the domain, outer temperature boundary condition, resolution, Courant number, etc.). For the latter, we select the most stable set-up (as described in Section \[Theil:Kode\] above), and present results for a typical combination relevant to core accretion formation calculations [@boden00; @morda12_I]. We look at the properties of the accretion shock for ${{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}=1.3~{{M_{\textnormal{J}}}}$, ${{\dot{M}}}=10^{-2}~{{M_{\oplus}}}\,\rm{yr}^{-1}$, and ${{r_{\rm shock}}}\approx1.8~{{R_{\textnormal{J}}}}$. The Bondi, Hill, and resulting accretion radius according to Equation (\[Gl:RAkk\]) are ${{R_{\textnormal{Bondi}}}}\approx4200~{{R_{\textnormal{J}}}}$, ${{R_{\textnormal{Hill}}}}\approx800~{{R_{\textnormal{J}}}}$, and ${{R_{\textnormal{acc}}}}\approx250~{{R_{\textnormal{J}}}}$ (for ${{T_{\textnormal{neb}}}}=150$ K and a solar-mass star, which however does not affect ${{R_{\textnormal{acc}}}}$ strongly). Figure \[Abb:Vergleich-1.259MJ\_MPkt1e-2\_rSchockca.1.7RJ\_Artikel1\] shows the detailed structure of the accretion flow near the shock for $\kappa=10^{-2}$ and 1 cm$^2$g$^{-1}$, as well as with the @bl94 opacities. For the EOS, we consider a hydrogen–helium mixture with a helium mass fraction $Y=0.25$ and cases where hydrogen is everywhere molecular ($\mu=2.353$, $\gamma=1.44$) or atomic ($\mu=1.23$, $\gamma=1.1$). The radial structures are as expected and show a number of typical features, which we discuss in the following.
Density, velocity, and pressure {#Theil:rho v P}
-------------------------------
The density and velocity reveal gas almost exactly free-falling onto a nearly hydrostatic atmosphere abruptly cut off at the shock. The mass in the total domain, dominated by the post-shock region, is typically $\Delta M\sim10^{-4}~{{M_{\oplus}}}$, making perfectly justified the neglect of the self-gravity of the gas. The density jumps at the shock by a factor $\rho_2/\rho_1\sim200$, where $\rho_2$ and $\rho_1$ are the post- and pre-shock density. [[Thanks to the transport of energy by radiation,]{}]{} this is a much larger compression than [[the infinite-Mach number limit]{}]{} for a hydrodynamical shock, where $\rho_2/\rho_1=(\gamma+1)/(\gamma-1)\approx4$ to 20 [[for $\gamma=\frac{5}{3}$ to 1.1]{}]{} [e.g., @mihalas84; @commer11]. As it falls deeper in the potential well of the planet, the gas slows down to slightly sub-free-fall speeds due to the pressure gradient caused by the increasing temperature and density. The post-shock pressure is given very accurately by the ram pressure of the incoming gas, $$P_{\rm post} = \Pram = \varrho v^2.$$ This differs slightly from the strong-shock (high-Mach-number), non-radiating case where $P_{\rm post} = 2/(\gamma+1) \varrho v^2$ [@drake06 his Equation 4.18], as we verified with a simulation using [[a higher]{}]{} $\gamma=5/3$ to increase the difference.
Optical depth, reduced flux, and radiation regime {#Theil:Deltatau,fred}
-------------------------------------------------
We begin by discussing the reduced flux. The reduced flux $$\label{Gl:fredDef}
{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}\equiv {{F_{\rm rad}}}/(c{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}})$$ is a *local* measure of the extent to which radiation is streaming freely (${{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}\rightarrow1$) or diffusing (${{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}\rightarrow0$). This is thus the more correct, physical measure of what is often loosely termed the optical depth, as discussed below. The reduced flux, radiation quantity $R$, and flux limiter $\lambda$ are related in general by ${{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}=\lambda(R)R$. Note that the effective speed of propagation of the photons is ${{c_{\textnormal{eff}}}}={{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}c$. Next, we consider the optical depth. For a free-fall profile with ${{R_{\textnormal{acc}}}}\gg{{r_{\rm shock}}}$ (so that $\rho\propto r^{-3/2}$) and a radially sufficiently constant opacity ($\kappa\propto r^{\alpha}$ with $|\alpha|\ll \frac{1}{2}$), the optical depth to the shock is
$$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\tau &=\int_{{r_{\rm shock}}}^\infty\kappa(r)\rho(r) {\rm d}r\\
&=2\kappa\rho{{r_{\rm shock}}}~~~\textnormal{(const.~$\kappa$)}, $$
where $\kappa\rho$ is evaluated at the shock[^2]. For the data of Figure \[Abb:Vergleich-1.259MJ\_MPkt1e-2\_rSchockca.1.7RJ\_Artikel1\], $\rho=1.5\times10^{-10}$ gcm$^{-3}$ upstream of the shock, so that $\Delta\tau=3.9\left(\kappa/1~\mbox{cm$^2$\,g$^{-1}$}\right)$. This agrees very well with the actual optical depths (measured from ${{r_{\rm max}}}=0.7{{R_{\textnormal{acc}}}}\approx250~{{R_{\textnormal{J}}}}$) in the constant-opacity cases. For the simulation with the @bl94 opacities, the estimate is moderately accurate, if one takes for $\kappa$ not the actual pre-shock value ($\kappa\sim10^{-5}$ cm$^2$g$^{-1}$, set by the gas) but rather a typical value ($\kappa\sim1$ cm$^2$g$^{-1}$) in the outer regions ($r\gtrsim40~{{R_{\textnormal{J}}}}$), where the dust is not destroyed. Also for non-constant opacities, then, the optical depth to the shock will be roughly given by $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta\tau \sim 3 \left(\frac{\kappa}{1~\mbox{cm$^2$\,g$^{-1}$}}\right) & \left(\frac{{{\dot{M}}}}{10^{-2}~{{M_{\oplus}}}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}}\right)\notag\\
&\times\sqrt{ \left(\frac{1~{{M_{\textnormal{J}}}}}{{{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}}\right) \left(\frac{2~{{R_{\textnormal{J}}}}}{{{r_{\rm shock}}}}\right) },\label{Gl:DeltaUngef}\end{aligned}$$ using that ${{\dot{M}}}=4\pi r^2\rho v$. Since the nebula should always be at temperatures lower than the dust destruction temperature ${{T_{\textnormal{dest}}}}\approx1500$ K, the high opacity of the dust will always contribute to the optical depth. Therefore, independently of whether dust is destroyed in the inner parts of the flow, close to the shock, the opacity to insert in Equation (\[Gl:DeltaUngef\]) should be of order $\kappa\sim1$ cm$^2$g$^{-1}$.
Secondly, [[writing ${{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}={{F_{\rm rad}}}/(c{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}})\propto L/(r^2{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}})$, it is clear that]{}]{} when $L/{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}$ is locally spatially constant ($L/{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}\propto r^{\beta}$ with $|\beta|\ll 2$), the radiation quantity $R=1/(\kappa\rho)\left|\partial\ln{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}/\partial r\right|$ is given by $R\approx 2/(\kappa\rho r)$ where $\kappa\rho$ and $r$ are evaluated locally[^3]. This result applies in general, independently of the radiation regime (diffusion or free streaming).
Combining these observations leads to the result that, in the case of constant opacity and $L/{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}$, the reduced flux upstream of the shock is
\[Gl:fredvonDeltau\_approx\] $$\begin{aligned}
{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}({{r_{\rm shock}}}^+) &= \lambda\left(\frac{4}{\Delta\tau}\right)\times\frac{4}{\Delta\tau}\label{Gl:fredvonDeltau}\\
&\approx \left(\frac{3}{4}\Delta\tau+1\right)^{-1},\end{aligned}$$
where the second line would be an equality for the simple flux limiter $\lambda=1/(3+R)$ [@leblancwilson70; @lever84; @ensman94]. We will return to this result in Section \[Theil:DiskussionT\]. For a non-constant opacity, Equation (\[Gl:fredvonDeltau\_approx\]) provides in fact an approximate lower bound of ${{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}({{r_{\rm shock}}}^+)$ given $\Delta\tau$ or vice versa: indeed, a low opacity in front of the shock will drive down ${{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}$ (compared to the prediction of Equation (\[Gl:fredvonDeltau\_approx\])) but without decreasing much the total optical depth. This highlights the conceptual independence between the (non-local) optical depth and the (local) radiation transport regime (free-streaming or diffusion).
The optical depths from the shock out to ${{r_{\rm max}}}\approx{{R_{\textnormal{acc}}}}$ are $\Delta\tau\approx2$–5 for all except the $\kappa=10^{-2}$ cm$^2$g$^{-1}$ simulation, which has $\Delta\tau\approx3\times10^{-2}$. (A comparison run with the dust opacities of @semenov03 and the gas opacities of @malygin14 yielded very similar profiles and optical depths.) [[In the $\kappa\neq10^{-2}$ cm$^2$g$^{-1}$ simulations,]{}]{} the shock would therefore be called ‘optically thick’. However, the effective speed of light ${{c_{\textnormal{eff}}}}={{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}c\gtrsim0.3c$ throughout the flow (see below), which is still orders of magnitude larger than the gas flow speed $v\sim10^{-4}c$. This is the regime @mihalas84 term ‘static diffusion’. Therefore, the radiation is able to diffuse into the incoming gas, heating it up out to the edge of the computation grid, near the accretion radius. In other words, the shock precursor is larger than the Hill radius, which implies that the radiation should be able to escape from the system to at least the local disk. In this sense, the shock for these parameter values is an optically thick–thin shock (down- and upstream, respectively) in the classification of @drake06. [[That despite the somewhat high optical depth the shock is not equivalent to a hydrodynamical shock is already hinted at by the large compression ratio pointed out in Section \[Theil:rho v P\]. ]{}]{}
Temperature {#Theil:DiskussionT}
-----------
### Shock temperature
For all choices of $\kappa$ and the EOS ($\gamma$, $\mu$), the temperatures immediately up- and downstream of the shock are essentially equal, i.e., there is no jump in the temperature. This is thus a *supercritical* shock [@zeldovich67], in which the downstream gas is able to pre-heat the incoming gas up to the post-shock temperature. Note that the 1-$T$ approach to the radiation transport used here cannot reveal the Zel’dovich spike expected in the gas temperature. This feature of radiation-hydrodynamical shocks consists of a sharp increase of the gas temperature immediately behind the shock, followed by a quick decrease in a ‘radiative relaxion region’, while the radiation temperature remains essentially constant ([@zeldovich67; @mihalas84; @stahlerI]; see @drake07 and @vaytetgonz13 for a more detailed description). However, this is not of concern since this spike is very thin both spatially (physically, a few molecular mean free paths, broadened in simulations to a few grid cells; e.g., [@ensman94; @vaytetgonz13]; Marleau et al. in prep.) and in optical depth, and below the Zel’dovich spike, the matter and radiation equilibrate again. Therefore, the Zel’dovich spike should affect neither the post-shock temperature or entropy nor the shock efficiency. A possible disequilibrium in temperatures just upstream of the shock will be explored in a forthcoming publication. We find shock temperatures of ${{T_{\rm shock}}}\approx2500$ K for the cases with a low pre-shock opacity ($\kappa=10^{-2}$ cm$^2$g$^{-1}$ or with @bl94), but ${{T_{\rm shock}}}\approx3500$ K for the other two cases, both with $\kappa=1$ cm$^2$g$^{-1}$. These temperature values (and their relatively large difference of 1000 K) can be understood from an analytical estimate, presented next. Firstly, one can always write $$\label{Gl:F_rSchock^+-}
F({{r_{\rm shock}}}^+) = F({{r_{\rm shock}}}^-) + \etaklassisch\frac{1}{2}\rho \vSch^3,
$$ where here $\rho$ is the density just ahead of the shock, $\vSch$ is the velocity at the same location, and $\etaklassisch$ is the ‘kinetic-energy loss efficiency’, discussed in Section \[Theil:eta\]. In general, the flux on either side of the flux is $F({{r_{\rm shock}}}^\pm) = {{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}^\pm c a T^4({{r_{\rm shock}}}^\pm)$, where ${{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}^\pm\equiv{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}({{r_{\rm shock}}}^\pm)$ and $a$ is the radiation constant, related to the Stefan–Boltzmann constant ${{\sigma}}$ by $ac=4{{\sigma}}$. Note that here ${{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}={{F_{\rm rad}}}/c{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}$ should be negative (one usually implicitly takes the norm) if the downstream radiation is flowing inward (${{F_{\rm rad}}}<0$). For an isothermal shock at ${{T_{\rm shock}}}$, Equation (\[Gl:F\_rSchock\^+-\]) then implies that $$\label{Gl:TSchock_rauh}
{{\sigma}}{{T_{\rm shock}}}^4 = \frac{\etaklassisch}{4\Delta{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}} \frac{\rho \vSch^3}{2},$$ where $\Delta{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}\equiv{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}^+-{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}^-$. Combining with Equations (\[Gl:DeltaUngef\]) and (\[Gl:fredvonDeltau\_approx\]) yields the estimates for an isothermal shock
$$\begin{aligned}
{{T_{\rm shock}}}(\Delta\tau\ll1) \approx &~2315~{\rm K} \left(\frac{{{r_{\rm shock}}}}{2~{{R_{\textnormal{J}}}}}\right)^{-3/4} \notag \\ &\left(\frac{{{\dot{M}}}}{10^{-2}~{{M_{\oplus}}}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}}\right)^{1/4}
\left(\frac{M}{1~{{M_{\textnormal{J}}}}}\right)^{1/4}\\
{{T_{\rm shock}}}(\Delta\tau\gg1) \approx &~2710~{\rm K} \left(\frac{{{r_{\rm shock}}}}{2~{{R_{\textnormal{J}}}}}\right)^{7/8} \left(\frac{\kappa}{1~{\rm cm}^2\,{\rm g}^{-1}}\right)^{1/4} \notag \\ &\left(\frac{{{\dot{M}}}}{10^{-2}~{{M_{\oplus}}}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}}\right)^{1/2}
\left(\frac{M}{1~{{M_{\textnormal{J}}}}}\right)^{1/8} \label{Gl:TisothkonstLetakin100},\end{aligned}$$
where a $\left({\etaklassisch}\right)^{1/4}$ factor was left out on the right-hand sides since we find it is $\approx1$ (see Section \[Theil:eta\]). The first expression used that, by Equation (\[Gl:fredvonDeltau\_approx\]), $\Delta\tau\ll1$ implies ${{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}^+\approx 1$, and further took ${{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}^-\ll{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}^+$. The second case is somewhat crude for non-constant opacities. This assumes a constant luminosity in the shock’s near upstream vicinity. Since the post-shock region is very dense, ${{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}^-$ is small; this is equivalent to neglecting the downstream luminosity, which is related in a non-trivial way to the interior luminosity of the planet ([@berardo16]; Marleau et al., in prep.).
The filled circles in Figure \[Abb:Vergleich-1.259MJ\_MPkt1e-2\_rSchockca.1.7RJ\_Artikel1\] show the lower bound of Equation (\[Gl:TisothkonstLetakin100\]). The simulations with a low pre-shock opacity [[($\kappa=10^{-2}$ cm$^2$g$^{-1}$]{}]{} or with @bl94) have ${{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}\approx1$ upstream of the shock and indeed have a temperature given by Equation (\[Gl:TisothkonstLetakin100\]), whereas in the other cases a higher temperature is needed to carry a similar luminosity. The difference is quite large and nearly 1000 K. One way of thinking about this is that the effective speed of light is lower than $c$, so that ${{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}$ must increase in order to reach the same ${{F_{\rm rad}}}=c_{\rm eff}{{E_{\textnormal{rad}}}}$.
Interestingly, the molecular- and atomic-hydrogen cases lead to a very similar temperature ${{T_{\rm shock}}}=3500$ K. The phase diagram indicates that the atomic-hydrogen simulation with $\kappa=1$ cm$^2$g$^{-1}$ is self-consistent, but that the case with atomic hydrogen and detailed opacities leads to temperatures and densities where the dissociation process (and thus a varying $\mu$ and $\gamma$) would be important. One can already anticipate the result that, for an isothermal shock, the hydrogen should *recombine* in part through the shock (Marleau et al., in prep.) since at fixed temperature the abundance of H$_2$ increases with density.
Note that @stahlerI [their Equation 24] present an estimate similar to Equation (\[Gl:TSchock\_rauh\]) in the context of stellar accretion. Their assumptions about the reprocessing of shock photons[^4] imply that, when ${{F_{\rm rad}}}({{r_{\rm shock}}}^-)\ll{{F_{\rm rad}}}({{r_{\rm shock}}}^+)$ and neglecting their $T_d$ term, $\Delta{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}\approx{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}}^+\approx1/3$ automatically. @commer11 [their Equation 22 or 53] give a formula [[similar to Equation (\[Gl:TSchock\_rauh\]) in the limiting case $\etaklassisch=1$]{}]{} but do not include the [[factor]{}]{} $1/(4\Delta{{f_{\textnormal{red}}}})$. [[This is because they equate the temperature at the shock with the *effective* temperature needed to radiate away the kinetic energy, increasing the temperature estimate by $\approx40$ $\approx1200$ K for ${{T_{\textnormal{s}}}}\approx3000$ K]{}]{}.
### Temperature profile
Equation (\[Gl:fredDef\]) implies that, if the luminosity and the reduced flux are radially roughly constant, $T\propto r^{-1/2}$ since $L=4\pi r^2 {{F_{\rm rad}}}$, independently of the optical depth to the shock. This is the case for the constant-$\kappa$ simulations but not so for the tabulated opacities (at larger radial distances than shown).
Note that if the temperature increased solely due to adiabatic compression, i.e., at constant entropy in the absence of radiation transport, we would have $T\propto \varrho^{\gamma-1}\propto r^{-1.5(\gamma-1)}$, i.e., $T\propto r^{-0.15}$ or $T\propto r^{-0.66}$ for $\gamma=1.1$ or $1.44$, respectively. Thus, when $T\propto r^{-1/2}$, entropy decreases inward if $\gamma>4/3\approx1.33$.
Entropy
-------
To compute the entropy, we use the Sackur–Tetrode equation [e.g., @mc14; @berardo16 and references therein] for an ideal gas composed of H$_2$ and He or H and He:
\[Gl:EntroSackurTetrode\] $$\begin{aligned}
S_{\textrm{H}_2\mbox{--}\textrm{He}} =& \,8.80 + 3.38\log_{10}\left(\frac{T}{1000~{\rm K}}\right)\notag \\
&- 1.01\log_{10}\left({P\over 1\ {\rm bar}}\right),\\
S_{\textrm{H}\mbox{--}\textrm{He}} =&
\,13.47 + 4.68\log_{10} \left(\frac{T}{1000~{\rm K}}\right)\notag \\
&- 1.87\log_{10}\left({P\over 1\ {\rm bar}}\right),\end{aligned}$$
respectively, using $Y=0.243$, [[and where the entropies are in units of Boltzmann’s constant per baryon, ${{k_{\textnormal{B}}}}/\mbox{baryon}$]{}]{}. In Figure \[Abb:Vergleich-1.259MJ\_MPkt1e-2\_rSchockca.1.7RJ\_Artikel1\], we see that the entropy *decreases* across the shock by $|\Delta S|\approx2.5$ and 4.0 ${{k_{\textnormal{B}}}}/\mbox{baryon}$ for the molecular and atomic case, respectively. [[(In general but for constant $\gamma$ and $\mu$, the jump in entropy at an isothermal shock is $\Delta S = -2.303/\mu\times \log_{10}(\gamma{{\mathcal{M}}}^2)$ in units of ${{k_{\textnormal{B}}}}/\mbox{baryon}$.)]{}]{} That the entropy decreases through this shock is actually in agreement with the statement that entropy increases across a hydrodynamical shock. Indeed, once it arrives at the radiative shock found here, the gas has already seen its entropy increase from the value far outside of the precursor. (In the case that the precursor is larger than the simulation domain, as applies for these simulations, this ‘far-field’ value cannot be obtained directly. [[However, already at ${{r_{\rm max}}}$ is the entropy much lower than downstream of the shock.]{}]{}) Thus the radiative shock which is the subject of this work can be thought as being embedded in a usual hydrodynamical shock, a ‘shock within a shock’ [@mihalas84], or a hydrodynamical shock as being a radiative shock with an infinitely [[or unresolved]{}]{} thin precursor. Separate test simulations with extremely high opacity values ($\kappa=10^2$ cm$^2$g$^{-1}$), such that the precursor is contained in the simulation domain, confirm that the post-shock entropy is higher than the entropy far away from the shock.
The post-shock entropies are respectively $S\approx12$ and 20 ${{k_{\textnormal{B}}}}/\mbox{baryon}$ for the molecular and atomic cases. Compared to the range of entropies seen for cold starts to hot starts ($S\approx8$–14 ${{k_{\textnormal{B}}}}/\mbox{baryon}$; [@marl07; @spiegel12; @morda13]), this is an extremely large difference, which is due mostly to the different mean molecular weights. Moreover, it highlights the importance of using a self-consistent EOS which follows in particular the dissociation of hydrogen. However, the entropy values do not depend sensitively on the precise opacity (see Figure \[Abb:Vergleich-1.259MJ\_MPkt1e-2\_rSchockca.1.7RJ\_Artikel1\]). Finally, it is important to remember that these entropy values are meant to be rather indicative at this stage. First of all, they are not entirely self-consistent with the probable state of the hydrogen in all parts of the domain (see the phase diagram in Figure \[Abb:Vergleich-1.259MJ\_MPkt1e-2\_rSchockca.1.7RJ\_Artikel1\]). Second of all, what they actually imply for the post-formation entropy needs to be worked out separately, with a study of the post-shock settling region and its coupling to the planet interior ([@berardo16], Marleau et al., in prep.).
Luminosity
----------
The luminosity increases from the imposed $L=0$ value at ${{r_{\rm min}}}$ to the shock where it jumps by a finite amount $\Delta L$, then decreasing with radius. The value of $L$ downstream of the shock reflects in part the cooling of the layers below it, and is set in reality also by (inefficient) convective energy transport, which we do not attempt to include in these simulations. Thus the post-shock gas will probably have a different thermal history than if the layers were allowed to sink further down into the planet instead of stopping at most at ${{r_{\rm min}}}$. Nevertheless, the obtained immediate post-shock luminosities are roughly ${{L_{\rm downstr}}}\approx3\times10^{-4}~{{L_{\odot}}}$ and thus have values comparable to the (rough) internal luminosities of accreting planets (Mordasini et al., submitted). Therefore, the inclusion of convection or similar changes to the temperature structure should not lead to very different values for the post-shock region.
A general feature of these shock simulations is that $L$ decreases radially outward. This is not due to absorption of the light with optical depth according to $L\propto \exp{(-\Delta\tau)}$, as one might naively expect, but rather reflects energy conservation. To derive this, we start with the total energy equation [e.g., @kuiper10], $$\label{Gl:EnGlallg}
\frac{d{{E_{\textnormal{tot}}}}}{dt} + \nabla\cdot([{{E_{\textnormal{kin}}}}+H] v + {{F_{\rm rad}}}) = \varrho v\cdot g,$$ where the total energy volume density is ${{E_{\textnormal{tot}}}}={{E_{\textnormal{kin}}}}+H$, with ${{E_{\textnormal{kin}}}}=\frac{1}{2}\rho v^2$, and the enthalpy is $H={{E_{\textnormal{int}}}}+P$ for an internal energy density ${{E_{\textnormal{int}}}}$. For a constant EOS, ${{E_{\textnormal{int}}}}=\rho{{c_{\textnormal{v}}}}T=\rho/(\gamma-1)\times{{k_{\textnormal{B}}}}T/(\mu{{m_{\textnormal{H}}}})=1/(\gamma-1)\times P$, where ${{c_{\textnormal{v}}}}$ is the heat capacity. It is easy to verify that the thermal timescales are much shorter than the dynamical timescales, so that the flow is in steady state and the time derivative $d{{E_{\textnormal{tot}}}}/dt$ can be neglected. Also, ${{\dot{M}}}$ is constant radially. Remembering that $\nabla\cdot F = 1/r^2d/dr(r^2 F)$ for a vector $F$, Equation (\[Gl:EnGlallg\]) becomes $$\label{Gl:dLdr}
\frac{dL}{dr} = {{\dot{M}}}\frac{dh}{dr} + {{\dot{M}}}\frac{d}{dr}
\left(\frac{1}{2}v^2 - \frac{G{{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}}{r}\right),$$ where $h=H/\rho$ is the specific enthalpy per mass and is $h=\gamma/(\gamma-1){{k_{\textnormal{B}}}}T/(\mu{{m_{\textnormal{H}}}})$ for a constant EOS. The accretion rate ${{\dot{M}}}$ was taken to be positive here, i.e., ${{\dot{M}}}=|4\pi r^2\rho v|$, [[and one can trivially replace $G{{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}/r$ by $G{{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}\left(1/r-1/{{R_{\textnormal{acc}}}}\right)$.]{}]{} [[If the second term on the righthand side of Equation (\[Gl:dLdr\]) is small,]{}]{} Equation (\[Gl:dLdr\]) shows that the radial decrease in $L$ is [[mostly]{}]{} due to the inward increase in enthalpy. Therefore, it is not an explicit function of the optical depth, although $T(r)$ and thus $h(T)$ are indirectly set by the opacity. Note that this derivation is valid for a general EOS (with variable effective $\gamma$) and also does not depend on the opacity being constant.
Equation (\[Gl:dLdr\]) can be integrated to yield, [[when the second term on the righthand side of Equation (\[Gl:dLdr\]) is negligible]{}]{}, $$\label{Gl:L-Abfall(r)}
L(r)-{{L_{\rm downstr}}}= \Delta L({{r_{\rm shock}}})\left[1 - \frac{{{\dot{M}}}\Delta h(r)}{\Delta L({{r_{\rm shock}}})}\right],$$ where $\Delta L({{r_{\rm shock}}}) = \etaklassisch{{L_{\rm acc,~max}}}$ is the jump in luminosity at the shock, and $\Delta h(r)\equiv h({{r_{\rm shock}}})-h(r)$ is the change in enthalpy relative to the shock, with $\Delta h>0$ for outwards decreasing [[enthalpy]{}]{}. This result seems plausible: the inward enthalpy flux is comparable to the outward radiation flux only when the [[infalling]{}]{} gas absorbs a significant fraction of the radiation [[and thus decreases $L$]{}]{}. The maximal drop in luminosity [[occurs for $h({{r_{\rm max}}})\ll h({{r_{\rm shock}}})$, i.e., when the effective nebula temperature ${{T_{\textnormal{neb}}}}\ll{{T_{\rm shock}}}$. This leads to $L({{r_{\rm max}}})-L({{r_{\rm shock}}}^+)=-{{\dot{M}}}h({{T_{\rm shock}}})$.]{}]{}
Efficiencies {#Theil:eta}
------------
Next we show in Figure \[Abb:eta\] the main result for the examples of Figure \[Abb:Vergleich-1.259MJ\_MPkt1e-2\_rSchockca.1.7RJ\_Artikel1\], the loss efficiency $\etaphys$ of the accretion shock. We recall that $\etaphys=0$ would correspond to all the kinetic energy of the gas being absorbed by the planet and the gas [[being accreted]{}]{}, while $\etaphys=100$ percent would correspond to the entire kinetic energy being radiated away when going out to the accretion radius ${{R_{\textnormal{acc}}}}$, roughly the Hill sphere (here approximated by the outer radius near ${{R_{\textnormal{acc}}}}$). Contrary to $\etaklassisch$, [[$\etaphys$]{}]{} takes into account the energy recycling which occurs due to the incoming gas absorbing the radiation liberated at the shock [[(see Equation (\[Gl:etaphys\_DeltaLE\]) and the discussion below Equation (\[Gl:DeltaPhi\]))]{}]{}. We find that they are $\etaphys\approx85$ percent for the atomic-hydrogen cases with different opacities, and $\etaphys\approx95$ percent for the molecular case. Thus, a fraction $1-\etaphys\approx5$–15 percent of the total incoming energy is added to the planet. How significant this is for the energy budget of the planet can be assessed by comparing $(1-\etaphys){{\dot{E}}}({{r_{\rm max}}})$ to the internal luminosity of the planet. For these simulations, both are typically of the same order of magnitude, implying that the accreting gas is able to heat the downstream region. As mentioned above, how this then affects the entropy and luminosity of the planet and their evolution will have to be studied separately.
We show also the efficiencies from simulations covering a range of accretion rates ${{\dot{M}}}=10^{-5}$–$10^{-2}~{{M_{\oplus}}}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$, masses ${{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}\approx0.3$–10 ${{M_{\textnormal{J}}}}$, and shock locations ${{r_{\rm shock}}}\approx1$–$20~{{R_{\textnormal{J}}}}$, and varying again the opacity. At the largest radii, efficiencies down to almost 20 percent are reached, and to 99 percent at the other extreme. By contrast, the ‘kinetic efficiency’ is $\etaklassisch\approx100$ percent (up to the numerical accuracy of the code given the resolution) for all simulations shown in Figure \[Abb:eta\], with $(1-\etaklassisch){{E_{\textnormal{tot}}}}$ smaller by orders of magnitude than ${{L_{\textnormal{p}}}}$. In other words, the entire kinetic energy is converted to an immediate jump in the luminosity as the gas is brought to subsonic speeds through the shock. However, a significant fraction does get reabsorbed in the accretion flow, leading to the lower $\etaphys$ values. Nevertheless, we find generally that the precursor is greater than the accretion radius, which is of order of the Hill radius. The optical depths from the shock to the Hill sphere are at most $\Delta\tau\sim30$, and using a variable equation of state (which would yield other temperatures) should not change this significantly. We therefore expect the radiation to always be able to escape from the shock to the local disk (the nebula).
These numerical results can be compared to analytical theory for radiative shocks. @drake06 [his equation 7.82] derived that the kinetic efficiency of a shock in which radiation pressure is negligible is in general given by $$\etaklassisch \equiv \frac{\Delta F}{\frac{1}{2}\varrho_-{v_-}^3}= 1 +
\frac{2}{(\gamma-1){{{\mathcal{M}}}}^2}\frac{\mathfrak{r}-1}{\mathfrak{r}}+\frac{\gamma+1}{\gamma-1}\frac{1}{\mathfrak{r}^2}.$$ where $\mathfrak{r}\equiv \rho_2/\rho_1$ is the ratio of the post-shock to the pre-shock density. For isothermal shocks (as we find here), $\mathfrak{r}=\gamma {{\mathcal{M}}}^2$, and @commer11 show that the efficiency is then $$\label{Gl:etaisoth_klass}
\etaklassisch_{\textrm{isoth}}=1 - \frac{1}{\gamma^2{{\mathcal{M}}}^4}.$$ [[Thus a higher Mach number leads to a higher fraction of the incoming kinetic energy being converted to radiation for an isothermal shock. ]{}]{} Since the total energy flux is
$$\begin{aligned}
\varrho v{{e_{\textnormal{tot}}}}&= \varrho v\left(\frac{1}{2}v^2 + h\right)\\
&= \frac{1}{2}\varrho v^3\left(1 + \frac{2}{\gamma-1}\frac{1}{{{\mathcal{M}}}^2}\right), $$
we can derive that the physical efficiency, as measured by $\Delta L$ at the shock, is $$\label{Gl:etaisoth_phys}
\etaphys_{\textrm{isoth}} = \etaklassisch_{\textrm{isoth}} \times \left(1 + \frac{2}{\gamma-1}\frac{1}{{{\mathcal{M}}}^2}\right)^{-1}.$$ Therefore, the physical efficiency is lower than the kinetic since the former considers the heating of the radiative precursor. In other words, not all radiation liberated at the shock can leave the planet, and therefore gets incorporated in the planet’s entropy. Note that naively, one might expect in strongly supersonic flows (${{\mathcal{M}}}=v/{{c_{\rm s}}}\gg1$) the internal energy (measured by ${{c_{\rm s}}}^2$) to be negligible compared to the kinetic energy (measured by $v^2$), but the $2/(\gamma-1)$ factor can make this assumption cruder than expected, especially for low $\gamma$ values; for instance, when $\gamma=1.1$ and even with a high Mach number ${{\mathcal{M}}}=10$, the factor $2/{{\mathcal{M}}}^2(\gamma-1)$ is $0.2$, i.e., a 20 per cent contribution. The Mach numbers range from ${{\mathcal{M}}}\approx3$–20, and the $\etaphys_{\textrm{isoth}}$ curve is compared to the data in Figure \[Abb:eta\] for $\gamma=1.1$ and $\gamma=1.44$. The agreement is excellent. The deviation from the theoretical curve, seen for a few simulations, is possibly due to small measurement errors related to the identification of the shock region, and to inaccuracies in the measurement of the velocity at which the shock is spreading; this speed becomes somewhat important (at the several-percent level) at low Mach numbers. However, the overall agreement is excellent, independent of the opacity and optical depth in the flow (not shown).
At least for the constant EOS used here, these simulations and other tests indicate that extreme parameter values (e.g., ${{\dot{M}}}>10^{-1}~{{M_{\oplus}}}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ or $\kappa>100$ cm$^2$g$^{-1}$) would be needed to obtain a shock with a Mach number ${{\mathcal{M}}}\lesssim2$, in which $\etaklassisch$ would clearly be lower than 100 percent. Note that, while ${{v_{\textnormal{ff}}}}\propto \sqrt{{{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}}$, very small masses are not sufficient to obtain a lower Mach number since ${{\mathcal{M}}}\propto v/\sqrt{T}$; at lower masses, the temperature in the pre-shock region too is smaller, which does not let ${{\mathcal{M}}}$ get much lower than about 3.
Discussion and Summary
======================
We have studied spherically symmetric gas accretion onto a gas giant during the detached runaway phase, when the gas falls freely from the accretion radius (of order of the Hill radius) onto the planet, where it shocks. We determine the radiative efficiency of the shock at the planet’s surface and argue that this should be defined with the total incoming energy flux, i.e., taking both the kinetic but also the internal energy into account. Even if, at a Mach number ${{\mathcal{M}}}=4$, an isothermal shock converts 100 percent of the incoming kinetic energy into radiation, [[only 77 percent (40 percent) for $\gamma=1.44$ ($\gamma=1.1$) ultimately escape, with 23 percent (60 percent) absorbed by the infalling gas and therefore reaccreted to the system.]{}]{} This efficiency has direct observational consequences as it controls the amount of radiation which leaves the planet and is possibly observable. The efficiency is also important since the complementary fraction is carried through the shock into the settling region, where the gas is being incorporated to the planet. To the best of our knowledge, the energetics of the shock have not yet been studied in detail as we have done, yet are thought to be key in determining the post-formation thermal state of gas giants, with several orders of magnitude of difference in the resulting luminosity between the two extreme cases, hot and cold starts.
We have considered both constant and tabulated opacities [@bl94] but have only used a constant equation of state to concentrate on the shock physics. Therefore, the numerical results are rather illustrative in a quantitative sense, but the qualitative behavior of the radial profiles and the derived results revealed a number of interesting features. We find the following:
1. The shock was observed always to be isothermal, which corresponds in the classical terminology to a supercritical shock [@stahlerI; @mihalas84].
2. The effective speed of light of the escaping photons is always much larger than the gas flow speed, so that the upstream region is in the ‘static diffusion’ regime [@mihalas84].
3. Our radiation-hydrodynamics simulations confirm, over a large range of Mach numbers, the theoretical expression for the efficiency given by @commer11 [our Equation \[Gl:etaisoth\_klass\]].
4. Unrealistically high constant opacity values were separately verified to be needed to cause the luminosity generated at the shock to be completely absorbed in the precursor, ahead of the shock region. For reasonable constant or tabulated opacities, all luminosity profiles are qualitatively similar, decreasing by some amount with increasing [[distance and with a non-zero value at the outer edge (see last point below)]{}]{}. An analytical formula is derived for the drop based on energy conservation and shows that, [[roughly,]{}]{} the decrease in luminosity is significant only if the incoming gas carries a significant amount of energy compared to the accretion luminosity.
5. We generally find higher shock temperatures then predicted by the usual estimate of the shock temperature, Equation (\[Gl:TisothkonstLetakin100\]). We show analytically that this is a lower bound. The shock temperature being higher is due to the radiation of the pre-shock matter. (The difference between the actual and estimated temperature can be large—[[near]{}]{} 1000 K in our examples—, enough to possibly change the state of the gas significantly, from molecular to atomic.) This leads to lower Mach numbers and thus overall lower efficiencies of the shock.
6. The entropy was seen to decrease across the shock since it is in fact the *radiative* shock embedded in the hydrodynamical shock; over the latter, the entropy does increase as expected. The decrease $\Delta S$ was found to be large, with $\Delta S\approx 1.5$–4 ${{k_{\textnormal{B}}}}/\mbox{baryon}$ for the examples considered. Thus the shock is very efficient in radiating away the entropy of the shocked gas. The post-shock values were seen to be clearly high ($S>12~{{k_{\textnormal{B}}}}/\mbox{baryon}$), with the choice for the EOS making a significant difference. We however point out that the obtained densities and temperatures were not consistent with the assumed (constant) mean molecular weight and heat capacity. Therefore the entropy values, while consistent within the parameter choices for the simulations, should in general be expected to be different when using a non-constant complete equation of state. This will be the subject of Paper II.
7. For most of the formation parameter space, nearly all of the kinetic energy is radiated away at the shock, i.e., $\etaklassisch\approx100$ per cent. This is in agreement with the analytical formula of @drake06 and @commer11, which predicts $\etaklassisch\approx100$ percent for sufficiently high upstream Mach numbers (${{\mathcal{M}}}\gtrsim3$). However, it is important to remember that the Mach number itself depends on the shock temperature, which is an *outcome* of the simulations and can at best only be estimated beforehand.
8. However, most importantly, we found that the physical (or “planet-heating”) efficiency is usually smaller than 100 percent, with values down to $\etaphys\approx20$ percent for a reasonable range of parameter values. This energy flux coming into the planet is often comparable to or in fact much higher than its internal luminosity, suggesting that the accretion process can play an important role also energetically. The complementary fraction of the accretion luminosity should reach at least the Hill sphere, and may even have already been detected for a few low-mass objects in the form of H $\alpha$ emission [@close14; @quanz15; @sallum15].
The next steps will be to extend our analysis to cases of a non-constant EOS to obtain realistic values for the efficiencies, and to verify the assumption of perfect gas–radiation coupling (the 1-$T$ assumption) with 2-$T$ radiation transport calculations. Then, we will couple these efficiency results to formation calculations, especially in the framework of population synthesis, to make predictions of the post-formation luminosity of gas giants.
Beyond this, due to the generality of our approach, we can easily perform these shock calculations not only in the context of core accretion but also more generally. Indeed, these calculations apply also to magnetospheric accretion [@koenigl91; @lovelace11], where high-density accretion columns hit the surface of the star; a similar accretion geometry is a possibility in the context of planet formation ([@katarzy16]; Marleau et al., in prep.). Also we could easily adapt the parameters (mass, shock radius) to values appropriate for the flow geometry revealed by global three-dimensional simulations [@dangelokley03; @tanigawa12; @szul16], where gas falls from high latitudes and shocks on the circumplanetary disk.
The authors acknowledge the valuable support of Th. Henning for this project. This work has benefitted greatly from discussions with P. Mollière, [[and we thank also the referee, G. Chabrier, as well as A. Cumming, N. Turner, W. Benz, W. Kley, M. Ikoma, and R. Pudritz for discussions and insightful comments. K.-M. Dittkrist, M. Schulik, S. Ataiee, and A. Emsenhuber are also thanked for useful conversations]{}]{}. The simulations presented here were performed on the `ba(t)chelor` cluster at the MPIA. G-DM gratefully acknowledges a research fellowship of the International Max-Planck Research School for Astronomy and Cosmic Physics in Heidelberg (IMPRS-HD). G-DM and CM acknowledge support from the Swiss National Science Foundation under grant BSSGI0\_155816 “PlanetsInTime”. Parts of this work have been carried out within the frame of the National Centre for Competence in Research PlanetS supported by the SNSF. RK acknowledges financial support within the Emmy Noether research group on “Accretion Flows and Feedback in Realistic Models of Massive Star Formation” funded by the German Research Foundation under grant no. KU 2849/3-1.
Relevant parameter space {#Anh:Schockabschaetzung}
========================
Here we estimate the temperature and density values relevant for the shock by using the ${{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}$, ${{R_{\textnormal{p}}}}$, ${{\dot{M}}}$, and $\Lint$ values from the population synthesis of @morda12_I. (These data and many more are available on the Data Analysis Centre for Exoplanets (DACE) platform at <https://dace.unige.ch/evolution/index>.) Figure \[Abb:ungefSchPopSynth\_kalt\] shows the lower bound to the shock temperature for an isothermal shock (Equation (\[Gl:TisothkonstLetakin100\])) using the free-fall velocity (Equation (\[Gl:vFf\])), and the pre-shock density, given by Equation (\[Gl:rhoFf\]). We consider ${{M_{\textnormal{p}}}}\approx0.2$–$30~{{M_{\textnormal{J}}}}$ and ${{\dot{M}}}\approx10^{-4}$–10$^{-2}~{{M_{\oplus}}}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$, with ${{r_{\rm shock}}}\approx1$–30 ${{R_{\textnormal{J}}}}$. Comparing to the contours of constant $\gamma$ and the rough $\varrho$–$T$ region were dust is destroyed and the opacity drops from $\sim1$ to $\sim10^{-2}$ cm$^2$g$^{-1}$, one can expect for ${{\dot{M}}}\lesssim10^{-5}~{{M_{\oplus}}}\,{\rm yr}^{-1}$ the hydrogen to remain molecular and dust to be only partially destroyed. At higher accretion rates, however, i.e., for most of the parameter space of interest here, both dissociation and dust destruction are expected to play a role.
, P., & [Bildsten]{}, L. 2006, [, 650, 394](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/506011)
, B. A., & [Bate]{}, M. R. 2009, [, 393, 49](http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14184.x)
, I., [Vorobyov]{}, E., & [Chabrier]{}, G. 2012, [, 756, 118](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/756/2/118)
, K. R., & [Lin]{}, D. N. C. 1994, [, 427, 987](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/174206)
, D., [Cumming]{}, A., & [Marleau]{}, G.-D. 2016, [ArXiv e-prints]{}, [[arXiv:1609.09126 \[astro-ph.EP\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.09126)
, B. A., [Liu]{}, M. C., [Wahhaj]{}, Z., [et al.]{} 2013, [, 777, 160](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/777/2/160)
, P., [Hubickyj]{}, O., & [Lissauer]{}, J. J. 2000, [, 143, 2](http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/icar.1999.6246)
, B. P. 2016, [ArXiv e-prints]{}, [[arXiv:1605.02731 \[astro-ph.EP\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1605.02731)
, T. D., [McElwain]{}, M. W., [Turner]{}, E. L., [et al.]{} 2014, [, 794, 159](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/794/2/159)
, G., [Lagrange]{}, A.-M., [Dumas]{}, C., [et al.]{} 2004, [, 425, L29](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:200400056)
, C., & [Gaudi]{}, B. S. 2015, [ArXiv e-prints]{}, [[arXiv:1508.04434 \[astro-ph.EP\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1508.04434)
, L. M., [Follette]{}, K. B., [Males]{}, J. R., [et al.]{} 2014, [, 781, L30](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/781/2/L30)
, B., [Audit]{}, E., [Chabrier]{}, G., & [Chi[è]{}ze]{}, J.-P. 2011, [, 530, A13](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201016213)
, G., & [Bodenheimer]{}, P. 2013, [, 778, 77](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/778/1/77)
, G., [Kley]{}, W., & [Henning]{}, T. 2003, [, 586, 540](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/367555)
, R. P. 2006, [High-Energy-Density Physics: Fundamentals, Inertial Fusion, and Experimental Astrophysics]{} (Springer)
—. 2007, [[Physics of Plasmas]{}, 14, 043301](http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.2716639)
, L. 1994, [, 424, 275](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/173889)
, R. S., [Marley]{}, M. S., & [Lodders]{}, K. 2008, [, 174, 504](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/521793)
, J., [Artymowicz]{}, P., & [Wu]{}, Y. 2015, [ArXiv e-prints]{}, [[arXiv:1505.03152 \[astro-ph.EP\]]{}](http://arxiv.org/abs/1505.03152)
, L., [Cassen]{}, P., & [Kenyon]{}, S. J. 1997, , 475, 770
, K., [Gawro[ń]{}ski]{}, M., & [Go[ź]{}dziewski]{}, K. 2016, [](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1354)
, S. L., & [Wardle]{}, M. 2015, [, 451, 1104](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stv1029)
, A. 1991, [, 370, L39](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/185972)
, R., [Klahr]{}, H., [Dullemond]{}, C., [Kley]{}, W., & [Henning]{}, T. 2010, [, 511, A81](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/200912355)
, R., & [Klessen]{}, R. S. 2013, [, 555, A7](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321404)
, D., [Jayawardhana]{}, R., & [van Kerkwijk]{}, M. H. 2008, [, 689, L153](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/595870)
, A.-M., [Gratadour]{}, D., [Chauvin]{}, G., [et al.]{} 2009, [, 493, L21](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:200811325)
, J. M., & [Wilson]{}, J. R. 1970, [, 161, 541](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/150558)
, C. D. 1984, [, 31, 149](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-4073(84)90112-2)
, C. D., & [Pomraning]{}, G. C. 1981, [, 248, 321](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/159157)
, J. J., [Hubickyj]{}, O., [D’Angelo]{}, G., & [Bodenheimer]{}, P. 2009, [, 199, 338](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.icarus.2008.10.004)
, R. V. E., [Covey]{}, K. R., & [Lloyd]{}, J. P. 2011, [, 141, 51](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-6256/141/2/51)
, B., [Graham]{}, J. R., [Ingraham]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2014, [[Proceedings of the National Academy of Science]{}, 111, 12661](http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1304215111)
, M. G., [Kuiper]{}, R., [Klahr]{}, H., [Dullemond]{}, C. P., & [Henning]{}, T. 2014, [, 568, A91](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201423768)
, G.-D., & [Cumming]{}, A. 2014, [, 437, 1378](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stt1967)
, M. S., [Fortney]{}, J. J., [Hubickyj]{}, O., [Bodenheimer]{}, P., & [Lissauer]{}, J. J. 2007, [, 655, 541](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/509759)
, C., [Macintosh]{}, B., [Barman]{}, T., [et al.]{} 2008, [[Science]{}, 322, 1348](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1166585)
, A., [Bodo]{}, G., [Massaglia]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2007, [, 170, 228](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/513316)
, A., [Zanni]{}, C., [Tzeferacos]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2012, [, 198, 7](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/198/1/7)
, D., & [Mihalas]{}, B. W. 1984, Foundations of radiation hydrodynamics (Oxford University Press)
, H. 1980, , 64, 544
, C. 2013, [, 558, A113](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321617)
, C., [Alibert]{}, Y., [Klahr]{}, H., & [Henning]{}, T. 2012, [, 547, A111](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201118457)
, B. R., [Beichman]{}, C., [Brenner]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2012, [in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8447, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series](http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.926419), 20
, C. W., [Shi]{}, J.-M., & [Kuiper]{}, R. 2015, [, 447, 3512](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stu2704)
, B., [Cantiello]{}, M., [Arras]{}, P., [et al.]{} 2013, [, 208, 4](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0067-0049/208/1/4)
, M. A., [Groff]{}, T. D., [Kasdin]{}, N. J., [et al.]{} 2013, [in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 8864, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series](http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.2024070), 1
, J. B., [Hollenbach]{}, D., [Beckwith]{}, S., [et al.]{} 1994, , 421, 615
, S. P., [Amara]{}, A., [Meyer]{}, M. R., [et al.]{} 2015, [, 807, 64](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/807/1/64)
, S., [Follette]{}, K. B., [Eisner]{}, J. A., [et al.]{} 2015, [, 527, 342](http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature15761)
, D., [Henning]{}, T., [Helling]{}, C., [Ilgner]{}, M., & [Sedlmayr]{}, E. 2003, [, 410, 611](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361:20031279)
, A. J., [Hinz]{}, P., [Esposito]{}, S., [et al.]{} 2014, [in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, Vol. 9148, Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series](http://dx.doi.org/10.1117/12.2057277), 12
, D. S., & [Burrows]{}, A. 2012, [, 745, 174](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/745/2/174)
, S. W., [Shu]{}, F. H., & [Taam]{}, R. E. 1980, [, 241, 637](http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/158377)
, J., [Masset]{}, F., [Lega]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2016, [, 460, 2853](http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mnras/stw1160)
, T., [Ohtsuki]{}, K., & [Machida]{}, M. N. 2012, [, 747, 47](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/747/1/47)
, A. L., [Klahr]{}, H., & [Henning]{}, T. 2013, [, 769, 97](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/769/2/97)
, N., [Chabrier]{}, G., [Audit]{}, E., [et al.]{} 2013[[a]{}]{}, [, 557, A90](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201321423)
, N., [Gonz[á]{}lez]{}, M., [Audit]{}, E., & [Chabrier]{}, G. 2013[[b]{}]{}, [, 125, 105](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jqsrt.2013.03.003)
, Y. B., & [Raizer]{}, Y. P. 1967, [Physics of shock waves and high-temperature hydrodynamic phenomena]{} (Academic Press)
, Z. 2015, [, 799, 16](http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/16)
, A., [Vigan]{}, A., [Mesa]{}, D., [et al.]{} 2014, [, 572, A85](http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201424204)
[^1]: Deuterium burning might slow down the cooling but the argument remains the same.
[^2]: This justifies (within a factor of a few) the estimate $\kappa\varrho{{r_{\rm shock}}}$ of @stahlerI for the optical depth *upstream* (and not downstream, as the formula might at first suggest) of the accretion shock in the context of Larson’s second core. The estimate is certainly rough for a non-constant opacity but at least it does estimate the optical depth in the correct (upstream) direction. A similar expression is used by @morda12_I in their boundary conditions.
[^3]: It may seem surprising that the local quantity $R$ depends on an absolute coordinate $r$ but this is in fact a simple consequence of the (spherical) geometry.
[^4]: They assume that half of the photons generated at the shock move inward, and the other half outward; in turn, one half of this outward-moving radiation is assumed to be reradiated inward by an absorbing layer ahead of the shock. If one ignores the contribution from the interior luminosity, this implies that $\etaklassisch=25$ percent. However, it seems to us that one needs radiative transfer calculations such as the ones presented here (or using more detailed radiation transport as in [@drake07]) to justify this accounting.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We measure the mass of the top quark using top quark pair candidate events in the lepton+jets channel from data corresponding to 1 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity collected by the D0 experiment at the Fermilab Tevatron collider. We use a likelihood technique that reduces the jet energy scale uncertainty by combining an *in-situ* jet energy calibration with the independent constraint on the jet energy scale (JES) from the calibration derived using photon+jets and dijet samples. We find the mass of the top quark to be $171.5\pm1.8(\mbox{stat.+JES})\pm1.1(\mbox{syst.})$ GeV.'
date: 'September 16, 2008'
title: Precise measurement of the top quark mass from lepton$+$jets events
---
list\_of\_authors\_r2.tex
Since the discovery of the top quark in 1995 [@topdiscovery], a substantial effort has gone into measuring and understanding its properties. Its large mass suggests a unique role in the mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking. Through radiative corrections, a precise measurement of the top quark mass, together with that of the $W$ boson, allows indirect constraints to be placed on the mass of the standard model Higgs boson [@lepewwg]. A precise knowledge of the top quark mass could also provide a useful constraint to possible extensions of the standard model. It is therefore of great importance to continue improving measurements of the top quark mass [@topmassd0prd; @topmasscdf].
In this Letter, we present the most precise single measurement of the top quark mass from Run II of the Fermilab Tevatron collider. It uses a matrix element (ME) method with an *in-situ* jet energy calibration based on a global factor used to scale all jet energies and thereby the invariant mass of the hadronic $W$ boson [@topmassd0prd; @topmassd0nature]. This mass is constrained to the well known value of 80.4 GeV through the Breit-Wigner function for the hadronic $W$ boson in the ME for $t\bar{t}$ production. The jet energy scale is further constrained to the standard scale derived from photon+jets and dijet samples within its uncertainties through the use of a prior probability distribution. This analysis is based on data collected by the D0 detector [@d0nim] from April 2002 to February 2006 comprising 1 fb$^{-1}$ of integrated luminosity from $p\overline{p}$ collisions at $\sqrt{s}=1.96$ TeV.
The top quark is assumed to always decay into a $W$ boson and a $b$ quark producing a $W^{+}W^{-}b\overline{b}$ final state from $t\overline{t}$ production. This analysis is based on the lepton$+$jets channel with one $W$ boson decaying via $W\rightarrow\ell\nu$ and the other via $W\rightarrow
q\overline{q}^{\prime}$. This channel is characterized by a lepton with large transverse momentum ($p_{T}$), large momentum imbalance due to the undetected neutrino ([${p\kern-0.5em\slash}_{T}$]{}), and four high-$p_{T}$ jets. Events are selected for this analysis by requiring exactly one isolated electron (muon) with $p_{T}>20$ GeV and $\left|\eta\right|<1.1$ ($\left|\eta\right|<2$), ${\ensuremath{{p\kern-0.5em\slash}_{T}}\xspace}>20$ GeV, and exactly four jets with $p_{T}>20$ GeV and $\left|\eta\right|<2.5$, where the pseudorapidity $\eta=-\ln\left[\tan(\theta/2)\right]$, and $\theta$ is the polar angle with respect to the proton beam direction. Multijet background, typically originating from lepton or jet energy mismeasurements, is further suppressed by requiring the lepton direction and [${p\kern-0.5em\slash}_{T}$]{}vector to be separated in azimuth. Jets are reconstructed using a cone algorithm [@run2jets] with radius $R=\sqrt{(\Delta y)^{2}+(\Delta\phi)^{2}}=0.5$ where the $y$ is the rapidity. Jet energies are corrected to the particle level using corrections derived from photon+jet and dijet samples. Jets containing a muon are assumed to originate from semileptonic $b$ quark decays and corrected by the muon momentum and average neutrino energy. At least one jet is required to be tagged by a neural-network based algorithm [@scanlon] as a $b$-jet candidate. The tagging efficiency for $b$ jets is $\sim50$% with a misidentification rate of $\sim1$% from light jets. A total of 220 events, split equally between the electron and muon channels, satisfying these criteria is selected.
The top quark mass is determined from the data sample with a likelihood method based on per-event probability densities (p.d.’s) constructed from the MEs of the processes contributing to the observed events. Assuming only two processes, $t\overline{t}$ and $W$+jets production, the p.d. to observe an event with measured variables $x$ is $$P_{\textrm{evt}}=A(x)\left[fP_{\textrm{sig}}(x;m_{t},k_{\textrm{jes}})+(1-f)P_{\textrm{bkg}}(x;k_{\textrm{jes}})\right],$$ where the top quark mass $m_{t}$, jet energy scale factor $k_{\textrm{jes}}$ dividing the energies of all jets, and observed signal fraction $f$ are the parameters to determine from data. $P_{\textrm{sig}}$ and $P_{\textrm{bkg}}$ are, respectively, p.d.’s for $t\overline{t}$ and $W$+jets production. Multijet events satisfy $P_{\textrm{bkg}}\gg P_{\textrm{sig}}$ and are also represented by $P_{\textrm{bkg}}$. $A(x)$ is a function only of $x$ and accounts for the geometrical acceptance and efficiencies.
$P_{\textrm{sig}}$ and $P_{\textrm{bkg}}$ are calculated by integrating over all possible parton states leading to the measured set $x$. In addition to the partonic final state described by the variables $y$, these states include the initial state partons carrying momenta $q_{1}$ and $q_{2}$ in the colliding $p$ and $\overline{p}$. The integration involves a convolution of the partonic differential cross section $d\sigma(y;m_{t})$ with the p.d.’s for the initial state partons $f(q_{i})$ and the transfer function $W(y,x;k_{\textrm{jes}})$: $$P_{\textrm{sig}}=\frac{1}{N}\int{\displaystyle \sum}d\sigma(y;m_{t})dq_{1}dq_{2}f(q_{1})f(q_{2})W(y,x;k_{\textrm{jes}}),$$ where the sum runs over all possible initial state parton flavor combinations. $f(q_{i})$ includes parton density functions (PDFs) for finding a parton of a given flavor and longitudinal momentum fraction in the $p$ or $\overline{p}$ (CTEQ6L1 [@cteq]) and parameterizations of the p.d.’s for the transverse components of $q_{i}$ derived from [[pythia]{}]{} [@pythia]. Jet fragmentation effects and experimental resolution are taken into account by $W(y,x;k_{\textrm{jes}})$, representing the p.d. for the measured set $x$ to have arisen from the partonic set $y$. The normalization factor $N$, defined as the expected observed cross section for a given ($m_{\textrm{t}}$,$k_{\textrm{jes}}$), ensures $A(x)P_{\textrm{sig}}$ (and ultimately $P_{\textrm{evt}}$) is normalized to unity.
The differential cross section term in $P_{\textrm{sig}}$ is calculated using the leading order ME for $q\overline{q}\rightarrow t\overline{t}$. After all energy and momentum constraints are taken into account, this term is integrated over the energy associated with one of the quarks from the hadronic $W$ boson decay, the masses of the two $W$ bosons and two top quarks, and the energy ($1/p_{T}$) of the electron (muon). It is summed over 24 possible jet-parton assignments each carrying a $b$-jet tagging weight [@def:wgt_btg] and over the neutrino solutions. $W(y,x;k_{\textrm{jes}})$ is the product of five terms for the four jets and one charged lepton. The jet terms are parameterized in terms of jet energy with a function involving the sum of two Gaussians whose parameters depend linearly on parton energy. The term for the charged lepton is parameterized as a Gaussian distribution in energy ($1/p_{T}$) for electrons (muons). All parameters for $W(y,x;k_{\textrm{jes}})$ are derived using fully simulated Monte Carlo (MC) events. The normalization cross section $\sigma_{\textrm{obs}}^{t\overline{t}}=\smallint A(x)P_{\textrm{sig}}dx=
\sigma^{t\overline{t}}(m_{t})\left\langle
A(m_{t},k_{\textrm{jes}})\right\rangle$ is calculated using the total cross section corresponding to the ME used and the mean acceptance for events whose dependencies on $m_{t}$ and $k_{\textrm{jes}}$ are determined from MC events.
The differential cross section term in $P_{\textrm{bkg}}$ is calculated using the $W+$4 jets MEs provided by [[vecbos]{}]{} [@vecbos]. The integration is performed over the energies of the four partons producing the jets, the $W$ boson mass, and the energy ($1/p_{T}$) of the electron (muon) summing over 24 possible jet-parton assignments and two neutrino solutions. The transverse momenta of the initial state partons are assumed to be zero.
$P_{\textrm{sig}}$ and $P_{\textrm{bkg}}$ are calculated using MC techniques on a grid in ($m_{t}$,$k_{\textrm{jes}}$) having spacings of 1.5 GeV and 0.015, respectively. At each grid point, a likelihood function, $L(x;m_{t},k_{\textrm{jes}},f)$, is constructed from the product of the individual event p.d.’s ($P_{\textrm{evt}}$) and $f$ is determined by minimizing $-\ln L$ at that point. $L(x;m_{t},k_{\textrm{jes}})$ is then projected onto the $m_{t}$ and $k_{\textrm{jes}}$ axes according to $L(x;m_{t})={\displaystyle \smallint
L(x;m_{t},k_{\textrm{jes}})G(k_{\textrm{jes}})dk_{\textrm{jes}}}$ and $L(x;k_{\textrm{jes}})=\smallint L(x;m_{t},k_{\textrm{jes}})dm_{t}$. The prior $G(k_{\textrm{jes}})$ is a Gaussian function centered at $k_{\textrm{jes}}=1$ with width $\sigma=0.019$ determined from the photon+jets and dijet samples used in the standard jet energy scale calibration. Best estimates of $m_{t}$ and $k_{\textrm{jes}}$ and their uncertainties are then extracted from the mean and rms of $L(x;m_{t})$ and $L(x;k_{\textrm{jes}})$.
![\[fig:datamc\]Comparison between data and MC 2-jet ($m_{\textrm{2j}}$) and 3-jet ($m_{\textrm{3j}}$) invariant mass distributions.](fig1){width="1\columnwidth"}
The measurement technique described above is calibrated using MC events produced with the [[alpgen]{}]{}event generator [@alpgen] employing [[pythia]{}]{}for parton showering and hadronization and implementing the MLM matching scheme [@mlm]. All generated events are processed by a full [[geant]{}]{} [@geant] detector simulation followed by the same reconstruction and analysis programs used on data. Fig. \[fig:datamc\] shows comparisons of the 2-jet and 3-jet invariant mass distributions between data and MC using $t\overline{t}$ events with a true top quark mass ($m_{t}^{\textrm{true}}$) of 170 GeV. These are calculated using jets assigned as the decay products of the top quark and $W$ boson from the hadronic branch in the permutation with the largest weight (defined as the product of $P_{\textrm{sig}}$ and the $b$-jet tagging weight) around the peak of $L(x;m_{t},k_{\textrm{jes}})$. MC distributions are normalized to data distributions with $f=0.74$ determined from data. The background includes simulated $W$+jets events and data events selected from a multijet enriched sample. The latter comprises 12% of the total background based on estimates from data. The estimated number of $t\bar{t}$ events ($e+\textrm{jets}$: $91\pm9$, $\mu+\textrm{jets}$: $71\pm8$) agrees with the expectation ($e+\textrm{jets}$: $89\pm6$, $\mu+\textrm{jets}$: $73\pm5$).
![\[fig:calib\]Mean values of $m_{t}$ and $k_{\textrm{jes}}$ from ensemble tests versus true values parameterized by straight lines. Dashed lines represent identical fitted and true values.](fig2a "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}![\[fig:calib\]Mean values of $m_{t}$ and $k_{\textrm{jes}}$ from ensemble tests versus true values parameterized by straight lines. Dashed lines represent identical fitted and true values.](fig2b "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
Five $t\overline{t}$ MC samples are generated with $m_{t}^{\textrm{true}}=160$, 165, 170, 175, and 180 GeV, with six more produced from three of these by scaling all jet energies by $\pm5$%. $P_{\textrm{sig}}$ and $P_{\textrm{bkg}}$ are calculated for these events from which pseudo-experiments fixed to the number of data events are randomly drawn with a signal fraction fluctuated according to a binomial distribution around that determined from data. The mean values of $m_{t}$ and $k_{\textrm{jes}}$ for 1000 pseudo-experiments are shown in Fig. \[fig:calib\] as functions of the true values and fitted to a straight line. The average widths of the $m_{t}$ and $k_{\textrm{jes}}$ pull distributions are 1.0 and 1.1, respectively. The pull is defined as the deviation of a measurement from the mean of all measurements divided by the uncertainty of the measurement per pseudo-experiment. The measured uncertainties in data are corrected by the deviation of the average pull width from 1.0.
$L(x;m_{t})$ and $L(x;k_{\textrm{jes}})$ for the selected data samples are calibrated according to the parameterizations shown in Fig. \[fig:calib\]. $L(x;m_{t})$ is shown in Fig. \[fig:results\](a) with a measured $m_{t}=171.5\pm1.8(\textrm{stat.+JES})$ GeV. The measured $k_{\textrm{jes}}=1.030\pm0.017$ represents a 1.2 $\sigma$ shift from $k_{\textrm{jes}}=1$ where $\sigma$ is the sum in quadrature of the width of $G(k_{\textrm{jes}})$ and the uncertainty of the measured $k_{\textrm{jes}}$. Fig. \[fig:results\](b) compares the measured uncertainty for $m_{t}$ with the expected uncertainty distribution from pseudo-experiments in MC assuming $m_{t}^{\textrm{true}}=170$ GeV.
 Projection of data likelihood onto the $m_{t}$ axis with best estimate shown. (b) Expected uncertainty distribution for $m_{t}$ with measured uncertainty indicated by the arrow.](fig3a "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"} Projection of data likelihood onto the $m_{t}$ axis with best estimate shown. (b) Expected uncertainty distribution for $m_{t}$ with measured uncertainty indicated by the arrow.](fig3b "fig:"){width="0.5\columnwidth"}
[lc]{} Source & Uncertainty (GeV)\
\
Signal modeling & $\pm0.40$\
PDF uncertainty & $\pm0.14$\
Background modeling & $\pm0.10$\
$b$-fragmentation & $\pm0.03$\
\
$b$/light response ratio & $\pm0.83$\
Jet identification and resolution & $\pm0.26$\
Trigger & $\pm0.19$\
Residual jet energy scale & $\pm0.10$\
Muon resolution & $\pm0.10$\
\
MC calibration & $\pm0.26$\
$b$-tagging efficiency & $\pm0.15$\
Multijet contamination & $\pm0.14$\
Signal contamination & $\pm0.13$\
Signal fraction & $\pm0.09$\
Total & $\pm1.07$\
To verify the *in-situ* jet energy calibration, we repeat the analysis on data by fixing $k_{\textrm{jes}}$ to the measured value and removing the $W$ boson mass constraint, replacing $L(x;m_{t},k_{\textrm{jes}},f)$ with $L(x;m_{t},m_{W},f)$. $P_{\textrm{sig}}$ and $P_{\textrm{bkg}}$ are now calculated on a grid in ($m_{t}$,$m_{W}$) having spacings of 1.5 GeV and 1 GeV, respectively. $L(x;m_{t})$ and $L(x;m_{W})$ are calculated in the same way as for the grid in ($m_{t}$,$k_{\textrm{jes}}$) except that no prior probability distribution is used for $L(x;m_{t})$. We find $m_{W}=80.3\pm1.0$ GeV which is consistent with the constraint of $80.4$ GeV.
Systematic uncertainties are evaluated for three categories. The first category involves the modeling of MC $t\overline{t}$ and $W+$jets events and includes uncertainties in the modeling of extra jets due to radiation in $t\overline{t}$ events, the distribution shapes and the heavy flavor fraction in $W+$jets events, $b$ fragmentation, and the PDFs used in generating events. The second category is associated with the simulation of detector response and includes possible effects due to the energy and $|\eta|$ dependence of the jet energy scale unaccounted for by the *in-situ* calibration, uncertainties in the modeling of the relative calorimeter response to $b$ and light quark jets, and uncertainties associated with the simulation of jet energy resolution and reconstruction efficiency, muon $p_{T}$ resolution, and trigger efficiency. The third category is related to assumptions made in the method and uncertainties in the calibration and includes possible effects due to the exclusion of multijet events and non-lepton+jets $t\overline{t}$ events from the calibration procedure, uncertainties in the signal fraction used in ensemble tests, and uncertainties associated with the parameters defining the calibration curve. Contributions from all these sources are summarized in Table \[tab:syst\] and sum in quadrature to $\pm1.1$ GeV.
The leading sources of uncertainty in Table \[tab:syst\] are those associated with the $b$/light response ratio and signal modeling. The first of these is evaluated by estimating the possible difference in this ratio between data and MC and scaling the energies of all jets matched to $b$ quarks in a MC $t\bar{t}$ sample by this amount. The analysis is repeated for this sample and the difference in $m_{t}$ from that of the unscaled sample taken as the uncertainty. The uncertainty associated with the modeling of additional jets in $t\overline{t}$ events is evaluated using both data and MC samples. Using MC $t\overline{t}$ events, the fraction of $t\overline{t}$ signal events with $\geq5$ jets is varied such that the ratio of $4$-jet to $\geq5$-jet events in MC matches that in data including its uncertainties. The difference in the resulting $m_{t}$ from that of the default sample is taken as the uncertainty. Using data, this is done through ensemble tests in which a fixed number of $\geq5$-jet events not used in the measurement are randomly drawn for each experiment and combined with the default sample of $4$-jet events. The ensemble tests are repeated for different fractions of $\geq5$-jet events constituting up to 30% of each experiment. $m_{t}$ for the default sample is compared with the mean from each ensemble test and the largest difference taken as the systematic uncertainty. Both procedures yield consistent estimates for this systematic uncertainty.
In summary, we present a measurement of the top quark mass using $t\overline{t}$ lepton+jets events from 1 fb$^{-1}$ of data collected by the D0 experiment. Using a ME technique combining an *in-situ* calibration of the jet energy scale with the calibration based on the photon+jets and dijet samples gives us $$m_{t}=171.5\pm1.8(\textrm{stat.+JES})\pm1.1(\textrm{syst.}) \textrm{ GeV},$$ representing the most precise single measurement to date.
acknowledgement\_paragraph\_r2.tex
[99]{} list\_of\_visitor\_addresses\_r2.tex F. Abe *et al.* (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. **74**, 2626 (1995); S. Abachi *et al.* (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. **74**, 2632 (1995).
Tevatron Electroweak Working Group, <http://tevewwg.fnal.gov>.
V. Abazov *et al.* (D0 Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D **74**, 092005 (2006).
T. Aaltonen *et al.* (CDF Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. **99**, 182002 (2007).
V. Abazov *et al.* (D0 Collaboration), Nature **429**, 638 (2004).
V. Abazov *et al.* (D0 Collaboration), Nucl. Instrum. Methods Phys. Res. Sect. A **565**, 463 (2006).
G.C. Blazey *et al.*, arXiv:hep-ex/0005012 (2000).
T. Scanlon, Ph.D. thesis, FERMILAB-THESIS-2006-43.
J. Pumplin *et al.*, JHEP **0207**, 012 (2002).
T. Sj$\ddot{\mbox{o}}$strand *et al.*, Comp. Phys. Commun. **135**, 238 (2001).
The weight for a $b$-tagged jet with a given $p_T$ and $\eta$ under a parton flavor hypothesis $\alpha$(=$b$, $c$, light $q$ or gluon) is given by the parameterization of the average tagging efficiency $\epsilon_\alpha(p_T,\eta)$. Consequently, the weight for a jet not $b$-tagged is 1-$\epsilon_\alpha(p_T,\eta)$. The event weight is defined as the product of jet weights.
F.A. Berends *et al.*, Nucl. Phys. **B357**, 32 (1991).
M.L. Mangano *et al.*, JHEP **307**, 001 (2003).
S. H$\ddot{\mbox{o}}$che *et al.*, arXiv:hep-ph/0602031 (2006).
R. Brun and F. Carminati, CERN Program Library Long Writeup W5013, 1993 (unpublished).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The aim of this paper is to propose a new numerical approximation of the Kalman–Bucy filter for semi-Markov jump linear systems. This approximation is based on the selection of typical trajectories of the driving semi-Markov chain of the process by using an optimal quantization technique. The main advantage of this approach is that it makes pre-computations possible. We derive a Lipschitz property for the solution of the Riccati equation and a general result on the convergence of perturbed solutions of semi-Markov switching Riccati equations when the perturbation comes from the driving semi-Markov chain. Based on these results, we prove the convergence of our approximation scheme in a general infinite countable state space framework and derive an error bound in terms of the quantization error and time discretization step. We employ the proposed filter in a magnetic levitation example with markovian failures and compare its performance with both the Kalman–Bucy filter and the Markovian linear minimum mean squares estimator.'
author:
- Benoîte de Saporta
- 'Eduardo F. Costa[^1][^2]'
bibliography:
- 'biblio-ric.bib'
title: 'Approximate Kalman–Bucy filter for continuous-time semi-Markov jump linear systems'
---
IEEE Copyright Notice {#ieee-copyright-notice .unnumbered}
=====================
© IEEE. Personal use of this material is permitted. However, permission to reprint/republish this material for advertising or promotional purposes or for creating new collective works for resale or redistribution to servers or lists, or to reuse any copyrighted component of this work in other works must be obtained from the IEEE.
This material is presented to ensure timely dissemination of scholarly and technical work. Copyright and all rights therein are retained by authors or by other copyright holders. All persons copying this information are expected to adhere to the terms and constraints invoked by each author’s copyright. In most cases, these works may not be reposted without the explicit permission of the copyright holder.
For more details, see the IEEE Copyright Policy\
`http://www.ieee.org/publications_standards/publications/rights/copyrightpolicy.html`
Introduction
============
[M]{}[arkov]{} jump linear systems (MJLS) have been largely studied and disseminated during the last decades. MJLS have a relatively simple structure that allows for useful, strong properties [@CostaFragosoMarques05; @CostaFragosoTodorov; @Dragan2009; @Dragan2013], and provide suitable models for applications [@doVal99JE; @Sworder83; @Siqueira04], with a booming field in web/internet based control [@Geromel09; @Huang13]. One limitation of MJLS is that the sojourn times between jumps is a time-homogeneous exponential random variable, thus motivating the study of a wider class of systems with general sojourn-time distributions, the so-called semi-Markov jump linear systems (sMJLS) or sojourn-time-dependent MJLS [@Huang13; @Campo91; @Schwartz03; @Hou06; @Huang13IJRNC].
In this paper, we consider continuous-time sMJLS with instantaneous (or close to instantaneous) observation of the state of the semi-Markov chain at time instant $t$, denoted here by $\theta(t)$. The state space of the semi-Markov chain may be infinite. We seek for an approximate optimal filter for the variable $x(t)$ that composes the state of the sMJLS jointly with $\theta(t)$. Of course, estimating the state component $x(t)$ is highly relevant and allows the use of standard control strategies like linear state feedback.
It is well known that the optimal estimator for $x(t)$ is given by the standard Kalman–Bucy filter (KBF) [@Anderson79; @Jazwinski70; @Kalman60; @Kalman61; @Kumar86] because, given the observation of the past values of $\theta$, the distribution of the random variable $x(t)$ is exactly the same as in a time varying system. The main problem faced when implementing the KBF for MJLS or sMJLS, particularly in continuous time, is the pre-computation. Pre-computation refers to the computation of the relevant parameters of the KBF and storage in the controller/computer memory prior to the system operation, which makes the implementation of the filter fast enough to couple with a wide range of applications. Unfortunately, pre-computation is not viable for (s)MJLS in continuous time, as it involves solving a Riccati differential equation that branches at every jump time $T_k$, and the jumps can occur at any time instant according to an exponential distribution, so that pre-computation would involve computation of an infinite number of branches. Another way to explain this drawback of the KBF is to say that the KBF is not a Markovian linear estimator because the gain at time $t$ does not depend only on $\theta(t)$ but on the whole trajectory $\{\theta(s),0\leq s\leq t\}$. This drawback of the KBF has motivated the development of other filters for MJLS, and one of the most successful ones is the Markovian linear minimum mean squares estimator (LMMSE) that has been derived in [@FC10], whose parameters can be pre-computed, see also [@CostaFragosoTodorov; @Costa11autom_filter]. To our best knowledge, there is no pre-computable filter for sMJLS.
The filter proposed here is built in several steps. The first step is the discretization by quantization of the Markov chain, providing a finite number of typical trajectories. The second step consists in solving the Riccati differential equation on each of these trajectories and store the results. To compute the filter in real time, one just needs to select the appropriate pre-computed branch at each jump time and follow it until the next jump time. This selection step is made by looking up the projection of the real jump time in the quantization grid and choosing the corresponding Riccati branch. In case the real jump time is observed with some delay (non-instantaneous observation of $\theta$), then the observed jump time is projected in the quantization grid instead, see Remarks \[rem-byproduct\], \[rem-delayed-observation\].
The quantization technique selects optimized typical trajectories of the semi-Markov chain. Optimal quantization methods have been developed recently in numerical probability, nonlinear filtering or optimal stochastic control for diffusion processes with applications in finance [@bally03; @bally05; @pages98; @pages05; @pages04b; @pages04] or for piecewise deterministic Markov processes with applications in reliability [@brandejsky12; @brandejsky13; @saporta10; @saporta12]. To our best knowledge, this technique has not been applied to MJLS or sMJLS yet. The optimal quantization of a random variable $X$ consists in finding a finite grid such that the projection $\widehat{X}$ of $X$ on this grid minimizes some $L^{p}$ norm of the difference $X-\widehat{X}$. Roughly speaking, such a grid will have more points in the areas of high density of $X$. One interesting feature of this procedure is that the construction of the optimized grids using the CLVQ algorithm (competitive learning vector quantization) [@pages98; @gray98] only requires a simulator of the process and no special knowledge about the distribution of $X$.
As explained for instance in [@pages04], for the convergence of the quantized process towards the original process, some Lipschitz-continuity conditions are needed, hence we start investigating the Lipschitz continuity of solutions of Riccati equations. Of course, this involves evaluating the difference of two Riccati solutions, which is not a positive semi-definite nor a negative-definite matrix, preventing us to directly use the positive invariance property of Riccati equations, thus introducing some complication in the analysis given in Theorem \[lem-1-Ric\]. A by product of our procedure is a general result on the convergence of perturbed solutions of semi-Markov switching Riccati equations, when the perturbation comes from the driving semi-Markov chain and can be either a random perturbation of the jump times or a deterministic delay, or both, see Remark \[rem-byproduct\]. Regarding the proposed filter, we obtain an error bound w.r.t. the exact KBF depending on the quantization error and time discretization step. It goes to zero when the number of points in the grids goes to infinity.
The approximation results are illustrated and compared with the exact KBF and the LMMSE in the Markovian framework for a numerical example of a magnetic suspension system, confirming via Monte Carlo simulation that the proposed filter is effective for state estimation even when a comparatively low number of points in the discretization grids is considered.
The paper is organized as follows. Section \[sec-problem\] presents the KBF and the sMJLS setup. The KBF approximation scheme is explained in Section \[sec-KBF\], and its convergence is studied in Section \[sec-convergence\]. The results are illustrated in a magnetic suspension system, see Section \[sec-example\], and some concluding remarks are presented in Section \[sec-conclusion\].
Problem setting {#sec-problem}
===============
We start with some general notation. For $z,\hat z\in{\mathbb{R}}$, $z\wedge \hat z=\min\{z,\hat z\}$ is the minimum between $z$ and $\hat z$. For a vector $X=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in{\mathbb{R}}^n$, $|X|$ denotes its Euclidean norm $|X|^2=\sum x_i^2$ and $X'$ denotes its transpose. Let $\mathcal{C}(n)$ be the set of $n\times n$ symmetric positive definite matrices and $I_{n}$ (or $I$ when there is no ambiguity) the identity matrix of size $n\times n$. For any two symmetric positive semi-definite matrices $M$ and ${\widehat}{M}$, $M\geq {\widehat}{M}$ means that $M-{\widehat}{M}$ is positive semidefinite and $M >{\widehat}{M}$ means that $M-{\widehat}{M}\in\mathcal{C}(n)$. Let $\lambda_{\min}(M)$ and $\lambda_{\max}(M)$ denote the lowest and highest eigenvalue of matrix $M\in\mathcal{C}(n)$ respectively. For a matrix $M\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n\times n}$, $M'$ is the transpose of $M$ and $\|M\|$ stands for its $L^2$ matrix norm $\|M\|^2=\lambda_{\max}(M'M)$.
Let $(\Omega, \mathcal{F}, {\mathbb{P}})$ be a probability space, ${\mathbb{E}}$ denote the expectation with respect to ${\mathbb{P}}$, and $Var(X)$ is the variance-covariance matrix of the random vector $X$. Let $\{\theta(t), t\geq 0\}$ be a semi-Markov jump process on the countable state space $\mathcal{S}$. We denote by $F_i$ the cumulative distribution function of the sojourn time of $\theta$ in state $i$. For a family $\{M_i, i\in\mathcal{S}\}$ of square matrices indexed by $\mathcal{S}$, we set $\|M\|_{\mathcal{S}}=\sup_{i\in\mathcal{S}}\|M_i\|\leq \infty$.
We consider a sMJLS satisfying $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
dx(t)&=&A_{\theta(t)}x(t)dt+E_{\theta(t)}dw(t),\\
dy(t)&=&C_{\theta(t)}x(t)dt+D_{\theta(t)}dv(t),\label{mjls}
\end{array}\right.$$ for $0\leq t\leq T$, where $T$ is a given time horizon, $\big(x(t),\theta(t)\big)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n_1}\times \mathcal S$ is the state process, $y(t)\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n_2}$ is the measurement process, $\{w(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ and $\{v(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ are independent standard Wiener processes with respective dimensions $n_3$ and $n_4$, independent from $\{\theta(t), t\geq 0\}$, and $\{A_i, i\in\mathcal{S}\}$, $\{C_i, i\in\mathcal{S}\}$, $\{D_i, i\in\mathcal{S}\}$ and $\{E_i, i\in\mathcal{S}\}$ are families of matrices with respective size $n_1\times n_1$, $n_2\times n_1$, $n_2\times n_4$ and $n_1\times n_3$ such that $D_iD_i'>0$ is nonsingular for all $i$ (nonsingular measurement noise).
We use two different sets of assumptions for the parameters of our problems. The first one is more restrictive but relevant for applications, and the second more general one will be used in the convergence proofs.
\[hyp:finite\] The state space $\mathcal{S}$ is finite, $\mathcal{S}=\{1,2,\ldots,N\}$ and the cumulative distribution functions of the sojourn times $F_i$ are Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constant $\lambda_i$, $i\in\mathcal{S}$.
\[hyp:infinite\] The state space $\mathcal{S}$ is countable, the quantities $\|A\|_{\mathcal{S}}$, $\|C\|_{\mathcal{S}}$, $\|D\|_{\mathcal{S}}$, $\|DD'\|_{\mathcal{S}}$ and $\|E\|_{\mathcal{S}}$ are finite. The cumulative distribution functions of the sojourn times $F_i$ are Lipschitz continuous with Lipschitz constant $\lambda_i$, $i\in\mathcal{S}$ and $$\overline{\lambda}=\sup_{i\in\mathcal{S}}\{\lambda_{i}\}<\infty.$$
Note that the extra assumptions in the infinite case hold true automatically in the finite case, and that the Lipschitz assumptions hold true automatically for MJLS (i.e., when the distributions of $F_i$ are exponential).
We address the filtering problem of estimating the value of $x(t)$ given the observations $\{y(s),\theta(s), 0\le s\le t\}$ for $0\leq t\leq T$. It is well-known that the KBF is the optimal estimator because the problem is equivalent to estimating the state of a linear time-varying system (with no jumps), taking into account that the past values of $\theta$ are available. The KBF satisfies the following equation $$d\hat{x}_{KB}(t)\!=\!A_{\theta(t)}\hat{x}_{KB}(t)dt+K_{KB}(t)(dy(t)-C_{\theta(t)}\hat{x}_{KB}(t)dt),$$ for $0\leq t\leq T$, with initial condition $\hat{x}_{KB}(0)=\mathbb{E}[x(0)]$ and gain matrix $$\label{eq Ricc gain}
K_{KB}(t)=P_{KB}(t)C_{\theta(t)}'(D_{\theta(t)}D_{\theta(t)}')^{-1},$$ for $0\leq t\leq T$, where $P_{KB}(t)$ is an $n_1\times n_1$ matrix-valued process satisfying the Riccati matrix differential equation $$\label{eq Ric}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
dP_{KB}(t)&=&R(P_{KB}(t),\theta(t))dt,\\
P_{KB}(0)&=&Var(x(0)),
\end{array}\right.$$ for $0\leq t\leq T$, where $R:{\mathbb{R}}^{n_1\times n_1}\times \mathcal S \rightarrow {\mathbb{R}}^{n_1\times n_1}$ is defined for any $M\in{\mathbb{R}}^{n_1\times n_1}$ and $i\in\mathcal{S}$ by $$\label{eq:def:R}
R(M,i)=A_iM+MA_i'+E_iE_i'-MC_i'(D_iD_i')^{-1}C_iM.$$
It is usually not possible to pre-compute a solution for this system (prior to the observation of $\theta(s)$, $0\le s\le t$). Moreover, to solve it in real time after observing $\theta$ would require instantaneous computation of $P(t)$; one can obtain a delayed solution $P(t-\delta)$ where $\delta$ is the time required to solve the system, however using this solution as if it was the actual $P(t)$ in the filter may bring considerable error to the obtained estimate depending on $\delta$ and on the system parameters (e.g., many jumps may occur between $t-\delta$ and $t$).
The aim of this paper is to propose a new filter based on suitably chosen pre-computed solutions of Eq. (\[eq Ric\]) under the finiteness assumption \[hyp:finite\] and to show convergence of our estimate to the optimal KBF when the number of discretization points goes to infinity under the more general countable assumption \[hyp:infinite\]. We also compare its performance with the Fragoso-Costa LMMSE filter [@FC10] on a real-world application.
Approximate Kalman–Bucy filter {#sec-KBF}
==============================
The estimator is constructed as follows. We first select an optimized finite set of typical possible trajectories of $\{\theta(t)$, $0\le t\le T\}$ by discretizing the [semi-]{}Markov chain and for each such trajectory we solve Eqs. (\[eq Ric\]), and store the results. In real time, the estimate is obtained by looking up the pre-computed solutions and selecting the suitable gain given the current value of $\theta(t)$.
Discretization of the [semi-]{}Markov chain
-------------------------------------------
The approach relies on the construction of optimized typical trajectories of the [semi-]{}Markov chain $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$. First we need to rewrite this [semi-]{}Markov chain in terms of its jump times and post-jump locations. Let $T_0=0$ and $T_k$ be the $k$-th jump time of $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ for $k\geq 1$, $$T_{k}=\inf\{t\geq T_{k-1};\ \theta(t)\neq\theta(T_{k-1})\}.$$ For $k\geq 0$ let $Z_k=\theta(T_k)$ be the post-jump locations of the chain. Let $S_0=0$ and for $k\geq 1$, $S_k=T_k-T_{k-1}$ be the inter-arrival times of the Markov process $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$. Using this notation, $\theta(t)$ can be rewritten as $$\label{eq:theta}
\theta(t)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty Z_k{\mathbbm{1}_{\{T_k\leq t<T_{k+1}\}}}=\sum_{k=0}^\infty Z_k{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-T_k<S_{k+1}\}}}.$$ Under the finiteness assumption \[hyp:finite\], as the state space $\mathcal{S}$ of $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ (and hence of $\{Z_k\}$) is finite, to obtain a fully discretized approximation of $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ one only needs to discretize the inter-arrival times $\{S_k\}$ on a finite state space. One thus constructs a finite set of typical possible trajectories of $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ up to a given jump time horizon $T_n$ selected such that $T_n\geq T$ with high enough probability.
To discretize the inter-arrival times $\{S_k\}$, we choose a quantization approach that has been recently developed in numerical probability. Its main advantage is that the discretization is optimal in some way explained below. There exists an extensive literature on quantization methods for random variables and processes. The interested reader may for instance, consult the following works [@bally03; @gray98; @pages98] and references therein. Consider $X$ an $\mathbb{R}^m$-valued random variable such that ${\mathbb{E}}[| X |^2] < \infty$ and $\nu$ a fixed integer; the optimal $L^{2}$-quantization of the random variable $X$ consists in finding the best possible $L^{2}$-approximation of $X$ by a random vector $\widehat{X}$ taking at most $\nu$ different values, which can be carried out in two steps. First, find a finite weighted grid $\Gamma\subset \mathbb{R}^{m}$ with $\Gamma= \{\gamma^{1},\ldots,\gamma^{\nu}\}$. Second, set $\widehat{X}=\widehat{X}^{\Gamma}$ where $\widehat{X}^{\Gamma}=proj_{\Gamma}(X)$ with $proj_{\Gamma}$ denoting the closest neighbor projection on $\Gamma$. The asymptotic properties of the $L^{2}$-quantization are given in e.g. [@pages98].
\[th:quantize\] If $\mathbb{E}[|X|^{2+\epsilon}]<+\infty$ for some $\epsilon>0$ then one has $$\begin{aligned}
\lim_{\nu\rightarrow \infty} \nu^{1/m} \min_{|\Gamma|\leq \nu} {\mathbb{E}}[| X-\widehat{X}^{\Gamma}|^{2}]^{1/2}& =& C,\end{aligned}$$ for some contant $C$ depending only on $m$ and the law of $X$ and where $|\Gamma|$ denote the cardinality of $\Gamma$.
Therefore the $L^2$ norm of the difference between $X$ and its quantized approximation ${\widehat}{X}$ goes to zero with rate $\nu^{-1/m}$ as the number of points $\nu$ in the quantization grid goes to infinity. The competitive learning vector quantization algorithm (CLVQ) provides the optimal grid based on a random simulator of the law of $X$ and a stochastic gradient method.
In the following, we will denote by ${\widehat}{S}_k$ the quantized approximation of the random variable $S_k$ and ${\widehat}{T}_k={\widehat}{S}_1+\cdots+{\widehat}{S}_k$ for all $k$.
Pre-computation of a family of solutions to Riccati equation
------------------------------------------------------------
We start by rewriting the Riccati equation (\[eq Ric\]) in order to have a similar expression to Eq. (\[eq:theta\]). As operator $R$ does not depend on time, the solution $\{P(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ to Eq. (\[eq Ric\]) corresponding to a given trajectory $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ can be rewritten as $$P(t)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty P_k(t-T_k){\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-T_k<S_{k+1}\}}},$$ for $0\leq t\leq T$, where $\{P_0(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ is the solution of the system $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
d{P}_0(t)&=&R(P_0(t),Z_0)dt,\\
P_0(0)&=&p_0,
\end{array}\right.$$ for $0\leq t\leq T$, with $p_0=Var(x(0))$, and for $k\geq 1$, $\{P_k(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ is recursively defined as the solution of $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
d{P}_k(t)&=&R(P_k(t),Z_k)dt,\\
P_k(0)&=&P_{k-1}(S_k).
\end{array}\right.$$ Given the quantized approximation $\{{\widehat}{S}_k\}$ of the sequence $\{{S}_k\}$, we propose the following approximations $\{{\widehat}{P}_k(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ of $\{P_k(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ for all $k$. First, $\{{\widehat}{P}_0(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ is the solution of $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
d{{\widehat}{P}}_0(t)&=&R({\widehat}{P}_0(t),Z_0)dt,\\
{\widehat}{P}_0(0)&=&p_0,
\end{array}\right.$$ and for $k\geq 1$, $\{{\widehat}{P}_k(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ is recursively defined as the solution of $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
d{{\widehat}{P}}_k(t)&=&R({\widehat}{P}_k(t),Z_k)dt,\\
{\widehat}{P}_k(0)&=&{\widehat}{P}_{k-1}({\widehat}{S}_k).
\end{array}\right.$$ Hence $P_k$ and ${\widehat}{P}_k$ are defined with the same dynamics, the same horizon $T$, but different starting values, and all the ${\widehat}{P}_k$ can be computed off-line for each of the finitely many possible values of $(Z_k,{\widehat}{S}_k)$ (under the finiteness assumption \[hyp:finite\] and for a finite number of jumps) and stored.
On line approximation
---------------------
We suppose that on-line computations are made on a regular time grid with constant step $\delta t$. Note that in most applications $\delta t$ is small compared to the time $\delta$ of instantaneous computation of $P(t)$. The state of the [semi-]{}Markov chain $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ is observed, but the jumps can only be considered, in the filter operation, at the next point in the time grid. Set ${\widetilde}{T}_0=0$, and for $k\geq 1$ define ${\widetilde}{T}_k$ as $${\widetilde}{T}_{k}=\inf\{j;\ T_k< j\delta t\}\delta t,$$ hence ${\widetilde}{T}_{k}$ is the effective time at which the $k$-th jump is taken into account. One has ${\widetilde}{T}_{k}>T_k$ and the difference between ${\widetilde}{T}_{k}$ and $T_k$ is at most $\delta t$. We also set ${\widetilde}{S}_k={\widetilde}{T}_k-{\widetilde}{T}_{k-1}$ for $k\geq 1$. Now we construct our approximation $\{{\widetilde}P(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ of $\{P(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ as follows $${\widetilde}{P}(t)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty {\widehat}{P}_k(t-{\widetilde}{T}_k){\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-{\widetilde}{T}_k<{\widetilde}{S}_{k+1}\}}}{\mathbbm{1}_{\{t\leq T\}}}.$$ Thus we just select the appropriate pre-computed solutions and paste them at the approximate jumps times $\{{\widetilde}{T}_{k}\}$, which can be done on-line. The approximate gain matrices are simply defined by $${\widetilde}{K}(t)={\widetilde}{P}(t)C_{\theta(t)}'(D_{\theta(t)}D_{\theta(t)}')^{-1},$$ and the estimated trajectory satisfies $$d{\widetilde}{x}(t)=A_{\theta(t)}{\widetilde}{x}(t)dt+{\widetilde}{K}(t)(dy(t)-C_{\theta(t)}{\widetilde}{x}(t)dt),$$ for $0\leq t\leq T$, with initial condition ${\widetilde}{x}(0)=\mathbb{E}[x(0)]$.
Convergence of the approximation procedure {#sec-convergence}
==========================================
The investigation of the convergence of our approximation scheme under the general assumption \[hyp:infinite\], is made in several steps again. The first one is the evaluation of the error between $P(t)$ and ${\widetilde}{P}(t)$ up to the time horizon $T$ and requires some Lipschitz regularity assumptions on the solution of Riccati equations. First, we establish these regularity properties. Then we derive the error between $P$ and ${\widetilde}{P}$, and finally we evaluate the error between the real KBF filter ${\widehat}{x}_{KB}$ and its quantized approximation ${\widetilde}{x}$.
Regularity of the solutions of Riccati equations
------------------------------------------------
For all $t\geq 0$, suitable matrix $p\in\mathcal{C}(n_1)$ and $i\in\mathcal{S}$ denote by $\phi_i(p,t)$ the solution at time $t$ of the following Riccati equation starting from $p$ at time $0$, $$\label{eqi Riccati}
\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
d{P}(t)&=&R(P(t),i)dt,\\
P(0)&=&p,
\end{array}\right.$$ for $t\geq 0$. We start with a boundedness result.
\[lem00:Lip\] Under Assumption \[hyp:infinite\], for all $\bar p_0\in\mathcal{C}(n_1)$, there exist a matrix $\bar p_1\in\mathcal{C}(n_1)$ such that $\bar p_1\geq \bar p_0$ and for $p\leq \bar p_0$, $i\in\mathcal{S}$ and times $0\leq t\leq T$, one has $\phi_i(p,t)\leq \bar{p}_1$.
*Proof.* The Riccati equation can be rearranged in the following form $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d P(t)}{dt} &=& A_{aux}(t)P(t) + P(t) A_{aux}(t)' + E_iE_i' \\
&&+ K_i(t)D_iD_i'K_i(t)',\end{aligned}$$ where $K_i(t)= P(t)C_i'(D_iD_i')^{-1}$ and $A_{aux}(t)=A_i - K_i(t)C_i$. For any matrix $L$ with suitable dimensions, from the optimality of the KBF we have that $\phi_i(p,t)\leq \phi_L(p,t)$ where $\phi_L(p,t)$ is the covariance of a linear state observer with gain $L$, so that $\phi_L(p,t)$ is the solution of $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d P(t)}{dt} &= & (A_i-LC_i)(t)P(t) + P(t) (A_i-LC_i)' \\
&&+ E_iE_i' + LD_iD_i'L',\\
P(0)&=&p. \end{aligned}$$ In particular, we can set $L=0$, and $\phi_L(p,t)$ is now the solution of the linear differential equation $$\label{eq:covariance:of:trivial:filter}
\frac{d P(t)}{dt} = A_iP(t) + P(t) A_i' + E_iE_i', \qquad P(0)=p,$$ which can be expressed in the form $\phi_L(p,t)=\Phi_1(t)p+\Phi_2(t)$ where $\Phi_1\leq \beta e^{\alpha {\|A_i\|}t} \|p\| I$ and $\Phi_2\leq \int_0^t \beta e^{\alpha {\|A_i\|}\tau} \|E_iE_i\| I d\tau $ for some scalars $\alpha,\beta$ that do not depend on $p,i$. Set $\bar p_1=\beta e^{\alpha T{\|A\|_{\mathcal{S}}}}(\|\bar p_0\|p_0+T \|E\|_{\mathcal{S}}^2 I )$, thus completing the proof. $ \Box$
\[lem-1-Ric\] Under Assumption \[hyp:infinite\], for each ${\widetilde}p\in\mathcal{C}(n_1)$ there exist $\ell,\eta>0$ such that for all $i\in\mathcal{S}$ and $0\leq t,{\widehat}{t}\leq T$ and $p,{\widehat}{p}\leq {\widetilde}p$ one has $$\|\phi_i(p,t)-\phi_i({\widehat}p,{\widehat}t)\|\leq \ell |t-{\widehat}{t}|+\eta\|p-{\widehat}{p}\|.$$
*Proof.* It follows directly from the definition of $R$ in Eq. that one has $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\frac{d\phi_i(p,t)-d\phi_i({\widehat}{p},t)}{dt}}\\
&=& A_i \phi_i(p,t) + \phi_i(p,t) A_i'+ E_iE_i' \\
&&- \phi_i(p,t) C_i'(D_iD_i')^{-1}C_i \phi_i(p,t)\\
&&- \big( A_i \phi_i({\widehat}{p},t) + \phi_i({\widehat}{p},t) A_i'+ E_iE_i' \\
&&- \phi_i({\widehat}{p},t) C_i'(D_iD_i')^{-1}C_i \phi_i({\widehat}{p},t) \big)\\
&=& A_i (\phi_i(p,t)-\phi_i({\widehat}{p},t)) + (\phi_i(p,t)-\phi_i({\widehat}{p},t)) A_i'\\
&&- \phi_i({\widehat}{p},t) C_i'(D_iD_i')^{-1}C_i (\phi_i(p,t)-\phi_i({\widehat}{p},t))\\
&&- (\phi_i(p,t)-\phi_i({\widehat}{p},t)) C_i'(D_iD_i')^{-1}C_i \phi_i({\widehat}{p},t)\\
&& - (\phi_i(p,t)-\phi_i({\widehat}{p},t)) C_i'(D_iD_i')^{-1}C_i\\
&&\times (\phi_i(p,t)-\phi_i({\widehat}{p},t)) \\
&=& (A_i - \phi_i({\widehat}{p},t) C_i'(D_iD_i')^{-1}C_i) (\phi_i(p,t)-\phi_i({\widehat}{p},t)) \\
&&+ (\phi_i(p,t)-\phi_i({\widehat}{p},t)) (A_i'-C_i'(D_iD_i')^{-1}C_i \phi_i({\widehat}{p},t))\\
&& - (\phi_i(p,t)-\phi_i({\widehat}{p},t)) C_i'(D_iD_i')^{-1}C_i \\
&&\times(\phi_i(p,t)-\phi_i({\widehat}{p},t)),\end{aligned}$$ or, by denoting $X(t)=\phi_i(p,t)-\phi_i({\widehat}{p},t)$, one has $X(0)=p-{\widehat}{p}$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d X(t)}{dt} &=& A_{aux}(t)X(t) + X(t) A_{aux}(t)' \nonumber\\
&&- X(t) C_i'(D_iD_i')^{-1}C_i X(t), \label{eq:aux:X}\end{aligned}$$ where we write $A_{aux}(t)=(A_i - \phi_i({\widehat}{p},t) C_i'(D_iD_i')^{-1}C_i)$ for ease of notation. By setting $Y(0)=\|p-{\widehat}{p}\|I\geq X(0)$ and using the order preserving property of the Riccati equation it follows that $\{Y(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ defined as the solution of $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{d Y(t)}{dt} &=& A_{aux}(t) Y(t) + Y(t) A_{aux}(t)' \nonumber\\
&& - Y(t) C_i'(D_iD_i')^{-1}C_i Y(t), \label{eq:aux:Y}\end{aligned}$$ satisfies $Y(t)\geq X(t)$ for all $t\geq 0$. The process $\{Y(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ can be interpreted as the error covariance of a filtering problem[^3], more precisely the covariance of the error ${\widehat}{x}_{aux}(t)-x_{aux}(t)$ where $\{{\widehat}{x}_{aux}(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ satisfies $$d {\widehat}{x}_{aux} = A_{aux}(t) {\widehat}{x}_{aux} dt + K(t) (dy - C_{aux} {\widehat}{x}_{aux} dt),$$ with $A_{aux}$ defined above, $C_{aux}=(C_i'(D_iD_i')^{-1}C_i)^{1/2}$, $\{K(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ is the Kalman gain, and $$\left\{\begin{array}{rcl}
d x_{aux}(t) &=& A_{aux}(t) x_{aux}(t)dt ,\\
d y_{aux}(t) &=& C_{aux} x_{aux}(t)dt + dv_{aux}(t),
\end{array}\right.$$ where $\{v_{aux}(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ is a standard Wiener process with incremental covariance $Idt$, and $x_{aux}(0)$ is a Gaussian random variable with covariance $p-{\widehat}{p}$. Now, if we replace $K$ with the (suboptimal) gain $L=0$ we obtain a larger error covariance $Y_{L} (t)\geq Y(t)$. With the trivial gain $L=0$ we also have $$d{\widehat}{x}_{aux}- dx_{aux} = A_{aux}(t)({\widehat}{x}_{aux}-x_{aux}) dt,$$ so that direct calculation yields $$\label{eq:aux:YL}
\frac{d Y_L(t)}{dt} = A_{aux}(t) Y_L(t) + Y_L(t) A_{aux}(t)',$$ with $Y_L(0)=\|p-{\widehat}{p}\|I$. Recall that ${\widehat}p\leq {\widetilde}p$ by hypothesis, so that from Lemma \[lem00:Lip\] we get an uniform bound $\bar p_1$ for $\phi_i({\widehat}p,t)$, which in turn yields that $\|A_{aux}\|_{\mathcal{S}}$ is bounded in the time interval $0\leq t\leq T$ and for all ${\widehat}p\leq {\widetilde}p$. This allows to write $$Y(t) \leq \ell_1 \|p-{\widehat}{p}\| I,\qquad 0\leq t\leq T,$$ for some $\ell_1\geq 0$ (uniform on $t$, $p$, ${\widehat}p$ and $i$). Gathering some of the above inequalities together, one gets $$\label{eq-aux-main-eval01}
\phi_i(p,t)-\phi_i({\widehat}{p},t)=X(t)\leq Y(t)\leq Y_L(t)\leq \ell_1 \|p-{\widehat}{p}\| I,$$ $0\leq t\leq T$. Similarly as above, one can obtain $$\label{eq-aux-main-eval02}
\phi_i({\widehat}p,t)-\phi_i(p,t)\leq \ell_2 \|p-{\widehat}{p}\| I,\qquad 0\leq t\leq T,$$ where, again, $\ell_2$ is uniform on $t$, $p$, ${\widehat}p$ and $i$. Eqs. , and the fact that $\phi_i({\widehat}p,t)-\phi_i(p,t)$ is symmetric lead to $$\begin{aligned}
-\max(\ell_1,\ell_2)&\leq& \lambda_{\min}(\phi_i({\widehat}p,t)-\phi_i(p,t)),\\
\lambda_{\min}(\phi_i({\widehat}p,t)-\phi_i(p,t))&\leq &\lambda_{\max}(\phi_i({\widehat}p,t)-\phi_i(p,t)) \\
&\leq &\max(\ell_1,\ell_2).\end{aligned}$$ Hence, one has $$\|\phi_i({\widehat}p,t)-\phi_i(p,t)\|\leq \max(\ell_1,\ell_2) \|p-{\widehat}{p}\|,$$ completing the first part of the proof.
For the second part, similarly to the proof of the preceding lemma, we have that $\phi_i(p,t)$ is bounded from above by $X(t)$ the solution of the linear differential equation Eq. with initial condition $X(0)=p$, and it is then simple to find scalars $\eta_1,\eta_2>0$ irrespective of $i$ such that, for the entire time interval $0\leq t\leq T$, $$\|X(t)-p\|_{\mathcal{S}} \leq \|\Phi_1(t)\|_{\mathcal{S}} + \|(\Phi_2(t)-I)p\|_{\mathcal{S}}
\leq \eta_1 t + \eta_2 t \|p\|.$$ Hence, one has $$\label{eq:maj phi}
\phi_i(p,t)-p\leq X(t)-p \leq \|X(t)-p\|_{\mathcal{S}} I \leq (\eta_1 t + \eta_2 t \|p\|) I,$$ for all $t\geq 0$, leading to $$\|\phi_i(p,t)-p\| \leq \eta_1 t + \eta_2 t \|p\|.$$ As $p\leq {\widetilde}p$ by hypothesis, we have $\|p\|\leq n_1\|{\widetilde}p\|$ and it follows immediately from the above inequality that $$\label{eq:aux:XLips2}
\|\phi_i(p,t)-p\| \leq (\eta_1 + \eta_2 n_1 \|{\widetilde}p\|) t .$$ As operator $R$ does not depend on time, we have $\phi(p,t_1+t_2)=\phi(\phi(p,t_1),t_2)$, $t_1,t_2\geq 0$, and defining $\bar p=\phi(p,t_1)$, one has $$\|\phi_i(p,t_1+t_2)-\phi_i(p,t_1)\| = \|\phi_i(\bar p,t_2)-\bar p\|$$ and Eq. allows to write $$\|\phi_i(p,t_1+t_2)-\phi_i(p,t_1)\| \leq (\eta_1 + \eta_2 n_1 \|{\widetilde}p\|) t_2.$$ The result then follows by setting $t_1={\widehat}t$ and $t_2=t-{\widehat}t$ if $t> {\widehat}t$ or with $t_1=t$ and $t_2={\widehat}t - t$ otherwise. $ \Box$
Error derivation for gain matrices
----------------------------------
We proceed in three steps. The first one is to study the error between $P_k(t)$ and ${\widehat}{P}_k(t)$, the second step is to study the error between $P(t)$ and ${\widetilde}{P}(t)$ and the last step is to compare the gain matrices $K_{KB}(t)$ and ${\widetilde}{K}(t)$, for $0\leq t\leq T$. We start with a preliminary important result that will enable us to use Theorem \[lem-1-Ric\] in all the sequel.
\[lem0:Lip\] Under Assumption \[hyp:infinite\], there exist a matrix $\bar p\in\mathcal{C}(n_1)$ such that for all integers $0\leq k\leq n$ and times $0\leq t\leq T$, one has $$P_k(t)\leq \bar p,\qquad {\widehat}{P}_k(t)\leq \bar p.$$
*Proof.* We prove the result by induction on $k$. For $k=0$, one has $p_0\in\mathcal{C}(n_1)$ and $P_0(t)={\widehat}{P}_0(t)=\phi_{Z_0}(p_0,t)$ for all $t\leq T$. Lemma \[lem00:Lip\] thus yields the existence of a matrix $\bar p_0\in\mathcal{C}(n_1)$ such that $P_0(t)\leq \bar p_0$ for all $t\leq T$. Suppose that for a given $k\leq n-1$, there exists a matrix $\bar p_k\in\mathcal{C}(n_1)$ such that $P_k(t)\leq \bar p_k$ and ${\widehat}{P}_k(t)\leq \bar p_k$ for all $t\leq T$. Then in particular, if $S_k\leq T$ and ${\widehat}{S}_k\leq T$, one has $P_{k+1}(0)=P_k(S_k)\leq \bar p_k$ and ${\widehat}{P}_{k+1}(0)={\widehat}{P}_k({\widehat}{S}_k)\leq \bar p_k$. Hence, Lemma \[lem00:Lip\] gives the existence of a matrix $\bar p_{k+1}\in\mathcal{C}(n_1)$ such that $P_{k+1}(t)\leq \bar p_{k+1}$ and ${\widehat}{P}_{k+1}(t)\leq \bar p_{k+1}$ for all $t\leq T$. One thus obtains an increasing sequence $(p_k)$ of matrices in $\mathcal{C}(n_1)$ and the result is obtained by setting $\bar p=\bar p_n$. $ \Box$ In the following, for $\bar p$ given by Lemma \[lem0:Lip\] we set $\tilde p= \bar p$ in Theorem \[lem-1-Ric\] and denote by $\bar \ell$ and $\bar \eta$ the corresponding Lipschitz constants. We now turn to the investigation of the error between the processes $P_k(t)$ and ${\widehat}{P}_k(t)$.
\[lem1:Lip\] Under Assumption \[hyp:infinite\], for all integers $0\leq k\leq n$ and times $0\leq t\leq T$, one has $$\|P_k(t)-{\widehat}{P}_k(t)\|\leq\bar\ell\|P_{k-1}(S_k)- {\widehat}{P}_{k-1}({\widehat}{S}_k)\|.$$
*Proof.* One has $P_k(t)=\phi_{Z_k}(P_{k-1}(S_k),t)$ and ${\widehat}{P}_k(t)=\phi_{Z_k}({\widehat}{P}_{k-1}({\widehat}{S}_k),t)$. Hence, Lemma \[lem0:Lip\] and Theorem \[lem-1-Ric\] yield $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\|P_k(t)-{\widehat}{P}_k(t)\|}\\
&=&\|\phi_{Z_k}(P_{k-1}(S_k),t)-\phi_{Z_k}({\widehat}{P}_{k-1}({\widehat}{S}_k),t)\|\\
&\leq&\bar\ell\|P_{k-1}(S_k)- {\widehat}{P}_{k-1}({\widehat}{S}_k)\|,\end{aligned}$$ if $S_k,{\widehat}{S}_k\leq T$, hence the result. $ \Box$
\[lem2:Lip\] Under Assumption \[hyp:infinite\], for all integers $0\leq k\leq n$ satisfying $S_k,{\widehat}{S}_k\leq T$, one has $$\|P_{k}(S_{k+1})- {\widehat}{P}_{k}({\widehat}{S}_{k+1})\|\leq \sum_{j=0}^{k}\bar\ell^{k-j}\bar\eta|S_{j+1}-{\widehat}{S}_{j+1}|.$$
*Proof.* By definition, one has $P_k(S_{k+1})=\phi_{Z_k}(P_{k-1}(S_k),S_{k+1})$ and ${\widehat}{P}_k(t)=\phi_{Z_k}({\widehat}{P}_{k-1}({\widehat}{S}_k),{\widehat}{S}_{k+1})$. Hence as above, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\|P_{k}(S_{k+1})- {\widehat}{P}_{k}({\widehat}{S}_{k+1})\|}\\
&=&\|\phi_{Z_k}(P_{k-1}(S_k),S_{k+1})-\phi_{Z_k}({\widehat}{P}_{k-1}({\widehat}{S}_k),{\widehat}{S}_{k+1})\|\\
&\leq&\bar\ell\|P_{k-1}(S_k)- {\widehat}{P}_{k-1}({\widehat}{S}_k)\|+\bar\eta|S_{k+1}-{\widehat}{S}_{k+1}|.\end{aligned}$$ Then notice that one also has $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\|P_0(S_1)-{\widehat}{P}_0({\widehat}{S}_1)\|}\\
&=&\|\phi_{Z_0}(p_0,S_1)-\phi_{Z_0}(p_0,{\widehat}{S}_1)\|\leq\bar\eta|S_1-{\widehat}{S}_1|,\end{aligned}$$ and the result is obtained by recursion. $ \Box$ We can now turn to the error between the processes $P(t)$ and ${\widetilde}{P}(t)$.
\[th:Lip\] Under Assumption \[hyp:infinite\], for all $0\leq t< T\wedge T_{n+1}$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{\mathbb{E}}[\|P(t)-{\widetilde}{P}(t)\|^2{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t\leq T\wedge T_{n+1}\}}}]^{1/2}}\\
&\leq&\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\bar\ell^{n-j}\bar\eta{\mathbb{E}}[|S_{j+1}-{\widehat}{S}_{j+1}|^2]^{1/2}\\
&&+\bar\eta \delta t+n\|\bar p\|(\overline{\lambda}\delta t)^{1/2},\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar p$ is defined in Lemma \[lem0:Lip\].
\[rem-byproduct\] Note that the above result is very general. Indeed, we do not use in its proof that ${\widehat}{S}_k$ is the quantized approximation of $S_k$. We have established that, given a [semi-]{}Markov chain $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ and a process $\{{\widehat}{\theta}(t),0\leq t\leq T\}$ obtained by a perturbation of the jump times of $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$, the two solutions of the Riccati equations driven by these two processes respectively are not far away from each other, as long as the real and perturbed jump times are not far away from each other. We allow two kinds of perturbations, a random one, given by the replacement of $S_k$ by ${\widehat}{S}_k$ and a deterministic one given by $\delta t$ corresponding to a delay in the jumps. In the case of non-instantaneous observation of $\theta(t)$ (i.e., imperfect observation ${\widetilde}{S}_k$ of $S_k$), the difference ${\mathbb{E}}[|{\widetilde}{S}_{j+1}-{\widehat}{S}_{j+1}|^2]$ may not converge to zero but is still a valid upper bound for the approximation error of the Riccati solution and can reasonably be supposed small enough. Note also that the result is still valid for any $L^q$ norm instead of the $L^2$ norm as the initial value of the Riccati solution is deterministic, as long as the distributions $F_i$ have moments of order greater than $q$.
*Proof.* By definition, one has for all $0\leq t< T\wedge T_{n+1}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{P(t)-{\widetilde}{P}(t)}\\
&=&\sum_{k=0}^nP_k(t-T_k){\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-T_k<S_{k+1}\}}}\\
&&-{\widehat}{P}_k(t-{\widetilde}{T}_k){\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-{\widetilde}{T}_k<{\widetilde}{S}_{k+1}\}}}\\
&=&\sum_{k=0}^n\big(P_k(t-T_k)-{\widehat}{P}_k(t-{T}_k)\big){\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-T_k<S_{k+1}\}}}\\
&&+\sum_{k=0}^n\big({\widehat}{P}_k(t-{T}_k-{\widehat}{P}_k(t-{\widetilde}{T}_k)\big){\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-T_k<S_{k+1}\}}}\\\
&&+\sum_{k=0}^n\!{\widehat}{P}_k(t-{\widetilde}{T}_k)({\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-T_k<S_{k+1}\}}}\!-\!{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-{\widetilde}{T}_k<{\widetilde}{S}_{k+1}\}}})\\
&=&\epsilon_1(t)+\epsilon_2(t)+\epsilon_3(t).\end{aligned}$$ From Lemmas \[lem1:Lip\] and \[lem2:Lip\], the first term $\epsilon_1$ can be bounded by $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\|\epsilon_1(t)\|}\\
&\leq&\big\|\sum_{k=0}^n \big(P_k(t-T_k)-{\widehat}{P}_k(t-T_k)\big){\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-T_k<S_{k+1}\}}}\big\|\\
&\leq& \sum_{k=0}^n \|P_k(t-T_k)-{\widehat}{P}_k(t-T_k)\|{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-T_k<S_{k+1}\}}}\\
&\leq& \sum_{k=0}^n \ell\|P_{k-1}(S_k)- {\widehat}{P}_{k-1}({\widehat}{S}_k)\|{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-T_k<S_{k+1}\}}}\\
&\leq& \sum_{k=0}^n \sum_{j=0}^{k-1}\bar\ell^{k-j}\bar\eta|S_{j+1}-{\widehat}{S}_{j+1}|{\mathbbm{1}_{\{T_k\leq t<T_{k+1}\}}}\\
&\leq& \sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\bar\ell^{n-j}\bar\eta|S_{j+1}-{\widehat}{S}_{j+1}|.\end{aligned}$$ The second term $\epsilon_2$ is bounded by Lemma \[lem0:Lip\] and Theorem \[lem-1-Ric\] as follows $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{\|\epsilon_2(t)\|}\\
&\leq&\big\|\sum_{k=0}^n \big({\widehat}{P}_k(t-{T}_k-{\widehat}{P}_k(t-{\widetilde}{T}_k)\big){\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-T_k<S_{k+1}\}}}\big\|\\
&\leq& \sum_{k=0}^n \|{\widehat}{P}_k(t-T_k)-{\widehat}{P}_k(t-{\widetilde}{T}_k)\|{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-T_k<S_{k+1}\}}}\\
&\leq& \sum_{k=0}^n\bar\eta |T_k-{\widetilde}{T}_k|{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-T_k<S_{k+1}\}}}\\
&\leq& \bar\eta\delta t,\end{aligned}$$ using the fact that the difference between $T_k$ and ${\widetilde}{T}_k$ is less than $\delta t$ by construction. Finally, the last term $\epsilon_3$ is bounded by using Lemma \[lem0:Lip\] and the fact that $0\leq {T}_k\leq {\widetilde}{T}_k$ for all $k$. Indeed, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{\mathbb{E}}[\|\epsilon_3(t)\|^2]^{1/2}}\\
&\leq&{\mathbb{E}}\big[\big\|\sum_{k=0}^n{\widehat}{P}_k(t-{\widetilde}{T}_k)({\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-T_k<S_{k+1}\}}}\\
&&-{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-{\widetilde}{T}_k<{\widetilde}{S}_{k+1}\}}})\big\|^2\big]^{1/2}\\
&\leq&\|\bar p\| \sum_{k=0}^n {\mathbb{E}}[|{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-T_k<S_{k+1}\}}}-{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t-{\widetilde}{T}_k<{\widetilde}{S}_{k+1}\}}}|^2]^{1/2}\\
&\leq&\|\bar p\| \sum_{k=0}^n {\mathbb{P}}(t-\delta t\leq T_k\leq t)^{1/2}\\
&\leq& n\|\bar p\|\sum_{i\in\mathcal{S}}\big({\lambda_i \delta t}\big)^{1/2}{\mathbb{P}}(Z_k=i)\\
&\leq& n\|\bar p\|\big({\overline{\lambda} \delta t}\big)^{1/2}.\end{aligned}$$ One obtains the result by taking the $L^2$ expectation norm also on both sides of the inequalities involving $\epsilon_1$ and $\epsilon_2$. $ \Box$ Therefore, as the errors ${\mathbb{E}}[|S_{j+1}-{\widehat}{S}_{j+1}|^2]$ go to $0$ as the number of points in the discretization grids goes to infinity, we have the convergence of ${\widetilde}{P}(t)$ to ${P}(t)$ as long as the time grid step $\delta t$ also goes to $0$. Theorem \[th:Lip\] also gives a convergence rate for $\|P(t)-{\widetilde}{P}(t)\|$, providing that $0\leq t< T\wedge T_{n+1}$. The convergence rate for the gain matrices is now straightforward from their definitions.
\[cor:ErrK\] Under Assumption \[hyp:infinite\], for all $0\leq t< T\wedge T_{n+1}$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{\mathbb{E}}[\|K_{KB}(t)-{\widetilde}{K}(t)\|^2{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t\leq T\wedge T_{n+1}\}}}]^{1/2}}\\
&\leq&\|C'(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S}\Big(\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\bar\ell^{n-j}\bar\eta{\mathbb{E}}[|S_{j+1}-{\widehat}{S}_{j+1}|^2]^{1/2}\\
&&+\bar\eta \delta t+n\|\bar p\|{(\overline{\lambda}\delta t)}^{1/2}\Big).\end{aligned}$$
Error derivation for the filtered trajectories
----------------------------------------------
We now turn to the estimation of the error between the exact KBF trajectory and our approximate one. We start with introducing some new notation. Let $b: {\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2n_1}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^{2n_1}$ and ${\widetilde}{b}: {\mathbb{R}}\times{\mathbb{R}}^{2n_1}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^{2n_1}$ be defined by $$\begin{aligned}
b(t,z)&=&\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
A_{\theta(t)}&0\\
K_{KB}(t)C_{\theta(t)}&A_{\theta(t)}-K_{KB}(t)C_{\theta(t)}
\end{array}\right)z,\\
{\widetilde}{b}(t,z)&=&\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
A_{\theta(t)}&0\\
{\widetilde}K(t)C_{\theta(t)}&A_{\theta(t)}-{\widetilde}K(t)C_{\theta(t)}
\end{array}\right)z\end{aligned}$$ Let also $\sigma: {\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^{2n_1\times(n_3+n_4)}$ and ${\widetilde}\sigma: {\mathbb{R}}\rightarrow{\mathbb{R}}^{2n_1\times(n_3+n_4)}$ be defined by $$\sigma(t)=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
E_{\theta(t)}&0\\
0&K_{KB}(t)D_{\theta(t)}
\end{array}\right),$$ $${\widetilde}\sigma(t)=\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
E_{\theta(t)}&0\\
0&{\widetilde}K(t)D_{\theta(t)}
\end{array}\right).$$ Finally, set $W(t)=(w(t)',v(t)')'$, $X(t)=(x(t)',{\widehat}{x}_{KB}(t)')'$ and ${\widetilde}{X}(t)=(x(t)',{\widetilde}{x}(t)')'$, so that the two processes $\{X(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ and $\{{\widetilde}{X}(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ have the following dynamics $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}
dX(t)=b(t,X_t)dt+\sigma(t)dW(t),\\
X(0)=(x(0)',{\mathbb{E}}[x(0)]')',
\end{array}\right.$$ $$\left\{\begin{array}{l}
d{\widetilde}{X}(t)={\widetilde}{b}(t,{\widetilde}{X}_t)dt+{\widetilde}\sigma(t)dW(t),\\
{\widetilde}{X}(0)=(x(0)',{\mathbb{E}}[x(0)]')'.
\end{array}\right.$$ The regularity properties of functions $b$, ${\widetilde}{b}$, $\sigma$ and ${\widetilde}{\sigma}$ are quite straightforward from their definition.
\[lem:Lipbsig\] Under Assumption \[hyp:infinite\], for all $0\leq t\leq T$ and $z,{\widehat}{z}\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n_1}$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
|b(t,z)|\!\!&\!\!\leq\!\!&\!\!(\|A\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S})|z|,\\
|{\widetilde}{b}(t,z)|\!\!&\!\!\leq\!\!&\!\!(\|A\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S})|z|,\\
\|\sigma(t)\|_2\!\!&\!\!\leq\!\!&\!\!\|E\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}\|(DD')^{-1}\|_2\|D\|_\mathcal{S},\\
\|{\widetilde}\sigma(t)\|_2\!\!&\!\!\leq\!\!&\!\!\|E\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S}\|D\|_\mathcal{S},\\
|b(t,z)-b(t,{\widehat}{z})|\!\!&\!\!\leq\!\!&\!\!(\|A\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_2^2\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S})|z-{\widehat}{z}|,\\
|{\widetilde}{b}(t,z)-{\widetilde}{b}(t,{\widehat}{z})|\!\!&\!\!\leq\!\!&\!\!(\|A\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S})|z-{\widehat}{z}|,\end{aligned}$$ where $\bar p$ is the matrix defined in Lemma \[lem0:Lip\].
*Proof.* Upper bounds for $\|K_{KB}(t)\|_2$ and $\|{\widetilde}K(t)\|_2$ come from the upper bounds for $P_k(t)$ and ${\widehat}{P}_k(t)$ given in Lemma \[lem0:Lip\]. $ \Box$ In particular, the processes $\{X(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ and $\{{\widetilde}{X}(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ are well defined and ${\mathbb{E}}[\sup_{t\leq T}|X(t)|^2]$ and ${\mathbb{E}}[\sup_{t\leq T}|{\widetilde}X(t)|^2]$ are finite, see e.g. [@KS91]. Set also $\Delta(t)=K_{KB}(t)-{\widetilde}K(t)$. In order to compare $X(t)$ and ${\widetilde}X(t)$, one needs first to be able to compare $b$ with ${\widetilde}{b}$ and $\sigma$ with ${\widetilde}{\sigma}$. The following result is straightforward from their definition.
\[lem:Lipbsigt\] Under Assumption \[hyp:infinite\], for all $0\leq t\leq T$ and $z\in{\mathbb{R}}^{2n_1}$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
|b(t,z)-{\widetilde}b(t,z)|&\leq&2\|C\|_\mathcal{S}\|\Delta(t)\||z|,\\
\|\sigma(t)-{\widetilde}\sigma(t)\|_\mathcal{S}&\leq&\|D\|_\mathcal{S}\|\Delta(t)\|.\end{aligned}$$
We also need some bounds on the conditional moments of $\{X(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$. Let $\{\mathcal{F}_t, 0\leq t\leq T\}$ be the filtration generated by the [semi-]{}Markov process $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$, and ${\mathbb{E}}_t[\cdot]={\mathbb{E}}[\cdot\ |\ \mathcal{F}_t]$.
\[lem:X4\] Under Assumption \[hyp:infinite\], there exists a constant $c_2$ independent of the parameters of the system such that for $0\leq t \leq T$ one has $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{\mathbb{E}}_T[\sup_{t\leq T\wedge T_{n+1}}|X(t)|^2]}\\
&\leq& 2c_2T(\|E\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S}\|D\|_\mathcal{S})^2\\
&&\times\exp(2T^2(\|A\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S})^2).\end{aligned}$$
*Proof.* As $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ and the noise sequence $\{W(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ are independent, and the process $\{K_{KB}(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ is only dependent on $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ by construction, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{\mathbb{E}}_T[\sup_{u\leq t\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}|X(u)|^2]}\\
&\leq & 2{\mathbb{E}}_T\Big[\sup_{u\leq t\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}\Big|\int_0^{u}\sigma(s)dW(s)\Big|^2\Big]\\
&&+2{\mathbb{E}}_T\Big[\sup_{u\leq t\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}\Big|\int_0^{u}b(s,X(s))ds\Big|^2\Big]\\
&\leq&2c_2{\mathbb{E}}_T\Big[\int_0^{T\wedge T_{n+1}}\big\|\sigma(s)\big\|^2ds\Big]\\
&&+2T{\mathbb{E}}_T\Big[\int_0^{t\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}\big|b(s,X(s))\big|^2ds\Big],\\\end{aligned}$$ from convexity and Burkholder–Davis–Gundy inequalities, see e.g. [@KS91], where $c_2$ is a constant independent of the parameters of the problem. From Lemma \[lem:Lipbsig\] one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{\mathbb{E}}_T[\sup_{u\leq t\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}|X(u)|^2]}\\
&\leq&2c_2T(\|E\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S}\|D\|_\mathcal{S})^2\\
&&+2T(\|A\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S})^2\\
&&\times\int_0^{t}{{\mathbb{E}}_T[\sup_{u\leq s\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}|X(u)|^2]ds}.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, we use Gronwall’s lemma to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{\mathbb{E}}_T[\sup_{t\leq T\wedge T_{n+1}}|X(t)|^2]}\\
&\leq & 2c_2T(\|E\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S}\|D\|_\mathcal{S})^2\\
&&\times\exp(2T^2(\|A\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S})^2)\end{aligned}$$ which proves the result. $ \Box$ In the sequel, let $\overline{X}$ be the upper bound given by Lemma \[lem:X4\]: $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{X}&=&2c_2T(\|E\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S}\|D\|_\mathcal{S})^2\\
&&\times\exp(2T^2(\|A\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S})^2).\end{aligned}$$ We can now state and prove our convergence result.
\[th:cv filter\] Under Assumption \[hyp:infinite\], for $0\leq t \leq T$ one has $${\mathbb{E}}[|X(t)-{\widetilde}{X}(t)|^2{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t\leq T\wedge T_{n+1}\}}}]\leq \overline{c}_1\exp(T\overline{c}_2),$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\overline{c}_1&=&(2\|D\|_\mathcal{S}+8T\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\overline{X})\|C_{i}'(D_{i}D_{i}')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S}\\
&&\times\Big(\sum_{j=0}^{n-1}\bar\ell^{n-j}\bar\eta{\mathbb{E}}[|S_{j+1}-{\widehat}{S}_{j+1}|^2]^{1/2}\\
&&+\bar\eta \delta t+n\|\bar p\|{(\overline{\lambda}\delta t)}^{1/2}\Big)^2,\\
\overline{c}_2&=&2T(\|A\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S})^2.\end{aligned}$$
*Proof.* We follow the same lines as in the previous proof. As $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ and the noise sequence $\{W(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ are independent, and the processes $\{K_{KB}(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ and $\{{\widetilde}K(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ are only dependent on $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ by construction, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{\mathbb{E}}_T[|X(t)-{\widetilde}{X}(t)|^2{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t\leq T\wedge T_{n+1}\}}}]}\\
&\leq & 2{\mathbb{E}}_T\Big[\Big|\int_0^{t\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}\big(\sigma(s)-{\widetilde}\sigma(s)\big)dW(s)\Big|^2\Big]\\
&&+2{\mathbb{E}}_T\Big[\Big|\int_0^{t\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}\big(b(s,X(s))-{\widetilde}b(s,{\widetilde}X(s))\big)ds\Big|^2\Big]\\
&\leq&2{\mathbb{E}}_T\Big[\int_0^{t\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}\big\|\sigma(s)-{\widetilde}\sigma(s)\big\|^2ds\Big]\\
&&+2T{\mathbb{E}}_T\Big[\int_0^{t\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}\big|b(s,X(s))-{\widetilde}b(s,{\widetilde}X(s))\big|^2ds\Big],\\\end{aligned}$$ from the isometry property of Itô integrals and Cauchy–Schwartz inequality. From Lemmas \[lem:Lipbsig\], \[lem:Lipbsigt\] and Fubini one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\lefteqn{{\mathbb{E}}_T[|X(t)-{\widetilde}{X}(t)|^2{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t\leq T\wedge T_{n+1}\}}}]}\\
&\leq&2\|D\|_\mathcal{S}\int_0^{t\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}\big\|\Delta(s)\big\|^2ds\\
&&+2T\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\int_0^{t\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}\big\|\Delta(s)\big\|^2|{\mathbb{E}}_T[|X(s)|^2]ds\\
&&+2T(\|A\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S})^2\\
&&\times{\mathbb{E}}_T\Big[\int_0^{t\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}\big|X(s)-{\widetilde}X(s)\big|^2ds\Big]\\
&\leq&(2\|D\|_\mathcal{S}+8T\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\overline{X})\int_0^{t\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}\big\|\Delta(s)\big\|^2ds\\
&&+2T(\|A\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S})^2\\
&&\times\int_0^{t}{\mathbb{E}}_T[\big|X(s)-{\widetilde}X(s)\big|^2{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq s\leq T\wedge T_{n+1}\}}}]ds\\
&\leq&{\widetilde}{c}_1+{\widetilde}{c}_2\int_0^{t}{\mathbb{E}}_T[\big|X(s)-{\widetilde}X(s)\big|^2{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq s\leq T\wedge T_{n+1}\}}}]ds, \end{aligned}$$ from Lemma \[lem:X4\], with $$\begin{aligned}
{\widetilde}c_1&=&(2\|D\|_\mathcal{S}+8T\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\overline{X})\int_0^{t\wedge T\wedge T_{n+1}}\big\|\Delta(s)\big\|^2ds,\\
{\widetilde}c_2&=&2T(\|A\|_\mathcal{S}+\|\bar p\|\|C\|_\mathcal{S}^2\|(DD')^{-1}\|_\mathcal{S})^2.\end{aligned}$$ We use Gronwall’s lemma to obtain $$\begin{aligned}
{\mathbb{E}}_T[|X(t)-{\widetilde}{X}(t)|^2{\mathbbm{1}_{\{0\leq t\leq T\wedge T_{n+1}\}}}]
&\leq &{\widetilde}c_1\exp(T{\widetilde}c_2),\end{aligned}$$ and conclude by taking the expectation on both sides and using Corollary \[cor:ErrK\] to bound ${\mathbb{E}}[{\widetilde}c_1]$. $ \Box$ As a consequence of the previous result, $|{\widehat}{x}_{KB}(t)-{\widetilde}{x}(t)|$ goes to $0$ almost surely as the number of points in the discretization grids goes to infinity.
\[rem-delayed-observation\] As noted in Remark \[rem-byproduct\], in the case of imperfect observation ${\widetilde}{S}_k$ of $S_k$, the errors ${\mathbb{E}}[|{\widetilde}S_{j+1}-{\widehat}{S}_{j+1}|^2]$ do not necessarily go to $0$ if $\theta$ is not instantaneously observed, however the errors are small when the time delays are small. The previous result implies that the filter performance deterioration is proportional to these errors. Acceptable performances can still be achieved in applications where $\theta$ is not instantaneously observed.
Numerical example {#sec-example}
=================
We now illustrate our results on a magnetic suspension system presented in [@ECosta99ieee]. The system is a laboratory device that consists of a coil whose voltage is controlled by a rather simple (non-reliable) pulse-width modulation system, and sensors for position of a suspended metallic sphere and for the coil current. The model around the origin without jumps and noise is in the form $\dot x(t)=A x(t)+B u(t)$, $y(t)=C x(t)$, with $$A=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0&1&0\\
1750&0&-34.1\\
0& 0 & -0.0383
\end{array}\right),\qquad
B=\left(\begin{array}{c}
0\\
0\\
1.9231
\end{array}\right),$$ $$C=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1&0&0\\
0&0&1
\end{array}\right).$$ The components of vector $x(t)$ are the position of the sphere, its speed and the coil current. The coil voltage $u(t)$ is controlled using a stabilizing state feedback control, leading to the closed loop dynamics $\dot x(t)=A_1 x(t)$, $$A_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
0&1&0\\
1750&0&-34.1\\
4360.2&104.2&-84.3
\end{array}\right).$$ We consider the realistic scenario where the system may be operating in normal mode $\theta=1$ or in critical failure $\theta=2$ due e.g. to faults in the pulse-width modulation system, which is included in the model by making $B_2=0$, leading to the closed loop dynamics $\dot x(t)=A_2 x(t)$ with $A_2=A$. Although it is natural is to consider that the system starts in normal mode a.s. and never recovers from a failure, we want to compare the performance of the proposed filter with the LMMSE [@FC10] that requires [a true Markov chain with]{} positive probabilities for all modes at all times, then we relax the problem by setting the initial distribution $\pi(0)=(0.999, 0.001)$ and [the transition rates matrix]{} $$\Lambda=\left(\begin{array}{cc}
-20&20\\
0.1&-0.1
\end{array}\right)$$ with the interpretation that the recovery from failure mode is relatively slow.
In the overall model Eq. we set $C_1=C_2=C$ and we also consider that $x(0)$ is normally distributed with mean $\mathbb{E}[x(0)]=(0.001,0,0)'$ and variance $Var(x(0))=I_3$, $$E_1\!=\!E_2\!=\!\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
1&0.2&-1.9\\
-0.1&1.4&-0.3\\
0.1&0.5&1
\end{array}\right)\!\!,\
D_1\!=\!D_2\!=\!\left(\begin{array}{cc}
1&0\\
0&1
\end{array}\right)\!\!,$$ so that only the position of the sphere and the coil current are measured through some noise. Speed is not observed. It is worth mentioning that the system is not mean square stable, so that the time horizon $T$ is usually short for the trajectory to stay close to the origin and keep the linearized model valid; we can slightly increase the horizons during simulations for academic purposes only.
Markovian linear minimum mean squares estimator
-----------------------------------------------
Fragoso and Costa proposed in [@FC10] the so-called Markovian linear minimum mean squares estimator (LMMSE) for MJLS with finite state space Markov chains. Under Assumption \[hyp:finite\], the equation of the filter is $$\begin{aligned}
d\hat{x}_{FC}(t)&=&A_{\theta(t)}\hat{x}_{FC}(t)dt\\
&&+K_{FC}(\theta(t),t)(dy(t)-C_{\theta(t)}\hat{x}_{FC}(t)dt),\end{aligned}$$ for $0\leq t\leq T$, with initial condition $\hat{x}_{FC}(0)=\mathbb{E}[x(0)]$ and gain matrices $$K_{FC}(i,t)=P_{FC}(i,t)C_{i}'(D_{i}D_{i}'\pi_i(t))^{-1},$$ where $\pi_i(t)=\mathbb{P}(\theta(t)=i)=(\pi(0)\exp(t\Lambda))_i$ and $\{P_{FC}(i,t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ satisfies the system of matrix differential equation $$\begin{aligned}
dP_{FC}(i,t)&=&\big(A_{i}P_{FC}(i,t)+P_{FC}(i,t)A_{i}'\\
&&+\sum_{j=1}^N P_{FC}(j,t)\Lambda_{ji}+E_{i}E_{i}'\pi_i(t)\\
&&-P_{FC}(i,t)C_{\theta(t)}'(D_{\theta(t)}D_{\theta(t)}'\pi_i(t))^{-1}\\
&&\times C_{\theta(t)}P_{FC}(i,t)\big)dt,\\
P_{FC}(i,0)&=&Var(x(0))\pi_i(0).\end{aligned}$$ The matrices $\{P_{FC}(i,t), 0\leq t\leq T, i\in\mathcal{S}\}$ and $\{K_{FC}(i,t), 0\leq t\leq T, i\in\mathcal{S}\}$ depend only on the law of $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ and not on its current value. Therefore they can be computed off line on a discrete time grid and stored but it is sub-optimal compared to the KBF.
Approximate filter by quantization
----------------------------------
We start with the quantized discretization of the inter-jump times $\{S_n\}$ of the Markov chain $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$. We use the CLVQ algorithm described for instance in [@pages98]. Table \[tab:quant error JT\] gives the error ${\mathbb{E}}[|S_1-{\widehat}{S}_1|^2\ |\ \theta(0)=i]^{1/2}$ for $i=1,2$ computed with $10^6$ Monte Carlo simulations for an increasing number of discretization points. This illustrates the convergence of Theorem \[th:quantize\]: the error decreases as the number of points increases. The variance of the first jump time in mode $2$ is much higher than in mode $1$ which accounts for the different scales in the errors.
![Pre-computed tree of solutions with $10$ grid points.[]{data-label="tree10"}](prcomp10bis.pdf){height="5cm"}
![Pre-computed tree of solutions with $50$ grid points.[]{data-label="tree50"}](prcomp50bis.pdf){height="5cm"}
Number of grid points Error for $\theta(0)=1$ Error for $\theta(0)=2$
----------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------
10 5.441$\times 10^{-3}$ 1017$\times 10^{-3}$
50 1.585$\times 10^{-3}$ 357.5$\times 10^{-3}$
100 0.753$\times 10^{-3}$ 175.2$\times 10^{-3}$
500 0.173$\times 10^{-3}$ 36.22$\times 10^{-3}$
1000 0.100$\times 10^{-3}$ 23.35$\times 10^{-3}$
: Quantization error for the first jump time depending on the number of points in the discretization grid and the value of the starting point of the Markov chain.[]{data-label="tab:quant error JT"}
The second step consists in solving the Riccati equation (\[eq Ric\]) for all possible trajectories of $\{\theta(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ with inter-jump times in the quantization grids and up to the computation horizon $T=0.02$. Namely, we compute the trajectories {${\widehat}{P}_k(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$. We chose a regular time grid with time step $\delta t=10^{-4}$. For technical reasons related to the selection of branches, the time horizon $T$ is added in each grid. One thus obtains a tree of pre-computed branches that are solutions of Eq. (\[eq Ric\]), the branching times being the quantized jump times. Figures \[tree10\] and \[tree50\] show the pre-computed trees of solutions component-wise for $10$ and $50$ points respectively in the quantization grids. Note the very different scales of the coordinates. The number of grid points that are actually used (quantized points below the horizon $T$) are given in Table \[tab:points below horizon\] for each original quantization grid size, together with the resulting number of pre-computed branches.
------------- ------------------- ------------------- -----------
Number of Points below Points below Number of
grid points horizon horizon branches
for $\theta(0)=1$ for $\theta(0)=2$
10 4 1 7
50 14 1 17
100 33 1 36
500 161 2 7763
1000 319 3 603784
------------- ------------------- ------------------- -----------
: Number of grid points actually used and corresponding number of pre-computed branches depending on the initial number of points in the discretization grid.[]{data-label="tab:points below horizon"}
The number of pre-computed branches grows exponentially fast when we take into account more grid points. Time taken to pre-compute the branches grows accordingly. In this example, the number of points used in mode $2$ is low, therefore the number of branches remains tractable.
To compute the filtered trajectory in real time, one starts with the approximation of the solution of Eq. (\[eq Ric\]). The first branch corresponds to the pre-computed branch starting at time $0$ from $\theta(0)$. When the first jump occurs, one selects the nearest neighbor of the jump time in the quantization grid and the corresponding pre-computed branch, and so on for the following jumps. Figure \[ric-error\] shows the mean of the relative error between the solution of Eq (\[eq Ric\]) and its approximation (for the matrix norm 2) for given numbers of points in the quantization grids and $10^5$ Monte Carlo simulations. Again, it illustrates how the accuracy of the approximation increases with the number of points in the quantization grids.
![Average relative error between the solution of Riccati equation and its approximation, from top to bottom: blue: 50 points, red: 100 points, green: 500 point, black: 1000 points in the quantization grids.[]{data-label="ric-error"}](ErrP.pdf){height="4cm"}
Finally, the real-time approximation of Eq (\[eq Ric\]) is plugged into the filtering equations to obtain an approximate KBF. Figure \[filter-error\] shows the mean $L^2$ distance between the real KBF $\{{\widehat}{x}_{KB}(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ and its approximation $\{{\widetilde}{x}, 0\leq t\leq T\}$ following our procedure for an increasing number of points in the quantization grids and for $10^5$ Monte Carlo simulations.
![$L^2$ norm of the difference between ${\widehat}{x}_{KB}$ and its quantized approximation ${\widetilde}{x}$, from top to bottom: blue: 50 points, red: 100 points, green: 500 point, black: 1000 points in the quantization grids.[]{data-label="filter-error"}](ErrKA.pdf){height="4cm"}
Comparison of the filters
-------------------------
For each filter, we ran $10^5$ Monte Carlo simulations and computed the mean of the following error between the real trajectory $\{x(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ and the filtered trajectory $\{\hat{x}(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ for all of the three filters presented above, the exact Kalman–Bucy filter being the reference. $$\int_0^T\Big(\big(x_1(t)-\hat{x}_1(t)\big)^2+\big(x_2(t)-\hat{x}_2(t)\big)^2+\big(x_3(t)-\hat{x}_3(t)\big)^2\Big) dt.$$ Table \[tab:filter\_error\] gives this error for given numbers of points in the quantization grids. Of course only the error for the approximate filter changes with the quantization grids. Note that our approximate filter is very close to the KBF and performs better than the LMMSE for as little as $10$ points in the quantization grids corresponding to $7$ precomputed branches.
----------------------- ----------- -------------------- -----------
Number of grid points Error for Error for Error for
KBF approximate filter LMMSE
10 3.9244 3.9634 3.9850
50 3.9244 3.9254 3.9850
100 3.9244 3.9246 3.9850
500 3.9244 3.9244 3.9850
1000 3.9244 3.9244 3.9850
----------------------- ----------- -------------------- -----------
: Average error for the different filters depending on the number of points in the quantization grids, considering horizon $T=0.02$.[]{data-label="tab:filter_error"}
We also ran our simulations with longer horizons. The performance of the filters is given in Table \[tab:filter\_errorLong\] and illustrate that our filter can still perform good with a longer horizon. Note that the computations of the LMMSE is impossible from an horizon of $0.4$ on because the estimated state space reaches too high values very fast, and they are treated as infinity numerically. From an horizon of $0.8$ on, all computations are impossible because the system is not mean square stable, as we explained before.
----- -------- ---------- -------------------- ----------------------- --------------------
$T$ Grid Branches Error for Error for Error for
points KBF approx. filter LMMSE
0.1 10 12 376.3 425.6 812.5
0.1 50 110 376.3 379.1 812.5
0.1 100 3519 376.3 376.6 812.5
0.2 10 14 8597 10610 13260
0.2 50 2832 8597 9715 13260
0.3 10 14 2.325$\times 10^4$ 4.893$\times 10^6$ 3.023$\times 10^5$
0.3 50 11248 2.325$\times 10^4$ 4.141$\times 10^6$ 3.023$\times 10^5$
0.4 10 14 4.913$\times 10^4$ 4.663$\times 10^{10}$ NaN
0.4 50 50049 4.913$\times 10^4$ 2.102$\times 10^{10}$ NaN
----- -------- ---------- -------------------- ----------------------- --------------------
: Average error for the different filters depending on the horizon, the number of points in the quantization grids and the number of branches.[]{data-label="tab:filter_errorLong"}
Conclusion {#sec-conclusion}
==========
We have presented a filter for state estimation of [s]{}MJLS relying on discretization by quantization of the [semi-]{}Markov chain and solving a finite number of filtering Riccati equations. The difference between the approximated Riccati solution $\widetilde P(t)$ and the actual Riccati solution $P(t)$ has been studied and we have shown in Theorem \[th:Lip\] that it converges to zero in average when the number of points in the discretization grid goes to infinity; a convergence rate is also provided, allowing to find a convergence rate for the gain matrices, see Corollary \[cor:ErrK\]. Based on this result, and on an upper bound for the conditional second moment of the KBF that is derived in Lemma \[lem:X4\], we have obtained the main convergence result in Theorem \[th:cv filter\], which implies convergence to zero of $\mathbb{E}|x_{KB}(t)-\widetilde x(t)|^2$, so that $\widetilde x(t)$ approaches $x_{KB}(t)$ almost surely as the number of grid points goes to infinity. Applications in which $\theta$ is not instantaneously observed can also benefit from the proposed filter, however it may not completely recover the performance of the KBF as explained in Remark \[rem-delayed-observation\]. The algorithm has been applied to a real-world system and performed almost as well as the KBF with a small grid of $10$ points.
Although the proposed filter can be pre-computed, the number of branches of the Riccati equation grows exponentially with the time horizon $T$, making the pre-computation time too high in some cases. One exception comprises systems with no more than one fast mode (high transition rates), because in such a situation the slow modes do not branch much and the number of branches grows in an almost linear fashion with $T$ as long as the probability of the slow mode to jump before $T$ remains small. Examples of applications coping with this setup, which can benefit from the proposed filter, are systems with small probability of failure and quick recovery (the failure mode is fast), or a variable number of permanent failures (the normal mode is fast), with web-based control as a fertile field of applications. For general systems, one possible way out of this cardinality issue is to use a rolling-horizon scheme where the approximate gains are pre-computed in small batches during the system operation and sent to the controller memory. Another approach could be to quantize directly the sequence $\{S_k, P_k(S_k)\}$ thus keeping the number of branches at a fixed number, allowing for general transition rate matrices and longer horizons in terms of the number of jumps. However this approach suffers from a curse of dimensionality as the quantization error goes to zero with slower and slower rate as the dimension of the process goes higher, see Theorem \[th:quantize\].
Future work will look into a rolling-horizon implementation scheme, implementation issues and different compositions of the KBF/LMMSE, for instance using time-delayed solutions of the KBF that can be computed during the system operation as a measure for discarding unnecessary branches. Alternative schemes for discretization/quantization and selection of the appropriate pre-computed solutions can be pursued, seeking to reduce the computational load of the current algorithm while preserving the quality of the estimate.
Acknowledgment {#acknowledgment .unnumbered}
==============
This work was supported by FAPESP Grant 13/19380-8, CNPq Grants 306466/2010 and 311290/2013-2, USP-COFECUB FAPESP/FAPs/INRIA/INS2i-CNRS Grant 13/50759-3, Inria Associate team CDSS and ANR Grant Piece ANR-12-JS01-0006.
[^1]: Benoîte de Saporta is with Univ. Montpellier 2 F-34095 Montpellier, France, CNRS I3M UMR 5149 F-34095 Montpellier, France and INRIA Bordeaux Sud Ouest, team CQFD, F-33400 Talence, France. e-mail: [email protected]
[^2]: Eduardo F. Costa is with Univ. São Paulo - Instituto de Ciências Mathemáticas e de Computação, C.P. 668, 13560-970, São Carlos, SP, Brazil. email: [email protected]
[^3]: Note that this does not hold true for the process $\{X(t), 0\leq t\leq T\}$ as it may not be positive semidefinite.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
In this paper, we study the *local backward problem* of a linear heat equation with time-dependent coefficients under the Dirichlet boundary condition. Precisely, we recover the initial data from the observation on a subdomain at some later time. Thanks to the “ optimal filtering ” method of Seidman, we can solve the *global backward problem*, which determines the solution at initial time from the known data on the whole domain. Then, by using a result of controllability at one point of time, we can connect local and global backward problem.\
**Keywords.** inverse problem, global backward, local backward, controllability, observation estimate, heat equation.
author:
- 'Thi Minh Nhat VO [^1]'
title: The local backward heat problem
---
Introduction and main result
============================
Our motivation
--------------
Inverse and ill-posed problems (see [@I], [@P], [@K]) are the heart of scientific inquiry and technological development. They play a significant role in engineering applications, as well as several practical areas, such as image processing, mathematical finance, physics, etc. and, more recently, modeling in the life sciences. During the last ten years or so, there have been remarkable developments both in the mathematical theory and applications of inverse problems. Especially, in various industrial purposes, for example steel industries, glass and polymer forming and nuclear power station, the “backward heat problem”, which recovers the temperature in the heating system from the observation at some later time keeps an important position. On the other hand, from the mathematical point of view, it is well-known to be an ill-posed problem in the sense of Hadamard (see [@H]) due to the irreversibility of time. That is, there exists no solution from the given final data, and even if a solution exists, the small perturbations of the observation data may be dramatically scaled up in the solution. Hence, the interest of constructing some special regularization method is motivated. This topic has been studied extensively with lots of methods released such as: *Tikhonov regularization* [@F], [@M], [@TS], [@ZM], [@MFH], *Lavrentiev regularization* [@NT], [@JSG], *truncation method* [@NTT], [@KT], [@ZFM], *filter method* [@S], [@TKLT], [@QW], *the quasi-boundary value method* [@DB], [@KT], [@QTTT] and other methods [@AE], [@LL1], [@LL2], [@HX], [@TQKT], ... In [@S], Seidman uses a so-called “optimal filtering” method in order to recover the solution at time $t >0$ with an optimal result. The idea of improving his outcome to reconstruct the solution at time $0$ is an interesting issue. Furthermore, the question that if we restrict our observation on a subregion inside the domain then how the local problem will be solved is also attractive.
Our problem
-----------
Let $\Omega$ be an open bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^{n} (n\geq 1)$ with a boundary $\partial\Omega$ of class $C^{2}$; $T$ be a fixed positive constant. Let $p\in C^1\left([0;+\infty)\right)$ such that $0<p_1\leq p(t)\leq p_2, \forall t\in [0,+\infty)$, where $p_1$ and $p_2$ are some positive real numbers. Let $\omega$ be a nonempty, open subdomain of $\Omega$. We consider a linear heat equation with time-dependent coefficients, under the Dirichlet boundary condition with the state $u \in C^1\left((0,T);H_0^1(\Omega)\right)$: $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{t}u-p(t)\Delta u=0 & \text{in}~\Omega\times (0,T)\text{,}\\
u=0 & \text{on}~\partial \Omega \times (0,T)\text{.}\\
\end{array}\right.
\label{main_eq}$$ Our target is constructing the initial solution $u(\cdot,0)$ when the local measurement data of $u(\cdot,T)$ on the subdomain $\omega$ is available. In practice, the data at time $T$ is often measured by the physical instrument. Therefore, only a perturbed data $f$ can be obtained. Let $\delta > 0$ denote the noisy level with the following property $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert u(\cdot,T)-f\Vert_{L^2(\omega)}\leq \delta \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, in order to assure the convergence of the regularization approximation to the initial data $u(\cdot,0)$, some a priori assumption on the exact solution is required $$u(\cdot,0) \in H_0^1(\Omega)\text{.}
\label{u0}$$ We will determine an approximate output $g$ of the unknown exact solution $u(\cdot,0)$ such that the error estimate $\mathfrak{e}(\delta)$ in $$\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \mathfrak{e}(\delta)$$ tends to $0$ when $\delta$ tends to $0$.
Relevant works
---------------
Now, we consider how our problem can be solved so far in the past. In fact, there are lots of papers on the global backward problem but the works on the local one are restricted. There has been a sizeable literature on the special case $p \equiv 1$ with various methods. From now on, we will denote by $\delta$ the noisy level.
1. In 1996 (see [@S]), Seidman considers the heat equation which has the following form $$\partial_t u - \nabla a\nabla u + q u = 0 ~~\text{on}~~ \Omega \times (0,T) ~~\text{with}~~u = 0 ~~\text{on}~~ \partial \Omega \times (0,T)$$ where $a$ and $q$ belong to $L^\infty(\Omega)$. He succeeds in constructing the solution at a fixed time $t\in (0,T)$ from the observation $f$ satisfying $\Vert u(\cdot,T)-f\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \delta$, under the assumption $u(\cdot,0) \in L^2(\Omega)$. His strategy is using a “filter” with respect to the spectral decomposition of operator $\mathbf{A}: u \mapsto - \nabla a\nabla u + q u$, which is defined as $$\mathbf{F}(t)e_i = \min\left\{1, e^{-\lambda_i (T-t)} \frac tT\left(\frac{\Vert u(\cdot,0) \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\delta}\right)^{1-\frac tT}\right\}e_i$$ where $\{\lambda_i\}_{i\geq1}$ and $\{e_i\}_{i\geq1}$ are respectively denoted by the eigenvalues and the corresponding eigenfunctions of the operator $\mathbf{A}$. Then, he can get the optimal result, which is $$\Vert u(\cdot,t) - g_t \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \delta^{\frac tT}\Vert u(\cdot,0) \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^{1-\frac tT} \text{.}$$ The regularization solution $g_t$ at time $t$ is constructed as $$g_t := \sum \limits_{i=1}^\infty e^{\lambda_i(T-t)}\left(\int_\Omega f(x)e_i(x)dx\right)\mathbf{F}(t)e_i \text{.}$$
2. By generalizing the result of Seidman, in [@TS], Tautenhahn and Schröter provide us a definition of the term “optimal method”, in a sense the error of the estimate between the exact solution and the approximate one defined from the optimal method can not be greater than the best possible worst case error (see Definition 1.1, page 478). Their interest is finding the optimal results in different regularization methods for solving the backward heat equations. According to this sense, the result of Seidman is optimal.
3. In 2007, Trong et al. (see [@TQKT]) improve the quasi-boundary value method to regularize the 1D backward heat equation. They succeed in recovering the initial data with the following error: $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g \right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \sqrt[4]{8}C\sqrt[4]{T}\left(\ln \frac{\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}\delta\right)^{-\frac 14}$$ where $C$ is a positive constant depending on $\Vert u(\cdot,0) \Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}$ (see also [@AP]).
The problem with case $p \not\equiv constant$ is recently concerned, which can be mentioned in some following writings:
1. In 2013, Tuan et al. in [@TQTT] consider the 1D backward heat equation with time-dependent coefficients. They use a so-called “modified method” to get the result below $$\Vert u(\cdot,t) - g_t \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \left(1+\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\right)\left(\frac{\delta}{\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}\right)^{\frac{p_1^2 t}{p_2^2 T}}\text{.}$$
2. In 2014, Zhang, Fu and Ma (see [@ZFM]) also study on the 1D backward heat equation with time-dependent coefficients, but use the truncation method. They can recover the solution at time $t \in \left(T(1-\frac{p_1}{p_2});T\right)$ satisfying $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,t) - g_t \right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \Vert u(\cdot,0) \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^{1-\frac tT}((\tau +1)\delta)^{\frac tT}+\left( \frac{ \Vert u(\cdot,0) \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\tau -1}\right)^{\frac{p_2(T-t)}{p_1T}}\delta^{\frac{(p_2-p_1)T+p_2t}{p_1T}}$$ for some constant $\tau >1$.
3. In 2016, Khanh and Tuan (in [@KT]) solve an initial inverse problem for an inhomogeneous heat equation by using high frequency truncation method. Under the assumption that $u(\cdot,0)\in H_0^1(\Omega)$, they can recover the initial data with the below error: $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g \right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \left(\frac{\delta}{\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}\right)^{\frac 1{2T}}\frac{\sqrt{\ln\left(\frac{\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\delta}\right)}}{\sqrt{2p_2T}}+\frac{\sqrt{2p_2T}\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\ln\left(\frac{\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\delta}\right)}}\text{.}$$
For the local inverse problem, we can pick up some of following works:
1. In 1995, Yamamoto in [@Y] proposes a reconstruction formula for the spatial dependence of the source term in a wave equation $\partial_{tt}u-\Delta u = f(x)\sigma(t)$, assuming $\sigma(t)$ known, from local measurement using exact controllability.
2. In 2009, Li, Yamamoto and Zou in [@LYZ] study the conditional stability of inverse problems. Here, the known data is observed in a subregion along a time period which may start at some point, possibly far away from the initial data.
3. In 2011, García and Takahashi (see [@GT]) present some abstract results of a general connection between null-controllability and several inverse problems for a class of parabolic equations.
4. In 2013, García, Osses and Tapia in [@GOT] succeed in determining the heat source from a single internal measurement of the solution, thanks to a family of null control functions.
Our method of solving the global backward problem (GBP) and the local backward problem (LBP)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly, we deal with the global backward problem (GBP), which recovers the initial data from the observation on the whole domain at some later time $\tau>0$. Here, we assume that there exists solution of the (\[main\_eq\]) satisfying the a priori condition (\[u0\]) and $\bar{f}$ be the known data on $\Omega$ at time $\tau$ such that $\Vert u(\cdot,\tau)-\bar{f}\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \delta$ for some $\delta >0$. We will determine a function $g$ which approximate the initial data. Our idea of constructing such function $g$ is from the “optimal filtering method” of Seidman (see [@S]): First, we define a continuous operator depending on a regularization parameter $\alpha$ $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_{\alpha} : L^2(\Omega) & \to & L^2(\Omega) \notag \\
\phi & \mapsto & \sum\limits_{i=1}^\infty \min\{e^{\lambda_i\int_0^\tau p(s)ds};\alpha\}\left(\int_\Omega \phi(x)e_i(x)dx\right)e_i \text{;}
\notag
\end{aligned}$$ Then, the function $\mathcal{R}_{\alpha}\bar{f}$ will be closed to the exact solution $u(\cdot,0)$ in $L^2(\Omega)$ where $\alpha$ is the minimizer of the problem $\min\limits_{\alpha>0}\Vert u(\cdot,0) - \mathcal{R}_\alpha \bar{f}\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}$.\
Secondly, for the local backward problem (LBP), whose observation is measured on a subdomain, we need to use a tool of controllability to link with the (GBP). Precisely, we use the assertion about the existence of a sequence of control functions to get the information of solution on the whole domain $\Omega$ from the given data on the subdomain $\omega$: For each $i=1,2,...$, for any $\varepsilon >0$, there exists $h_i\in L^2(\omega)$ such that the solution of $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{t}\varphi _i-p(t)\Delta \varphi _i=0 & \text{in}~\Omega\times (0,2T)\setminus\{T\},\\
\varphi _i=0 & \text{on}~\partial \Omega \times (0,2T),\\
\varphi _i(\cdot,0)=e_i& \text{in}~ \Omega \text{,}\\
\varphi _i(\cdot,T)=\varphi _i(\cdot,T^{-}) + \mathbbm{1}_{\omega}{h_i} &\text{in} ~\Omega
\end{array}\right.
\label{vi}$$ satisfies $\left\Vert \varphi _i(\cdot,2T) \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \varepsilon$. Here, $\mathbbm{1}_\omega$ presents for the characteristic function on the region $\omega$ and $\varphi_i(T^-)$ denotes the left limit of the function $\varphi_i$ at time $T$. Multiplying $\partial_{t}\varphi _i-p(t)\Delta \varphi _i=0$ by $u(\cdot, 2T-t)$ and using some computation technique, we can get the approximate solution $\bar{f}$ at time $\tau = 3T$, which is $$\Vert u(\cdot, 3T) - \bar{f}\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \mathcal{E}(\delta)\text{.}$$ Here, $\bar{f}$ is computed by known data $h_i$ and $f$ and $\mathcal{E}(\delta)$ is a function of $\delta$ such that $\mathcal{E}(\delta)\rightarrow 0$ when $\delta \rightarrow 0$. Lastly, applying the result of (GBP) with the information at $3T$ on the whole domain, the initial data of (\[main\_eq\]) is reconstructed.
Spectral theory
---------------
As a direct consequence of spectral theorem for compact, self-adjoint operators (see Theorem 9.16, page 225, [@HN]), there exists a sequence of positive real eigenvalues of the operator $-\Delta$, which denoted by $\{\lambda_i\}_{i=1,2,...}$ where $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
0<\lambda_1\leq\lambda_2\leq\lambda_3\leq....\text{,}\\
\lambda_i \rightarrow \infty ~\text{as}~ i \rightarrow \infty \text{.}
\end{array}\right.$$ Moreover, there exists an orthonormal basis $\{e_i\}_{i=1,2,...}$ of $L^2(\Omega)$, where $e_i \in H_0^1(\Omega)$ is an eigenfunction corresponding to $\lambda_i$ $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
-\Delta e_i = \lambda_i e_i &\text{in}~ \Omega\text{,}\\
e_i = 0 &\text{on}~ \partial \Omega \text{.}
\end{array}\right.$$ When $u_0 \in L^2(\Omega)$ and $u_0 = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} a_ie_i$ with $a_i=\int_\Omega u_0(x)e_i(x)dx$ and $\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} \left|a_i\right|^2<\infty$, then $$u(\cdot,t) = \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} a_ie^{-\lambda_i\int_0^t p(s)ds}e_i$$ is the unique solution of $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{t}u-p(t)\Delta u=0 & \text{in}~\Omega\times (0,T),\\
u=0 & \text{on}~\partial \Omega \times (0,T),\\
u(\cdot,0)=u_0&\text{in}~ \Omega.
\end{array}\right.$$
Main result
-----------
Let $u$ be the solution of (\[main\_eq\]) with the a priori bound (\[u0\]). Let $f\in L^2(\omega)$ and $0<\delta<\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}$ satisfying $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert u(\cdot,T)-f\Vert_{L^2(\omega)}\leq \delta \text{.}
\label{delta1}\end{aligned}$$ There exists a function $g \in L^2(\Omega)$ and a constant $C=C(\Omega, \omega, p)>0$ such that the following estimate holds $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g \right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \frac{Ce^{\frac CT}\sqrt{T}\Vert u(\cdot, 0)\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\ln \frac{\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\delta}}}\text{.}\label{maines}$$ \[local\]
1. When $\delta < De^{-D\left(T+\frac 1T\right)}\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}$ for some positive constant $D=D(\Omega, \omega, p)$, the approximate solution of the initial data satisfying (\[maines\]) is constructed as below $$\begin{aligned}
g&:= &- \sum\limits_{i=1}^\infty \min\{e^{\lambda_i\int_0^{3T}p(s)ds},\alpha\}e^{-\lambda_i\int_{2T}^{3T}p(s)ds}\left(\int_\omega h_i(x)f(x)dx\right)e_i\end{aligned}$$ where $\{h_i\}_{i\geq 1}$ is a sequence of control functions (see Section 4) and $\alpha$ is the regularization parameter given by $$\alpha = \mathcal{A}\left(\mathcal{B}^{-1}\left(\frac{\sqrt{3p_2T}\Vert u(\cdot,0) \Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{K_1e^{\frac {K_1}T}{\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}^{1-k_1}\delta^{k_1}}\right)\right)$$ with
(i) $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A} : \left[0;+\infty\right) & \to & \left[\frac{\sqrt{e}}{2}; +\infty\right) \notag \\
x & \mapsto & \frac{e^x}{1+2x} \text{,}
\label{funcI}
\end{aligned}$$
(ii) $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{B} : (0;+\infty) & \to & (0; +\infty) \notag \\
x & \mapsto & \sqrt{x}e^x
\label{funcH}
\end{aligned}$$
The existence of the function $\mathcal{B}^{-1}$ dues to the bijection property of the function $\mathcal{B}$ on $(0,+\infty)$,
(iii) $K_1=K_1(\Omega, \omega, p)>1$ and $k_1=k_1(\Omega, \omega, p)\in (0,1)$. All these constants can be explicitly computed when $\Omega$ is convex or star-shaped with respect to some $x_0 \in \Omega$.
2. The estimate (\[maines\]) connects to the well-known following estimate $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \frac{C\sqrt{1+T+\frac{1}{T}}\Vert u(\cdot, 0)\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\ln \frac{\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\Vert u(\cdot,T)\Vert_{L^2(\omega)}}}}\text{.}
\label{appendix}$$ for some positive constant $C=C(\Omega,\omega,p)$ (see Appendix for the proof).
\[remark2\]
Outline
-------
Section 2 will give us a result of the (GBP) (see Theorem \[global\]), where the known data is observed on the whole domain. In section 3, we construct an observation estimate at one point of time for the parabolic equations with time-dependent coefficients (see Theorem \[nonconvex\] and Theorem \[convex\]). This is an important preliminary of the approximate controllability (see Theorem \[control\]), which is studied in section 4. Lastly, combining the result of controllability and global backward, we get the proof of the Theorem \[local\], mentioned in section 5.
Global backward problem
=======================
First of all, we need to consider the special case, that is $\omega \equiv \Omega$. In [@S], Seidman succeeds in recovering the solution at time $t >0$ by an optimal filtering method, under the a priori condition $u(\cdot,0)\in L^2(\Omega)$. Here we will use his method to recover the initial data at time $0$ but with the stronger assumption $u(\cdot,0)\in H_0^1(\Omega)$.
Let $u$ be the solution of (\[main\_eq\]) satisfying the a priori condition (\[u0\]). Let $\bar{f}\in L^2(\Omega)$ and $\delta >0$ having the following property $$\Vert u(\cdot,T)-\bar{f}\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \delta \text{.}
\label{globalz}$$ There exists a function $g \in L^2(\Omega)$ such that for any $\zeta > \frac{\delta^2}{2\lambda_1p_2T\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}}$, the following estimate holds $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g \right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \frac{\sqrt{(1+\zeta) p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\ln \left(\sqrt{2\zeta\lambda_1 p_2T}\frac{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\delta}\right)}} \text{.}
\label{ln}$$ \[global\]
1. When $\delta < \Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}e^{-\lambda_1p_2T}$, the approximate solution of the initial data satisfying (\[ln\]) is constructed as $$g := \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} \min\left\{e^{\lambda_i\int_0^T p(s)ds},\bar{\alpha}\right\}\int_\Omega \bar{f}(x)e_i(x)dxe_i \text{.}$$ Here, the regularization parameter $\bar{\alpha}$ is given by $$\bar{\alpha}:=\mathcal{A}\left(\mathcal{B}^{-1}\left(\frac{\sqrt{p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\delta}\right)\right)$$ with $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ being respectively defined in (\[funcI\]) and (\[funcH\]).
2. When $\delta < \Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}$, we can choose $\zeta = \frac{1}{2\lambda_1p_2T}$ in order to get $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g \right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \frac{\sqrt{p_2T+\frac{1}{2\lambda_1}} \left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\ln \frac{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\delta}}} \text{.}$$ This connects to the well-known following estimate $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \frac{\sqrt{p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\ln \frac{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\Vert u(\cdot,T)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}}}\text{.}$$
\[remark\_global\]
**Proof of Theorem \[global\]**
For the case $\delta \geq \Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}e^{-\lambda_1p_2T}$, the estimate (\[ln\]) holds with $g=0$. Indeed, combining with the fact that $\sqrt{2\zeta\lambda_1p_2T}\leq e^{\zeta\lambda_1p_2T}~~\forall \zeta >0$, we get $$\sqrt{2\zeta\lambda_1p_2T}\frac{\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\delta}\leq e^{(1+\zeta)\lambda_1p_2T}
\text{.}$$ It implies that $$\frac 1{\sqrt{\lambda_1}} \leq \frac {\sqrt{(1+\zeta)p_2T}}{\sqrt{\ln \sqrt{2\zeta\lambda_1p_2T}\frac{\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\delta}}}\text{.}$$ Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} &\leq& \frac{\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\lambda_1}}\notag\\
&\leq& \frac {\sqrt{(1+\zeta)p_2T}\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\ln \sqrt{2\lambda_1p_2T}\frac{\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\delta}}}\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ The main purpose concerns the case when $$\delta < \Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}e^{-\lambda_1p_2T}\text{.}
\label{delta}$$ In this case, we will determine the regularization solution at time $0$ as follows: First of all, Step 1 will provide us the construction of a continuous operator $\mathcal{R}_{\beta}$ depending on a parameter $\beta$, which will be chosen later. The regularization solution $g$ is defined by applying this operator on the known-data $\bar{f}$. Secondly, in Step 2, we compute the error between the exact solution and the approximate solution defined in Step 1. Lastly, by minimizing the error in Step 2 with respect to $\beta$, we can obtain the final result in Step 3.
**Step 1:** Construct the regularization solution.\
Let us define a continuous function $\mathcal{R}_{\beta}$ depending on a positive parameter $\beta$, which will be chosen later: $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{R}_{\beta} : L^2(\Omega) & \to & L^2(\Omega) \notag \\
f & \mapsto & \sum\limits_{i=1}^\infty \min\{e^{\lambda_i\int_0^Tp(s)ds};\beta\}\left(\int_\Omega f(x)e_i(x)dx\right)e_i
\notag
\end{aligned}$$ Put $g:=\mathcal{R}_{\beta} \bar{f}$. We will prove that such defined function $g$ approximate the exact solution $u(\cdot,0)$ with some suitable choice of $\beta$.\
**Step 2:** Compute the error $\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}$.\
Put $g_T:=\mathcal{R}_{\beta} u(\cdot,T)$, we will compute the error by using the following triangle inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \Vert u(\cdot,0) - g_T \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} + \Vert g_T - g \Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ On one hand, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert g - g_T \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}
&=& \left\Vert\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} \min\{e^{\lambda_i\int_0^Tp(s)ds}; \beta\}\int_\Omega \left(\bar{f}(x)-u(x,T)\right)dx e_i\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\notag\\
&\leq& \beta\left\Vert \bar{f}-u(\cdot,T)\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \beta\delta \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g_T \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} \notag\\
&=& \left\Vert \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} \int_{\Omega} u(x,0)e_i(x)dx e_i - \sum_{i =1}^{\infty} \min\{e^{\lambda_i\int_0^Tp(s)ds}; \beta\}e^{-\lambda_i\int_0^Tp(s)ds}\int_\Omega u(x,0)e_i(x)dx e_i \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\notag\\
&=& \left\Vert \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} \left(1- \min\{e^{\lambda_i\int_0^Tp(s)ds}; \beta\}e^{-\lambda_i\int_0^Tp(s)ds}\right)\int_\Omega u(x,0)e_i(x)dx e_i \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\notag\\
&=& \left\Vert \sum_{e^{\lambda_i\int_0^Tp(s)ds}>\beta} \left(1- \beta e^{-\lambda_i\int_0^Tp(s)ds}\right)\int_\Omega u(x,0)e_i(x)dx e_i \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\notag\\
&=& \left\Vert \sum_{e^{\lambda_i\int_0^Tp(s)ds}>\beta} \frac{\left(1- \beta e^{-\lambda_i\int_0^Tp(s)ds}\right)}{\sqrt{\lambda_i}}\sqrt{\lambda_i}\int_\Omega u(x,0)e_i(x)dx e_i \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\notag\\
&\leq& \sup_{\lambda\geq\lambda_1} \frac{\left(1 - \beta e^{-\lambda\int_0^Tp(s)ds}\right)}{\sqrt{\lambda}}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert _{H_0^1(\Omega)} \notag\\
&\leq& \sup_{\lambda\geq\lambda_1} \frac{(1 - \beta e^{-\lambda p_2T} )}{\sqrt{\lambda p_2T}}\sqrt{p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert _{H_0^1(\Omega)} \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Now, we solve the problem of finding $\sup\limits_{\lambda\geq\lambda_1} \frac{(1 - \beta e^{-\lambda p_2T} )}{\sqrt{\lambda p_2T}}$.\
Define $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{F} : [\lambda_1;+\infty) & \to & (0; +\infty) \notag \\
\lambda & \mapsto & \frac{(1 - \beta e^{-\lambda p_2T} )}{\sqrt{\lambda p_2T}}\text{.}
\notag
\end{aligned}$$ Obviously, $\mathcal{F}$ is differentiable and $$\mathcal{F}'(\lambda) = \frac{\beta p_2T e^{-\lambda p_2T}(1+2\lambda p_2T)-p_2T}{2\sqrt{\lambda p_2T}\lambda p_2T} \text{.}$$ The equation $\mathcal{F}'(\lambda)=0$ is equivalent to $$\beta = \frac{e^{\lambda p_2T}}{1+2\lambda p_2T}\text{.}
\label{beta1}$$ We will choose $\beta$ such that the equation (\[beta1\]) has a unique solution $\bar{\lambda} \geq \lambda_1$. Let us remind the function $\mathcal{A}$ defined in (\[funcI\]): $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{A} : \left[0;+\infty\right) & \to & \left[\frac{\sqrt{e}}{2}; +\infty\right) \notag \\
x & \mapsto & \frac{e^x}{1+2x} \text{.}
\notag
\end{aligned}$$ Note that the equation (\[beta1\]) has a unique solution $\bar{\lambda} \geq \lambda_1$ if and only if $$\beta > \mathcal{A}\left(\lambda_1 p_2T\right) \text{.}
\label{beta2}$$ Suppose the condition (\[beta2\]) is satisfied then there exists a unique $\bar{\lambda}\geq \lambda_1$ such that $\mathcal{F}'(\bar{\lambda})=0$ and $\beta = \mathcal{A}(\bar{\lambda}p_2T)$. We can write $\bar{\lambda}p_2T=\mathcal{A}^{-1}(\beta)$. On the other hand, the fact that $\mathcal{F}'(\lambda_1)>0$ leads us to the conclusion: the function $\mathcal{F}$ is strictly increasing on $(\lambda_1,\bar{\lambda})$ and strictly decreasing on $(\bar{\lambda}, +\infty)$. Consequently, $\mathcal{F}$ gets supremum at $\bar{\lambda}$, i.e $$\mathcal{F}(\bar{\lambda}) = \sup\limits_{\lambda\geq\lambda_1} \mathcal{F}(\lambda)\text{.}$$
**Step 3:** Minimize the error with a suitable choice of $\beta$.\
Combining the two above steps, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g \right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} &\leq &\beta \delta + \frac{(1 - \beta e^{-\bar{\lambda} p_2T} )}{\sqrt{\bar{\lambda} p_2T}} \sqrt{p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert _{H_0^1(\Omega)}\notag\\
&=& \Theta \delta e^{\mathcal{A}^{-1}(\beta)} + (1-\Theta)\frac{\sqrt{p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) \right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\mathcal{A}^{-1}(\beta)}}
\label{fou}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Theta = \beta e^{-\bar{\lambda} p_2T }$. Note that $$\Theta \mathsf{A} +(1-\Theta) \mathsf{B} \geq \min\{\mathsf{A}, \mathsf{B}\}~~ \forall ~~\mathsf{A},\mathsf{B} >0, \Theta \in (0,1)\text{.}$$ The equality occurs when and only when $\mathsf{A}=\mathsf{B}$. Hence, in order to minimize the right-hand side of (\[fou\]), we will choose $\beta$ such that $$\delta e^{\mathcal{A}^{-1}(\beta)}= \frac{\sqrt{p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) \right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\mathcal{A}^{-1}(\beta)}} \text{.}
\label{beta}$$ The choice of $\beta =\bar{\alpha} := \mathcal{A}\left(\mathcal{B}^{-1} \left(\frac{\sqrt{p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\delta}\right)\right)$ satisfies the condition (\[beta2\]) (dues to the assumption (\[delta\]) on the smallness of $\delta$) and the estimate (\[beta\]). Therefore, we get the following estimate $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g \right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)}
&\leq& \frac{\sqrt{p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) \right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\mathcal{A}^{-1}(\bar{\alpha})}}\notag\\
&\leq&\frac{\sqrt{p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) \right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\mathcal{B}^{-1} \left(\frac{\sqrt{p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\delta}\right)}} \text{.}
\label{up}\end{aligned}$$ Due to the definition of the function $\mathcal{B}$ (see \[funcH\]), (\[up\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\sqrt{p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\delta} \leq \frac{\sqrt{p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}e^{\frac{p_2T \left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g\right\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}}} \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $\sqrt{2\zeta}x\leq e^{\zeta x^2} ~~\forall \zeta >0~~\forall x>0$, one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{\sqrt{p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\delta} \leq \frac 1{\sqrt{2\zeta}}e^{\frac{(1+\zeta)p_2T \left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g\right\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}}} \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ It is equivalent to $$\frac{(1+\zeta)p_2T \left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g\right\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}} \geq \ln \left(\frac{\sqrt{2\zeta p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\delta}\right)\text{.}$$ With $\zeta > \frac{\delta^2}{2\lambda_1p_2T\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}}$, it deduces that $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g \right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \frac{\sqrt{(1+\zeta)p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\ln \left(\sqrt{2\zeta\lambda_1 p_2T}\frac{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\delta}\right)}} \text{.}$$
For the local case $\omega \Subset \Omega$, it is required the existence of control functions on the subdomain at some point of time in order to link with a global result. This controllability problem has a sustainable connection with the observability one, which will be studied in the next Section.
Observability at one point of time
===================================
The issue on constructing an observation estimate is widely studied. It can be solved by global Carleman inequality, which is presented in [@FI]; by using the estimate of Lebeau and Robbiano (see [@LR]) or by transmutation (see [@EZ]). Recently, Phung et al. provide a different method which is based on properties of the heat kernel with a parametric of order 0. In [@PW1] and [@PW2], the authors work on a linear equation which has form $$\partial_t v - \Delta v + av + b\nabla v = 0 ~~\text{in} ~~\Omega \times (0,T)\text{.}$$ Here, $a\in L^\infty((0,T),L^q(\Omega))$ with $q\geq 2$ if $n=1$ and $q>n$ if $n\geq 2$; $b\in L^\infty(\Omega \times (0,T))^n$ and $\Omega$ must be convex. Then, by using some geometrical techniques, Phung et. al improve their previous results by working on a general domain (i.e $\Omega$ is even convex or not). For the following form of linear equation $$\partial_t v - \Delta v + av = 0 ~~\text{in} ~~\Omega \times (0,T)$$ where $a\in L^\infty(\Omega\times(0,T))$, see [@PWZ]. For the parabolic equations with space-time coefficients $$\partial_t v - \nabla(A\nabla v) + av + b\nabla v= 0 ~~\text{in} ~~\Omega \times (0,T)$$ where $a\in L^\infty(\Omega\times(0,T))$, $b\in L^\infty(\Omega \times (0,T))^n$ and $A$ is a $n\times n$ symmetric positive-definite matrix with $C^2(\overline{\Omega} \times [0,T])$ coefficients, see [@BP]. Here, we also deal with the problem of determining an observation estimate in the general case of domain but for a linear heat equation with time-dependent coefficients $$\partial_t v - p(t)\Delta v = 0 ~~\text{in} ~~\Omega \times (0,T)$$ where $p\in C^1(0,T)$. In this section, we will study two results of observation estimates in two different geometrical cases: The general case (Theorem \[nonconvex\]) and the special case (Theorem \[convex\]) when $\Omega$ is convex or star-shaped with respect to some $x_0$ such that $B(x_0,r):=\{x; |x-x_0|<r\} \subset \omega, 0<r<R:=\max\limits_{x\in \overline{\Omega}}|x-x_0|$. For the special case, we make a careful evaluation of the constants which can be explicitly computed. First of all, we state an observation result in general case of domain $\Omega$.
There exist constants $K=K(\Omega, \omega, p)>0$ and $\mu =\mu(\Omega, \omega, p)\in (0;1)$ such that the solution of $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{t}v-p(t)\Delta v=0 & \text{in}~\Omega\times (0,T) \text{,}\\
v=0 & \text{on}~\partial \Omega \times (0,T) \text{,}\\
v(\cdot,0)\in L^2(\Omega) \text{,}
\label{J}
\end{array}\right.$$ satisfies $$\Vert v(\cdot,T)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq Ke^{\frac{K}{T}} \Vert v(\cdot,T)\Vert_{L^2(\omega)}^{\mu}\Vert v(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^{1-\mu}\text{.}
\label{holder}$$ \[nonconvex\]
For any $\varepsilon >0$, there exist positive constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ depending on $\Omega, \omega$ and $p$ such that the following estimate holds $$\Vert v(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq {c_1}e^{\frac{c_1}{T}}\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{c_2}}\Vert v(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\omega)}+\varepsilon\Vert v(\cdot,0)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\text{.}
\label{constantc}$$ \[colyoung\]
**Proof of Corollary \[colyoung\]**
It implies from (\[holder\]) in Theorem \[nonconvex\] that $$\Vert v(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq K^2e^{\frac{2K}{T}} \Vert v(\cdot,T)\Vert_{L^2(\omega)}^{2\mu}\Vert v(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^{2(1-\mu)}\text{.}$$ Applying the Young’s inequality $ab\leq \frac{a^m}{m}+\frac{b^q}{q}$ with $$a= \left(K^{\frac{1}{\mu}}e^{\frac{K}{\mu T}}\Vert v(\cdot, T)\Vert_{L^2(\omega)}\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{\frac{1-\mu}{2\mu}}}(1-\mu)^{\frac{1-\mu}{2\mu}}\right)^{2\mu}\text{,}$$ $$b= \left(\varepsilon^{\frac{1}{2}} \left(\frac{1}{1-\mu}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\Vert v(\cdot, 0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\right)^{2(1-\mu)}\text{,}$$ $$m = \frac{1}{\mu} ~~~~~\text{and}~~~~~ q = \frac{1}{1-\mu}\text{,}$$ we get $$\Vert v(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \mu K^{\frac{2}{\mu}}e^{\frac{2K}{\mu T}}\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{\frac{1-\mu}{\mu}}}(1-\mu)^{\frac{1-\mu}{\mu}}\Vert v(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\omega)}+\varepsilon\Vert v(\cdot,0)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\text{.}$$ Therefore, we obtain the estimate (\[constantc\]) with $$c_1:=\max\left\{\mu K^{\frac{2}{\mu}}(1-\mu)^{\frac{1-\mu}{\mu}}, \frac{2K}{\mu}\right\}~~\text{and} ~~c_2:=\frac{(1-\mu)}{\mu}\text{.}
\label{c1c2}$$
Our next theorem will provide us an observation result in a special geometric case with specific constants.
Let $x_0 \in \Omega$ and $R:=\max\limits_{x\in \overline{\Omega}}|x-x_0|$. Suppose all the following assumptions hold:
(i) $\Omega$ is convex or star-shaped domain with respect to $x_0$,
(ii) $
R^2 < \frac{2p_1^2}{|p'|_\infty} ~~\text{if} ~~p \not\equiv constant
\label{small}$ where $ |p'|_{\infty} = \sup\limits_{t\in[0,T]} |p'(t)|$;
then the solution of (\[J\]) satisfies (\[holder\]) with $$\omega = \{x; |x-x_0|<r\}~~ \text{where} ~~0<r<R\text{,}$$ $$K = \max\left\{\left(4^{1+C_0(1+S_\ell)}(1+\ell)^{n+2C_0(1+S_\ell)}e^{2C_1(1+S_\ell)}e^{\frac{r^2\ell}{4p_1}}\right)^{\frac1{2(1+S_\ell)}}, \frac{r^2\ell}{4p_1(1+S_\ell)}\right\}$$ and $$\mu = \frac{1}{2(1+S_\ell)}\text{.}$$ Here $$C_0:=\frac{R^2|p'|_\infty}{2p_1^2}\text{,}$$ $$C_1:=(2+n)\frac {|p'|_\infty}{p_1}\text{,}$$ $$\ell :=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\left(\frac{2^{2+\xi} R^2e^{C_1}}{\xi \ln \frac{3}{2}r^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{1-\xi}}-1 ~~\forall \xi \in (0,1)~~&\text{if}~~~C_0 = 0\text{,} \\
\left(\frac{4R^2e^{C_1}}{r^2\left(1-\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{C_0}\right)}\right)^{\frac{1}{1-C_0}}-1 ~~&\text{if}~~~C_0 > 0
\end{array}
\right.$$ and $$S_\ell := e^{C_1}\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\ln(1+\ell )}{\ln\frac{3}{2}}&\text{ if}~~ C_0=0\text{,}\\
\frac{(1+\ell )^{C_0}}{1-\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{C_0}} &\text{if}~~ C_0>0\text{.}
\end{array}\right.$$ \[convex\]
In the special case when $p \equiv 1$, the observation estimate (\[holder\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\Vert v(\cdot,T)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} &\leq& \left(4(1+\ell)^{n}e^{\frac{r^2\ell}{4}\left(1+\frac 1T\right)}\Vert v(\cdot,T)\Vert_{L^2(\omega)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2\left(1+\frac{\ln(1+\ell)}{\ln \frac 32}\right)}}\Vert v(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^{\frac{1+2\frac{\ln(1+\ell)}{\ln \frac 32}}{2\left(1+\frac{\ln(1+\ell)}{\ln \frac 32}\right)}}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\ell:=\left(\frac{2^{2+\xi} R^2}{\xi \ln \frac{3}{2}r^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{1-\xi}}-1 >1$ for any $\xi \in (0,1)$.\
The interested readers can compare this result with Proposition 2.1 in [@PW1], Proposition 2.2 in [@PW2] or Theorem 4.2 in [@BP].
The main idea of the proof of both theorems is based on the logarithm convexity method (see [@Ve]). In order to check a kind of logarithm convexity for a suitable functional, it requires that some boundary terms must be dropped or have a good sign. This is possible under the assumption $(ii)$ in Theorem \[convex\]. But for the general case (Theorem \[nonconvex\]), we need a local star-shaped assumption (to get a good sign of boundary terms) and a suitable cut-off function (to drop some boundary terms). Then, thanks to the covering argument and the propagation of smallness, we get the global desired result. First of all, we need some preliminary results in the first subsection. Then, the proof of Theorem \[convex\] and Theorem \[nonconvex\] will be devoted in two next subsections, respectively.
Preliminary results
-------------------
The strategy of the proof of Theorem \[nonconvex\] and Theorem \[convex\] consists on choosing a suitable function whose logarithm can be a convex function and considering the differential inequalities associated to this function (see Lemma \[lemma1\]). Then by choosing a suitable weight function inspired by the heat kernel (see Corollary \[col1\]) and solving ODE inequalities (see Lemma \[lemma2\]), we obtain a Hölder type inequality (see Corollary \[col2\]). The localization process in the proof of general case makes appear the function $F$ in Corollary \[col1\], which will be treated due to the technical Lemma \[lemma3\].
Let $\vartheta$ be an open set in $\mathbb{R}^n$, $x_0 \in \vartheta$, $z \in H^1(0,T; H_0^1(\vartheta))$ and $\phi \in C^2(\overline{\Omega} \times (0,T))$. We define two functions from $[0,T]$ on $(0,+\infty)$ by $$y(t):=\int_{\vartheta} |z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx \text{,}$$ $$N(t):=p(t)\frac{\int_{\vartheta} |\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx}{\int_{\vartheta} |z(x,t)| ^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx}\text{.}$$ With the notations $\mathcal{G}\phi:= \partial_t \phi +p(t)\Delta \phi + p(t) |\nabla \phi|^2$ and $w:=\partial_t z - p(t)\Delta z$, the following assertions hold for any times $t>0$:
1. $$y'(t) + 2N(t)y(t) = \int_\vartheta \mathcal{G}\phi (x,t) |z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+2\int_\vartheta w(x,t)z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{,}
\label{lemma1i}$$
2. $$\begin{aligned}
N'(t)
&\leq&\frac{p'(t)}{p(t)} N (t)+ \frac{p(t)^2}{y(t)}\int_{\partial\vartheta} |\nabla z(x,t)|^2\partial_\nu\phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx \notag\\
&~&+\frac{p(t)}{y(t)}\int_\vartheta |\nabla z(x,t)|^2\mathcal{G}\phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+\frac{1}{2y(t)}\int_\vartheta |w(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~& -\frac{2p(t)^2}{y(t)} \int_{\vartheta} \nabla z(x,t) \nabla^2 \phi(x,t) \nabla z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~&- \frac{p(t)}{y(t)^2}\int_\vartheta \mathcal{G}\phi(x,t)|z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx
\label{lemma1ii}\end{aligned}$$
where $\nu$ is the unit outward normal vector to $\partial \vartheta$ and $\nabla^2 \phi$ is the Hessian matrix of $\phi$. \[lemma1\]
**Proof of Lemma \[lemma1\]**
First of all, we will prove the assertion $i/$.\
We have $$y'(t)=2\int_{\vartheta}z(x,t)\partial_t z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)} dx+\int_{\vartheta}|z(x,t)|^2 \partial_t\phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{.}
\label{1}$$ With $w:=\partial_t z - p(t)\Delta z$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
y'(t)&=&2\int_{\vartheta}z(x,t)w(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)} dx+2p(t)\int_{\vartheta}z(x,t)\Delta z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)} dx \notag\\
&~&+\int_{\vartheta}|z(x,t)|^2 \partial_t\phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{.}
\label{2}\end{aligned}$$ Let us compute the second term of (\[2\]) by using integration by parts: $$\begin{aligned}
&~&2p(t)\int_{\vartheta}z(x,t)\Delta z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)} dx \notag\\
&=& -2p(t)\int_{\vartheta} |\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx -2p(t)\int_{\vartheta} z(x,t) \nabla z(x,t) \nabla\phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=& -2p(t)\int_{\vartheta} |\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx-p(t)\int_{\vartheta} \nabla(|z(x,t)|^2) \nabla \phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx
\text{.}\label{bum}\end{aligned}$$ We use the fact that $2z\nabla z= \nabla(|z|^2)$ to get the second equality. Integrating by parts the second term in (\[bum\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
&~& -p(t)\int_{\vartheta} \nabla(|z(x,t)|^2) \nabla \phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=&p(t)\int_{\vartheta} |z(x,t)|^2\Delta \phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx + p(t)\int_{\vartheta} |z(x,t)|^2|\nabla \phi(x,t)|^2 e^{\phi(x,t)}dx \text{.}
\label{3}\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[2\]) and (\[3\]), we obtain: $$\begin{aligned}
y'(t) &=& -2p(t)\int_{\vartheta} |\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+p(t)\int_{\vartheta} |z(x,t)|^2\Delta \phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx \notag\\
&~&+p(t)\int_{\vartheta} |z(x,t)|^2|\nabla \phi(x,t)|^2 e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+\int_{\vartheta}|z(x,t)|^2 \partial_t\phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~& +2\int_{\vartheta}z(x,t)w(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)} dx\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we can get the assertion i/. Now, we move to next step with the proof of assertion $ii/$.\
**Step 1:** Compute $\frac{d}{dt}\left(p(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\right)$. $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\frac{d}{dt}\left(p(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\right)\notag\\
&=& p'(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+2p(t) \int_{\vartheta} \nabla z(x,t) \partial_t (\nabla z(x,t))e^{\phi(x,t)}dx \notag\\
&~& +p(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2\partial_t \phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=& P_1 + P_2 + P_3
\label{3*}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_i(i=1,2,3)$ is the $i^{th}$ term in the right-hand side of (\[3\*\]). For the second term $P_2$, we use integration by parts, with the note that $\partial_t z = 0$ on $\partial \vartheta$, to get: $$\begin{aligned}
P_2&=&2p(t)\int_{\vartheta}\nabla z(x,t)\nabla(\partial_t z(x,t))e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=&- 2p(t)\int_{\vartheta} \Delta z(x,t) \partial_t z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx-2p(t)\int_{\vartheta} \nabla z(x,t) \partial_t z(x,t)\nabla\phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=& -2 \int_{\vartheta}| \partial_t z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)} dx+ 2\int_{\vartheta} w(x,t) \partial_t z(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~&-2p(t) \int_{\vartheta} \partial_t z(x,t)\nabla z(x,t)\nabla \phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx \text{.}
\label{4}\end{aligned}$$ The last equality is implied from the fact: $p(t)\Delta z = \partial_t z-w$. For the third term $P_3$, since $\mathcal{G}\phi := \partial_t \phi +p(t)\Delta \phi + p(t) |\nabla \phi|^2$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
P_3&=&p(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2\partial_t \phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=&p(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2\mathcal{G}\phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx - p(t)^2\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2\Delta\phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~& -p(t)^2\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2|\nabla \phi(x,t)|^2 e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{.}
\label{5}\end{aligned}$$ Integrating by parts the second term in (\[5\]) gives $$\begin{aligned}
&~&- p(t)^2\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2\Delta\phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=& p(t)^2\int_{\vartheta}\nabla(|\nabla z(x,t)|^2)\nabla\phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+p(t)^2\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2|\nabla\phi(x,t)|^2 e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~&- p(t)^2\int_{{\partial\vartheta}}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2\partial_\nu\phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{.}
\label{55}\end{aligned}$$ Now, we compute the first term in (\[55\]) by using standard summation notations $$\begin{aligned}
&~&p(t)^2\int_{\vartheta}\nabla(|\nabla z(x,t)|^2)\nabla\phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=& p(t)^2\int_{\vartheta} \partial_i (|\partial_j z(x,t)|^2)\partial_i\phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=& 2p(t)^2\int_{\vartheta} \partial_j z(x,t) \partial^2_{ij} z(x,t) \partial_i \phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=& -2p(t)^2 \int_{\vartheta} \partial^2_{jj} z(x,t) \partial_i z(x,t) \partial_i \phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx
-2p(t)^2 \int_{\vartheta} \partial_j z(x,t) \partial_i z(x,t)\partial^2_{ij} \phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~&-2p(t)^2\int_{\vartheta} \partial_j z(x,t)\partial_i z(x,t)\partial_i\phi(x,t)\partial_j\phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)} dx\notag\\
&~&+2p(t)^2\int_{\partial\vartheta }\partial_j z(x,t) \partial_i z(x,t)\partial_i \phi(x,t)\nu_je^{\phi(x,t)} dx\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
&~&p(t)^2\int_{\vartheta}\nabla\left(|\nabla z(x,t)|^2\right)\nabla\phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)})dx\notag\\
&=& -2p(t)^2 \int_{\vartheta} \Delta z(x,t) \nabla z(x,t) \nabla \phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx-2p(t)^2 \int_{\vartheta} \nabla z(x,t) \nabla^2 \phi (x,t) \nabla z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~&-2p(t)^2 \int_{\vartheta} |\nabla z(x,t)\nabla\phi(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+2p(t)^2 \int_{\partial\vartheta} |\nabla z(x,t)|^2 \partial_\nu \phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx \text{.}
\label{6}\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[5\]), (\[55\]) and (\[6\]), the third term $P_3$ in (\[3\*\]) can be computed as $$\begin{aligned}
P_3
&=& p(t)\int_{\vartheta} |\nabla z(x,t)|^2 \mathcal{G}\phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx-2p(t)^2\int_\vartheta \Delta z(x,t) \nabla z(x,t) \nabla \phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~& -2p(t)^2\int_\vartheta \nabla z(x,t) \nabla^2 \phi (x,t) \nabla z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx -2p(t)^2\int_\vartheta |\nabla z(x,t)\nabla \phi(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}\notag\\
&~&+p(t)^2 \int_{\partial \vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2\partial_\nu\phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{.}
\label{p3}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, from above results (\[4\]) and (\[p3\]), (\[3\*\]) can be written $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\frac{d}{dt}\left(p(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\right)\notag\\
&=& p'(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx-2 \int_{\vartheta}| \partial_t z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)} dx+ 2\int_{\vartheta} w(x,t) \partial_t z(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~&-2p(t) \int_{\vartheta} \partial_t z(x,t)\nabla z(x,t)\nabla \phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+
p(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2\mathcal{G}\phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~&-2p(t)^2 \int_{\vartheta} \Delta z(x,t) \nabla z(x,t) \nabla \phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx-2p(t)^2 \int_{\vartheta} \nabla z(x,t) \nabla^2 \phi (x,t) \nabla z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~&-2p(t)^2 \int_{\vartheta} |\nabla z(x,t)\nabla\phi(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+p(t)^2 \int_{\partial\vartheta} |\nabla z(x,t)|^2 \partial_\nu \phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx \text{.}
\label{5417}\end{aligned}$$ Since $p(t)\Delta z = \partial_t z -w$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
&~&-2p(t)^2 \int_{\vartheta} \Delta z(x,t) \nabla z(x,t) \nabla \phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=&-2p(t)\int_\vartheta \partial_t z(x,t)\nabla z(x,t)\nabla \phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+2p(t)\int_\vartheta w(x,t)\nabla z(x,t)\nabla \phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we also have $$\begin{aligned}
&~&-2 \int_{\vartheta}| \partial_t z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)} dx+ 2\int_{\vartheta} w(x,t) \partial_t z(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~&-4p(t) \int_{\vartheta} \partial_t z(x,t)\nabla z(x,t)\nabla \phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+2p(t) \int_\vartheta w(x,t)\nabla z(x,t)\nabla \phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~&-2p(t)^2 \int_{\vartheta} |\nabla z(x,t)\nabla\phi(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=& -2\int_{\vartheta}\left(\partial_t z(x,t) +p(t)\nabla z(x,t)\nabla\phi(x,t)-\frac{1}{2}w(x,t)\right)^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+\frac{1}{2}\int_\vartheta |w(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{.}\notag\\
\label{6417}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, (\[5417\]) and (\[6417\]) imply that $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\frac{d}{dt}\left(p(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\right)\notag\\
&=& p'(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+
p(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2\mathcal{G}\phi e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~&-2p(t)^2 \int_{\vartheta} \nabla z(x,t) \nabla^2 \phi (x,t) \nabla z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+p(t)^2 \int_{\partial\vartheta} |\nabla z(x,t)|^2 \partial_\nu \phi(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~&-2 \int_{\vartheta}\left(\partial_t z(x,t) +p(t)\nabla z(x,t)\nabla\phi(x,t)-\frac{1}{2}w(x,t)\right)^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+\frac{1}{2}\int_\vartheta |w(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{.}\notag\\
\label{s1}\end{aligned}$$
**Step 2:** Compute $y'(t)p(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx$.\
From the result $i/$, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&~&y'(t)p(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=& -2\left[p(t)\int_\vartheta|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\right]^2+2p(t)\int_\vartheta z(x,t)w(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~&+p(t)\int_\vartheta \mathcal{G}\phi(x,t)|z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=& 2A(-A+B)+p(t)\int_\vartheta \mathcal{G}\phi(x,t)|z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{.}
\label{7417}\end{aligned}$$ Here $$A:=p(t)\int_\vartheta|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx$$ and $$B:=\int_\vartheta z(x,t)w(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx$$ Our target is making appear the term $\partial_tz(x,t)+p(t)\nabla z(x,t) \nabla \phi(x,t)-\frac{1}{2}w(x,t)$. First of all, we compute $A$ by integrating by parts $$\begin{aligned}
A&=&p(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=& -p(t)\int_\vartheta \Delta z(x,t)z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx -p(t)\int_\vartheta \nabla z(x,t)z(x,t)\nabla \phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=& \int_\vartheta w(x,t)z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx - \int_\vartheta \partial_t z(x,t)z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~& -p(t)\int_\vartheta \nabla z(x,t)z(x,t)\nabla \phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=& -\int_\vartheta \left(\partial_tz(x,t)+p(t)\nabla z(x,t) \nabla \phi(x,t)-\frac{1}{2}w(x,t)\right)z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~& +\frac{1}{2}\int_\vartheta w(x,t)z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{.}
\label{8417}\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
B-A&=&\int_\vartheta \left(\partial_tz(x,t)+p(t)\nabla z(x,t) \nabla \phi(x,t)-\frac{1}{2}w(x,t)\right)z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&+&\frac{1}{2}\int_\vartheta w(x,t)z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{.}
\label{9417}\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[7417\]), (\[8417\]) and (\[9417\]), one gets $$\begin{aligned}
&~&y'(t)p(t)\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&=& \frac{1}{2}\left(\int_\vartheta w(x,t)z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\right)^2\notag\\
&~& - 2\left(\int_\vartheta \left(\partial_tz(x,t)+p(t)\nabla z(x,t) \nabla \phi(x,t)-\frac{1}{2}w(x,t)\right)z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\right)^2\notag\\
&~&+p(t)\int_\vartheta \mathcal{G}\phi(x,t)|z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{.}\notag\\
\label{s2}\end{aligned}$$
**Step 3:** Compute $N'(t)$.\
\
We have $$N'(t)= \frac{1}{y(t)^2}\left(y(t)\frac{d}{dt}\left(p(t)\int_\vartheta |\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}\right)-y'(t)p(t)\int_\vartheta |\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}\right)\text{.}$$ The result (\[s1\]) in Step 1 and (\[s2\]) in Step 2 provide us $$\begin{aligned}
N'(t)
&=& \frac{p'(t)}{p(t)} N (t)+ \frac{p(t)^2}{y(t)}\int_{\partial\vartheta} |\nabla z(x,t)|^2\partial_\nu\phi(x,t) e^{\phi(x,t)}dx +\frac{p(t)}{y(t)}\int_\vartheta |\nabla z(x,t)|^2\mathcal{G}\phi e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~& -\frac{2p(t)^2}{y(t)} \int_{\vartheta} \nabla z(x,t) \nabla^2 \phi (x,t) \nabla z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx+\frac{1}{2y(t)}\int_\vartheta |w(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~&-\frac{2}{y(t)} \int_{\vartheta}\left(\partial_t z(x,t) +p(t)\nabla z(x,t)\nabla\phi(x,t)-\frac{1}{2}w(x,t)\right)^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&~& +\frac{2}{y(t)^2}\left(\int_\vartheta \left(\partial_tz(x,t)+p(t)\nabla z(x,t) \nabla \phi(x,t)-\frac{1}{2}w(x,t)\right)z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\right)^2\notag\\
&~&-\frac{1}{2y(t)^2}\left(\int_\vartheta w(x,t)z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\right)^2\notag\\
&~& - \frac{p(t)}{y(t)^2}\int_\vartheta \mathcal{G}\phi|z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\int_{\vartheta}|\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Thanks to Cauchy-Schwarz inequality: $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left(\int_\vartheta \left(\partial_tz(x,t)+p(t)\nabla z(x,t) \nabla \phi(x,t)-\frac{1}{2}w(x,t)\right)z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\right)^2\notag\\
&\leq& \int_{\vartheta}\left(\partial_t z(x,t) +p(t)\nabla z(x,t)\nabla\phi(x,t)-\frac{1}{2}w(x,t)\right)^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx \int_\vartheta |z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{,}\notag\\\end{aligned}$$ we receive the assertion ii/.
Now, by choosing an explicit weight function $e^\phi$ inspired from the heat kernel, we get the following result.
Under the same assumption in Lemma \[lemma1\], put $R:=\max\limits_{x\in \overline{\vartheta}}|x-x_0|$. Assume that $\vartheta$ be a convex domain or star-shaped with respect to $x_0$. For any $\rho >0$, with $\phi$ is chosen as below $$\phi(x,t):=\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4p(T)(T-t+\rho)}-\frac{n}{2}\ln(T-t+\rho)\text{,}$$ we obtain two following estimates:
1. $$\left|y'(t)+2N(t)y(t)\right| \leq \left(\frac{C_0}{T-t+\rho}+C_1 \right)y(t) +2\int_\vartheta |w(x,t)z(x,t)|e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{,}
\label{col1i}$$
2. $$N'(t)\leq\left(\frac{1+C_0}{T-t+\rho}+C_1\right)N(t)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{ \int_{\vartheta} |w(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx}{y(t)}
\label{col1ii}$$
where $$C_0=\frac{|p'|_\infty R^2 }{2p_1^2}~~\text{and}~~ C_1=\left(2+n\right)\frac{|p'|_\infty}{p_1}\text{.}
\label{c0c1}$$ \[col1\]
**Proof of Corollary \[col1\]**
Obviously, we can easily check the following properties of the function $\phi$:
(1) $\partial_t \phi+p(T)\Delta \phi + p(T) |\nabla\phi|^2 =0$,
(2) $\nabla \phi = \frac{-(x-x_0)}{2p(T)(T-t+\rho)}$,
(3) $\Delta \phi = \frac{-n}{2p(T)(T-t+\rho)}$,
(4) $\nabla^2\phi =\frac{-1}{2p(T)(T-t+\rho)} I_n$ where $I_n$ is the identity matrix of size $n$.
Remind that $\mathcal{G}\phi=\partial_t \phi+p(t)\Delta \phi + p(t)|\nabla \phi|^2$. Thanks to properties (1), (2) and (3), we get $$\begin{aligned}
|\mathcal{G}\phi|&\leq&\left|p(t)-p(T)\right|\Delta\phi + \left|p(t)-p(T)\right||\nabla \phi|^2\notag\\
&\leq& \frac{n|p'|_\infty}{2p(T)}+\frac{|p'|_\infty R^2}{4p(T)^2}\frac{1}{T-t+\rho}\notag\\
&\leq& \frac{n|p'|_\infty}{2p_1}+\frac{|p'|_\infty R^2}{4p_1^2}\frac{1}{T-t+\rho}\text{.}
\label{gbig}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, from result $i/$ in Lemma \[lemma1\], we get the assertion $i/$. Now, we turn to prove the assertion $ii/$. Thanks to the assumption that $\vartheta$ is star-shaped with respect to $x_0$, one has $$\partial_\nu \phi = -\frac{(x-x_0)\nu}{2p(T)(T-t+\rho)} \leq 0 ~~\forall x\in \partial \vartheta\text{.}
\label{nu}$$ Furthermore, property (4) implies $$\int_{\Omega} \nabla z(x,t) \nabla^2 \phi (x,t) \nabla z(x,t)e^{\phi(x,t)}dx = \frac{-1}{2p(T)(T-t+\rho)}\int_\Omega |\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{.}
\label{ij}$$ Consequently, combining result $ii/$ in Lemma \[lemma1\] with (\[gbig\]), (\[nu\]) and (\[ij\]), we get the assertion $ii/$.
Now, the following lemma will solve the ODE inequalities getting from Corollary \[col1\].
Let $\rho>0$, $F\in C^0([0,T])$. Suppose two positive functions $y, N \in C^1([0,T])$ satisfy the following conditions
1. $$\left| y'(t) + 2N(t)y(t) \right| \leq \left(\frac{C_0}{T-t+\rho}+C_1+F(t)\right)y(t) \text{,}\label{ass1}$$
2. $$N'(t)\leq\left(\frac{1+C_0}{T-t+\rho}+C_1\right)N(t)+\frac 12 F(t) \label{ass2}$$
where $C_0, C_1 >0$. Then for any $0\leq t_1<t_2<t_3\leq T$, one has $$\left(y(t_2)\right)^{1+M} \leq e^G \left(\frac{T-t_1+\rho}{T-t_3+\rho}\right)^{C_0(1+M)}y(t_3) \left(y(t_1)\right)^M
\label{ine}$$ with $$M=\frac{\int_{t_2}^{t_3}\frac{e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+h)^{1+C_0}}ds}{\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\frac{e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+h)^{1+C_0}}ds}
\text{,}$$ $$G = (1+M)\left[(t_3-t_1)\int_{t_1}^{t_3}F(s)ds+\int_{t_1}^{t_3}F(s)ds+(t_3-t_1)C_1\right] \text{.}$$ \[lemma2\]
**Proof of Lemma \[lemma2\]**
From (\[ass2\]), we get: $$\left(N(t)(T-t+\rho )^{1+C_0}e^{-C_1t}\right)'\leq \frac{1}{2}F(t)(T-t+\rho )^{1+C_0}e^{-C_1t} \text{.}
\label{N}$$
\
\
Integrating ($\ref{N}$) over $(t;t_2)$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
N(t) &\geq& N(t_2) \left(\frac{T-t_2+\rho }{T-t+\rho }\right)^{1+C_0}e^{-C_1(t_2-t)} \notag\\
&~&-\frac{1}{2}e^{C_1t}\left(\frac{1}{T-t+\rho }\right)^{1+C_0}\int_t^{t_2}F(s)(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}e^{-C_1s}ds\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}e^{-C_1s}\leq (T-t+\rho )^{1+C_0}e^{-C_1t}~~\forall s\geq t$, one gets $$N(t) \geq Q(t_2)\frac{e^{C_1t}}{(T-t+\rho )^{1+C_0}}-\frac{1}{2}\int_{t_1}^{t_2}F(s)ds
\label{Na}$$ where $Q(t_2) = e^{-C_1t_2}(T-t_2+\rho )^{1+C_0}N(t_2)$. From (\[ass1\]), we also have $$y'(t)+2N(t)y(t) \leq \left(\frac{C_0}{T-t+\rho }+C_1+F(t)\right)y(t) \text{.}$$ Combining to ($\ref{Na}$), we obtain: $$y'(t) + \left(2Q(t_2)\frac{e^{C_1t}}{(T-t+\rho )^{1+C_0}}-\int_{t_1}^{t_2}F(s)ds-\frac{C_0}{T-t+\rho }-C_1-F(t)\right)y(t) \leq 0 \text{.}$$ It is equivalent to $$\left(y(t)e^{2Q(t_2)\int_0^t \frac {e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}}ds}e^{-\left(\int_{t_1}^{t_2}F(s)ds + C_1\right)t}(T-t+\rho )^{C_0}e^{-\int_0^tF(s)ds}\right)'\leq 0 \text{.}
\label{de}$$ Integrating (\[de\]) over $(t_1;t_2)$, one has $$y(t_1) \geq y(t_2) e^{2Q(t_2)\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \frac {e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}}ds}e^{-\left(\int_{t_1}^{t_2}F(s)ds + C_1\right)(t_2-t_1)}\left(\frac{T-t_2+\rho }{T-t_1+\rho }\right)^{C_0}e^{-\int_{t_1}^{t_2}F(s)ds} \text{.}
\label{t1}$$
\
\
Integrating ($\ref{N}$) over $(t_2;t)$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
N(t) &\leq& N(t_2) \left(\frac{T-t_2+\rho }{T-t+\rho }\right)^{1+C_0}e^{-C_1(t_2-t)} \notag\\
&~&+\frac{1}{2}e^{C_1t}\left(\frac{1}{T-t+\rho }\right)^{1+C_0}\int_{t_2}^{t}F(s)(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}e^{-C_1s}ds\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}e^{-C_1s}\leq (T-t_2+\rho )^{1+C_0}e^{-C_1t_2}~~\forall s\geq t_2$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
N(t) \leq Q(t_2) \left(\frac{1}{T-t+\rho }\right)^{1+C_0}e^{C_1t}+ \frac{1}{2}e^{C_1(t-t_2)}\left(\frac{T-t_2+\rho }{T-t+\rho }\right)^{1+C_0}\int_{t_2}^{t_3}F(s)ds\text{.}
\label{Na2}\end{aligned}$$ From (\[ass1\]), we also have $$y'(t)+2N(t)y(t) \geq -\left(\frac{C_0}{T-t+\rho }+C_1+F(t)\right)y(t) \text{.}
\label{sunday}$$ It deduces from ($\ref{Na2}$) and (\[sunday\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
y'(t)+\left(2Q(t_2)\frac{e^{C_1t}}{(T-t+\rho )^{1+C_0}}+e^{C_1(t-t_2)}\left(\frac{T-t_2+\rho }{T-t+\rho }\right)^{1+C_0}\int_{t_2}^{t_3}F(s)ds\right)\notag\\
\geq-\left(\frac{C_0}{T-t+\rho }+C_1+F(t)\right)y(t) \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ It is equivalent to $$\left(y(t)e^{2Q(t_2)\int_0^t \frac {e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}}ds+\int_{t_2}^{t_3}F(s)ds\int_0^te^{C_1(s-t_2)}\left(\frac{T-t_2+\rho }{T-s+\rho }\right)^{1+C_0}ds+C_1t+\int_0^tF(s)ds}\frac{1}{(T-t+\rho )^{C_0}}\right)'\geq 0 \text{.}
\label{de2}$$ Integrating ($\ref{de2}$) over $(t_2;t_3)$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
y(t_2) \leq y(t_3) e^{2Q(t_2)\int_{t_2}^{t_3} \frac {e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}}ds}e^{\int_{t_2}^{t_3}F(s)ds\int_{t_2}^{t_3}e^{C_1(s-t_2)}\left(\frac{T-t_2+\rho }{T-s+\rho }\right)^{1+C_0}ds}\notag\\
\times \left(\frac{T-t_2+\rho }{T-t_3+\rho }\right)^{C_0}e^{C_1(t_3-t_2)}e^{\int_{t_2}^{t_3}F(s)ds} \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Combining to ($\ref{t1}$), one gets $$\begin{aligned}
y(t_2) &\leq& y(t_3) \left(\frac{y(t_1)}{y(t_2)}\right)^{M}\left(\frac {T-t_1+\rho }{T-t_2+\rho }\right)^{MC_0}e^{\left(\int_{t_1}^{t_2}F(s)ds+C_1\right)M(t_2-t_1)}e^{M\int_{t_1}^{t_2}F(s)ds}\notag\\
&~& \times e^{C_1(t_3-t_2)}e^{\int_{t_2}^{t_3}F(s)ds\int_{t_2}^{t_3}e^{C_1(s-t_2)}\left(\frac{T-t_2+\rho }{T-s+\rho }\right)^{1+C_0}ds}e^{\int_{t_2}^{t_3}F(s)ds}\left(\frac{T-t_2+\rho }{T-t_3+\rho }\right)^{C_0}\notag\\
\label{bumbum}\end{aligned}$$ where $$M=\frac{\int_{t_2}^{t_3}\frac{e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}}ds}{\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\frac{e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}}ds} \text{.}$$ We also have $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{t_2}^{t_3}e^{C_1(s-t_2)}\left(\frac{T-t_2+\rho }{T-s+\rho }\right)^{1+C_0}ds&=& \frac{\int_{t_2}^{t_3}\frac{e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}}ds}{\frac{e^{C_1t_2}}{(T-t_2+\rho )^{1+C_0}}}\notag\\
&\leq& \left(t_2 - t_1\right)\frac{\int_{t_2}^{t_3}\frac{e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}}ds}{\int_{t_1}^{t_2}\frac{e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}}ds}\notag\\
&\leq& (t_2-t_1)M \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, it is deduced from (\[bumbum\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left(y(t_2)\right)^{1+M}\notag\\
&\leq& y(t_3)\left(y(t_1)\right)^Me^{M(t_2-t_1)\int_{t_1}^{t_2}F(s)ds}e^{C_1M(t_2-t_1)}e^{M\int_{t_1}^{t_2}F(s)ds}\notag\\
&~& \times e^{M(t_2-t_1)\int_{t_2}^{t_3}F(s)ds}e^{C_1(t_3-t_2)}e^{\int_{t_2}^{t_3}F(s)ds}\notag\\
&~& \times \left(\frac{T-t_2+\rho }{T-t_3+\rho }\right)^{C_0}\left(\frac{T-t_1+\rho }{T-t_2+\rho }\right)^{MC_0}\notag\\
&\leq&y(t_3)\left(y(t_1)\right)^Me^{(1+M)\left[(t_3-t_1)\int_{t_1}^{t_3}F(s)ds+\int_{t_1}^{t_3}F(s)ds+(t_3-t_1)C_1\right]}\left(\frac{T-t_1+\rho }{T-t_3+\rho }\right)^{(1+M)C_0}\text{.}\notag\\\end{aligned}$$
We move to an application of this Lemma with specific choice of time.
Under the assumption of Lemma \[lemma2\], for any $\rho>0$ and $\ell>1$ such that $\ell \rho \leq \min\{\frac{1}{2};\frac{T}{4}\}$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\left(y(T-\ell \rho)\right)^{1+M_\ell } \leq e^{G_\ell } (1+2\ell )^{2C_0(1+M_\ell )} y(T)\left(y(T-2\ell \rho)\right)^{M_\ell }\end{aligned}$$ where $$M_\ell=\frac{\int_{T-\ell\rho }^{T}\frac{e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}}ds}{\int_{T-2\ell\rho }^{T-\ell\rho }\frac{e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}}ds} \text{.}$$ and $$G_\ell = (1+M_\ell )\left( 2\int_{T-2\ell \rho}^{T}F(s)ds + C_1\right)\text{.}$$ Moreover, the upper bound of $M_\ell$ can be given as $$M_\ell \leq S_\ell := e^{C_1} \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\ln(1+\ell )}{\ln\frac{3}{2}}&\text{ if}~~ C_0=0\\
\frac{(1+\ell )^{C_0}}{1-\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{C_0}} &\text{if}~~ C_0>0
\end{array} \right.\text{.}$$ \[col2\]
**Proof of Corollary \[col2\]**
Now, for $\ell >1$ and $\ell\rho <\min\{\frac{1}{2}; \frac{T}{4}\}$, applying Lemma \[lemma2\] for $t_1= T-2\ell\rho ; ~ t_2= T-\ell\rho ; ~ t_3=T$ , we get $$\begin{aligned}
\left(y(T-\ell\rho )\right)^{1+M_\ell}\leq y(T)\left(y(T-2\ell\rho )\right)^{M_\ell}e^{(1+M_\ell)\left(2\int^T_{T-2\ell\rho }F(s)ds+C_1\right)}(1+2\ell)^{(1+M_\ell)C_0}
\label{step4}\end{aligned}$$ with $$M_\ell=\frac{\int_{T-\ell\rho }^{T}\frac{e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}}ds}{\int_{T-2\ell\rho }^{T-\ell\rho }\frac{e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho )^{1+C_0}}ds} \text{.}$$ If $C_0=0$ then $$M_\ell=\frac{\int_{T-\ell \rho}^{T}\frac{e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho)}ds}{\int_{T-2\ell \rho}^{T-\ell \rho}\frac{e^{C_1s}}{(T-s+\rho)}ds}
\leq e^{C_1}\frac{\ln(1+\ell)}{\ln\frac{1+2\ell}{1+\ell}}
\leq e^{C_1}\frac{\ln(1+\ell)}{\ln\frac{3}{2}}\text{.}$$ If $C_0> 0$ then $$M_\ell \leq e^{2\ell \rho C_1}\frac{(1+\ell)^{C_0}-1}{\frac{(1+2\ell)^{C_0}-(1+\ell)^{C_0}}{(1+2\ell)^{C_0}}}\leq e^{C_1}\frac{(1+\ell)^{C_0}}{1-\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{C_0}}\text{.}$$
Let $x_0 \in \Omega$, $\varrho > 0$ and $0<\epsilon < \frac{\varrho}{2}$. Let $v$ be the solution of (\[J\]). Then there exist constants $E_1>1$, $E_2>0$ and $E_3>0$, which all depend on $\varrho$ and $\epsilon$, such that the following estimate holds $$\frac{\int_\Omega \left| v(x,0)\right|^2dx}{\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left|v(x,t)\right|^2dx} \leq E_1e^{\frac{E_1}{\theta}} ~~\forall~~ \frac T2<T-E_2\theta\leq t \leq T\text{.}$$ Here $$\frac 1\theta =\ln\left(E_3e^{\frac {E_3}T}\frac{\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx}{\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - 2\epsilon)}\left| v(x,T)\right|^2dx}\right)\text{.}$$ \[lemma3\]
**Proof of Lemma \[lemma3\]**\
In order to get a local estimate, we need to use a weight function $e^{-\frac{|x-x_0|^2}{\hbar}}$ ($\hbar$ will be chosen later) and a cut-off function $\Psi$ on $B(x_0,\varrho)$. After finding an ODE inequality for $\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left|\Psi(x) v(x,t)\right|^2 e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}} dx$ (see Step 1) and solving it (see Step 2), we can get the final result with a suitable choice of $\hbar$ (see Step 3). Now, we start the proof with the definition of the following cut-off function.
Let $\Psi \in C^\infty_0(B(x_0,\varrho))$ such that $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\Psi = 1 &\text{in} ~~B(x_0,\varrho - \epsilon) \text{,}\\
\Psi\in(0;1) &\text{in}~~B(x_0,\varrho)
\text{.}\end{array}\right.$$ **Step 1:** For $\hbar <1$, find an ODE inequality for $\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left|\Psi(x) v(x,t)\right|^2 e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}} dx$.\
We have $$\begin{aligned}
&~& \frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left|\Psi(x) v(x,t)\right|^2 e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}} dx\notag\\
&=& 2\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left|\Psi(x)\right|^2 v(x,t) \partial_t v(x,t) e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}} dx\notag\\
&=& 2p(t)\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left|\Psi(x)\right|^2 v(x,t) \Delta v(x,t) e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}} dx
\text{.}
\label{smile1}\end{aligned}$$ By integrating by parts with the fact that $\Psi v = 0$ on $\partial(\Omega \cap B(x_0, \varrho))$ one obtains $$\begin{aligned}
&~& \int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left|\Psi(x)\right|^2 v(x,t) \Delta v(x,t) e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}} dx\notag\\
&=& - \int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \nabla v(x,t) \nabla(|\Psi(x)|^2 v(x,t)e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}) dx\notag\\
&=& -2 \int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \Psi(x) \nabla \Psi(x) \nabla v(x,t)v(x,t)e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&~& -\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} |\Psi(x)|^2 \left|\nabla v(x,t)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&~& + 2 \int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} |\Psi(x)|^2 v(x,t) \nabla v(x,t)(x-x_0)\frac{1}{\hbar} e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&:=& P_1 +P_2+P_3
\label{smile2}\end{aligned}$$ where $P_i(i=1,2,3)$ is the $i^{th}$ term in the right-hand side of (\[smile2\]). Now, thanks to Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we get $$\begin{aligned}
P_1 &=&-2\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \Psi(x) \nabla \Psi(x) \nabla v(x,t)v(x,t)e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&\leq& 2\left(\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| \Psi(x) \nabla v(x,t)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| v(x,t) \nabla \Psi(x)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\notag\\\end{aligned}$$ and $$\begin{aligned}
P_3&=&2 \int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} |\Psi(x)|^2 v(x,t) \nabla v(x,t)(x-x_0)\frac{1}{\hbar} e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&\leq& 2\left(\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| \Psi(x) \nabla v(x,t)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\notag\\
&~&\times \left(\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| \Psi(x) v(x,t)\frac{(x-x_0)}{\hbar}\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\text{.}\notag\\\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
P_1+P_3
&\leq& 2\left(\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| \Psi(x) \nabla v(x,t)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\notag\\
& \times& \left[\left(\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| v(x,t) \nabla \Psi(x)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right.\notag\notag\\
&~&~~~\left.+\left(\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| \Psi(x) v(x,t)\frac{(x-x_0)}{\hbar}\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ It follows from $2ab \leq a^2 + b^2$ and $(a+b)^2 \leq 2a^2 + 2b^2~~\forall a,b>0$ that $$\begin{aligned}
P_1+P_3
&\leq& \int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| \Psi(x) \nabla v(x,t)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&+& \left[\left(\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| v(x,t) \nabla \Psi(x)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right.\notag\\
&~&~~\left.+\left(\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| \Psi(x) v(x,t)\frac{(x-x_0)}{\hbar}\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\right]^2\notag\\
&\leq& \int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| \Psi(x) \nabla v(x,t)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx + 2\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| v(x,t) \nabla \Psi(x)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&~&+2\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| \Psi(x) v(x,t)\frac{(x-x_0)}{\hbar}\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx
\label{smile3}\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[smile1\]), (\[smile2\]) and (\[smile3\]), we can conclude $$\begin{aligned}
&~& \frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left|\Psi(x) v(x,t)\right|^2 e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}} dx\notag\\
&\leq& 4p(t)\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| v(x,t) \nabla \Psi(x)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&~&+4p(t)\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| \Psi(x) v(x,t)\frac{(x-x_0)}{\hbar}\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&\leq& 4p_2\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| v(x,t)\nabla \Psi(x) \right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&~& +4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2} \int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)}\left| \Psi(x) v(x,t)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, due to $\nabla \Psi(\cdot) = 0$ in $\Omega \cap B(x_0, \varrho - \epsilon)$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left| v(x,t)\nabla \Psi(x)\right|^2 e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx
&=& \int_{\Omega \cap \{\left|x-x_0\right|\geq \varrho-\epsilon\}} \left| v(x,t)\nabla \Psi(x)\right|^2 e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&\leq&|\nabla \Psi|_\infty e^{\frac{-(\varrho-\epsilon)^2}{\hbar}}\int_\Omega \left|v(x,t)\right|^2dx\notag\\
&\leq&|\nabla \Psi|_\infty e^{\frac{-(\varrho-\epsilon)^2}{\hbar}}\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Thus $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left|\Psi(x) v(x,t)\right|^2 e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&\leq& \frac{4p_2\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left|\Psi(x) v(x,t)\right|^2 e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx+4p_2| \nabla \Psi|_\infty^2e^{\frac{-(\varrho-\epsilon)^2}{\hbar}}\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx\text{.}\notag\\
\label{ode}\end{aligned}$$
**Step 2:** Solve ODE inequality.\
It deduces from (\[ode\]) that $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\frac{d}{dt}\left(e^{-4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}t}\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left|\Psi(x) v(x,t)\right|^2 e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx \right)\notag\\
&\leq& 4p_2| \nabla \Psi|_\infty^2e^{-4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}t }e^{\frac{-(\varrho-\epsilon)^2}{\hbar}}\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx\text{.}
\label{bubu}\end{aligned}$$ Integrating (\[bubu\]) over $(t;T)$ gives $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left|\Psi(x) v(x,T)\right|^2 e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\ &\leq& e^{4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}(T-t)}\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left|\Psi(x) v(x,t)\right|^2 e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&~&+4p_2| \nabla \Psi|_\infty^2e^{4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}T}e^{\frac{-(\varrho-\epsilon)^2}{\hbar}}\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx \int_t^Te^{-4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}s}ds
\text{.}
\label{smile4}\end{aligned}$$ It implies from the fact $\Psi(\cdot) =1$ in $B(x_0,\varrho-\epsilon)$ that $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left|\Psi(x) v(x,T)\right|^2 e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx
&\geq& \int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - \epsilon)}\left|\Psi(x)v(x,T)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&=& \int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - \epsilon)}\left|v(x,T)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&\geq&
\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - 2\epsilon)}\left|v(x,T)\right|^2e^{\frac{-\left|x-x_0\right|^2}{\hbar}}dx\notag\\
&\geq&
e^{\frac{-(\varrho-2\epsilon)^2}{\hbar}}\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - 2\epsilon)}\left|v(x,T)\right|^2dx
\text{.}
\label{smile5}\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[smile4\]), (\[smile5\]) and the following estimate $$\int_t^Te^{-4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}s}ds=\frac{1}{4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}} \left(e^{-4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}T}-e^{-4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}t}\right)\leq \frac{1}{4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}} e^{-4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}t}\leq \frac{1}{4p_2\varrho^2} e^{-4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}t}$$ for $\hbar<1$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - 2\epsilon)}\left| v(x,T)\right|^2dx\notag\\
& \leq &e^{4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}(T-t)}e^{\frac{(\varrho-2\epsilon)^2}{\hbar}}\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left| v(x,t)\right|^2dx \notag \notag\\
& + &\frac{| \nabla \Psi|_\infty^2}{\varrho^2}e^{4p_2\frac{\varrho^2}{\hbar^2}(T-t)}e^{\frac{(\varrho-2\epsilon)^2}{\hbar}-\frac{(\varrho-\epsilon)^2}{\hbar}}\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Let $\frac T2<T-\eta \hbar \leq t\leq T$, it yields $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - 2\epsilon)}\left| v(x,T)\right|^2dx
& \leq &e^{4p_2\frac{\varrho^2\eta}{\hbar}}e^{\frac{(\varrho-2\epsilon)^2}{\hbar}}\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left| v(x,t)\right|^2dx \notag \notag\\
& + &\frac{| \nabla \Psi|_\infty^2}{\varrho^2}e^{4p_2\frac{\varrho^2\eta}{\hbar}}e^{\frac{(\varrho-2\epsilon)^2}{\hbar}-\frac{(\varrho-\epsilon)^2}{\hbar}}\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx
\text{.}
\label{tam1}\end{aligned}$$ We choose $\eta= \frac{\epsilon(2\varrho-3\epsilon)}{8p_2\varrho^2}$, that is $4p_2\varrho^2\eta=\frac 12\epsilon(-3\epsilon+2\varrho)$ in order to get $$4p_2\varrho^2\eta + (\varrho-2\epsilon)^2 -(\varrho-\epsilon)^2 <0$$ Then, (\[tam1\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - 2\epsilon)}\left| v(x,T)\right|^2dx
& \leq &e^{\frac{(\varrho-\epsilon)^2+(\varrho-2\epsilon)^2}{2\hbar}}\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left| v(x,t)\right|^2dx \notag \notag\\
& + &\frac{| \nabla \Psi|_\infty^2}{\varrho^2}e^{\frac{(\varrho-2\epsilon)^2-(\varrho-\epsilon)^2}{2\hbar}}\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx
\text{.}
\label{tam}\end{aligned}$$ **Step 3:** Choose $\hbar$ for minimization problem.\
Now, for the purpose of minimizing the right-hand side of inequality (\[tam\]), we choose $\hbar$ such that $$\frac{| \nabla \Psi|_\infty^2}{\varrho^2}e^{\frac{(\varrho-2\epsilon)^2-(\varrho-\epsilon)^2}{2\hbar}}\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx \leq \frac{1}{2}\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - 2\epsilon)}\left| v(x,T)\right|^2dx$$ or $$e^{\frac{(\varrho-2\epsilon)^2}{2\hbar}} \leq e^{\frac{(\varrho-\epsilon)^2}{2\hbar}}\frac{\varrho^2}{2| \nabla \Psi|_\infty^2}\frac{\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - 2\epsilon)}\left| v(x,T)\right|^2dx}{\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx}\text{.}$$ The choice of $\hbar$ also satisfies the condition that $\hbar <1$ and $\eta \hbar < \min\{1, \frac T2\}$. Such $\hbar$ exists by choosing $$\hbar = \frac{\frac{\epsilon(2\varrho - 3\epsilon)}{2}}{\ln\left(\frac{2| \nabla \Psi|_\infty^2}{\varrho^2}\frac{\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx}{\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - 2\epsilon)}\left| v(x,T)\right|^2dx}\right)+\frac{\epsilon(2\varrho - 3\epsilon)}{2}\left[1+\eta\left(1+\frac 2T\right)\right]}\text{.}$$ With this choice, it implies from (\[tam\]) that $$\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - 2\epsilon)}\left| v(x,T)\right|^2dx \leq \frac{\varrho^2}{| \nabla \Psi|_\infty^2}e^{\frac{(\varrho-2\epsilon)^2}{\hbar}}\frac{\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - 2\epsilon)}\left| v(x,T)\right|^2dx}{\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx}\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left| v(x,t)\right|^2dx
\text{.}$$ This is equivalent to $$\frac {\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx}{\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho)} \left| v(x,t)\right|^2dx
} \leq \frac{\varrho^2}{| \nabla \Psi|_\infty^2}e^{\frac{(\varrho-2\epsilon)^2}{\hbar}}\\
\text{.}$$ This completes the proof with $E_1=\max\left\{\frac{\varrho^2}{| \nabla \Psi|_\infty^2};\frac{2(\varrho-2\epsilon)^2}{\epsilon(2\varrho - 3\epsilon)};1\right\}>1$ and $$\begin{aligned}
\frac 1\theta &=& \ln\left(\frac{2| \nabla \Psi|_\infty^2}{\varrho^2}\frac{2\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx}{\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - 2\epsilon)}\left| v(x,T)\right|^2dx}\right)+\frac{\epsilon(2\varrho - 3\epsilon)}{2}\left[1+\eta\left(1+\frac 2T\right)\right]\\
&=& \ln\left(\frac{2| \nabla \Psi|_\infty^2}{\varrho^2}\frac{2\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx}{\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - 2\epsilon)}\left| v(x,T)\right|^2dx}e^{\frac{\epsilon(2\varrho - 3\epsilon)}{2}\left[1+\eta\left(1+\frac 2T\right)\right]}\right)
\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there exists a constant $E_3>0$ such that $$\frac 1\theta=\ln \left(E_3e^{\frac {E_3}T}\frac{\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx}{\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,\varrho - 2\epsilon)}\left| v(x,T)\right|^2dx}\right)$$ On the other hand, $\eta \hbar = \theta \frac{\epsilon^2(2\varrho-3\epsilon)^2}{16p_2\varrho^2}$. Hence, $E_2=\frac{\epsilon^2(2\varrho-3\epsilon)^2}{16p_2\varrho^2}$.
Proof of Theorem \[convex\]
---------------------------
Let $x_0\in \Omega$, $\rho >0$ and $\ell >1$ such that $\ell \rho \leq \min\{\frac 12, \frac T4\}$, Corollary \[col1\] gives $$\left|y'(t)+2N(t)y(t)\right| \leq \left(\frac{C_0}{T-t+\rho}+C_1 \right)y(t)$$ and $$N'(t)\leq\left(\frac{1+C_0}{T-t+\rho}+C_1\right)N(t)\text{.}$$ Here $$y(t)=\frac{1}{(T-t+\rho)^{\frac{n}{2}}}\int_{\Omega} |v(x,t)|^2e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4p(T)(T-t+\rho)}}dx \text{,}$$ $$N(t)=\frac{p(t)}{(T-t+\rho)^{\frac{n}{2}}}\frac{\int_{\Omega} |\nabla v(x,t)|^2e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4p(T)(T-t+\rho)}}dx}{y(t)}\text{,}$$ $$C_0=\frac{|p'|_\infty R^2 }{2p_1^2}~~\text{and}~~ C_1=\left(2+n\right)\frac{|p'|_\infty}{p_1}\text{.}$$ Now, thanks to Corollary \[col2\], one has $$\begin{aligned}
y(T-\ell \rho)^{1+M_\ell } \leq e^{G_\ell } (1+2\ell )^{C_0(1+M_\ell )} y(T)y(T-2\ell \rho)^{M_\ell }
\label{bla}\end{aligned}$$ where $$G_\ell = C_1(1+M_\ell )$$ and $$M_\ell \leq S_\ell = e^{C_1} \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\ln(1+\ell )}{\ln\frac{3}{2}}&\text{ if}~~ C_0=0\text{,}\\
\frac{(1+\ell )^{C_0}}{1-\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{C_0}} &\text{if}~~ C_0>0\text{.}
\end{array} \right.$$ Then (\[bla\]) is equivalent to $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left(\int_{\Omega} |v(x,T-\ell \rho)|^2dx\right)^{1+M_\ell}\notag\\
&\leq& \frac{\left((1+\ell)\rho\right)^{(1+M_\ell)\frac n2}}{\rho^{\frac n2}\left((1+2\ell)\rho\right)^{M_\ell\frac n2}}e^{\frac{R^2(1+M_\ell)}{4p(T)(1+\ell)\rho}}e^{C_1(1+M_\ell)}(1+2\ell)^{C_0(1+M_\ell)}\notag\\
&~&\times \left(\int_{\Omega} |v(x,t)|^2 e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4\rho p(T)}}dx\right)\left(\int_{\Omega} |v(x,T-2\ell \rho)|^2e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4 (1+\ell)\rho p(T)}}dx\right)^{M_\ell}\notag\\
&\leq& 2^{C_0(1+M_\ell)} (1+\ell)^{\frac{n}{2}+C_0(1+M_\ell)}e^{(1+M_\ell)C_1}e^{\frac{R^2(1+M_\ell)}{4p(T)(1+\ell)\rho}}\notag\\
&~&\times\left(\int_{\Omega} |v(x,t)|^2 e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4\rho p(T)}}dx\right)\left(\int_{\Omega} |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{M_\ell} \text{.}
\label{111}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, for $0<r<R$ such that $B(x_0,r)\subset \omega$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega} |v(x,T)|^2 e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4\rho p(T)}}dx
&\leq& \int_{ B(x_0,r)} |v(x,T)|^2dx + \int_{\Omega \cap\{x;|x-x_0|\geq r\}} |v(x,T)|^2 e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4\rho p(T)}}dx\notag\\
&\leq& \int_{B(x_0,r)} |v(x,T)|^2dx +e^{\frac{-r^2}{4\rho p(T)}} \int_{\Omega} |v(x,T)|^2dx \notag\\
&\leq& \int_\omega |v(x,T)|^2dx +e^{\frac{-r^2}{4\rho p(T)}}\int_{\Omega} |v(x,0)|^2dx
\text{.}
\label{112}\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, we also have $$\int_{\Omega} |v(x,T-\ell \rho)|^2dx\geq\int_{\Omega} |v(x,T)|^2 e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4\rho p(T)}}dx
\label{113}$$ Combining (\[111\]), (\[112\]) and (\[113\]), it yields $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{1+M_\ell}\notag\\
&\leq& 2^{C_0(1+M_\ell)} (1+\ell)^{\frac{n}{2}+C_0(1+M_\ell)}e^{(1+M_\ell)C_1}e^{\frac{R^2(1+M_\ell)}{4(1+\ell)\rho p(T)}}\notag\\
&\times&\left[\int_{\omega} |v(x,T)|^2dx\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{M_\ell}+e^{-\frac{r^2}{4\rho p(T)}}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1+M_\ell}\right]\text{.}\notag\\
\label{min}\end{aligned}$$ With the notice that $M_\ell \leq S_\ell$, we can write (\[min\]) as below, thanks to the energy estimate $\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx \geq \int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx$ $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell}\notag\\
&\leq& 2^{C_0(1+S_\ell)} (1+\ell)^{\frac{n}{2}+C_0(1+S_\ell)}e^{(1+S_\ell)C_1}e^{\frac{R^2(1+S_\ell)}{4(1+\ell)\rho p(T)}}\notag\\
&\times&\left[\int_{\omega} |v(x,T)|^2dx\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{S_\ell}+e^{-\frac{r^2}{4\rho p(T)}}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell}\right]\text{.}\notag\\
\label{min2}\end{aligned}$$ Now, in order to minimize the right-hand side of inequality (\[min2\]), we will choose $\ell>1$ as $$\ell =\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\left(\frac{2^{2+\xi} R^2e^{C_1}}{\xi \ln \frac{3}{2}r^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{1-\xi}}-1 ~~\forall \xi \in (0,1)~~&\text{if}~~~C_0 = 0\text{,}\\
\left(\frac{4R^2e^{C_1}}{r^2\left(1-\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{C_0}\right)}\right)^{\frac{1}{1-C_0}}-1 ~~&\text{if}~~~C_0 > 0 \text{.}
\end{array}
\right.$$ The assumption (i) follows $C_0 <1$. Hence, such choice of $\ell$ provides us $$\frac{R^2(1+S_\ell)}{4(1+\ell)\rho p(T)}\leq \frac{r^2}{8\rho p(T)}\text{.}$$ Thus, (\[min2\]) becomes: $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell}\notag\\
&\leq& 2^{C_0(1+S_\ell)} (1+\ell)^{\frac{n}{2}+C_0(1+S_\ell)}e^{(1+S_\ell)C_1}e^{\frac{r^2}{8p(T)h}}\int_{\omega} |v(x,T)|^2dx\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{S_\ell}\notag\\
&+&2^{C_0(1+S_\ell)} (1+\ell)^{\frac{n}{2}+C_0(1+S_\ell)}e^{(1+S_\ell)C_1}e^{\frac{-r^2}{8p(T)h}}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell}
\text{.}
\label{step71}\end{aligned}$$ This estimate is true for any $\rho >0$ satisfying $\rho <\frac{1}{\ell} \min\{\frac{1}{2}; \frac{T}{4}\}$. For $\rho \geq\frac{1}{\ell} \min\{\frac{1}{2}; \frac{T}{4}\}$ which implies $\frac{r^2}{8\rho p(T)}\leq \frac{r^2\ell} {4p(T)}\left(1+\frac 2T\right)$, we can get the following estimate be true for any $\rho >0$. $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell}\notag\\
&\leq& 2^{C_0(1+S_\ell)} (1+\ell)^{\frac{n}{2}+C_0(1+S_\ell)}e^{(1+S_\ell)C_1}e^{\frac{r^2}{8\rho p(T)}}\left(\int_{\omega} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{S_\ell} \notag\\
&+&2^{C_0(1+S_\ell)} (1+\ell)^{\frac{n}{2}+C_0(1+S_\ell)}e^{(1+S_\ell)C_1}e^{\frac{r^2\ell}{4p(T)}\left(1+\frac 2T\right)}e^{\frac{-r^2}{8\rho p(T)}}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell} \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Now, we choose $\rho$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&~&2^{C_0(1+S_\ell)} (1+\ell)^{\frac{n}{2}+C_0(1+S_\ell)}e^{(1+S_\ell)C_1}e^{\frac{r^2\ell}{4p(T)}\left(1+\frac 2T\right)}e^{\frac{-r^2}{8\rho p(T)}}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell}\\
&=&\frac{1}{2}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell}\end{aligned}$$ that is $$e^{\frac{r^2}{8\rho p(T)}}=22^{C_0(1+S_\ell)} (1+\ell)^{\frac{n}{2}+C_0(1+S_\ell)}e^{(1+S_\ell)C_1}e^{\frac{r^2\ell}{4p(T)}\left(1+\frac 2T\right)}\left(\frac{\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx}{\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx}\right)^{1+S_\ell}\text{.}$$ Therefore, we get\
$$\begin{aligned}
\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{2(1+S_\ell)}
&\leq& 4.4^{C_0(1+S_\ell)} (1+\ell)^{n+2C_0(1+S_\ell)}e^{2(1+S_\ell)C_1}e^{\frac{r^2\ell}{4p(T)}\left(1+\frac 2T\right)}\\
&\times&\left(\int_{\omega} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1+2S_\ell} \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we can state $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\notag\\
&\leq& \left(4^{1+C_0(1+S_\ell)} (1+\ell)^{n+2C_0(1+S_\ell)}e^{2(1+S_\ell)C_1}e^{\frac{r^2\ell}{4p(T)}\left(1+\frac 2T\right)}\int_{\omega} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2(1+S_\ell)}}\notag\\
&~& \times \left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{\frac{1+2S_\ell}{2(1+S_\ell)}}\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ This completes the proof.
Proof of Theorem \[nonconvex\]
------------------------------
Let us move to the proof of Theorem \[nonconvex\] with the structure as: Thanks to Preliminary results in the previous subsection, we can get a Hölder type estimate in Step 1. Furthermore, thanks to the technical Lemma \[lemma3\], we get an estimate for the term containing $F(t)$, which is presented in Step 2. Step 3 will make appear a small ball, which is related to the presence of $\omega$ later, by using a splitting technique. Next, dealing with a minimization problem, Step 4 provides us a localized observation estimate. Due to propagation of smallness by constructing the sequence of balls, $\omega$ will appear in Step 5. Lastly, in Step 6, by using an adequate covering of $\Omega$ with a finite number of balls, we will get the desired result.
**Step 1:** Get Hölder type inequality.\
Let $x_0 \in \Omega$ and $R$ be small enough such that $\Omega \cap B(x_0;R)$ is star-shaped with respect to $x_0$. Such choice of $x_0$ and $R$ will be mentioned in Step 6. Let $0<\epsilon<\frac{R}{4}$.\
Define $\psi \in C_0^2(B(x_0;R))$ satisfying $\psi = 1$ in $B(x_0;R-\epsilon)$ and $0<\psi(t)<1 ~~ \forall t\in B(x_0;R)$. Then $\psi v \in H^1((0,T);H_0^1(\Omega \cap B(x_0;R))$. For any $\rho >0$ and $\ell >1$ such that $\ell \rho \leq \min\{\frac 12, \frac T4\}$, Corollary \[col1\] gives $$\left|y'(t)+2N(t)y(t)\right| \leq \left(\frac{C_0}{T-t+\rho}+C_1 \right)y(t) +2\int_\vartheta |w(x,t)z(x,t)|e^{\phi(x,t)}dx
\label{hehe}$$ and $$N'(t)\leq\left(\frac{1+C_0}{T-t+\rho}+C_1\right)N(t)+\frac{1}{2}\frac{ \int_{\vartheta} |w(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx}{y(t)}\text{.}$$ Here $$\vartheta = \Omega \cap B(x_0;R)\text{,}$$ $$z=\psi v\text{,}$$ $$w:=\partial_t z -\Delta z\text{,}$$ $$y(t)=\frac{1}{(T-t+\rho)^{\frac{n}{2}}}\int_{\vartheta} |z(x,t)|^2e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4p(T)(T-t+\rho)}}dx \text{,}$$ $$N(t)=\frac{p(t)}{(T-t+\rho)^{\frac{n}{2}}}\frac{\int_{\vartheta} |\nabla z(x,t)|^2e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4p(T)(T-t+\rho)}}dx}{y(t)}\text{,}$$ $$C_0=\frac{|p'|_\infty R^2 }{2p_1^2}~~\text{and}~~ C_1=\left(2+n\right)\frac{|p'|_\infty}{p_1}\text{.}$$ Thanks to the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality and the fact that $2ab \leq a^2+b^2~~\forall a,b$, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
&~&2\int_\vartheta |w(x,t)z(x,t)|e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\notag\\
&\leq& 2\left(\int_\vartheta |w(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\right)^{\frac 12}\left(\int_\vartheta |z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\right)^{\frac 12}\notag\\
&\leq& \int_\vartheta |w(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx + \int_\vartheta |z(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx\text{,}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we can write (\[hehe\]) as below $$\left|y'(t)+2N(t)y(t)\right| \leq \left(\frac{C_0}{T-t+\rho}+C_1+1+F(t) \right)y(t)$$ with $$F(t):=\frac{ \int_{\vartheta} |w(x,t)|^2e^{\phi(x,t)}dx}{y(t)}\text{.}$$ Now, thanks to Corollary \[col2\], one has $$\begin{aligned}
y(T-\ell \rho)^{1+M_\ell } \leq e^{G_\ell } (1+2\ell )^{C_0(1+M_\ell )} y(T)y(T-2\ell \rho)^{M_\ell }
\label{step11}\end{aligned}$$ where $$G_\ell = (1+M_\ell )\left(C_1 +1 + 2\int_{T-2\ell \rho}^{T}F(s)ds\right)$$ and $$M_\ell \leq S_\ell = e^{C_1+1}\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\frac{\ln(1+\ell )}{\ln\frac{3}{2}}&\text{ if}~~ C_0=0 \text{,}\\
\frac{(1+\ell )^{C_0}}{1-\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{C_0}} &\text{if}~~ C_0>0\text{.}
\end{array} \right.$$
**Step 2:** Estimate $\int_{T-2\ell \rho}^{T} F(s)ds$.\
Remind that $$\begin{aligned}
F(s)&=& \frac{\int_{\vartheta} |w(x,s)|^2e^{\phi(x,s)}dx}{\int_{\vartheta} |z(x,s)|^2e^{\phi(x,s)}dx}
\label{F}
\end{aligned}$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
w(x,s)&=& \partial_t z(x,s) -p(s)\Delta z(x,s)\notag\\
&=& -p(s)v(x,s)\Delta \psi(x) -2p(s) \nabla v(x,s) \nabla \psi(x)\text{.}
\end{aligned}$$ Note that $\nabla \psi = \Delta \psi =0$ in $\Omega \cap B(x_0,R-\epsilon)$, so $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\int_{\vartheta} |w(x,s)|^2e^{\phi(x,s)}dx\notag\\
&=& p(s)^2\int_{\vartheta} \left(v(x,s)\Delta \psi(x) +2\nabla v(x,s)) \nabla \psi(x)\right)^2e^{\phi(x,s)}dx\notag\\
&=& p(s)^2\int_{\Omega \cap \{x; |x-x_0|\geq R-\epsilon\}}\left(v(x,s)\Delta \psi(x) +2\nabla v(x,s)) \nabla \psi(x)\right)^2e^{\phi(x,s)}dx\text{.}
\end{aligned}$$ It implies from the fact that $e^{\phi(x,s)}=\frac{1}{(T-s+\rho)^{\frac{n}{2}}}e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4p(T)(T-s+\rho)}}$ and $(a+b)^2\leq 2(a^2+b^2)~~\forall a,b$ that $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\int_{\vartheta} |w(x,s)|^2e^{\phi(x,s)}dx\notag\\
&\leq&\frac{2p(s)^2}{(T-s+\rho)^{\frac{n}{2}}}e^{\frac{-(R-\epsilon)^2}{4p(T)(T-s+\rho)}}\left(|\Delta \psi|_\infty^2\int_\Omega |v(x,s)|^2dx+4|\nabla \psi|_\infty^2\int_\Omega |\nabla v(x,s)|^2dx\right)\text{.}\notag\\
\end{aligned}$$ Moreover, thanks to the following energy estimate $$\int_\Omega |\nabla v(x,s)|^2dx \leq \frac{1}{2p_1s}\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx~~\forall s>0\text{,}$$ we obtain: $$\int_{\vartheta} |w(x,s)|^2e^{\phi(x,s)}dx\leq \frac{C_2}{(T-s+\rho)^{\frac{n}{2}}}e^{\frac{-(R-\epsilon)^2}{4p(T)(T-s+\rho)}}\left(1+\frac{1}{2p_1s}\right)\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx
\label{f1}$$ where $C_2 = 2p_2^2 \max \{|\Delta \psi|_\infty^2, 4|\nabla \psi|_\infty^2\}$. On the other hand, due to $\psi =1$ on $B(x_0,R-\epsilon)$, one gets $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\vartheta |z(x,s)|^2e^{\phi(x,s)}dx &=& \int_{\Omega\cap B(x_0,R-\epsilon)} |v(x,s)|^2e^{\phi(x,s)}dx\notag\\
&\geq& \frac{1}{(T-s+\rho)^{\frac{n}{2}}}e^{\frac{-(R-2\epsilon)^2}{4p(T)(T-s+\rho)}}\int_{\Omega\cap B(x_0,R-2\epsilon)} |v(x,s)|^2dx\text{.}
\label{f2}\end{aligned}$$ Combining (\[F\]), (\[f1\]) and (\[f2\]) gives $$F(s) \leq C_2e^{\frac{-\epsilon(2R-3\epsilon)}{12\ell \rho p(T)}}\left(1+\frac{1}{2p_1s}\right)\frac{\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx}{\int_{\Omega\cap B(x_0,R-2\epsilon)} |v(x,s)|^2dx}
\label{f3}$$ with $s\in[T-2\ell \rho,T]$. Now, apply Lemma \[lemma3\] with $\varrho = R-2\epsilon$, under condition $2\ell \rho \leq E_2\theta$ for some $E_2 >0$ depending on $R$ and $\epsilon$, there exists a constant $E_1=E_1(R,\epsilon)>1$ such that $$\frac{\int_\Omega \left|v(x,0)\right|^2dx}{\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,R-2\epsilon)} \left|v(x,s)\right|^2dx} \leq E_1e^{\frac{E_1}{\theta}} ~~\forall T-\ell \rho\leq s \leq T\text{.}
\label{f4}$$ Thus, from (\[f3\]) and (\[f4\]), one has $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{T-2\ell \rho}^{T} F(s)ds \leq E_1e^{\frac{E_1}{\theta} }C_2e^{\frac{-\epsilon(2R-3\epsilon)}{12\ell \rho p_1}}\int_{T-2\ell \rho}^{T} \left(1+\frac{1}{2p_1s}\right)ds\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ In order to get $\frac{E_1}{\theta}-\frac{\epsilon(2R-3\epsilon)}{12\ell \rho p_1}<0$, we take $2\ell \rho \leq cE_2\theta$ with $c=\min\left\{\frac{\epsilon(2R-3\epsilon)}{6p_1E_1E_2};1\right\}$. On the other hand, due to $\int_{T-2\ell \rho}^{T} \left(1+\frac{1}{2p_1s}\right)ds = 2\ell \rho + \frac{1}{2p_1}\ln \frac{T}{T-2\ell \rho} \leq 1+\frac{1}{2p_1}\ln 2$, there exists a constant $C_3>0$ which does not depend on $\ell,\rho$ and $T$ such that $$\int_{T-2\ell \rho}^{T} F(s)ds \leq C_3 \text{.}$$
**Step 3:** Make appear a small ball.\
Remind that $$y(t)=\int_\vartheta |z(x,t)|^2 \frac{1}{(T-t+\rho)^{\frac{n}{2}}}e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4p(T)(T-t+\rho)}}\text{.}$$ From (\[step11\]) in Step 1, we have $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left(\int_{\vartheta} |z(x,T-\ell \rho)|^2dx\right)^{1+M_\ell}\notag\\
&\leq& (1+2\ell)^{\frac{n}{2}+C_0(1+M_\ell)}e^{(1+M_\ell)(C_1+1+2C_3)}e^{\frac{R^2(1+M_\ell)}{4(1+\ell)\rho p(T)}}\notag\\
&~&\left(\int_{\vartheta} |z(x,t)|^2 e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4\rho p(T)}}dx\right)\left(\int_{\vartheta} |z(x,T-2\ell \rho)|^2e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4(1+2\ell)\rho p(T)}}dx\right)^{M_\ell} \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ From the fact that $|z| \leq |v|$ in $\Omega \cap B(x_0,R)$ and $\int_\Omega |v(x,T-2\ell \rho)|^2dx\leq \int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx$, we can write $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left(\int_{\vartheta} |z(x,T-\ell \rho)|^2dx\right)^{1+M_\ell}\notag\\
&\leq& (1+2\ell)^{\frac{n}{2}+C_0(1+M_\ell)}e^{(1+M_\ell)(C_1+1+2C_3)}e^{\frac{R^2(1+M_\ell)}{4(1+\ell)\rho p(T)}}\left(\int_{\vartheta} |v(x,t)|^2 e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4\rho p(T)}}dx\right)\left(\int_{\Omega}|v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{M_\ell}\text{.} \notag\\
\label{44}\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, thanks to $\psi =1$ on $B(x_0, R-\epsilon)$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\vartheta |z(x,T-\ell \rho)|^2dx \geq\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,R-2\epsilon)}|v(x,T-\ell \rho)|^2dx\text{.}
\label{45}\end{aligned}$$ From inequality (\[f4\]), one gets $$\int_{\Omega \cap B(x_0,R-2\epsilon)}|v(x,T-\ell \rho)|^2dx \geq \frac{1}{E_1e^{\frac{E_1}{\theta}}}\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx \geq \frac{1}{E_1e^{\frac{E_1}{\theta}}}\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\text{.}
\label{46}$$ Combining (\[44\]), (\[45\]) and (\[46\]), it yields $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{1+M_\ell}&\leq& (E_1e^{\frac{E_1}{\theta}})^{1+M_\ell}(1+2\ell)^{\frac{n}{2}+C_0(1+M_\ell)}e^{(1+M_\ell)(C_1+1+2C_3)}e^{\frac{R^2(1+M_\ell)}{4(1+\ell)\rho p(T)}}\notag\\
&~&\left(\int_{\vartheta} |v(x,t)|^2 e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4\rho p(T)}}dx\right)\left(\int_{\Omega}|v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{M_\ell}\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Furthermore, for $0<r\leq \frac{R}{2}$ such that $B(x_0,r)\subset \Omega$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\vartheta} |v(x,T)|^2 e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4\rho p(T)}}dx
&\leq& \int_{ B(x_0,r)} |v(x,T)|^2dx + \int_{\Omega \cap\{x;|x-x_0|\geq r\}} |v(x,T)|^2 e^{\frac{-|x-x_0|^2}{4\rho p(T)}}dx\notag\\
&\leq& \int_{B(x_0,r)} |v(x,T)|^2dx +e^{\frac{-r^2}{4\rho p(T)}}\int_{\Omega} |v(x,0)|^2dx
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we obtain that\
$$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{1+M_\ell}\notag\\
&\leq& (E_1e^{\frac{E_1}{\theta}})^{1+M_\ell}(1+2\ell)^{\frac{n}{2}+C_0(1+M_\ell)}e^{(1+M_\ell)(C_1+1+2C_3)}\notag\\
&~&\left[e^{\frac{R^2(1+M_\ell)}{4(1+\ell)\rho p(T)}}\int_{\vartheta} |v(x,T)|^2dx\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{M_\ell}+e^{\frac{R^2(1+M_\ell)}{4(1+\ell)\rho p(T)}}e^{-\frac{r^2}{4\rho p(T)}}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1+M_\ell}\right]
\text{.}\notag\\
\label{step6}\end{aligned}$$ Notice that $M_\ell \leq S_\ell$, therefore we can write (\[step6\]) as below $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell}\notag\\
&\leq& (E_1e^{\frac{E_1}{\theta}})^{1+S_\ell}(1+2\ell)^{\frac{n}{2}+C_0(1+S_\ell)}e^{(1+S_\ell)(C_1+1+2C_3)}\notag\\
&~&\left[e^{\frac{R^2(1+S_\ell)}{4(1+\ell)\rho p(T)}}\int_{\vartheta} |v(x,T)|^2dx\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{S_\ell}+e^{\frac{R^2(1+S_\ell)}{4(1+\ell)\rho p(T)}}e^{-\frac{r^2}{4\rho p(T)}}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell}\right]
\text{.}\notag\\
\label{fun}\end{aligned}$$
**Step 4:** Choose suitable $\ell,\rho$ and solve a minimization problem.\
With $R$ is small enough such that $C_0:=\frac{R^2|p'|_\infty}{2p_1^2}<1$, we will minimize the right-hand side of the estimate (\[fun\]) by choosing $\ell$ as below $$\ell =\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\left(\frac{2^{2+\xi} R^2e^{C_1+1}}{\xi \ln \frac{3}{2}r^2}\right)^{\frac{1}{1-\xi}}-1 ~~\forall \xi \in (0,1)~~&\text{if}~~~C_0 = 0; \\
\left(\frac{4R^2e^{C_1+1}}{r^2\left(1-\left(\frac{2}{3}\right)^{C_0}\right)}\right)^{\frac{1}{1-C_0}}-1 ~~&\text{if}~~~C_0> 0
\end{array}
\right.$$ in order to get $$\frac{R^2(1+S_\ell)}{4(1+\ell)\rho p(T)}\leq \frac{r^2}{8\rho p(T)}\text{.}$$ With this choice of $\ell$ and the fact that $E_1>1$, we can conclude from (\[fun\]) that: there exists a constant $C_4>1$ not depending on $\rho$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell}\notag\\
&\leq&C_4e^{\frac{C_4}{\theta}}e^{\frac{r^2}{8p(T)\rho}}\int_{\vartheta} |v(x,T)|^2dx\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{S_\ell}+C_4e^{\frac{C_4}{\theta}}e^{\frac{-r^2}{8p(T)\rho}}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell}
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ This estimate is true for any $\rho >0$ satisfying $\rho \leq\frac{1}{\ell}\min\{\frac{1}{2}; \frac{T}{4}; cE_2\theta\}$. For $\rho >\frac{1}{\ell}\min\{\frac{1}{2}; \frac{T}{4}; cE_2\theta\}$ which implies $\frac{r^2}{8\rho p(T)}< \frac{r^2\ell}{8p(T)}\left(2+\frac{4}{T}+\frac{1}{cE_2\theta}\right)$, we can get the following estimate be true for any $\rho >0$. $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell}
&\leq& C_4e^{\frac{C_4}{\theta}}e^{\frac{r^2}{8\rho p(T)}}\left(\int_{B(x_0,r)} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{S_\ell} \notag\\
&~&+ C_4e^{\frac{C_4}{\theta}}e^{\frac{r^2\ell}{8p(T)}\left(2+\frac{4}{T}+\frac{1}{cE_2\theta}\right)}e^{\frac{-r^2}{8\rho p(T)}}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell} \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Now, we choose $\rho$ such as $$C_4e^{\frac{C_4}{\theta}}e^{\frac{r^2\ell}{8p(T)}\left(2+\frac{4}{T}+\frac{1}{cE_2\theta}\right)}e^{\frac{-r^2}{8\rho p(T)}}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell}=\frac{1}{2}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{1+S_\ell} \text{;}$$ that is $$e^{\frac{r^2}{8\rho p(T)}}=2C_4e^{\frac{C_4}{\theta}}e^{\frac{r^2\ell}{8p(T)}\left(2+\frac{4}{T}+\frac{1}{cE_2\theta}\right)}\left(\frac{\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx}{\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx}\right)^{1+S_\ell} \text{;}$$ in order to get\
$$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{2(1+S_\ell)}\notag\\
&\leq& 4 C_4^2e^{\frac{2C_4}{\theta}}e^{\frac{r^2\ell}{8p(T)}\left(2+\frac{4}{T}+\frac{1}{cE_2\theta}\right)}\left(\int_{B(x_0,r)} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1+2S_\ell} \text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there exists a constant $C_5$ not depending on $T$ and $\theta$ such that $$\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx
\leq C_5e^{\frac{C_5}{\theta}}e^{\frac{C_5}{T}}\left(\int_{B(x_0,r)} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2(1+S_\ell)}}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{\frac{1+2S_\ell}{2(1+S_\ell)}}\text{.}$$ On the other hand, Lemma \[lemma3\] says that there exists $E_3 > 0$ satisfying the following estimate $$e^{\frac{1}{\theta}} = E_3e^{\frac{E_3}{T}}\frac{\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx}{\int_{\Omega\cap B(x_0,R-4\epsilon)}|v(x,T)|^2dx}\text{.}$$ Hence, the following estimate holds $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega |v(x,T)|^2dx
&\leq& C_5E_3^{C_5}e^{\frac{C_5(E_3+1)}{T}}\left(\frac{\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx}{\int_{\Omega\cap B(x_0,R-4\epsilon)}|v(x,T)|^2dx}\right)^{C_5}\notag\\
&~&\times \left(\int_{B(x_0,r)} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2(1+S_\ell)}}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{\frac{1+2S_\ell}{2(1+S_\ell)}}\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $\int_{\Omega\cap B(x_0,R-4\epsilon)}|v(x,T)|^2dx\leq \int_{\Omega}|v(x,T)|^2dx$, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left(\int_{\Omega\cap B(x_0,R-4\epsilon)} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{1+C_5}\notag\\
&\leq& C_5E_3^{C_5}e^{\frac{C_5(E_3+1)}{T}}\left(\int_{B(x_0,r)} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2(1+S_\ell)}}\left(\int_\Omega |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{C_5+\frac{1+2S_\ell}{2(1+S_\ell)}}\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, there exist constants $\kappa>0$ and $\sigma \in (0,1)$ satisfying the following estimate $$\int_ {\Omega\cap B(x_0,R-4\epsilon)}|v(x,T)|^2dx
\leq \kappa e^{\frac{\kappa }{T}}\left(\int_{B(x_0,r)} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{\sigma}\left(\int_{\Omega} |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1-\sigma}\text{.}
\label{step7}$$
**Step 5** Make appear $\omega$ by propagation of smallness.\
Let $r>0$ be small enough and $x_j\in \Omega (j=1,2,...,m) (m\in \mathbb{N})$, we can construct a sequence of balls $\{B(x_j,r)\}_{j\in \overline{1,m}}$ such that the following inclusions hold
1. $B(x_m,r) \in \omega$ ;
2. $B(x_j,r) \subset B(x_{j+1},2r)~\forall j = 1,2,..,m-1$;
3. $B(x_j,2r) \Subset \Omega~\forall j=1,2,...m$ .
Then, thanks to (\[step7\]), there exist $\sigma_1, \kappa _1, \sigma_m, \kappa _m$ such that $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\int_{\Omega\cap B(x_0,R-4\epsilon)}|v(x,T)|^2dx\notag\\
&\leq& \kappa e^{\frac{\kappa }{T}}\left(\int_{B(x_0,r)} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{\sigma}\left(\int_{\Omega} |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1-\sigma}\notag\\
&\leq& \kappa e^{\frac{\kappa }{T}}\left(\int_{B(x_1,2r)} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{\sigma}\left(\int_{\Omega} |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1-\sigma}\notag\\
&\leq& \kappa e^{\frac{\kappa }{T}}\left(\kappa _1e^{\frac{\kappa _1}{T}}\left(\int_{B(x_1,r)} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{\sigma_1}\left(\int_{\Omega} |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1-\sigma_1}\right)^{\sigma}\left(\int_{\Omega} |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1-\sigma}\notag\\
&\leq&...\notag\\
&\leq& \kappa _me^{\frac{\kappa _m}{T}}\left(\int_{B(x_m,r)} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{\sigma_m}\left(\int_{\Omega} |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1-\sigma_m}\notag\\
&\leq& \kappa _me^{\frac{\kappa _m}{T}}\left(\int_{\omega} |v(x,T)|^2dx\right)^{\sigma_m}\left(\int_{\Omega} |v(x,0)|^2dx\right)^{1-\sigma_m}\text{.}
\label{step8}\end{aligned}$$ Thus, we already prove that if $\Omega \cap B(x_0,R)$ is star-shaped with respect to $x_0$, then we obtain a local observation at one point of time, which has form (\[step8\]). Now, in order to get the global result, we will cover $\Omega$ by a finite number of balls $B(x_0, R-4\epsilon)$ satisfying assumption that $\Omega \cap B(x_0,R)$ is star-shaped with respect to $x_0$.\
**Step 6** Cover $\Omega$.\
We can see that $\Omega$ is covered by a finite number of balls $B(x_0, R-4\epsilon)$ which have one of two following properties:
1. $\overline{B(x_0, R)} \subset \Omega$;
2. $B(x_0, R)\cap \partial \Omega \neq \emptyset$.
For the first case, obviously, the assumption that $\Omega \cap B(x_0,R)$ is star-shaped with respect to $x_0$ is satisfied because of the convexity of the ball $B(x_0,R)$. For the second one, we will use the result in \[AEWZ\] (see Theorem 8, page 2443), which says that $\Omega$ is locally star-shaped, i.e for each $\chi \in \partial \Omega$, there are $x_\chi$ in $\Omega$ and $R_\chi >0$ such that $$\chi \in B(x_\chi,R_\chi)~~ \text{and}~~ \Omega \cap B(x_\chi,R_\chi) ~~\text{is star-shaped with center} ~~x_\chi \text{.}$$ Thus, we can choose $x_0=x_\chi$ and $R=R_\chi$ then $\Omega \cap B(x_0,R)$ is star-shaped with respect to $x_0$.
Approximate controllability at one point of time
=================================================
In [@LR], Lebeau and Robbiano connect the controllability to an interpolation estimate for an elliptic system. Then, in [@FI], Fursikov and Imanuvilov use a global Carleman inequality and a minimization technique to construct the control function. Recently, in [@FCZ], Fernández-Cara and Zuazua establish a null controllability for semilinear heat equation. In [@Vo], the author succeeds in computing a control function for the cubic semilinear heat equation in a constructive way. Those results are related to the controllability in $L^2(\Omega \times (0,T))$. Here, we need to add a control at a fixed point of time, which is well studied in [@PWX], but for case $p \equiv 1$. Now, our concern is approximate controllability at one point of time for linear heat equation with time-dependent coefficients. This control will lead the given data at the initial time to an origin-center ball with a small radius at some later time.\
Denote $\mathbbm{1}_\omega$ be the characteristic function on the region $\omega$ and $\varphi(T^-)$ be the left limit of the function $\varphi$ at time $T$. Now, consider the following system. $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{t}\varphi-p(t)\Delta \varphi=0 & \text{in}~\Omega\times (0,2T)\setminus\{T\},\\
\varphi =0 & \text{on}~\partial \Omega \times (0,2T),\\
\varphi (\cdot,0)=\varphi ^0& \text{in}~ \Omega \text{,}\\
\varphi (\cdot,T)=\varphi (\cdot,T^{-}) + \mathbbm{1}_{\omega}{h} &\text{in} ~\Omega \text{.}
\end{array}\right.
\label{v}$$ The next theorem consists on the existence of the control function $h$ at some fixed point of time $T$ which leads the solution at final time $2T$ getting small.
Let $\varepsilon > 0$ and $\varphi ^0 \in L^2(\Omega)$, there exists a function $h \in L^2(\omega)$ such that the solution of (\[v\]) satisfies $\left\Vert \varphi (\cdot,2T) \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \varepsilon\left\Vert \varphi ^0 \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}$. Moreover, there exist constants $c_3=c_3(\Omega,\omega,p)>0$ and $c_4=c_4(\Omega,\omega,p)>0$ such that $$\left\Vert h\right\Vert_{L^2(\omega)} \leq \frac {c_3e^{\frac{c_3}{T}}}{\varepsilon^{c_4}}\left\Vert \varphi ^0 \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\text{.}\label{confun}$$ \[control\]
**Proof of Theorem \[control\]**
**Step 1:** Define a functional which has a unique minimizer.\
Let $c_1$ and $c_2$ be the constants from Corollary \[colyoung\], put $k:=\sqrt{c_1e^{\frac{c_1}{T}}\frac{1}{\varepsilon^{2c_2}}}$. We consider the following functional $$J(\mathfrak{u}_0)=\frac{k^2}{2}\Vert \mathfrak{u}(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\omega)}+\frac{\varepsilon^2}{2}\Vert \mathfrak{u}_0\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}-\int_{\Omega} \varphi^0(x)\mathfrak{u}(x,2T)dx$$ where $\mathfrak{u}(x,t)$ is the solution of $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{t}\mathfrak{u}-p(t)\Delta \mathfrak{u}=0 & \text{in}~\Omega\times (0,T) \text{,}\\
\mathfrak{u}=0 & \text{on}~\partial \Omega \times (0,T) \text{,}\\
\mathfrak{u}(\cdot,0)=\mathfrak{u}_0 &\text{in}~ \Omega \text{.}
\label{J1}
\end{array}\right.$$ Notice that $J$ is a strictly convex, $C^1$ and coercive. Therefore, $J$ has a unique minimizer $\Phi_0 \in L^2(\Omega)$ such that $J(\Phi_0)=\min\limits_{\mathfrak{u}_0\in L^2(\Omega)} J(\mathfrak{u}_0)$. It implies that $J'(\Phi_0)\mathfrak{z}_0 = 0$ for any $\mathfrak{z}_0 \in L^2(\Omega)$, i.e the following estimate holds for any $\mathfrak{z}_0$: $$k^2\Vert \Phi(\cdot,T)\Vert_{L^2(\omega)}\Vert \mathfrak{z}(\cdot,T)\Vert_{L^2(\omega)}+\varepsilon^2\Vert \Phi_0\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\Vert \mathfrak{z}_0\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}-\int_{\Omega} \varphi^0(x)\mathfrak{z}(x,2T)dx =0
\label{J'}$$ where $\Phi(x,t)$ and $\mathfrak{z}(x,t)$ are respectively the solution of (\[J1\]) corresponding to $\Phi_0:=\Phi(\cdot,0)$ and $\mathfrak{z}_0:=\mathfrak{z}(\cdot,0)$.\
**Step 2:** Construct a control function.\
On the other hand, multiplying $\partial_{t}\varphi -p(t)\Delta \varphi =0$ by $\Phi(\cdot,2T-t)$ and integrating over $\Omega$, we get $$\int_\Omega \partial_t \varphi (x,t) \Phi(x,2T-t)dx - p(t) \int_\Omega \Delta \varphi (x,t) \Phi(x,2T-t)dx =0
\text{.}
\label{114}$$ Integrating by parts (\[114\]) two times with the fact that $\varphi = \Phi =0$ on $\partial \Omega$, one has $$\int_\Omega \partial_t \varphi (x,t) \Phi(x,2T-t)dx - p(t)\int_\Omega \varphi (x,t) \Delta \Phi(x,2T-t)dx =0
\text{.}$$ Since $\partial_t \Phi -p(t) \Delta \Phi =0$, it yields $$\int_\Omega \partial_t \varphi (x,t) \Phi(x,2T-t)dx - \int_\Omega \varphi (x,t) \partial_t \Phi(x,2T-t)dx =0
\text{.}$$ It implies that $$\frac{d}{dt}\int_\Omega \varphi (x,t)\Phi(x,2T-t)dx =0
\label{dt}
\text{.}$$ Now, by integrating (\[dt\]) over $(0,T)$, we obtain $$\int_\Omega \varphi (x,0)\Phi(x,2T)dx = \int_\Omega \varphi (x,T^-)\Phi(x,T)dx
\label{11}
\text{.}$$ Integrating again (\[dt\]) over $(T,2T)$ forces $$\begin{aligned}
\int_\Omega \varphi (x,2T)\Phi(x,0)dx&=& \int_\Omega \varphi (x,T)\Phi(x,T)dx\notag\\
&=& \int_\Omega \varphi (x,T^-)\Phi(x,T)dx + \int_\Omega h(x)\Phi(x,T)dx
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ Combining the above equality with (\[11\]), we conclude that $$\int_\Omega \varphi (x,2T)\Phi_0dx = \int_\Omega \varphi ^0(x)\Phi(x,2T)dx + \int_\Omega h(x)\Phi(x,T)dx$$ that is $$-\int_\Omega h(x)\Phi(x,T)dx+\int_\Omega \varphi (x,2T)\Phi_0dx -\int_\Omega \varphi ^0(x)\Phi(x,2T)dx=0 \label{22}\text{.}$$ In addition, by choosing $\mathfrak{z}_0 = \Phi_0$ in (\[J’\]), it follows that $$k^2\Vert \Phi(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\omega)}+\varepsilon^2\Vert \Phi_0\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}-\int_{\Omega} \varphi ^0(x)\Phi(x,2T)dx =0 \text{.}
\label{23}$$ Thus from (\[22\]) and (\[23\]), if we choose $h(x)=-k^2\Phi(x, T)$ then $\varphi (x,2T) = \varepsilon^2 \Phi_0(x)$. Moreover, using the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality $$\begin{aligned}
\int_{\Omega} |v^0(x)\Phi(x,2T)|dx \leq \left(\int_{\Omega} |\varphi ^0(x)|^2dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\int_{\Omega} |\Phi(x,2T)|^2dx\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\text{,}\end{aligned}$$ we get $$\begin{aligned}
k^2\Vert \Phi(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\omega)}+\varepsilon^2\Vert \Phi_0\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \Vert \varphi ^0\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\Vert \Phi(\cdot,2T)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}
\text{.}
\label{tamtam}
\end{aligned}$$ On the other hand, Corollary \[colyoung\] gives $$\Vert \Phi(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq k^2\Vert \Phi(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\omega)}+\varepsilon^2\Vert \Phi(\cdot,0)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\text{.}$$ Furthermore, the fact that $\Vert \Phi(\cdot,2T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \Vert \Phi(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}$ provides us $$\Vert \Phi(\cdot,2T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq k^2\Vert \Phi(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\omega)}+\varepsilon^2\Vert \Phi(\cdot,0)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\text{.}
\label{k}$$ Thus, combining (\[tamtam\]) and (\[k\]), we conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
&~&k^2\Vert \Phi(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\omega)}+\varepsilon^2\Vert \Phi_0\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \Vert \varphi ^0\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\left(k^2\Vert \Phi(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\omega)}+\varepsilon^2\Vert \Phi_0\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ It implies that $$k^2\Vert \Phi(\cdot,T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\omega)}+\varepsilon^2\Vert \Phi_0\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \Vert \varphi ^0\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\text{.}$$ This is equivalent to $$\frac{1}{k^2}\Vert h\Vert^2_{L^2(\omega)} + \frac{1}{\varepsilon^2}\Vert \varphi (\cdot,2T)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \Vert \varphi ^0\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}\text{.}$$ Thus, we get the desired estimate (\[confun\]) with $c_3:=\max\{\sqrt{c_1},\frac{c_1}2\}$ and $c_4:=c_2$. This completes the proof.
The local backward - Proof of the Theorem \[local\]
===================================================
For the case $\omega \Subset \Omega$, we need to use the controllability result at one point of time (Theorem \[control\]) in order to get the information of the solution on the whole domain from the known data on the subdomain. In detail, the proof of Theorem \[local\] is structured as: Step 1 will provide us the approximate data of $u(\cdot, 3T)$ on whole domain dues to the controllability result; Then, by some computation technique, we make appear $f$ in Step 2; Lastly, applying the global backward result in Theorem \[global\], Step 3 will complete the proof with the construction of the initial data.
**Step 1:** Use controllability result to link the knowledge on the whole domain $\Omega$ and on the subdomain $\omega$.\
Now, for each $i=1,2,...$, Theorem \[control\] says that for any $\varepsilon >0$, there exists $h_i \in L^2(\omega)$ such that the solution of $$\left\{\begin{array}{ll}
\partial_{t}\varphi _i-p(t)\Delta \varphi _i=0 & \text{in}~\Omega\times (0,2T)\setminus\{T\},\\
\varphi _i=0 & \text{on}~\partial \Omega \times (0,2T),\\
\varphi _i(\cdot,0)=e_i& \text{in}~ \Omega \text{,}\\
\varphi _i(\cdot,T)=\varphi _i(\cdot,T^{-}) + \mathbbm{1}_{\omega}{h_i} &\text{in} ~\Omega
\end{array}\right.
\label{vi}$$ satisfies $\left\Vert \varphi _i(\cdot,2T) \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \varepsilon$ for any $i\geq 1$. Recall that $e_i (i=1,2,...)$ is the eigenfunction of Laplace operator. Moreover, there exist constants $c_3, c_4 > 0$ such that the following estimate holds $$\left\Vert h_i\right\Vert_{L^2(\omega)} \leq \frac{c_3e^{\frac{c_3}{T}}}{\varepsilon^{c_4}}~~~\forall i \geq 1\text{.}
\label{fi}$$ Multiplying both sides of the equation $\partial_{t}\varphi _i-p(t)\Delta \varphi _i=0$ by $u(\cdot, 2T-t)$ and integrating over $\Omega$, one gets $$\frac{d}{dt}\int_{\Omega} \varphi _i(x,t) u(x,2T-t) dx = 0\text{.}\label{222}$$ Integrating (\[222\]) over $(0,T)$ and $(T,2T)$ respectively and using the fact that $\varphi _i(\cdot,T)=\varphi _i(\cdot,T^{-}) + \mathbbm{1}_{\omega}{h_i}$, one has $$\int_\Omega \varphi _i(x,2T)u(x,0)dx = \int_\Omega \varphi _i(x,0) u(x,2T)dx + \int_\omega h_i(x) u(x,T)dx\text{.}\label{ice}$$ Replacing $$u(\cdot,2T) = \sum\limits_{j=1}^{\infty}e^{-\lambda_j \int_0^{2T} p(s)ds}\int_\Omega u(x,0)e_j(x)dx e_j$$ and $\varphi _i(\cdot,0) = e_i$ in (\[ice\]), we get $$\int_\Omega \varphi _i(x,2T)u(x,0)dx=e^{-\lambda_i \int_0^{2T} p(s)ds}\left(\int_\Omega u(x,0)e_i(x)dx\right) + \int_\omega h_i(x) u(x,T)dx\label{coucou}\text{.}$$ Now, multiplying both sides of (\[coucou\]) by $e^{-\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}e_i$ and take the sum from $i=1$ to $\infty$, one has $$\begin{aligned}
&~&u(\cdot,3T)+ \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-\lambda_i \int_ {2T}^{3T}p(s)ds}\int_\omega h_i(x) u(x,T)dx e_i\notag\\
&=&\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds} \int_\Omega \varphi_i(x,2T)u(x,0)dx e_i\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ It implies from $\left\Vert \varphi_i(\cdot,2T) \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq \varepsilon$ that $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left\Vert u(\cdot,3T) + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}\int_\omega h_i(x) u(x,T)dx e_i\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\notag\\
& \leq &\varepsilon \left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} \left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-2\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}
\text{.}
\label{3T}\end{aligned}$$
**Step 2:** Make appear $f$.\
Now, we will make appear $f$ by using a triangle inequality $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left\Vert u(\cdot, 3T) + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}\int_\omega h_i(x)f(x)dx e_i\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\notag\\
&\leq& \left\Vert u(\cdot, 3T) + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}\int_\omega h_i(x) u(x,T)dx e_i \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} \notag\\
&~&+ \left\Vert \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}\int_\omega h_i(x) \left(u(x,T)-f\right)dx e_i \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ We got the first estimate in Step 1, let us estimate the second one. $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left\Vert \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}\int_\omega h_i(x) \left(u(x,T)-f\right)dx e_i \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\notag\\
&\leq& \left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-2\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \left\Vert h_i\right\Vert_{L^2(\omega)}\left\Vert u(\cdot,T)-f\right\Vert_{L^2(\omega)}\notag\\
&\leq& \left(\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-2\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}} \frac{c_3e^{\frac{c_3}{T}}}{\varepsilon^{c_4}}\delta \text{.}
\label{hehehe}\end{aligned}$$ The last inequality in (\[hehehe\]) is followed from (\[fi\]) and the assumption (\[globalz\]). Thus, from (\[3T\]) and (\[hehehe\]), we can conclude that $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left\Vert u(\cdot, 3T) + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}\int_\omega h_i(x)f(x)dx e_i\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\notag\\
&\leq& \left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-2\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left[\varepsilon \left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}+ \frac{c_3e^{\frac{c_3}{T}}}{\varepsilon^{c_4}}\delta\right]\text{.}
\label{cat}\end{aligned}$$ It is known that the function $x \mapsto ax+bx^{-s}~~(a,b,s>0)$ gets minimum at $x_0 = \left(\frac{sb}{a}\right)^{\frac 1{s+1}}$. Hence, in order to minimize the right-hand side of (\[cat\]) we choose $\varepsilon$ such that $$\varepsilon = \left(\frac{c_4c_3e^{\frac{c_3}{T}}}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}\delta\right)^{\frac{1}{1+c_4}}\text{.}$$ Therefore, (\[cat\]) becomes $$\begin{aligned}
&~&\left\Vert u(\cdot, 3T) + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}\int_\omega h_i(x)f(x)dx e_i \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} \notag\\
&\leq & \left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-2\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{c_4c_3e^{\frac{c_3}{T}}\delta}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}\right)^{\frac{1}{1+c_4}}\left(1+\frac 1{c_4}\right)\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} \notag\\
&\leq & \left( \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-2\lambda_i p_2T}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\frac{c_4c_3e^{\frac{c_3}{T}}\delta}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}\right)^{\frac{1}{1+c_4}}\left(1+\frac 1{c_4}\right)\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} \text{.}
\label{sat}\end{aligned}$$ Using the fact that $e^{-x} \leq \left(\frac \gamma x\right)^{\gamma}~\forall x>0~\forall \gamma >0$ and $\lambda_i \approx i^{\frac 2n}~~\forall i\geq 1$ ( by the Weyl formula), we get: $$\begin{aligned}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^\infty e^{-2\lambda_ip_2T} &\leq& \left(\frac \gamma {2p_2T}\right)^\gamma \sum\limits_{i=1}^\infty \frac 1{\lambda_i^\gamma}\leq \left(\frac \gamma {2p_2T}\right)^\gamma \sum\limits_{i=1}^\infty \frac 1{\left(i^{\frac 2 n}\right)^\gamma}\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ When $\gamma > \frac n2$, there exists a constant $S >0$ such that $\sum\limits_{i=1}^\infty \frac 1{\left(i^{\frac 2 n}\right)^\gamma} = S$. Hence $$\begin{aligned}
\sum\limits_{i=1}^\infty e^{-2\lambda_ip_2T} \leq e^{\frac {\gamma^2} {2p_2T} }S\text{.}\end{aligned}$$ One can conclude that (\[sat\]) can be written as below $$\begin{aligned}
\left\Vert u(\cdot, 3T) + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}\int_\omega h_i(x)f(x)dx e_i \right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}\leq K_1e^{\frac {K_1}T}\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^{1-k_1}\delta^{k_1}\end{aligned}$$ for some positive constants $K_1=K_1(\Omega, \omega,p)>1$ and $k_1=k_1(\Omega, \omega, p)\in (0,1)$.\
**Step 3:** Apply the global backward result.\
From the facts that $h_i\in L^2(\omega)$, $z\in L^2(\omega)$ and $\sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}<\infty$, one gets $$- \sum\limits_{i=1}^{\infty} e^{-\lambda_i \int_{2T}^{3T} p(s)ds}\int_\omega h_i(x) f(x)dx e_i \in L^2(\Omega)
\text{.}$$ Thus, Theorem \[global\] gives us the following estimate, where $\delta$ in (\[globalz\]) is replaced by $K_1e^{\frac {K_1}T}\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^{1-k_1}\delta^{k_1}$ $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g \right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \frac{\sqrt{(1+\zeta)p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\ln \left(\sqrt{2\zeta\lambda_1 p_2T}\frac{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{K_1e^{\frac {K_1}T}\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^{1-k_1}\delta^{k_1}}\right)}}\text{.}$$ for any $ \zeta > \frac{K^2_1e^{\frac {2K_1}T}}{2\lambda_1p_2T}\left(\frac{\delta}{\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}}\right)^{2k_1} $. With the assumption that $\delta<\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}$, we can choose $\zeta$ as below $$\zeta = \frac {K_1^2e^{2\frac{K_1}{T}}}{2\lambda_1p_2T}$$ in order to get $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g \right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \frac{\left(1+ \frac {K_1e^{\frac{K_1}{T}}}{\sqrt{2\lambda_1p_2T}}\right)\sqrt{p_2T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{k_1}\sqrt{\ln \frac {\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\delta}}}\text{.}$$ Using the fact that $x\leq e^x~~\forall x>0$, there exists a constant $C>0$ such that $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,0) - g \right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \frac{Ce^{\frac{C}{T}}\sqrt{T}\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\ln \frac {\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\delta}}}\text{.}$$ This completes the proof.
Appendix
--------
**Proof of (\[appendix\]) in Remark \[remark2\]**\
Let us remind the observation estimate (\[holder\]) in Theorem \[nonconvex\] (see Section 3) $$\Vert u(\cdot,T)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)} \leq K_2e^{\frac{K_2}{T}} \Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^{1-k_2}\Vert u(\cdot,T)\Vert_{L^2(\omega)}^{k_2}$$ for some $K_2=K_2(\Omega, \omega, p)>0$ and $k_2=k_2(\Omega, \omega, p) \in (0,1)$. Combining to the known backward estimate below $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq e^{\frac{p_2T \left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}}} \left\Vert u(\cdot,T)\right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)}\text{,}$$ we get $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq e^{\frac{p_2T \left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}}}K_2e^{\frac{K_2}{T}} \Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}^{1-k_2}\Vert u(\cdot,T)\Vert_{L^2(\omega)}^{k_2}\text{.}$$ It is equivalent to $$\left(\frac{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)}}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,T)\right\Vert _{L^2(\omega)}}\right)^{k_2} \leq e^{\frac{p_2T \left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}}}K_2e^{\frac{K_2}T}\text{.}$$ It follows that $$\frac{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)}}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,T)\right\Vert _{L^2(\omega)}} \leq e^{\left(\frac{p_2}{k_2}\frac{T \left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}}+\frac{K_2}{k_2}\frac 1T+\frac 1 {k_2} \ln K_2\right)}\text{.}$$ Using the fact that $\frac{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}}\geq \lambda_1$, there exists a constant $C=\sqrt{\max\{\frac{p_2}{k_2}, \frac {K_2}{k_2\lambda_1}\}}>0$ such that $$\frac{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)}}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,T)\right\Vert _{L^2(\omega)}} \leq e^{C^2\left(1+T+\frac 1{T}\right) \frac{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert^2_{L^2(\Omega)}}}\text{.}$$ Thus $$\left\Vert u(\cdot,0)\right\Vert _{L^2(\Omega)} \leq \frac{C\sqrt{1+T+\frac{1}{T}}\Vert u(\cdot, 0)\Vert_{H_0^1(\Omega)}}{\sqrt{\ln \frac{\Vert u(\cdot,0)\Vert_{L^2(\Omega)}}{\Vert u(\cdot,T)\Vert_{L^2(\omega)}}}}\text{.}$$
[99]{} K. A. Ames and J. F. Epperson, A kernel-based method for the approximate solution of backward parabolic problems, SIAM J. Numer. Anal. 34 (1997), no. 4, 1357-1390.
J. Apraiz, L. Escauriaza, G. Wang and C. Zhang, Observability inequalities and measurable sets, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 16 (2014), no. 11, 2433-2475.
K.A. Ames and L.E. Payne, Asymptotic behavior for two regularizations of the Cauchy problem for the backward heat equation, Math. Models Methods Appl. Sci. 8 (1998), no. 1, 187-202.
C. Bardos and K. D. Phung, Observation estimate for kinetic transport equation by diffusion approximation, preprint arXiv:1605.01954.
M. Denche and K. Bessila, A modified quasi-boundary value method for ill-posed problems, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 301 (2005), no. 2, 419-426.
S. Ervedoza and E. Zuazua, Observability of heat processes by transmutation without geometric restrictions, Math. Control Relat. Fields 1 (2011), no. 2, 177-187.
J. N. Franklin, On Tikhonov’s Method for ill-posed problems, Math. Comput. 28 (1974), no.128, 889-907.
E. Fernández-Cara and E. Zuazua, Null and approximate controllability for weakly blowing up semilinear heat equations, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 17 (2000), no.5, 583-616.
A. V. Fursikov and O. Y. Imanuvilov, Controllability of evolution equations, lecture notes Ser. 34, Seoul National Univ. , Seoul, 1996.
G. C. García, A. Osses and M. Tapia, A heat source reconstruction formula from single internal measurements using a family of null controls, J. Inverse and Ill-posed Probl. 21 (2013), no.6, 755-779.
G. C. García and T. Takahashi, Inverse problem and null-controllability for parabolic systems, J. Inverse and Ill-Posed Probl. 19 (2011), no. 3, 379-405.
J. Hadamard, Lecturers on Cauchy Problem in linear partial differential equation, Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, 1923.
J. K. Hunter and B. Nachtergaele, Applied Analysis, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Singapore, 2001.
S. Hapuarachchi and Y. Xu, Backward heat equation with time dependent variable coefficient, Math. Meth. Appl. Sci. 40 (2017), no.4, 928-938.
V. Isakov, Inverse problems for Partial Differential Equations, Springer Verlag, New York, 2006.
P. Jidesh, V.S. Shubha, and S. George, A quadratic convergence yielding iterative method for the implementation of Lavrentiev regularization method for ill-posed equations, Appl. Math. Comput. 254 (2015), 148-156.
S. I. Kabanikhin, Inverse and Ill-posed Problems: theory and applications, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2011.
C. D. Khanh and N. H. Tuan, On a multi-dimensional initial inverse heat problem with a time-dependent coefficient, Applied Mathematics in Engineering and Reliability. Apr (2016), 255 -268.
H. Li and J. Liu, Solution of backward heat problem by Morozov discrepancy principle and conditional stability, Numer. Math. J. Chinese Univ. (English Ser.) 14 (2005), no. 2, 180-192.
J. Liu and D. Luo, On stability and regularization for backward heat equation, Chinese Ann. Math. Ser. B 24 (2003), no. 1, 35-44.
G. Lebeau and R. Robbiano, Contrôle exact de l’équation de la chaleur, Comm. P.D.E. 20 (1995), no. 1-2, 336-356.
J. Li, M. Yamamoto and J. Zou, Conditional stability and numerical reconstruction of initial temperature, Commun. Pure Appl. Anal. 8 (2009), no. 1, 361-382.
B. A. Mair, Tikhonov regularization for finitely and infinitely smoothing operators, SIAM J. Math. Anal. 25 (1994), no.1, 135-147.
T. Min, W. Fu and Q. Huang, Inverse Estimates for Nonhomogeneous Backward Heat Problems, J. Appl. Math. 2014, Special Issue (2013), 7 pages.
M. T. Nair and U. Tautenhahn, Lavrentiev regularization for linear ill-posed problems under general source conditions, Z. Anal. Anwendungen 23 (2004), no.1, 167-185.
P. T. Nam, D. D. Trong and N. H. Tuan, The truncation method for a two-dimensional nonhomogeneous backward heat problem, Appl. Math. Comput. 216 (2010), 3423-3432.
L. E. Payne, Improperl y posed problems in partial differential equations. Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics, No. 22. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, Pa., 1975.
K. D. Phung and G. Wang, Quantitative unique continuation for the semilinear heat equation in a convex domain, J. Funct. Anal. 259 (2010), no.5, 1230-1247.
K. D. Phung and G. Wang, An observability estimate for parabolic equations from a measurable set in time and its applications, J. Eur. Math. Soc. 15 (2013), no.2, 681-703.
K. D. Phung, G. Wang and Y. Xu, Impulse output rapid stabilization for heat equations, preprint arXiv: 1611.10075v1.
K. D. Phung, L. Wang and C. Zhang, Bang-bang property for time optimal control of semilinear heat equation, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Anal. Non Linéaire 31 (2014), no. 3, 477-499.
P. H. Quan, D. D. Trong, L. M. Triet and N. H. Tuan, A modified quasi-boundary value method for regularizing of a backward problem with time-dependent coefficient, Inverse Probl. Sci. Eng. 19 (2011), no. 3, 409-423.
H. H. Qin, and T. Wei, Some filter regularization methods for a backward heat conduction problem, Appl. Math. Comput. 217 (2011), no. 24, 10317-10327.
T. I. Seidman, Optimal filtering for the backward heat equation, SIAM J. Num. Anal. 33 (1996), no. 1, 162-170.
N. H. Tuan, M. Kirane, L. D. Long and N. V. Thinh, A new general filter method for a multi-dimensional initial inverse heat problem with a time-dependent coefficient, Electronic Journal of Differential Equations 2016 (2016), no.3, 1-15.
D. D. Trong, P. H. Quan, T. V. Khanh and N. H. Tuan, A nonlinear case of the 1D backward heat problem: Regularization and error estimate, Z. Anal. Anwendungen 26 (2007), no.2, 231-245.
N. H. Tuan, P. H. Quan, D. D. Trong and L. M. Triet, On a backward heat problem with time-dependent coefficient: Regularization and error estimates, Appl. Math. Comput. 219 (2013), no.1, 432-441.
U. Tautenhahn and T. Schröter, On optimal regularization methods for the backward heat equation, Z. Anal. Anwendungen 15 (1996), no.2, 475-493.
Y-X. Zhang, C-L Fu and Y-J Ma, An a posteriori parameter choice rule for the truncation regularization method for solving backward parabolic problems, J. Comput. and Appl. Math. 255 (2014), 150-160.
Z. Zhao, and Z. Meng, A modified Tikhonov regularization method for a backward heat equation, Inverse Probl. Sci. Eng. 19 (2011), no. 8, 1175-1182.
S. Vessella, Handbook of differential equations: Evolutionary equations, vol. 5, 2009, 421, 423-500.
T.M.N. Vo, Construction of a Control for the Cubic Semilinear Heat Equation, Vietnam J. Math. vol. 44 (2016), no.3, 587-601.
M. Yamamoto, Stability, reconstruction formula and regularization for an inverse source hyperbolic problem by a control method, Inverse Problems 11 (1995), no. 2, 481-496.
[^1]: Université d’Orléans, Laboratoire MAPMO, CNRS UMR 7349, Fédération Denis Poisson, FR CNRS 2964, Bâtiment de Mathématiques, B.P. 6759, 45067 Orléans Cedex 2, France. Email address: [email protected].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We describe a hybrid meta-architecture – the CHAMELEON – for session-based news recommendation that is able to leverage a variety of information types using Recurrent Neural Networks. We evaluated our approach on two public datasets, using a temporal evaluation protocol that simulates the dynamics of a news portal in a realistic way. Our results confirm the benefits of modeling the sequence of session clicks with RNNs and leveraging side information about users and articles, resulting in significantly higher recommendation accuracy and catalog coverage than other session-based algorithms.'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
---
Introduction
============
Recommender systems help users to deal with information overload by providing tailored item suggestions to them. One of the earliest application domains is the recommendation of online *news* [@karimi2018news]. News recommendation is sometimes considered as being particularly difficult, as it has a number of distinctive characteristics [@Zheng:2018:DDR:3178876.3185994]. Among other challenges, news recommenders have to deal with a constant stream of news articles being published, which at the same time can become outdated very quickly. Another challenge is that the system often cannot rely on long-term user preference profiles. Typically, most users are not logged in and their short-term reading interests must be estimated from only a few logged interactions, leading to a *session-based recommendation problem* [@QuadranaetalCSUR2018].
In recent years, we observed an increased interest in the problem of session-based recommendation, where the task is to recommend relevant items given an ongoing user session. Recurrent Neural Networks (RNN) represent a natural choice for sequence prediction tasks, as they can learn models from sequential data. *GRU4Rec* [@hidasi2016] was one of the first neural session-based recommendation techniques, and a number of other approaches were proposed in recent years that rely on deep learning architectures, as in [@Liu2018stamp; @Li2017narm].
However, as shown in [@jannach2017recurrent; @ludewig2018evaluation; @LudewigMauro2019], neural approaches that only rely on logged item interactions have certain limitations and they can, depending on the experimental setting, be outperformed by simpler approaches based, e.g., nearest-neighbor techniques. Differently from previous works, we therefore leverage multiple types of side information with RNNs, including textual article embeddings, as well as the context of users and articles. Furthermore, we propose a meta-architecture to address the aforementioned challenges of recommending in the news domain.
Technical Contribution
======================
Our approach is based upon CHAMELEON [@moreira2018chameleon; @moreira2018news; @moreira2019inra; @moreira2019contextual], which is a Deep Learning Meta-Architecture for News Recommendation. It supports session-based news recommendation scenarios, modeling the sequence of user clicks using Recurrent Neural Networks. The resulting system is a hybrid recommender system, which addresses the permanent user and item cold-start problem in the news domain by leveraging the textual content of news articles, the article context (e.g., recent popularity and recency) and the user context (e.g., time, location, device, previous session clicks).
Figure \[figure:chameleon\_instantiation\] shows our instantiation of the *CHAMELEON* framework with its two main modules: the *ACR* module on the left creates distributed representations of articles’ textual content. The *NAR* module on the right is responsible to generate next-click predictions. The *NAR* module is trained on a ranking loss function based on similarities, which is designed to recommend fresh articles without retraining. As proposed for the *DSSM* loss function [@huang2013learning], it is trained to maximize the likelihood of correctly predicting the next clicked article given a user session.
![An architecture instantiation of *CHAMELEON*[]{data-label="figure:chameleon_instantiation"}](figures/chameleon_instantiation_journal.jpg){width="1.0\linewidth"}
Evaluation Protocol
===================
The evaluation was performed as follows: (1) Recommenders are continuously trained on users’ sessions ordered by time and grouped by hours. Each five hours, the recommenders are evaluated on sessions from the next hour; (2) For each session in the evaluation set, we incrementally revealed one click after the other to the recommender; and (3) For each click to be predicted, we created a set containing 50 negative samples articles (not clicked by the user in her session) and compute top-N metrics about accuracy, item coverage, and novelty.
![Illustration of the evaluation protocol. After training for 5 hours, we evaluate using the sessions of the next hour.[]{data-label="figure:eval_protocol"}](figures/chameleon_eval_protocol.jpg){width="0.99\linewidth"}
Experiments were performed with two public real-world datasets from the *G1* [@moreira2018news] and *Adressa* [@gulla2017adressa] news portals, described in Table \[tab:datasets\].
We evaluated the following recommendation quality factors for the top-N ranked items: accuracy – Hit Rate (*HR@n*) and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR@n); item coverage – (*COV*) (i.e., the number of distinct articles that appeared in any top-N list divided by the number of recommendable articles); and novelty – *ESI-R*, which is based on item popularity, returning higher values when recommending long-tail items.
As baseline algorithms for session-based recommendation, we have used: two neural approaches (*GRU4Rec* [@hidasi2016] and *SR-GNN* [@wu2019session]); association rules-based methods (*Co-Occurrence (CO)* and *Sequential Rules (SR)* [@ludewig2018evaluation]); neighborhood-based methods (*Item-kNN* [@hidasi2016] and *Vector Multiplication Session-Based kNN (V-SkNN)* [@jannach2017recurrent]); and two other classical methods (*Recently Popular (RP)* [@ludmann2017recommending] and *Content-Based (CB)*.
*Globo.com (G1)* *Adressa*
------------------------------- ------------------ -----------
Language Portuguese Norwegian
Period (days) 16 16
\# users 322,897 314,661
\# sessions 1,048,594 982,210
\# clicks 2,988,181 2,648,999
\# articles 46,033 13,820
Avg. Sessions length (clicks) 2.84 2.70
: Statistics of the datasets used for the experiments.[]{data-label="tab:datasets"}
Results
=======
The evaluation results are presented in Table \[tab:metrics\_results\], as originally reported in [@moreira2019contextual]. The best results for a metric are printed in bold face and marked with \* if they are significantly different [^1] from all other algorithms.
[p[1.8cm]{}p[1.0cm]{}p[1.0cm]{}p[1.1cm]{}p[1.4cm]{}]{} *Recommender* & *HR@10* & *MRR@10* & *COV@10* & *ESI-R@10*\
\
*CHAMELEON* & **0.6738**\* & **0.3458**\* & 0.6373 & 6.4177\
*SR* & 0.5900 & 0.2889 & 0.2763 & 5.9747\
*Item-kNN* & 0.5707 & 0.2801 & 0.3913 & 6.5909\
*CO* & 0.5689 & 0.2626 & 0.2499 & 5.5728\
*V-SkNN* & 0.5467 & 0.2494 & 0.1355 & 5.1760\
*SR-GNN* & 0.5144 & 0.2467 & 0.3196 & 5.4280\
*GRU4Rec* & 0.4669 & 0.2092 & 0.6333 & 5.2332\
*RP* & 0.4577 & 0.1993 & 0.0218 & 4.4904\
*CB* & 0.3643 & 0.1676 & **0.6774** & **8.1531**\*\
\
*CHAMELEON* & **0.7018**\* & **0.3421**\* & 0.7926 & 5.3410\
*SR* & 0.6288 & 0.3022 & 0.4604 & 5.4443\
*Item-kNN* & 0.6179 & 0.2819 & 0.5314 & 5.4675\
*CO* & 0.6131 & 0.2768 & 0.4220 & 5.0789\
*V-SkNN* & 0.6140 & 0.2723 & 0.1997 & 4.6018\
*SR-GNN* & 0.6122 & 0.2991 & 0.5197 & 5.1013\
*GRU4Rec* & 0.4958 & 0.2200 & 0.5143 & 5.0571\
*RP* & 0.5648 & 0.2481 & 0.0542 & 4.1465\
*CB* & 0.3307 & 0.1253 & **0.8875**\* & **7.6715**\*\
Conclusion
==========
CHAMELEON was specifically designed to address news recommendation challenges such as (a) the short lifetime of the recommendable items and (b) the lack of longer-term preference profiles of the users. In the extensive experiments performed, CHAMELEON was able to provide recommendations with much higher accuracy than all other evaluated algorithms, and it led to the second best item coverage.
[^1]: As errors around the reported averages were normally distributed, we used paired Student’s t-tests with Bonferroni correction at $p<0.001$ for significance tests.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'In order to help undergraduate students towards successfully completing their degrees, developing tools that can assist students during the course selection process is a significant task in the education domain. The optimal set of courses for each student should include courses that help him/her graduate in a timely fashion and for which he/she is well-prepared for so as to get a good grade in. To this end, we propose two different *grade-aware course recommendation* approaches to recommend to each student his/her optimal set of courses. The first approach ranks the courses by using an objective function that differentiates between courses that are expected to increase or decrease a student’s GPA. The second approach combines the grades predicted by grade prediction methods with the rankings produced by course recommendation methods to improve the final course rankings. To obtain the course rankings in the first approach, we adapt two widely-used representation learning techniques to learn the optimal temporal ordering between courses. Our experiments on a large dataset obtained from the University of Minnesota that includes students from 23 different majors show that the grade-aware course recommendation methods can do better on recommending more courses in which the students are expected to perform well and recommending fewer courses in which they are expected not to perform well in than grade-unaware course recommendation methods.'
author:
- |
[Sara Morsy]{}\
Department of Computer Science\
and Engineering\
University of Minnesota\
[email protected]
- |
[George Karypis]{}\
Department of Computer Science\
and Engineering\
University of Minnesota\
[email protected]
bibliography:
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Will this Course Increase or Decrease Your GPA? Towards Grade-aware Course Recommendation[^1]'
---
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback on the original manuscript. This work was supported in part by NSF (1447788, 1704074, 1757916, 1834251), Army Research Office (W911NF1810344), Intel Corp, and the Digital Technology Center at the University of Minnesota. Access to research and computing facilities was provided by the Digital Technology Center and the Minnesota Supercomputing Institute, <http://www.msi.umn.edu>.
[^1]: An early version of this paper is published as a technical report here: <https://goo.gl/HrxVdr>.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We study the lensing effect experienced by a weak probe field under conditions of electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) involving a Rydberg state. A Gaussian coupling beam tightly focused on a laser-cooled atomic cloud produces an inhomogeneity in the coupling Rabi frequency along the transverse direction and makes the EIT area acting like a gradient-index medium. We image the probe beam at the position where it exits the atomic cloud, and observe that a red-detuned probe light is strongly focused with a greatly enhanced intensity whereas a blue-detuned one is de-focused with a reduced intensity. Our experimental results agree very well with the numerical solutions of Maxwell-Bloch equations.'
author:
- 'Jingshan Han,${}^1$ Thibault Vogt,${}^{1,2}$ Manukumara Manjappa,${}^1$ Ruixiang Guo,${}^1$ Martin Kiffner,${}^{1,3}$ and Wenhui Li${}^{1,4}$'
title: Lensing effect of electromagnetically induced transparency involving a Rydberg state
---
Introduction \[introduction\]
=============================
The optical properties of a medium can be drastically modified by strong coherent interaction with a laser field, and one of the most prominent examples of the kind is electromagnetically induced transparency (EIT) [@fleischhauer2005electromagnetically], which allows light transmission with large dispersion and gives rise to fascinating phenomena, such as extremely slow group velocity and light storage [@hau:99; @kash:99; @budker:99; @chaneliere:05; @eisaman:05]. Besides extensive investigations of the temporal dynamics, the spatial effects resulting from EIT have also been studied such as the focusing and de-focusing of transmitted probe light in the presence of a strongly focused coupling beam [@moseley1995spatial; @moseley1996electromagnetically] and the deflection of probe light when passing through an EIT medium in the presence of a magnetic field gradient [@karpa2006stern; @zhou2007deflection]. Recently, cancellation of optical diffraction was obtained for a specific detuning of the probe beam where the Doppler-Dicke effect compensates for diffraction [@firstenberg2009elimination; @firstenberg2009eliminationB].
While studies of EIT generally focus on $\Lambda$ type energy level configurations, more recently, there has been considerable interest with EIT in a ladder scheme involving Rydberg energy levels [@mohapatra2007coherent; @pritchard2010cooperative; @petrosyan2011electromagnetically] (Rygberg EIT). Strong dipolar interaction between Rydberg atoms in such EIT schemes is responsible for the so-called photon blockade, which offers promising means to realize deterministic single photon sources [@dudin2012strongly; @peyronel2012quantum], to induce effective interactions between photons [@firstenberg2013attractive], and to realize photonic phase gates [@paredes2014all]. Rydberg EIT has also attracted attention with the demonstration of interaction enhanced absorption imaging (IEAI) [@gunter2012interaction; @gunter2013observing]. This imaging technique detects Rydberg excitations via their modification on EIT transparency due to the strong interaction between Rydberg atoms. It confers great potential for the study of many-body physics with Rydberg atoms [@low2012experimental; @weimer2010rydberg].
Rydberg EIT experiments generally require strongly focused coupling fields in order to obtain sufficiently strong Rabi frequencies on the transition involving the Rydberg state. This focusing inevitably produces strongly inhomogeneous coupling fields. While lensing effect on the probe field associated with this inhomogeneity has been studied using a hot vapour [@moseley1995spatial; @moseley1996electromagnetically], until now this effect in cold Rydberg ensembles has received little attention. However, since the probe field is to be strongly modified by interaction induced nonlinearity in cold Rydberg ensembles, having a good understanding and control of the lensing effect is necessary.
We present in this paper a precise study of the lensing effect on the probe light by a tightly focused coupling beam in a Rydberg EIT scheme and its dependence on the probe detuning. In contrast to most previous studies on Rydberg EIT, the spatial structures are imaged in our experiment by a diffraction limited optical system. We use $27s$ Rydberg state of $^{87}$Rb atoms so that the effect of interaction between Rydberg atoms is minimal hence the experimental results can be accurately compared with numerical solutions of Maxwell-Bloch equations. This study sets clear delimitation on the possibilities offered by Rydberg EIT.
Experiment \[setup\]
====================
The preparation of an ultracold $^{87}$Rb atomic sample for our experiment starts with loading a magneto-optical trap (MOT) from a Zeeman-slowed atomic beam, followed by further molasses cooling of the atomic cloud. Subsequently, a guiding magnetic field of approximately 3.5 Gauss along the vertical direction pointing downwards, as shown in Fig. \[ExperimentSetup\](b), is switched on to define the quantization axis, and the atoms in the molasses are optically pumped into $|5s_{1/2}, F=2, m_F=2\rangle$ state for experiment. The population in $|5s_{1/2}, F=2, m_F=2\rangle$ state is controlled by de-pumping a certain fraction of atoms into $|5s_{1/2}, F=1\rangle$ level during this optical pumping stage. This de-pumping scheme allows varying the atomic density without changing much the atomic cloud size [@JDPritchardThesis]. At this stage, the atomic cloud has a temperature in the range of 28$\mu$K to 40$\mu$K.
A time of flight (TOF) of 6 ms following the optical pumping results in an atomic cloud that has a $1/e^2$ radius $w_r$=2.0 - 2.2 mm in the radial direction and a $1/e^2$ radius $w_z$=1.1 - 1.2 mm in the axial direction (along the quantization axis defined by the guiding B-field). The peak atomic density of $|5s_{1/2}, F=2,m_F=2\rangle$ state, $n_0$, can be varied from $0.3 - 1.6 \times10^{10} \mathrm{cm^{-3}}$ .
![(a) The diagram of energy levels involved in the ladder scheme EIT. A probe light of $\sigma^+$ polarization drives the transition from $|5s_{1/2}, F=2, m_F=2\rangle$ ($|g\rangle$) to $|5p_{3/2}, F=3, m_F=3\rangle$ ($|e\rangle$), while a coupling light of $\sigma^-$ polarization drives the transition from $|5p_{3/2}, F=3, m_F=3\rangle$ to $|27s_{1/2}, m_J=1/2, m_I = 3/2\rangle$, which is not distinguishable in energy from other hyperfine states of $|27s_{1/2}, J=1/2, m_J=1/2\rangle$ ($|r\rangle$) in our setup. The detuning of the probe (coupling) light, $\Delta_p$ ($\Delta_c$) is defined as $\Delta_p = \omega_p - \omega_e$ ($\Delta_c = \omega_c - \omega_r$), where $\omega_p$ ($\omega_c$) is the frequency of the probe (coupling) light and $\omega_e$ ($\omega_r$) is the resonance frequency of the ${\ensuremath{|e\rangle}}\leftrightarrow{\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ (${\ensuremath{|r\rangle}}\leftrightarrow{\ensuremath{|e\rangle}}$) transition. (b) The schematics of the optical setup for EIT beams. The magnetic field $\vec{B}$ along the vertical direction is pointing from top to bottom. The probe beam and the coupling beam are counter-propagating along the quantization axis, which is also the axial axis of the atomic cloud (indicated as a solid ellipse). After passing through the atomic cloud, the probe beam is separated from the coupling beam by a dichroic mirror and goes through the rest of optical imaging system to be imaged onto an electron multiplying charge coupled device (EMCCD camera). The lens shown here has a focal length of 160 mm. The dimensions are not to scale, but only indicate their relative shapes and positions. \[ExperimentSetup\]](Figure1.pdf){width="8.1cm"}
![Images of the probe light from (a) experiment and (b) simulation. The probe detuning $\Delta_p$ for each set of images is given on the left side. The images in (a) are taken under the experimental conditions of $w_z$=1.1$\pm 0.1$ mm, $n_0$ = ($0.59\pm0.06)\times10^{10} \mathrm{cm^{-3}}$, $\Omega_{p0}/\Gamma_{e}=0.16\pm0.01$, $w_c$ = $49\pm1$ $\mathrm{\mu m}$, $\Delta_c/\Gamma_{e} = 0\pm0.05$, $\Omega_{c0}/\Gamma_{e}=1.98\pm0.05$. Each image in (a) is an average of 5 experimental shots. The same experimental conditions are also used as the inputs for solving the Maxwell-Bloch equations to generate the simulated images in (b), as detailed in the text. The thin dotted circles on the images of $\Delta_p/\Gamma_{e} = 0.05$ indicate the $1/e^2$ Gaussian size of the coupling beam. The color scale at the bottom right applies to all images. \[Pic\]](Figure2.pdf){width="8.1cm"}
The states involved in the ladder scheme EIT are shown in Fig. \[ExperimentSetup\](a), and the schematics of the optical setup for the EIT beams is shown in Fig. \[ExperimentSetup\](b). The 780 nm laser beam for driving the $|g\rangle \rightarrow |e\rangle$ probe transition is generated from a Toptica DL pro diode laser, and the 480 nm laser beam for driving the $|e\rangle \rightarrow |r\rangle$ coupling transition is generated by a Toptica TA-SHG frequency-doubled diode laser system. Both the 780 nm laser and the 480 nm laser (via the fundamental light at 960 nm) are frequency locked to the same high-finesse Fabry-Perot cavity by Pound-Drever-Hall technique, which yields a linewidth of $\lesssim$ 30 kHz for the 780 nm laser and $\lesssim$ 60 kHz for the 480 nm laser. As illustrated in Fig. \[ExperimentSetup\](b), the probe beam passing through the atomic cloud has a collimated $1/e^2$ radius $w_p$ of 3.45 mm, while the coupling beam is focused at the center of the atomic cloud with a $1/e^2$ radius $w_c$ in the range of 30 - 50 $\mu$m. When the incoming probe beam Rabi frequency $\Omega_{p0}$ is much smaller than the peak Rabi frequency of the coupling beam $\Omega_{c0}$, $\Omega_{p0} \ll \Omega_{c0}$, the coupling beam opens up a transparency window for the probe light to propagate through the otherwise opaque atomic cloud at the frequency around the probe transition resonance. It also induces a large index gradient along its transverse direction and results in a lensing effect. The intensity distribution of the probe beam at the exit of the atomic cloud, 1.1 mm below the center of the cloud, is directly imaged on the EMCCD camera through a diffraction limited optical system.
In each experimental cycle, the atomic cloud is prepared in $|5s_{1/2}, F=2,m_F=2\rangle$ state as described above, and the probe and coupling beams are turned on simultaneously for 15 $\mu$s during which the camera is exposed to take the image of the transmitted probe beam. To obtain an EIT transmission spectrum, the probe detuning $\Delta_p$ is varied from shot to shot to scan through the probe resonance while the coupling beam detuning $\Delta_c$ is fixed throughout. Shown in Fig. \[Pic\](a) are a set of sample images of the transmitted probe light taken at different probe detunings $\Delta_p$, and the detailed description and discussion on the images and the spectra extracted from them are given in the next section.
Results and discussion \[results\]
==================================
![Transmission spectra of the transmitted probe light for different atomic densities and different coupling beam sizes. The black squares with error bar are experimental data, and the red lines are results of simulation that has only experimental parameters as input (please see the text). The spectra are taken at the conditions of (a) $w_z$=1.2$\pm 0.1$ mm, $n_0$ = ($1.40\pm0.15)\times10^{10} \mathrm{cm^{-3}}$, $w_c$ = 49 $\pm$ 1 $\mathrm{\mu m}$, $\Delta_c/\Gamma_{e}$ = $0.16\pm0.05$, $\Omega_{c0}/\Gamma_{e} =1.98\pm0.05$; (b) $w_z$=1.1$\pm 0.1$ mm, $n_0$ = $(0.59\pm0.06)\times10^{10} \mathrm{cm^{-3}}$, $w_c$ = 49 $\pm$ 1 $\mathrm{\mu m}$, $\Delta_c/\Gamma_{e} = 0\pm0.05$, $\Omega_{c0}/\Gamma_{e} = 1.98\pm0.05$; (c) $w_z$=1.1$\pm 0.1$ mm, $n_0$ = $(0.69\pm0.07)\times10^{10} \mathrm{cm^{-3}}$, $w_c$ = 34 $\pm$ 1 $\mathrm{\mu m}$, $\Delta_c/\Gamma_{e} = 0\pm0.05$, $\Omega_{c0}/\Gamma_{e}=3.18\pm0.05$. All three spectra are taken with $\Omega_{p0}/\Gamma_{e}=0.16\pm0.01$.\[spectra\]](Figure3.pdf){width="8.1cm"}
While different models have been developed to give accurate descriptions of the spatial effects of inhomogeneous EIT media on the propagation of the probe light [@moseley1996electromagnetically; @manassah1996induced; @zhou2007deflection; @zhang2009birefringence], the essential physics can be qualitatively captured in the following argument.
In EIT, the linear susceptibility for the probe light is given by $$\chi^{(1)} \left ( \vec r \right) =-i \frac{n_{at}\left ( \vec r \right) \Gamma_{e} \sigma_0 \lambda}{ 4 \pi \left(\gamma _{ge}-i \Delta _p+\frac{\Omega _c \left ( \vec r \right) ^2}{4 (\gamma _{gr}-i (\Delta _c+\Delta _p))}\right)} \label{susceptibility},$$ where $\lambda$ is the wavelength of the probe transition, $\sigma_0=3 \lambda^2 /2 \pi$ the resonant cross-section of the probe transition, $\Gamma_{e}=2\pi\times6.067$ MHz the decay rate of intermediate state $|e\rangle$, $\Delta _p$ and $\Delta _c$ the detunings of probe and coupling lights as defined earlier, and finally $\gamma _{ge}\approx\Gamma_e/2$ and $\gamma _{gr}=(\Gamma_r+\gamma _p+\gamma_c)/2+\gamma_D$ the decay rates of atomic coherences. Here, $\Gamma_r \sim 2\pi \times 10$ kHz [@branden2010radiative] is the decay rate of the upper state $|r\rangle$, $\gamma_{p} ( \gamma_{c} )$ is the linewidth of the probe (coupling) laser, and $\gamma_D$ is the dephasing rate from all other sources. The refractive index is related to the linear susceptibility $\chi^{(1)} \left ( \vec r \right)$ via the expression $$n(\vec r) \approx \left( 1+\frac{1}{2} \Re \left(\chi^{(1)} \left( \vec r \right) \right) \right)\label{refractiveindex}.$$
Seen from Eqs. and , the inhomogeneity in atomic density $n_{at}\left( \vec r \right)$ and Rabi frequency of coupling transition $\Omega_c \left( \vec r \right)$ can give rise to non-zero gradient in the refractive index, which results in the deflection of the probe light wave vector as it travels through such medium. For large $\Omega_c \left( \vec r \right)$, negligible $\gamma_{gr}$ and $\Delta_c\sim0$, the sign of the probe light detuning $\Delta_p$ decides the direction of the deflection either along or against the gradient of the refractive index.
In our experimental configuration, the atomic density $n_{at}(\vec r)$ along the radial direction of the transparency window is constant. On the other hand, the rapid change of the coupling Rabi frequency $\Omega_c(\vec r)$ due to the Gaussian intensity profile gives rise to a large gradient in the refractive index $n(\vec r)$. The probe light passing through this transparency window experiences lensing effects due to the high gradient of the refractive index, as can be seen in Fig. \[Pic\].
The images in Fig. \[Pic\](a) are acquired with the conditions detailed in the figure caption and from top to bottom, the probe detuning is varied from red to blue. The field of view of each image is centered around the coupling beam and is much smaller than the atomic cloud and the probe beam. The spot in the middle of each image is the transmitted probe light through EIT area while the uniform background indicates the absorption level of probe light by the atomic cloud with absence of the coupling light. It can be clearly seen that the intensity of the transmitted probe light at the red probe detuning $\Delta_p / \Gamma_e = -0.28$ is enhanced while the intensity on the blue side with a detuning $\Delta_p / \Gamma_e = 0.30$ is reduced, compared with the incoming probe intensity, which is about the same as the intensity of the transmitted probe beam on resonance ($\Delta_p / \Gamma_e = 0.05$ in Fig. \[Pic\]). Moveover, the spot size of the red-detuned probe light is smaller than that of the blue-detuned with a similar $|\Delta_p|$. Both the intensity and the size indicate the focusing of the red-detuned probe light and the defocusing of the blue-detuned one, since, if not due to the lensing effect, the transmitted spots would have similar intensity and size at detunings symmetric with respect to the resonance. It should be noted that the dark ring around the bright transmitted spots is not due to the lensing effect. Instead, it comes from the spatially varying coupling Rabi frequency as a result of the Gaussian intensity profile of the coupling beam. This spatial dependent Rabi frequency gives rise to a larger Autler-Townes splitting at the center of the coupling beam and smaller ones towards the edge of the beam. Consequently, the transmitted spot of on-resonance probe light ($\Delta_p / \Gamma_e = 0.05$ in Fig. \[Pic\]) has the largest size, since there is no Autler-Townes enhanced absorption throughout the whole EIT area, whereas the transmitted spots of off-resonance probe light have smaller sizes with surrounding dark rings due to enhanced absorption at Autler-Townes splitting frequencies. Because of this change of transmitted spot size vs. detuning, the focusing (defocusing) of the red (blue)- detuned probe light cannot be defined relative to the transmitted probe beam on resonance, but should rather be defined relative to the transmitted probe beam at that particular detuning with no lensing effect [^1]. In the experimental observation of Fig. \[Pic\] where the lensing effect is present, this can only be acknowledged by comparing the transmitted probe beam size and intensity at the detunings symmetric with respect to the resonance.
In order to obtain EIT transmission spectra, the transmission of the probe light is extracted by taking the ratio between the probe intensity at the center of such images ($I$) and that of the incoming probe beam without the atomic cloud ($I_0$). The transmission spectra shown in Fig. \[spectra\] are generated by plotting the probe transmission ($I/I_0$) as a function of the probe detunings $\Delta_p$ for atomic densities and coupling beam sizes detailed in the figure caption. As expected, there is a transparency spectral window near the probe resonance due to the coherent interaction between the coupling light and atoms, and the two absorption peaks are from the Autler-Townes splitting. The lensing effect within this transparency spectral range can be clearly seen from the greatly enhanced transmission at the red detuning $\Delta_p <$ 0 and the somewhat reduced transmission at the blue detuning $\Delta_p >$ 0. This enhanced transmission at the red detuning highly depends on the atomic density $n_{0}$ and the coupling beam size $w_c$. With the same coupling beam size $w_c$ and the same peak Rabi frequency $\Omega_{c0}$, the atomic cloud with a higher density in Fig. \[spectra\](a) focuses the probe light more than that with a lower density in Fig. \[spectra\](b). Moreover, if the atomic density is about the same, but the coupling beam size $w_c$ is focused down further (the peak Rabi frequency $\Omega_{c0}$ is consequently larger), the focusing of the probe light is greatly enhanced, as shown in Fig. \[spectra\](b) and (c).
![Transmission spectrum of the transmitted probe light through a thin single-beam ODT released atomic sample with the $1/e^2$ radius $w_z = 55.0\pm0.5$ $\mathrm{\mu m}$ (along propagation direction of EIT beams) and the atomic density $n_{0}$ = $(3.30\pm0.03)\times10^{10} \mathrm{cm^{-3}}$. The black squares with error bar are experimental data, and the red line is a one-dimensional fit from the formula $T(r=0,\Delta_p)$ given in the text.\[ODTSpectra\]](Figure4.pdf){width="7.5cm"}
The lensing effect also critically depends on the size of the atomic cloud. In order to verify this, the same experiment is performed with an atomic cloud released from a very thin single-beam optical dipole trap (ODT). The ODT is horizontally positioned at 1.1 mm below the center of the molasses atomic cloud in the previous experiment, that is, at the object plane of the camera. The $1/e^2$ radius of this atomic cloud, which is along the propagation direction of the EIT beams, is $w_z=55.0\pm0.5$ $\mu$m (20 times smaller than that of the molasses atomic cloud). As shown in Fig. \[ODTSpectra\], the spectrum of the Autler-Townes splitting is observed without any obvious lensing effect, in stark contrast to what is being observed in the molasses atomic cloud.
To understand our experimental results on lensing effect more quantitatively, we model our experimental system with a set of coupled Maxwell-Bloch equations as described in detail in the appendix. The inputs are the experimentally calibrated parameters including: a) the atomic density $n_{0}$ and the atomic cloud size $w_z$; b) the peak Rabi frequency $\Omega_{c0}$ and the waist $w_c$ of the coupling light; c) the initial Rabi frequency of the probe light $\Omega_{p0}$; d) the decay rate of atomic coherence $\gamma_{gr}$. The atomic density $n_{0}$ and atomic cloud size $w_z$ are well known from measurement with absorption imaging. The peak Rabi frequency $\Omega_{c0}$ and waist $w_c$ are extracted from a two-dimensional fit of images taken in the experiment performed on the thin atomic cloud released from the ODT. The transmission formula used for fitting is $T(r,\Delta_p)= \mathrm{exp}\left(-k\int_{-\infty}^{+\infty} \mathrm{Im}[\chi^{(1)}(r,z,\Delta_p)]dz\right)$, where $r$ and $z$ stand for the radial and axial coordinates respectively, $k=2\pi/\lambda$, and $\chi^{(1)}$ is defined in Eq.. These parameters are given in the caption of Figs. \[Pic\] and \[spectra\]. The dacay rate of atomic coherence $\gamma_{gr}$ is obtained from fitting the probe beam transmission vs. $\Omega_{p0}$ at the center of the transmitted beam (with $\Omega_{c0}$) and $\Delta_p = 0$. This measurement yields the value of $\gamma_{gr}$ in the range of 50 - 150 kHz depending on atomic density, which is consistent with the evaluation of $\gamma_{gr}$ from various dephasing mechanisms in our experiment. $\gamma_{gr}$ used in the simulation is set to be 100 kHz since we find the results of the simulation are not very sensitive to $\gamma_{gr}$ in the range of 50 - 150 kHz. The simulated images of the probe light intensity at the exit of the atomic cloud are shown in Fig. \[Pic\](b), along the side of the experimental images taken with the same parameters. The spectra from simulation are plotted together with experimental data in Fig. \[spectra\]. The experimental and theoretical results show excellent agreement, which confirms the good control in our experiment and lays a solid foundation for further pursuing the experimental investigation of the interaction between Rydberg excitations using IEAI in our system.
Summary \[summary\]
===================
In summary, we have observed the lensing effect on the probe light in electromagnetically induced transparency involving a Rydberg state by directly imaging the probe beam passing through a laser-cooled atomic cloud. With the atomic cloud of only moderate optical depth, the transmitted probe light is strongly focused at a frequency red detuned from the probe resonance, and has a peak intensity a few times that of the input probe light. This study is important for imaging Rydberg excitations via interaction enhanced absorption imaging based on Rydberg EIT. It is also highly relevant in studying non-linearity of cold interacting Rydberg ensembles as the probe intensity determines the strength of interaction between Rydberg polaritons [@firstenberg2013attractive; @bienias2014scattering]. It will be interesting to investigate how such lensing effect is modified by the interaction between Rydberg atoms, which will be significant when a Rydberg state of high principal quantum number is used. Combining dispersive non-linearities and focusing, one may imagine creating a one-dimensional gas of Rydberg atoms. It may be also possible to tune the interaction between Rydberg atoms in order to switch from focusing to defocusing lensing effect.
The authors thank Thi Ha Kyaw, Nitish Chandra, and Armin Kekic for the early preparation of experimental setups, and acknowledge the support from the Ministry of Education and the National Research Foundation, Singapore. This work is partly supported through the Academic Research Fund, Project No. MOE2015-T2-1-085.
Theoretical Model \[Tmodel\]
============================
We describe the interaction of the probe and coupling fields with an ensemble of ultracold atoms using the standard framework of coupled Maxwell-Bloch equations. In electric-dipole and rotating-wave approximation, the Hamiltonian of each atom interacting with the probe and coupling fields is $$\begin{aligned}
H = & - \hbar\left(\Delta_p {\ensuremath{|e\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\langle e |}}+ (\Delta_c+\Delta_p){\ensuremath{|r\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\langle r |}}\right) \notag \\
& -\hbar \left( \frac{\Omega_p}{2} S_e^+ + \frac{\Omega_c}{2} S_r^+ \,+\,\text{H.c.}\right)\, ,
\label{H}
$$ where $\Delta_p$ ($\Delta_c$) is the probe (coupling) field detuning, $$\begin{aligned}
\Delta_p=& \omega_p -\omega_{e}\,, \\
\Delta_c=& \omega_c -\omega_{r}\,,
$$ and $\omega_{e}$ ($\omega_{r}$) is the resonance frequency on the ${\ensuremath{|e\rangle}}\leftrightarrow{\ensuremath{|g\rangle}}$ (${\ensuremath{|r\rangle}}\leftrightarrow{\ensuremath{|e\rangle}}$) transition. The atomic transition operators $S_{x}^+$ ($x\in\{r,g\}$) in Eq. (\[H\]) are defined as $$\begin{aligned}
S_e^+= {\ensuremath{|e\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\langle g |}}, \quad S_r^+= {\ensuremath{|r\rangle}}{\ensuremath{\langle e |}}.\end{aligned}$$ The probe field Rabi frequency $\Omega_p$ inside the medium is a dynamical variable that we want to determine at each position in space. On the contrary, the coupling field is almost unaffected by the medium, hence we assume that the spatial variation of the coupling field is $$\begin{aligned}
\Omega_c =i\frac{ \Omega_{c0} z_0}{z+i z_0} e^{-i z_0 r^2/[w_{c}^2(z+iz_0)]} \,,
\label{gaussian}
$$ where $z_0$ is the Rayleigh length and $w_c$ is the beam waist at $z=0$. The field in Eq. (\[gaussian\]) is a solution of Maxwell’s equations in paraxial approximation and in free space. We model the time evolution of the atomic density operator ${\varrho}$ by a Markovian master equation [@breuer:os], $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t {\varrho}&= - \frac{i}{\hbar} [ H , {\varrho}] +{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{\gamma}{\varrho}+{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{D}{\varrho}\,.
\label{master_eq}
$$ The term ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{\gamma}{\varrho}$ in Eq. (\[master\_eq\]) accounts for spontaneous emission of the excited states. These processes are described by standard Lindblad decay terms, $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{\gamma}{\varrho}= & - \frac{\Gamma_e}{2}
\left( S_e^+S_e^- {\varrho}+ {\varrho}S_e^+S_e^-
- 2 S_e^-{\varrho}S_e^+ \right) \notag \\
& - \frac{\Gamma_r}{2}
\left( S_r^+S_r^- {\varrho}+ {\varrho}S_r^+S_r^-
- 2 S_r^- {\varrho}S_r^+ \right) \, ,
$$ where $S_{x}^- = \left(S_{x}^+\right)^{\dagger}$ ($x\in\{r,g\}$) and $\Gamma_e$ is the full decay rate of state ${\ensuremath{|e\rangle}}$. The long-lived Rydberg state ${\ensuremath{|r\rangle}}$ decays with $\Gamma_r\ll\Gamma_e$. The last term ${\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{D}{\varrho}$ in Eq. (\[master\_eq\]) describes decoherence due to laser noise and is given by $$\begin{aligned}
{\ensuremath{\mathcal{L}}}_{D}{\varrho}= & - \frac{\gamma_c}{2}
\left( S_r^+S_r^- {\varrho}+ {\varrho}S_r^+S_r^-
- 2 S_r^+S_r^- {\varrho}S_r^+S_r^- \right) \notag \\
& - \frac{\gamma_p}{2}
\left( S_e^-S_e^+ {\varrho}+ {\varrho}S_e^-S_e^+
- 2 S_e^-S_e^+ {\varrho}S_e^-S_e^+ \right) \,,
$$ where $\gamma_c$ ($\gamma_p$) is the linewidth associated with the control (probe) field.
In paraxial approximation and for a probe field varying slowly in time Maxwell’s equations reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
& \left(-i\frac{c}{2 \omega_e}\Delta_{\perp}+ \partial_{z}+\frac{1}{c} \partial_{t}\right) \Omega_{p}
= i \eta {\varrho}_{eg}\,,
\label{maxS}
\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta_{\perp}$ is the transverse Laplace operator, $c$ is the speed of light and the coupling constant $\eta$ is defined as $$\begin{aligned}
\eta & =\frac{n_{at} \sigma_0}{2}\Gamma_e \,.
\end{aligned}$$
The set of equations (\[master\_eq\]) and (\[maxS\]) represent a system of coupled, partial differential equations and have to be solved consistently for given initial and boundary conditions. Here we consider the steady state regime and find the time-independent solution ${\varrho}^{\text{st}}$ to Eq. (\[master\_eq\]). Note that ${\varrho}^{\text{st}}$ solves Eq. (\[master\_eq\]) to all orders in the probe field, and $ -2 \eta {\varrho}^{\text{st}}_{eg}/ k \Omega_p$ reduces to the linear susceptibility given in Eq. (\[susceptibility\]) only for a weak probe field $\Omega_p\ll\Gamma_e$. We replace ${\varrho}_{eg}$ in Eq. (\[maxS\]) by the non-perturbative expression for ${\varrho}^{\text{st}}_{eg}$ such that Eq. (\[maxS\]) reduces to a nonlinear, time-independent equation for the probe field Rabi frequency. We numerically solve this equation in three spatial dimensions with the software packet MATHEMATICA [@MM] and the implicit differential-algebraic solver (IDA) method option for NDSolve.
[30]{}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 [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ****, ()]{} @noop [ ****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} **, @noop [Ph.D. thesis]{}, () @noop [ ****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{} (, ) @noop [**]{} (, , )
[^1]: The transmitted probe beam with no lensing effect can be simulated by removing the transverse gradient term of Eq. in the appendix.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The central problems of Development Economics are the explanation of the gross disparities in the global distribution, $\myD$, of economic performance, $\myE$, and its persistence, $\myP$. Douglass North argued, epigrammatically, that institutions, $\myI$, are the rules of the game, meaning that $\myI$ determines or at least constrains $\myE$. This promised to explain $\myD$. $65,000$ citations later, the central problems remain unsolved. North’s institutions, $\myI_N$, are informal, slowly changing cultural norms as well as roads, guilds, and formal legislation that may change overnight. This definition, mixing the static and the dynamic, is unsuited for use in a necessarily time-dependent theory of developing economies. We offer here a suitably precise definition of $\myI$, a dynamical theory of economic development, a new measure of the economy, an explanation of $\myP$, a bivariate model that explains half of $\myD$, and a critical reconsideration of North’s epigram.'
author:
- 'Daniel Seligson and Anne McCants[^1]'
bibliography:
- 'myrefs.bib'
title: |
Economic Performance Through Time:\
A Dynamical Theory
---
Why do the haves have and the have-nots haven’t? This is one of the two central questions of Development Economics and Economics History. The Nobelist Douglass North opined in 1990 that, despite $40$ years of immense effort, there had been scant progress answering it [@North1990]. The lesser appreciated question concerns the persistence of having. Though his monograph on the role of institutions on economic performance through time was triumphal in tone and is now the 14$^{\rm th}$ most cited book in all the social sciences, we may say in 2019 that after $70$ years of immense effort, progress on either question remains scant.
We present a theory of economic development that begins with a new translation of North’s narrative into mathematics. A theory of development must address growth and loss, not only in the objective function, economic performance, but in its source terms, in this case, institutions. A differential equations approach is well-suited to this. We find that a 2-dimensional linear dynamical theory of Development Economics has verisimilitude, refines our understanding of institutions and their role, and overturns convention. The task of answering why the haves have demands more space than allotted here, but we show a two-factor model that accounts for half of the global variance, and thus we half explain why the haves have.
The Persistence of Fortune
==========================
The disparities in economic performance, $\myE$, are stark. Aggregating at the national level, per capita Gross National Income in $2017$ [@GNI2017] ranged from about $\$128k$ in Qatar to $\$730$ in Burundi, that is, by $175\!:\!1$. Economic historians use the term “The Great Divergence” to encapsulate the temporal growth of that range, and much research has been devoted to its origins. [@Pomeranz2001] We ask instead, what may be said about the relative economic fortunes of nations over the course of time, and what, if anything, does that tell us about why the world’s haves have and why their having is persistent, these being the two central and unsolved problems of Development Economics and Economic History according to North. [@North1990]
Let the UN’s Human Development Index (HDI) serve as a proxy for $\myE$. Escosura and co-workers [@Escosura2015] have estimated HDI for $164$ countries at $24$ dates covering the period $1870$ to $2015$, and a UN archive includes annual data from $1990$ to the present for $190$ countries [@UNHDI]. We denote the economic performance for a nation $i$ in year $t$ as $\myE^i(t)$ and the distribution over all $i$ as $\myD(t)$ . Let the autocorrelation function of $\myD$ between $t$ and $t-\tau$ be the persistence, $\myP_{t,\tau}$. It is insensitive to temporal changes in scale, e.g., $\myD(t)=f(\tau)*\myD(t-\tau)$, while it remains sensitive to changes in relative position of the $\myE^i$ arising from, e.g., stochastic rank order changes or a systematic nonlinear expansion of the $\myD$ universe.
As illustrated in Fig. \[fig:Escosura\] for all $t$ and $\tau$ in the long term dataset, the persistence erodes continuously, slowly, and independently of $t$, falling only $23\%$ after $145$ years.
![Persistence in the global economy.[]{data-label="fig:Escosura"}](./images/Escosura){width="9cm" height="6cm"}
$\myP$, the autocorrelation function of the distribution of indices of human development from 1870 to 2015 [@Escosura2015] shows slow, steady erosion. Lower inset: The distribution of year-to-year erosions extracted from [@Escosura2015] and [@UNHDI], implying that the half-life of is approximately 500 years. Upper inset: Contemporary HDI is zero-centered unimodal.
This suggests an approximation of the form $$\nonumber
\myP_{t,\tau}=(1-\delta)^\tau$$ where $\delta$ is the year-to-year loss in persistence. Employing all $N=486$ unique correlations among the two datasets, we estimate $\delta=0.00135 \pm 0.00045$. We may now answer our earlier question, “What may be said about the relative economic fortunes of nations?” Specified in units such that $\bar{\myD}=0$ and $\sigma^2_\myD=1$, $\myD$ is materially constant over the course of a century. Its half-life is half a millennium.
A Dynamical Theory of Institutions and Economic Performance {#exposition}
===========================================================
In (1), North elaborated on his epigram, Institutions are the rules of the game.
> “Institutions are the humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic, and social interaction. They consist of both informal constraints (sanctions, taboos, customs, traditions, and codes of conduct), and formal rules (constitutions, laws, and property rights). Throughout history, institutions have been devised by human beings to create order and reduce uncertainty in exchange. Together with the standard constraints of economics they define the choice set and therefore determine the transaction and production costs and hence the profitability and feasibility of engaging in economic activity. They evolve incrementally, connecting the past with the future; history in consequence is largely a story of institutional evolution in which the historical performance of economies can only be understood as a part of a sequential story.”
Rules of the game is a play on words, marrying a colloquial meaning, how it is done, with North’s avowed preference for game theory. But his persuasive prose suggests differential equations, not game theory.
Robinson et al. [@AJR2001] were among the first to codify North in mathematical terms. They wrote, $$\label{eq:AJR}
\myE^i=\alpha\times \myI^i_N+f(\vec{x}^i)$$ where $\myI_N$ is some measure of institutions, $\alpha$ is a positive constant, and $f$ is a differentiable function over factors $\vec{x}$ that are broad enough in concept to include what North called the standard constraints of economics, for instance climate, geography, and natural resources. In all cases, the superscript $i$ is the polity-level index. Eq. \[eq:AJR\] falls short if only because it lacks the one ingredient essential to any theory of history or development, that is, time.
Later, Dell et al. [@DJO2009] wrote $$\label{eq:DJO}
\dot{\myE}^i=\alpha\times \myI^i_N+f(\vec{x}^i)$$ If Eq. \[eq:AJR\] states that institutions beget wealth, Eq. \[eq:DJO\] states that institutions beget economic growth. Inclusion of the time derivative is an improvement, but North points out that $\myI_N$ and $\myE$ evolve incrementally. Thus, we need a complementary process, such as $$\label{eq:Complement}
\dot{\myI}^i_N=\beta\times \myE^i +g(\vec{x}^i)$$ which encodes the widely acknowledged if overlooked fact that institutions are expensive. The linear scale transformation $\myI_N \rightarrow \sqrt{\beta/\alpha}*\myI_N$ makes the coefficients of $\myI_N$ and $\myE$ identical, so without loss of generality, we may write $\beta=\alpha$. That coefficient, however we write it, couples $\myI_N$ and $\myE$ but does not constrain them. This is not merely a semantic point.
Eqs. \[eq:DJO\] and \[eq:Complement\] describe an unconstrained dynamical system. In the phase space defined by $\myI_N$ and $\myE$, the system has a saddle point, an unstable fixed point, shown in Fig. \[fig:UnstableFlows\]
![Unstable Streamflows[]{data-label="fig:UnstableFlows"}](./images/UnstableFlows){width="6cm" height="6cm"}
Streamlines of the unstable trajectory of a polity in a phase space governed by Eqs. \[eq:DJO\] and \[eq:Complement\]. Without loss of generality, we place the unstable fixed point at the origin. Wherever a polity begins its journey, it is swept toward the positive sloping diagonal, the line $\myI=\myE$, and then accelerated away to $\pm\infty$ along that diagonal. Outcomes are extremely sensitive to initial conditions, as illustrated by the red streamlines, dependent only on whether its initial position was above or below the negative sloping diagonal, the line $\myI=-\myE$.
The streamlines of the flow drive a state toward the northeast-pointing diagonal, thereupon ejecting it to $\pm \infty$ along that axis. The ejection proceeds exponentially at a rate determined by the coupling, $\alpha$. Consequently, a developed global economy would have exponentially rich states and exponentially poor ones and no center. This would be reflected in a hollowing out of $\myD$. But $\myD$ is zero-centered and unimodal, as is seen in the distribution of $2017$ HDI in Fig. 1, and persistently so. Thus Eqs. \[eq:DJO\] and \[eq:Complement\] are at best incomplete.
Furthermore, consider homophilous or like-states $i$ and $j$ such that $\vec{x}^i \!\simeq \!\vec{x}^j$ for instance Arabian Gulf States, Scandinavia, or the Balkans. Like-states have evolved together and $\myE^i \!\simeq \!\myE^j$. Yet the solutions of Eqs. \[eq:DJO\] and \[eq:Complement\] may eject them to opposite corners of the economic universe in Fig. 2, their fates determined only by arbitrarily small differences in their initial conditions. Such homophilies are common, and a dynamical system that does not preserve them lacks verisimilitude. Eqs. \[eq:DJO\] and \[eq:Complement\] disappoint on this condition, too. The system is too simple.
The premise of [@AJR2001], [@DJO2009], and others is that what North calls the standard constraints of economics are realized in the exogenous factors. The solutions of Eqs. \[eq:DJO\] and \[eq:Complement\] demonstrate that this premise is false. An additional dissipative or drag term is needed to constrain them, or equivalently, to stabilize the fixed point. Proceeding accordingly, we get, in the most general case $$\label{eq:Stable0}
\begin{split}
\dot{\myE}^i & = -\lambda\times \myE^i+\alpha\times \myI^i_N+f(\vec{x}^i) \\
\dot{\myI}^i_N & =\ \ \alpha\times \myE^i -\gamma\times \myI^i_N + g(\vec{x}^i)
\end{split}$$ Are the drag terms artifice or do they have economic meaning? Consider a state that provides good health care and longevity to its inhabitants. In doing so, it creates a cohort of too-old-to-work citizens who contribute little revenue to the economy. The support of those by others is a drag on growth. This is hardly the only such example.
Before we discuss the stability of this system, the meaning of its solutions, tests of their validity, and its implications, let us first contemplate $\dot{\myI}^i_N$. Per North, $\myI_N$ are humanly devised informal constraints, e.g., taboos and codes of conduct, and formal rules, e.g., constitutions and laws. $\myI_N$ is thus a composite, some of whose elements change very slowly, e.g. taboos, and others much more quickly, e.g. laws. We expose its composite nature by writing $\myI_N=\myI+\myN$, where $\myI$ are the more rapidly varying elements, which we shall call Institutions, and $\myN$ are the more slowly varying elements, which we shall call Norms. It follows that $\dot{\myI}\gg\dot{\myN}$ and $\dot{\myI_N}=\dot{\myI}+\dot{\myN}\simeq\dot{\myI}$ . This result ripples through Eq. \[eq:Stable0\] leading to $$\label{eq:Stable1}
\begin{split}
\dot{\myE}^i & = {-}\lambda\times \myE^i+\alpha\times \myI^i+f(\vec{x}^i,\myN^i) \\
\dot{\myI}^i & =\ \ \alpha\times \myE^i -\gamma\times \myI^i + g(\vec{x}^i,\myN^i)
\end{split}$$ It must be apparent at this juncture that slowly varying Norms and rapidly varying Institutions, though one and the same colloquially, have very different influence on the ebbs, flows, and equilibria of our dynamical system and must be conceived of and deployed as distinct types.
Eq. \[eq:Stable1\] is a system of first order linear differential equations whose exponential solutions are well understood, but we will simplify them further. First, we redefine the constants such that $\alpha\rightarrow\alpha/\lambda$ and $\gamma\rightarrow\gamma/\lambda$. Second, we conjecture that the dissipation is more or less equal for both $\myI$ and $\myE$. We will test this later, but for now we set $\gamma=1$, leaving $$\label{eq:Stable2}
\begin{split}
\dot{\myE}^i & = \lambda(-\myE^i+\alpha\times \myI^i) +f(\vec{x}^i,\myN^i) \\
\dot{\myI}^i & =\lambda(\alpha\times \myE^i \ -\ \myI^i) + g(\vec{x}^i,\myN^i)
\end{split}$$
The eigenvectors of Eq. \[eq:Stable2\] are the northeast- and southeast-pointing diagonals $\mu=\myI+\myE$ and $\kappa=\myI-\myE$. The negative inverse of its eigenvalues are the time constants of the exponentially converging solutions, $$\label{eq:Taus}
\tau_{\mu,\kappa}=\frac{1}{\lambda}\frac{1}{1\mp\alpha}$$ For $0\le\alpha<1$, both time constants are positive, and irrespective of its initial condition, a state $i$ flows to a fixed point $\myFP$. The flow is $\alpha$-dependent, as may be seen in Fig. \[fig:StableFlows\].
![Streamlines of the stable trajectory governed by Eq. \[eq:Stable2\][]{data-label="fig:StableFlows"}](./images/StableFlows){width="12cm" height="4cm"}
The $\alpha$-dependent flow for $\alpha=0.2,\ 0.5,\ \text{and}\ 0.8$. $\myI$ is the ordinate and $\myE$ the abscissa in each panel. Irrespective of initial conditions, a polity flows to the system’s fixed point, $\phi_0$, shown here at the origin without loss of generality.
The relative dissipation strength, $\gamma$, which we have set to unity, determines the slope of the primary diagonal.
Are Institutions the Rules of the Game?
=======================================
Consider the locus of fixed points, $\myFP$, in the coordinate system of the eigenvectors, where $f^i$ denotes $f(\vec{x}^i,\myN^i)$ and so forth. $$\label{eq:FixedPoints}
\phi^i_0=\left\{\mu^i_0,\kappa^i_0 \right\}=\frac{1}{\lambda}\left\{\frac{f^i+g^i}{1-\alpha},\frac{f^i-g^i}{1+\alpha}\right\}$$
All that we have said thus far about $\vec{x}$ is that it is likely to be affected by climate, geography, and natural resources. No doubt, the acute events of history, e.g., war and natural disaster, contribute, too. Climate and geography, like Norms, change only over centuries. If these dominate $f$ and $g$, then each fixed point is more or less fixed over centuries, and this would explain the semi-millennial persistence of $\myD$. Also, differentiability of $f$ and $g$ guarantees that the fixed points of like-states are themselves close. Thus the dynamical system preserves homophilies, too.
Eq. \[eq:FixedPoints\] also informs us that $\myFP$ is determined by the coupling and the drag, and by the arguments $\vec{x}^i$ and $\myN^i$ through the mediations of $f$ and $g$, but not by the Institutions. This arises from the structure of Eq. \[eq:Stable2\] whose bi-directional coupling of $\myI$ to $\myE$ dictates that equilibrium lies in a corresponding phase space. Both $\myI$ and $\myE$ are dependent variables, a finding that contradicts North’s epigram. As we have split North’s $\myI_N$ into two pieces, is that contradiction a triviality of naming conventions?
In $2016$, developed countries provided $\$180B$ in foreign assistance to lesser developed countries. Of this, at least $\$37B$ was committed to infrastructure, governance, security, and building civil society [@UnbundlingAid], that is, to $\myI$ and not to $\myN$, with the expectation that these infusions from without, $\myI_x$, would lead promptly to greater $\myE$. However, in as much as $\myFP$ is dictated by $\myN$, which is more or less constant because it is less malleable than $\myI$ in general, and particularly so from without, it follows from the dynamics that these $\myI_x$ induce an equal and opposite change in endogenous institutions, leaving the sum unchanged, and $\myE$ unchanged, too.
In other words, to effect a change $\Delta\myI$, one must effect a change $\Delta\myN$ as dictated by Eq. \[eq:FixedPoints\]. Norms are, by definition, resistant to change. While it is not theoretically impossible to effect a $\Delta\myN$, it is practically impossible on the short time scale hoped for by those providing assistance. Finally, though assertions that $\Delta\myI$ induce $\Delta\myN$ are not refutable, indirect inducement can be neither more prompt nor more efficient than direct intervention.
Summarizing these ideas, North’s epigram deploys a definition of institutions too broad for dynamical systems theory or for quantitative analysis. We parse the definition, deploy it in the mechanism he lays out in the block quote opening Section \[exposition\], and find that the epigram does not hold. Without qualification, we may say that Institutions, $\myI$, are not the rules of the game. Norms, $\myN$, and the exogenous $\vec{x}$ determine the endgame.
More Quantitative Tests
=======================
If the coupling of $\myI$ to $\myE$ is very strong, $\alpha \!\simeq \!1$ and $\tau_\mu \rightarrow \infty$ per Eq. \[eq:Taus\]. We invest in the judiciary to protect property rights and we invest in roads to facilitate commerce because we expect both to have an impact within years, perhaps decades, possibly even generations, but not $\infty$. Therefore, $\alpha \!\simneqq\! 1$. On the other hand, $\alpha \! \simneqq \! 0$ because weakly coupled Institutions do not promote economic growth and are of no concern here. We conjecture, then, that $$\nonumber
\alpha=\myO(0.5)$$ For purposes of estimation we use $\alpha=0.5$.
The constraint $\lambda$ is the drag on growth whose influence grows in concert with $\myI$ or $\myE$. It is the cost of doing business and of systemic waste. Its units are inverse time. North estimates that more than $40\%$ of spending in modern economies is devoted to building and maintaining institutions, that is, to the cost of doing business. We take $\lambda=0.2$ as a working estimate. Eq. \[eq:Taus\] then informs us that the time constants for convergence to equilibrium are $\tau_\mu=10$ and $\tau_\kappa=3.3$, both measured in years, and both consistent with experience.
Let us now consider the functions $f$ and $g$, both of which take the same arguments. We assert that more or less the same considerations drive $\dot{\myE}$ and $\dot{\myI}$, and therefore $f\simeq g$. From Eq. \[eq:FixedPoints\], it follows that on average $\kappa^i_0 \ll \mu^i_0$, or $$\label{eq:Variances}
\frac {\sigma^2_{\mu_0}}{\sigma^2_{\kappa_0}} = \left ( \frac {1+\alpha}{1-\alpha} \right )^2$$ where the variances are taken over all states $i$. For $\alpha=0.5$, the ratio is $9$, implying that the equilibrium distribution should have a large principal component along the $\mu=\myI+\myE$ axis, making $\mu$ the proper measure of Development Economics.
Given that the time constants are short compared to the centuries-long evolution of the global economy, contemporary observations of the phase, $\phi^i$, must be representative of $\myFP$, conditional upon noise in the form of war, civil war, revolution, natural disaster, or isolation[^2], for instance. Testing Eq. \[eq:Variances\], we estimate $\sigma^2_{\mu,\kappa}$ using HDI as a proxy for $\myE$, and as a proxy for $\myI$ we average five of the World Bank’s six Worldwide Governance Indicators[^3] [@WWGI]—Control of Corruption, Regulatory Quality, Political Stability and Lack of Violence, Rule of Law, and Voice and Accountability—to form a Worldwide Governance Index, WGI. From annual datasets [@UNHDI] and [@WWGI], we compile $3210$ joint observations on $189$ countries between $1996$ and $2016$, shown in the upper left panel of Fig. \[fig:RawData\].
![Contemporary Institutions and Economic Performance.[]{data-label="fig:RawData"}](./images/RawData){width="10cm" height="10cm"}
Upper Left: 3210 joint observations of WGI (ordinate) and HDI (abscissa) covering 1996 to 2016. Colored groupings illuminate homophilies in Scandinavia (blue), the Arabian Gulf (red), the Balkans (green), Central Asia (orange), and West Africa (purple). Upper Right: The same data, time-averaged by state. Lower: The first principal component, $\mu=\myI+\myE$, of the time-averaged data presented as a map.
The ratio of variances is $8.2$. Using Eq. \[eq:Variances\], we infer $\alpha=0.48$, confirming our conjecture that $\alpha=\myO(0.5)$. The correlation of $\myI$ and $\myE$ has long been taken as causation, but it is in fact a predicted signature of the underlying dynamics.
As a final test of this theory, we ask whether it is possible to observe the phase flow to $\myFP$ that is characteristic of the central panel of Fig. 3. We show, in Fig. \[fig:Covergence\], the $1996$ to $2016$ phase space trajectories of five states.
![Phase space trajectories of individual states.[]{data-label="fig:Covergence"}](./images/Convergence){width="12cm" height="8cm"}
Bangladesh shows evidence of convergence along $\kappa$ and South Korea along $\mu$. Rwanda and Syria are swept up in long term geopolitical trends, but are not in convergence. Sudan shows evidence of having long since converged to its fixed point. The lower right panel presents the evidence for preferred convergence along the main diagonal. The maximum count at $\theta\!\simeq\! 45^\circ$ validates our equal dissipations assumption The parabolic fit, $p< 3\!*\!10^{-11}$, illuminates the point.
Projecting these on lines of slope $\pm 1$, the $\mu$ and $\kappa$ axes respectively, we extract a time series (shown as insets in the lower right and upper left in each panel) from which we estimate the time constants, $\tau$.
There is nothing privileged about this period of history. Most states will have long-since gravitated toward their equilibria and their motion in phase space will be stochastic, i.e. Sudan. We expect to see secular motion only in those states caught up in multi-decadal economic or geopolitical trends, for instance Rwanda and Syria. And, in those few that give evidence of relaxation toward an equilibrium, we have no way of knowing whether the inferred equilibrium is ephemeral.
That said, we fit $\tau$ for each and screen for $p<0.1$, leaving us with $21$ sound estimates of $\tau^i_\mu$ and $\tau^i_\kappa$. Averaging, we get $$\nonumber
\begin{split}
\bar{\tau}_\mu &=10.5, \sigma=7.5, N=11 \\
\bar{\tau}_\kappa & =\ \ \!6.1, \sigma=4.4, N=10
\end{split}$$ These are consistent with Eq. \[eq:Taus\] which tells us that $\tau_\mu>\tau_\kappa$. From the ratio of time-constants we infer $\bar{\alpha}=0.26$ and $\bar{\lambda}=0.13$. Given the large variances of the measured $\tau_\mu$ and $\tau_\kappa$, these inferences confirm our *a priori* estimates.
These trajectories also provide us with an independent means to test the validity of our choice of the special case $\gamma=1$. If $\gamma \ne 1$, then the preferred direction of convergence is not along the $\mu$ direction or its conjugate, $\kappa$. Is there a more preferred direction? Rather than project the trajectories along lines of slope $\pm 1$ to extract $\tau_{\mu,\kappa}$, we instead project them along lines of angle $\theta$ and $\theta+90^\circ$, tally the number of sound estimates of $\tau$, and then plot the sum as a function of angle. The maximum of that sum, at or around $\theta=45^\circ$ in the lower right panel of Fig. \[fig:Covergence\] is consistent with the equal dissipations assumption $\gamma=1$.
Summary
=======
The large set of humanly devised systems that influence the economy contains elements of two fundamentally different kinds. One, which we call Institutions, $\myI$, varies on a time scale of the economy itself, and the other, which we call Norms, $\myN$, varies much more slowly. Though convention groups these types together[^4], the dynamical theory embodied in Eq. \[eq:Stable2\] separates them because $\dot{\myI}\gg\dot{\myN}$. The theory makes several predictions, all of which are borne out. First, the long-term persistence of the distribution of the economic performance of nations follows because the loci of fixed points, $\myFP$, are set by slowly varying exogenous factors and Norms. Second, the distribution of $\myFP$ is expected to have a large principal component along the $\mu=\myI+\myE$ direction. Easily visible in the upper left panel of Fig. \[fig:RawData\], the measured value of ratio of variances is $8.2$. Third, regarding the time constants for convergence to $\myFP$, theory predicts $\tau_\mu>\tau_\kappa$ for $0\le\alpha<1$. Subject to the assumptions $\lambda=0.2$ and $\alpha=0.5$, the time constants are $10$ and $3.3$ years, respectively. From the phase space trajectories of $186$ nations over the period $1996$ to $2016$, most of which are noisy, we extract estimates, with large variances, of $\bar{\tau}_\mu=10.5$ and $\bar{\tau}_\kappa=6.1$. Both are comfortably close to the predicted values. Finally, theory says that convergence in phase space proceeds along a preferred direction determined by the ratio of the dissipation constants, $\gamma$. Testing all directions, the lower right panel of Fig. \[fig:Covergence\] demonstrates that there is a preferred direction that is consistent with our assumption $\gamma=1$.
What then does theory tell us about Institutions and Norms? Institutions are the humanly devised systems that promote growth in the economy and vary on the same time scale as economic performance itself. The system equations tell us something else, too. Institutional change keeps pace with the economy. A specific rule, for instance property rights, is not an instance of $\myI$, because a rule does not grow, though a book of rules might qualify. A specific rule, or respect for rules might qualify as a Norm, though whether a specific cultural norm had or has any effect on the fixed points is not something we can say without analysis of materially all possible $\vec{x}$ and $\myN$. Now, consider the infrastructure to support property rights, for instance a network of legislators, courts, and enforcement bureaucracies, each with its buildings and professional staffs, each growing to keep pace with an expanding $\myE$. This infrastructure is $\myI$. Generalizing, $\myI$ is infrastructure of the kind that supports economic growth. And like other forms of infrastructure, it decays to inutility without (expensive) routine maintenance. Norms, $\myN$, are the slowly changing codes of conduct, traditions, convention, and taboos which bear, positively, negatively, or indifferently on $\dot{\myE}$ and $\dot{\myI}$. In the same way that not all infrastructure bears on $\dot{\myE}$, neither do all Norms bear on $\dot{\myE}$ or $\dot{\myI}$. For instance, the rules governing the permissibility of first cousin marriage are Norms, but as to whether those exogamy conventions promote, retard, or remain silent on $\dot{\myE}$ or $\dot{\myI}$, only quantitative analysis will tell.
The system eigenvectors $\mu$ and $\kappa$ define new directions in phase space. Given that $\sigma^2_\mu\gg\sigma^2_\kappa$, most of the system variance is along $\mu$, but what is $\mu$? It is the total economy, the sum of the performance, that is $\myE$, and the infrastructure $\myI$ that supports its growth. In phase space, $\mu$ is the distance measured along the main diagonal whose slope is $+1$. See the upper right panel of Fig. \[fig:RawData\]. If Norway is an exemplar of social, economic, and political development, or simply order, and Somalia is the opposite, then, $\mu$ measures Social Development or Fortune. Alternatively, $-\mu$ could be said to measure Social Entropy. No analogy is entirely satisfactory.
Names aside, $\mu$ is the proper measure of Development Economics, and as such must be the dependent variable in any modeling or prediction enterprise. The thesis of the New Institutionalism [@North1990], that institutions are the rules of the game and, as such, are independent variables, must be put aside in favor of the first term Eq. \[eq:FixedPoints\], which we simplify by exploiting persistence, absorbing constants in $f$ and $g$, and making the assignment $f+g\rightarrow f$, leading to $$\label{eq:Model}
\mu^i=f(\vec{x}^i,\myN^i)$$ In the language of causal inference [@Pearl2009], this equilibrium solution of the dynamical theory is a causal model and as such is the basis for forming interventional and counterfactual queries on data [@Pearl2018]. The same may not be said of *ad hoc* statistical models such as Eq. \[eq:AJR\].
With the by-state data shown in the upper right panel of Fig. \[fig:RawData\], we demonstrate the potential of this $\mu$-theory with a two-factor model, Eq. \[eq:TwoFactors\], while simultaneously acknowledging that small models are problematic. Half of the variance of $\sigma^2_\mu$ is explained by $T_{*}$, an extremes-of-temperature variable capturing climate adversity[^5] [@CRU325], and by mean elevation, $h$, capturing geographic adversity. $$\label{eq:TwoFactors}
\mu^i=-0.15\times T^i_{*}-1.5\times h^i +f(\vec{x}^i,\myN^i)$$ $N=177$ and the larger of the two $p$-values is $2*10^{-12}$. The coefficient of $T_{*}$ corresponds to a $9.7\%$ loss of gross national income per capita per $^\circ \!C$. The other term corresponds to the same loss per 100 meters increase in mean elevation. Both are probably overestimates owing to omitted variable bias, and in turn, their contribution to the explained variance is probably overstated, too. Coefficients of second order terms, e.g., $T^2_{*}$ which might give evidence of an optimal temperature, are indistinguishable from zero and are not shown.
Aristotle [@AristotlePolitics] wrote of the effects of climate on politics and the economy in the 4th century BCE. In the 14th-century, Ibn Khaldun [@IbnKhaldun] wrote more expansively on the subject, and Montesquieu [@MontesquieuSpirit] went further yet in the 18th, each describing a mechanism and providing data within the limits of his day. In $2009$, Dell et al. [@DJO2009] attributed a $9.5\%$ loss of GDP per capita per $^\circ \!C$ to adaptations not different in spirit from those provided by earlier writers. On the basis of North’s epigram, Robinson et al. [@AJR2001] formulate Eq. \[eq:AJR\] and argue that these observations about climate are spurious misassignments of cause and effect. We do not exaggerate when we say that their work has been influential. However, our analysis demonstrates that the epigram is ill-posed and that Eq. \[eq:AJR\] is *ad hoc*. It is not causal and it is not a sound basis for causal queries or analysis. Consequently, we reject their argument.
We turn, finally, to $\kappa$, the imbalance between $\myI$ and $\myE$. Though $\kappa$ is both predicted and observed to be small, there is no *a priori* reason to expect it to be zero. We may model $\kappa$ using a corollary to Eq. \[eq:Model\], and though the dataset is inherently noisier because $\kappa$ is a difference between two large and independently measured quantities, our bivariate model does attribute $4\%$ of $\sigma^2_\kappa$ to $T_{*}$ ($p<0.01$) and $0\%$ to $h$.
A theory of Development Economics must account for growth and drag in the economy and growth and drag on the sources of growth. We have presented here the simplest of such theories and have shown that it predicts several features of the global economy that were previously unexplained or misconstrued. Being the simplest of such theories, much elaboration and many improvements are possible. Among these, we note: (i) though Eq. \[eq:Stable2\] applies to one state $i$, we might couple its development with other states $j$ by introducing terms of the form $c_{ij}\myE^j$ and similars for $\myI^j$, their time derivatives, and so forth; (ii) though we have treated $\lambda$ as a constant, we might introduce state-specific drag, $\lambda^i$ , such as would arise from state-specific inefficiencies.
[^1]: Seligson: Unaffiliated, 1741 Middlefield Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94301, [email protected]. McCants: MIT, Dept. of History, E51-263, 77 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02139.
[^2]: Isolation limits the exchange of ideas and goods, both essential components of the global economy.
[^3]: We exclude the sixth indicator, Government Effectiveness, because it is materially the same as HDI.
[^4]: One notable exception to this convention can be found in the work of Deirdre McCloskey. Equating ethics and norms, she argues that mainly ethics, not mainly law—or what we would call Institutions—is what holds societies together.[@Mccloskey2016]
[^5]: $T_{*}$ is country-averaged, mean monthly high temperature averaged over the interval 1900 to 2016. An argument may be made that population-weighting is appropriate, though we do not employ it here.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
The decomposition of $Spin^{c}(4)$ gauge potential in terms of the Dirac $4$-spinor is investigated, where an important characterizing equation $\Delta
A_{\mu }=-\lambda A_{\mu }$ has been discovered. Here $\lambda $ is the vacuum expectation value of the spinor field, $\lambda =\left\Vert \Phi
\right\Vert ^{2}$, and $A_{\mu }$ the twisting $U(1)$ potential. It is found that when $\lambda $ takes constant values, the characterizing equation becomes an eigenvalue problem of the Laplacian operator. It provides a revenue to determine the modulus of the spinor field by using the Laplacian spectral theory. The above study could be useful in determining the spinor field and twisting potential in the Seiberg-Witten equations. Moreover, topological characteristic numbers of instantons in the self-dual sub-space are also discussed.
PACS number(s): 02.40.-k, 11.25.Tq, 02.40.Vh Keyword(s): $Spin^{c}(4)$ gauge potential decomposition; $U(1)$ characterizing equation; Seiberg-Witten theory
author:
- 'Xin Liu [^1] $^a$, Yi-shi Duan$^b$, Wen-li Yang$^{a,c}$ and Yao-zhong Zhang$^a$'
date: |
$^a$ [ ]{}\
$^b$\
$^c$
title: 'Inner Structure of $Spin^{c}(4)$ Gauge Potential on $4$-Dimensional Manifolds'
---
Introduction
============
Great importance has been attached to four-dimensional manifolds in the research of topology [@Moore]. In 1983 Donaldson used instantons to prove new theorems and developed topological invariants for $4$-manifolds. In 1994 Witten proposed the Seiberg-Witten equations in the study of the $Spin^{c}(4)$ bundle and gave a new invariant for classifying $4$-manifolds. In this paper we will use a physical point of view — gauge potential decomposition — to study the gauge fields and topology on $4$-manifolds.
In recent years gauge potential decomposition has established itself a useful tool in physicists’ mathematical arsenal [FadGauPotDec,OurGauPotDecom,DuanLiuCTP1,DuanLiuPRD]{}. Its main idea is to reparametrize gauge potentials, such that characteristic classes — which are originally conveyed by gauge field strengths — can be re-expressed in terms of basic fields on manifolds. These basic fields can be vector fields, spinor fields, etc. It is known that characteristic classes are topological invariants causing non-trivial observable topological effects in physical systems. Such a change of building blocks will lead to disclosure of hidden geometric aspects of physical problems, such as topological charges and locations of excitations, etc., which are difficult to achieve by other means. This is the significance of gauge potential decomposition, consistent with the essence of the Poincaré-Hopf theorem [@Milnor].
In this paper our starting point is the decomposition of the $Spin^{c}(4)$ gauge potential. The decomposing basic field employed is the Dirac spinor field. The results could be useful for the discussion of the Seiberg-Witten (SW) equations. This paper is arranged as follows. In Sect.2 the decompositions of the $Spin^{c}(4)$ potential is given. In Sect.3, an important characterizing equation is obtained. It is found that this equation will become an eigenvalue problem of the Laplacian operator when the vacuum expectation value of the spinor field takes constant values. This study could be applied in determining the twisting potential and spinor field in the SW equations. In Sect.4, we investigate the topological characteristic numbers of instantons in the self-dual $SU(2)_{+}$ sub-space. In Sect.5, we conclude the paper by presenting a summary and discussion.
Decomposition of $Spin^{c}(4)$ Gauge Potential
==============================================
Let $\mathcal{M}$ be an oriented closed Riemannian $4$-manifold possessing a $Spin(4)$-structure, $Spin(4)=SU(2)_{+}\otimes SU(2)_{-}$ [@Moore]. Let $P$ be a principal $Spin^{c}(4)$-bundle on $\mathcal{M}$. $Spin^{c}(4)$ is obtained by $U(1)$-twisting $Spin(4)$, $Spin^{c}(4)=Spin(4)\otimes L$, where $L$ is the twisting line bundle. $Spin(4)$ is the double-cover of the group space of $SO(4)$. Their Lie algebras $\mathfrak{spin}(4)$ and $\mathfrak{so}(4)$ are isomorphic.
Consider a general Dirac equation describing massless neutrinos under an electromagnetic field,$$\gamma ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }\Psi -\gamma ^{\mu }\omega _{\mu }\Psi
-i\gamma ^{\mu }A_{\mu }\Psi =0. \label{1stSeibWittEqn'}$$Here $\mu =1,2,3,4$ denotes the base manifold indices. $D_{\mu }\Psi $ is the covariant derivative for the Dirac spinor field $\Psi $, $D_{\mu
}=\partial _{\mu }-\left( \omega _{\mu }+iA_{\mu }\right) $. $\left( \omega
_{\mu }+iA_{\mu }\right) $ is the $Spin^{c}(4)$ gauge potential. $A_{\mu }$ is the $U(1)$ potential of $L$, $A_{\mu }\in \mathbb{R}$. $\omega _{\mu }$ is the $SO(4)$ potential, $\omega _{\mu }=\frac{1}{2}\omega _{\mu ab}I_{ab}$, with $\omega _{\mu ab}=-\omega _{\mu ba}$. $I_{ab}$ ($a\neq b$) is the $SO(4)$ generator realized by the Clifford algebraic $2$-vector, $I_{ab}=\frac{1}{4}\left[ \gamma _{a},\gamma _{b}\right] =\frac{1}{2}\gamma
_{a}\gamma _{b}$, with $a,b=1,2,3,4$ denoting the Clifford algebraic indices. $\gamma ^{\mu }=e_{a}^{\mu }\gamma _{a}$ is the general Gamma-matrices, raised by the vierbein $e_{a}^{\mu }$ from the Dirac matrices $\gamma _{a}$.
Our task is to decompose the $Spin^{c}(4)$ potential $\omega _{\mu }+iA_{\mu
}$ in terms of the basic field $\Psi $. Defining $\omega _{abc}=e_{a}^{\mu
}\omega _{\mu bc}$, one has $$\gamma _{a}\partial _{a}\Psi -\frac{1}{4}\omega _{abc}\gamma _{a}\gamma
_{b}\gamma _{c}\Psi -iA_{a}\gamma _{a}\Psi =0, \label{3-neutrino}$$where $\partial _{a}=e_{a}^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }$ and $A_{a}=e_{a}^{\mu
}A_{\mu }$. We notice that $\omega _{abc}$ may be written in three parts: $$\omega _{abc}=\omega _{abc}^{A}+\omega _{abc}^{S_{1}}+\omega _{abc}^{S_{2}},
\label{3-3partw}$$where $\omega _{abc}^{A}$ is fully anti-symmetric for $a\;b\;c$, $\omega
_{abc}^{S_{1}}$ symmetric for $a\;b$, and $\omega _{abc}^{S_{2}}$ symmetric for $a\;c$: $$\omega _{abc}^{A}=\frac{1}{3}(\omega _{abc}+\omega _{bca}+\omega _{cab}),\
\omega _{abc}^{S_{1}}=\frac{1}{3}(\omega _{abc}+\omega _{bac}),\ \omega
_{abc}^{S_{2}}=\frac{1}{3}(\omega _{abc}+\omega _{cba}).$$Defining for convenience $$\bar{\omega}_{b}=2\omega _{aba},\;\;\;\tilde{\omega}_{a}=\epsilon
_{abcd}\omega _{bcd}^{A},$$one obtains after simple Clifford algebra: $$\omega _{abc}^{A}\gamma _{a}\gamma _{b}\gamma _{c}=-\gamma _{d}\gamma _{5}\tilde{\omega}_{d},\;\;\omega _{abc}^{S_{1}}\gamma _{a}\gamma _{b}\gamma
_{c}=-\frac{1}{3}\bar{\omega}_{c}\gamma _{c},\;\;\omega _{abc}^{S_{2}}\gamma
_{a}\gamma _{b}\gamma _{c}=-\frac{2}{3}\bar{\omega}_{b}\gamma _{b},$$where $\gamma _{5}=-\gamma _{1}\gamma _{2}\gamma _{3}\gamma _{4}.$ Hence (\[3-neutrino\]) can be rewritten as $$\gamma _{a}\partial _{a}\Psi +\frac{1}{4}\gamma _{a}(\bar{\omega}_{a}+\gamma
_{5}\tilde{\omega}_{a})\Psi -iA_{a}\gamma _{a}\Psi =0. \label{4-genDirac3}$$
It is easy to see that when the $SO(4)$ gauge potential $\omega _{\mu }$ is Hermitian, the components $\omega _{\mu ab}$’s are purely imaginary, and then $\bar{\omega}_{a}$ and $\tilde{\omega}_{a}$ are purely imaginary, $\bar{\omega}_{a},\tilde{\omega}_{a}\in i\mathbb{R}$ [@ImPotent1]. Thus $\bar{\omega}_{a}$ and $\tilde{\omega}_{a}$ are anti-Hermitian and are physical $U(1)$-like gauge potentials. Then the conjugate of (\[4-genDirac3\]) is$$\partial _{a}\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma _{a}-\frac{1}{4}\Psi ^{\dagger }(\bar{\omega}_{a}+\gamma _{5}\tilde{\omega}_{a})\gamma _{a}+iA_{a}\Psi ^{\dagger
}\gamma _{a}=0. \label{4-Dircomconj}$$
Eqs.(\[4-genDirac3\]) and (\[4-Dircomconj\]) are the starting point for further decomposing steps. Introduce two real parameters $\rho $ and $\theta
$, $$\begin{aligned}
\rho &=&\sqrt{(\Psi ^{\dagger }\Psi )^{2}-(\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma _{5}\Psi
)^{2}}, \label{3-rou} \\
\cosh \theta &=&\frac{\Psi ^{\dagger }\Psi }{\rho },\;\sinh \theta =\frac{\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma _{5}\Psi }{\rho }.\end{aligned}$$One has the so-called duality rotation $e^{\gamma ^{5}\theta }=\cosh \theta
+\gamma ^{5}\sinh \theta $. Then, considering(A) $\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma _{b}\times $Eq.(\[4-genDirac3\])$-$ Eq.([4-Dircomconj]{})$\times \gamma _{b}\Psi $, we have$$\begin{aligned}
0 &=&\left[ \left( \Psi ^{\dagger }\partial _{b}\Psi -\partial _{b}\Psi
^{\dagger }\Psi \right) -2\partial _{a}\left( \Psi ^{\dagger }I_{ab}\Psi
\right) \right] \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{1}{2}\bar{\omega}_{b}\rho \cosh \theta +\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\omega}_{b}\rho \sinh \theta -2iA_{b}\rho \cosh \theta ; \label{4-SO4decom2'}\end{aligned}$$(B) $\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma _{b}\gamma _{5}\times $Eq.(\[4-genDirac3\])$-$ Eq.(\[4-Dircomconj\])$\times \gamma _{5}\gamma _{b}\Psi $, we have$$\begin{aligned}
0 &=&\left[ \left( \Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma _{5}\partial _{b}\Psi -\partial
_{b}\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma _{5}\Psi \right) -2\partial _{a}\left( \Psi
^{\dagger }\gamma _{5}I_{ab}\Psi \right) \right] \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{1}{2}\bar{\omega}_{b}\rho \sinh \theta +\frac{1}{2}\tilde{\omega}_{b}\rho \cosh \theta -2iA_{b}\rho \sinh \theta . \label{4-SO4decom3'}\end{aligned}$$Eqs.(\[4-SO4decom2’\]) and (\[4-SO4decom3’\]) yield a decomposition for $\omega _{\mu }+iA_{\mu }$ [@Campolattaro]:$$\begin{aligned}
&&\gamma ^{\mu }\left( \omega _{\mu }+iA_{\mu }\right) \Psi \nonumber \\
&=&-\frac{1}{\rho }\gamma ^{\mu }e^{-\gamma _{5}\theta }e_{\mu b}\left[
\frac{1}{2}\left( \partial _{b}\Psi ^{\dagger }\Psi -\Psi ^{\dagger
}\partial _{b}\Psi \right) +\partial _{a}\left( \Psi ^{\dagger }I_{ab}\Psi
\right) \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. +\frac{1}{2}\gamma _{5}\left( \partial _{b}\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma
_{5}\Psi -\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma _{5}\partial _{b}\Psi \right) +\partial
_{a}\left( \gamma _{5}\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma _{5}I_{ab}\Psi \right) \right]
\Psi . \label{4-SO(4)finaldecomp66}\end{aligned}$$
The expression (\[4-SO(4)finaldecomp66\]) is generally covariant for the coordinates of the Riemannian base manifold. One should eliminate from ([4-SO(4)finaldecomp66]{}) the arbitrariness in the evaluation of the metric. Following the routine of general relativity a coordinate condition for the vierbein $e_{\mu b}$ should be adopted as a restraint. We choose the harmonic coordinate condition [@harmcoorcond]: $$\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\partial _{\nu }\left( \sqrt{g}g^{\nu \lambda }\right) =0\
\ \ i.e.\ \ \ e_{a}^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }e_{a}^{\nu }+\frac{1}{2}\omega
_{a}e_{a}^{\nu }=0. \label{4-harmonicoord}$$Under this condition the coordinate system will degenerate to the inertial coordinate system when the gravity vanishes [@Fok]. Defining $\gamma
^{\mu }{}_{\nu }=e_{a}^{\mu }e_{\nu b}I_{ab}$, we arrive at the Dirac spinor decomposition expression for the $Spin^{c}(4)$ gauge potential:$$\begin{aligned}
&&\gamma ^{\mu }\left( \omega _{\mu }+iA_{\mu }\right) \Psi \nonumber \\
&=&\gamma ^{\mu }\frac{e^{-\gamma _{5}\theta }}{\rho }\left\{ \frac{1}{2}\left[ \Psi ^{\dagger }\partial _{\mu }\Psi -(\partial _{\mu }\Psi ^{\dagger
})\Psi \right] +\frac{\gamma _{5}}{2}\left[ \Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma
_{5}\partial _{\mu }\Psi -(\partial _{\mu }\Psi ^{\dagger })\gamma _{5}\Psi \right] \right. \nonumber \\
&&\left. -\nabla _{\nu }\left( \Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma ^{\nu }{}_{\mu }\Psi
\right) -\nabla _{\nu }\left( \gamma _{5}\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma ^{\nu
}{}_{\mu }\gamma _{5}\Psi \right) \right\} \Psi .
\label{4-SO(4)finaldecomp7}\end{aligned}$$It is recognized immediately that the first two terms in ([4-SO(4)finaldecomp7]{}) $$j_{\mu }=\frac{1}{2}\left[ (\partial _{\mu }\Psi ^{\dagger })\Psi -\Psi
^{\dagger }\partial _{\mu }\Psi \right] ,\;\;\;\tilde{j}_{\mu }=\frac{1}{2}\left[ (\partial _{\mu }\Psi ^{\dagger })\gamma _{5}\Psi -\Psi ^{\dagger
}\gamma _{5}\partial _{\mu }\Psi \right]$$are respectively the velocity current and pseudo-velocity current in quantum mechanics. For the last two terms, recall the covariant first Maxwell equation in the generally covariant $U(1)$ electromagnetics [Campolattaro]{}: $$\nabla _{\nu }(f^{\nu }{}_{\mu })=J_{\mu },$$where $f^{\nu }{}_{\mu }$ denotes a field strength tensor and $J_{\mu }$ an electromagnetic current. It is recognized that $\left( \Psi ^{\dagger
}\gamma ^{\nu }{}_{\mu }\Psi \right) $ and $\left( \gamma _{5}\Psi ^{\dagger
}\gamma ^{\nu }{}_{\mu }\gamma _{5}\Psi \right) $ are two $U(1)$ field tensors $$F^{\nu }{}_{\mu }=\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma ^{\nu }{}_{\mu }\Psi ,\;\;\;\tilde{F}^{\nu }{}_{\mu }=\gamma _{5}\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma ^{\nu }{}_{\mu }\gamma
_{5}\Psi . \label{4-SeibWitttensor}$$Thus the last two terms of (\[4-SO(4)finaldecomp7\]) become two currents: $$\nabla _{\nu }(\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma ^{\nu }{}_{\mu }\Psi )=J_{\mu
},\;\;\;\nabla _{\nu }(\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma ^{\nu }{}_{\mu }\gamma
_{5}\Psi )=\tilde{J}_{\mu }. \label{4-SeibWittCurrent}$$And (\[4-SO(4)finaldecomp7\]) reads $$\gamma ^{\mu }\left( \omega _{\mu }+iA_{\mu }\right) \Psi =-\frac{1}{\rho }\gamma ^{\mu }e^{-\gamma _{5}\theta }\left[ j_{\mu }+\gamma _{5}\tilde{j}_{\mu }+J_{\mu }+\gamma _{5}\tilde{J}_{\mu }\right] \Psi . \label{decomp1}$$In the following sections the essence and significance of $J_{\mu }$ and $\tilde{J}_{\mu }$ will be further revealed.
The above Dirac spinor decomposition of the $Spin^{c}(4)$ gauge potential, Eq.(\[4-SO(4)finaldecomp7\]) i.e. Eq.(\[decomp1\]), is of independent importance. It could find applications in many physical problems besides in the current paper. For instance, when $A_{\mu }=0$, (\[decomp1\]) gives the Dirac spinor decomposition of the $SO(4)$ potential, which may be useful for obtaining topological excitations in higher-dimensional quantum Hall systems and the Dirac spinor structure of the $SO(4)$ Chern-Simons form [DuanLiuPRD,SO(4)C-S]{}.
Laplacian Characterizing Equation
=================================
Eq.(\[decomp1\]) can be written as $$\gamma ^{\mu }\left( \omega _{\mu }+iA_{\mu }\right) \Psi =-\gamma ^{\mu }\frac{\Psi ^{\dagger }\Psi -\gamma _{5}\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma _{5}\Psi }{(\Psi ^{\dagger }\Psi )^{2}-(\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma _{5}\Psi )^{2}}\left[
j_{\mu }+\gamma _{5}\tilde{j}_{\mu }+J_{\mu }+\gamma _{5}\tilde{J}_{\mu }\right] \Psi . \label{4-SpinCdec2}$$The $Spin^{c}(4)$ space is a direct sum of the self-dual and anti-self-dual sub-spaces, denoted respectively by $\left( S^{\pm }\otimes L\right) $. The spinor fields in them are respectively $\Psi _{\pm }$: $\gamma _{5}\Psi
_{\pm }=\pm \Psi _{\pm }$. For the purpose of discussing instantons and the Seiberg-Witten equations in the following text, we focus on the self-dual $S^{+}\otimes L$. Then (\[4-SpinCdec2\]) becomes$$\begin{aligned}
&&\gamma ^{\mu }\left( \omega _{\mu }+iA_{\mu }\right) \Psi \nonumber \\
&=&-\gamma ^{\mu }\frac{I}{\Psi ^{\dagger }\Psi }\left[ \frac{1}{2}\left(
(\partial _{\mu }\Psi ^{\dagger })\Psi -\Psi ^{\dagger }\partial _{\mu }\Psi
\right) +\nabla _{\nu }(\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma ^{\nu }{}_{\mu }\Psi )\right]
\Psi , \label{4-SpinCdec4}\end{aligned}$$where for notation simplicity $\Psi _{+}$ has been denoted by $\Psi $, and $\gamma _{5}$ takes value $+1$.
Choose the Dirac-Pauli representation for the $\gamma $-matrices:$$\gamma _{i}=\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & -i\sigma _{i} \\
i\sigma _{i} & 0\end{array}\right) ,\;\gamma _{4}=\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
I & 0 \\
0 & -I\end{array}\right) ,\;\gamma _{5}=\left(
\begin{array}{ll}
0 & I \\
I & 0\end{array}\right) ,$$with $\sigma _{i},\;i=1,2,3$, being the Pauli matrices. Thus $\Psi =(\begin{array}{ll}
\Phi , & \Phi
\end{array})^{T}$, where $\Phi $ is a Pauli $2$-spinor. Then considering the Maxwell equation in terms of the self-dual $\Psi $ [@Campolattaro], $$\partial _{\mu }A_{\nu }-\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu }=-i\Psi ^{\dagger }\gamma
_{\mu \nu }\Psi , \label{2ndSeibWittEqn}$$(\[4-SpinCdec4\]) becomes $$\gamma ^{\mu }\left( \omega _{\mu }+iA_{\mu }\right) \Psi =\gamma ^{\mu }
\left[ \frac{I}{2\Phi ^{\dagger }\Phi }(\Phi ^{\dagger }\partial _{\mu }\Phi
-\partial _{\mu }\Phi ^{\dagger }\Phi )-i\frac{1}{\Phi ^{\dagger }\Phi }\Delta A_{\mu }\right] \Psi , \label{4-SpinCdec5}$$where $\Delta =\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\partial _{\nu }(g^{\nu \lambda }\sqrt{g}\partial _{\lambda })$ is the Laplacian operator, and the Lorentz gauge $\nabla _{\nu }A^{\nu }=0$ has been imposed.
In the previous work [@DuanLiuCTP1] we have obtained the decomposition of an $SU(2)$ gauge potential $\varpi =\frac{1}{2i}\varpi _{\mu }^{i}\sigma
_{i}dx^{\mu }$ in terms of the Pauli spinor $\Phi $$$\varpi _{\mu }=\mathfrak{j}_{\mu }(\Phi )-\frac{1}{2}Tr\left[ \mathfrak{j}_{\mu }(\Phi )\right] I, \label{SU(2)decomp2}$$where $\mathfrak{j}_{\mu }(\Phi )=\frac{1}{\Phi ^{\dagger }\Phi }\left(
\partial _{\mu }\Phi \Phi ^{\dagger }-\Phi \partial _{\mu }\Phi ^{\dagger
}\right) $. The $U(1)$ projection of $\varpi _{\mu }$ onto the direction of spin $s_{i}=\frac{\Phi ^{\dagger }\sigma _{i}\Phi }{2i\Phi ^{\dagger }\Phi }$ is $$\varpi _{\mu }^{i}s_{i}=\frac{i}{2\Phi ^{\dagger }\Phi }\left[ \Phi
^{\dagger }\partial _{\mu }\Phi -\partial _{\mu }\Phi ^{\dagger }\Phi \right]
. \label{SU(2)decomp1}$$Comparing the first term on the RHS of (\[4-SpinCdec5\]) with ([SU(2)decomp1]{}), one sees that the former gives rise to the $SU(2)_{+}$ gauge potential $\varpi _{\mu }$ in the self-dual sub-space. Therefore, for (\[4-SpinCdec5\]) an important case is discovered: if, in particular, the following equation holds,$$\Delta A_{\mu }=-\lambda A_{\mu },\ \ with\ \ \lambda =\Phi ^{\dagger }\Phi ,
\label{eigenValLap1}$$then (\[4-SpinCdec5\]) leads to an $SU(2)$-type decomposition. ([eigenValLap1]{}) can be regarded as a characterizing equation of the twisting potential $A_{\mu }$, which provides a possible revenue to study $Spin^{c}(4) $ gauge field by investigating the $\left( S^{+}\otimes L\right)
$ sub-space.
There are three points to address for (\[eigenValLap1\]). Firstly, a remarkable case for (\[eigenValLap1\]) is that $\lambda $ takes constant values. This makes the equation become an eigenvalue problem of the Laplacian operator $\Delta $, with $\lambda $ being the eigenvalue and $A_{\mu }$ the eigenfunction. This Laplacian eigenvalue problem has been investigated by many authors [@Yau]. Important theorems on the spectrum $\left\{ \lambda _{(k)},f_{(k)};k=0,1,2,\cdots \right\} \;$ have been obtained, including those concerning the estimates and properties of the eigenvalues. Actually, if the base manifold has no boundary, $\Delta $ is an order-$2$ elliptic self-adjoint operator with discrete eigenvalues $\{0=\lambda _{(0)}<\lambda _{(1)}\leq \lambda _{(2)}\leq \cdots \}$, while the non-trivial eigenfunctions $\left\{ f_{(k)}\in C^{\infty }(\mathcal{M})\right\} $ form an orthogonal basis in the Hilbert space. $\left\{ \lambda
_{(k)}\right\} $ is the spectrum of the gauge-invariant vacuum expectation value of the self-dual spinor field $\Psi $. This provides a method to study $\left\{ \lambda _{(k)}\right\} $ and the $U(1)$ twisting potential $A_{\mu }
$.
Secondly, for the case of the zero-eigenvalue $\lambda _{(0)}=\Phi ^{\dagger
}\Phi =0$ (i.e. $|\Phi |=0$), the corresponding solution space is finite-dimensional. This case will be discussed in detail in Sect.4. It will be shown that the zero-points of $\Phi $ correspond to the instanton solutions, whose topological charges account for the second Chern numbers.
Thirdly, the Laplacian operator $\Delta $ is an unbounded operator, as $\left. \lambda _{(k)}\right\vert _{k\rightarrow \infty }$ $\rightarrow
\infty $. One can introduce a heat operator $e^{t\Delta }$, which is bounded because $\left. e^{-t\lambda _{(k)}}\right\vert _{k\rightarrow \infty }$ $\rightarrow 0$ for $Re\ t>0$. Defining $\mathfrak{F}_{(k)}=e^{t\Delta
}f_{(k)}$ from the above eigenfunctions $\left\{ f_{(k)}\right\} $, it is easy to check that $\mathfrak{F}_{(k)}$ serves as the solution of the heat equation $(-\Delta +\partial _{t})\mathfrak{F}=0$. The solution $\mathfrak{F}
$ is given by the so-called heat kernel function $H(\vec{x},\vec{y},t)$$$(e^{t\Delta }f)(x)=\int_{\mathcal{M}}H(\vec{x},\vec{y},t)f(\vec{y}),\;\;\;\forall f\in L^{2}(\mathcal{M}).$$The concrete form of $H(\vec{x},\vec{y},t)$ depends on the background geometry of the base manifold $\mathcal{M}$ [@Yau].
We address that the above theory could be useful for the study of the Seiberg-Witten (SW) theory. The SW theory determines the exact low-energy effective Lagrangian of the $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric Yang-Mills gauge theory in terms of a single prepotential $\mathcal{F}$ [SeibWittPhys,Alv-Gau]{}. It resulted in a revolution in string theory in 1994, and also played an important role in topology [@Moore] by providing a powerful SW invariant for the classification of four-dimensional manifolds. Taubes proved that the SW invariants are equivalent to the Gromov invariants for symplectic manifolds.
Let $\mathfrak{M}$ be an oriented closed Riemannian $4$-manifold possessing a $Spin(4)$-structure. Usually $\mathfrak{M}$ is considered to be boundaryless. Let $\mathcal{P}$ be a principal $Spin^{c}(4)$-bundle on $\mathfrak{M}$. The SW equations read $$\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{D}^{+A}\Psi _{+} &=&\gamma ^{\mu }\partial _{\mu }\Psi _{+}-\gamma
^{\mu }\Omega _{\mu }\Psi _{+}-i\gamma ^{\mu }A_{\mu }\Psi _{+}=0,
\label{Seiberg-Witten1real} \\
F_{+\mu \nu } &=&\partial _{\mu }A_{\nu }-\partial _{\nu }A_{\mu }=-i\Psi
_{+}^{\dagger }\gamma _{\mu \nu }\Psi _{+}, \label{Seiberg-Witten2real}\end{aligned}$$where $\Omega _{\mu }=\frac{1}{2}\Omega _{\mu ab}I_{ab}$ is the $SO(4)$ gauge potential, with $\Omega _{\mu }$ anti-Hermitian and $\Omega _{\mu
ab}\in \mathbb{R}$. $F_{+\mu \nu }$ is the self-dual component of the curvature. $\mathbf{D}^{+A}$ is the twisted Dirac operator, $\mathbf{D}^{+A}:\Gamma (S^{+}\otimes L)\rightarrow \Gamma (S^{-}\otimes L)$, where $L$ is the twisting line bundle and $S^{\pm }\otimes L$ respectively the twisted self-dual and anti-self-dual sub-spaces. $\Psi _{+}$ is the self-dual solution of $\mathbf{D}^{+A}$. Eq.(\[Seiberg-Witten2real\]) is the so-called monopole equation. Given $\Omega _{\mu }$, the $A_{\mu }$ and $\Psi _{+}$ are two unknowns for the set of Eqs.(\[Seiberg-Witten1real\],\[Seiberg-Witten2real\]).
It is easy to recognize the similarity between the two sets Eqs.([Seiberg-Witten1real]{},\[Seiberg-Witten2real\]) and Eqs.([1stSeibWittEqn’]{},\[2ndSeibWittEqn\]). Hence the above theoretical results, as well as the coming discussion about instantons, might give rise to a new method for the study of the SW equations.
Topological Characteristics of Instantons
=========================================
When (\[eigenValLap1\]) holds, (\[4-SpinCdec5\]) presents the $SU(2)_{+}$ gauge potential $\varpi _{\mu }$. In following it will be shown that the spinor structure of $\varpi _{\mu }$ contributes to the second Chern classes of the $SU(2)_{+}$ sub-bundle.
From the Chern-Simons $3$-form constructed with $\varpi $, $\Omega _{+}=\frac{1}{8\pi ^{2}}Tr(\varpi \wedge d\varpi -\frac{2}{3}\varpi \wedge \varpi
\wedge \varpi )$ (see Ref.[@DuanLiuCTP1] and references therein), using (\[SU(2)decomp2\]) one acquires the Pauli spinor structure of $\Omega _{+}$$$\Omega _{+}=\frac{1}{4\pi ^{2}}\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger }d\hat{\Phi}\wedge d\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger }\wedge d\hat{\Phi}. \label{chnsimnew}$$The second Chern class $C_{2+}$ is given by $C_{2+}=d\Omega _{+}=\rho
_{+}(x)d^{4}x$, with $\rho _{+}(x)$ the so-called Chern density. Then $$C_{2+}=\frac{1}{4\pi ^{2}}d\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger }\wedge d\hat{\Phi}\wedge d\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger }\wedge d\hat{\Phi}, \label{2ndchnclsnew}$$i.e. the Chern density $\rho _{+}(x)=-\frac{1}{4\pi ^{2}}\epsilon ^{\mu \nu
\lambda \rho }\partial _{\mu }\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger }\partial _{\nu }\hat{\Phi}\partial _{\lambda }\hat{\Phi}^{\dagger }\partial _{\rho }\hat{\Phi}.$ This expression is consistent with the $SU(2)$ Chern density obtained in Ref.[DuanLiuCTP1]{}.
In order to study the inner structure of $C_{2+}$, we employ the component form of the Pauli spinor $\Phi =(\begin{array}{cc}
\phi ^{0}+i\phi ^{1}, & \phi ^{2}+i\phi ^{3}\end{array})^{T}$ and introduce a unit vector $n^{A}=\frac{\phi ^{A}}{\left\Vert \phi
\right\Vert }$ with $n^{A}n^{A}=1$. Here $\phi ^{A}\in \mathbb{R}$ and $\Phi
^{\dagger }\Phi =\phi ^{A}\phi ^{A}=\left\Vert \phi \right\Vert ^{2}$, $A=0,1,2,3$. Obviously the zero-points of $\phi ^{A}$ are the singular points of $n^{A}$. Define a normalized spinor$$\hat{\Phi}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{\Phi ^{\dagger }\Phi }}\Phi =\left(
\begin{array}{c}
n^{0}+in^{1} \\
n^{2}+in^{3}\end{array}\right) .$$Then in terms of $n^{A}$ one has $\rho _{+}(x)=-\frac{1}{12\pi ^{2}}\epsilon
^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\epsilon _{ABCD}\partial _{\mu }n^{A}\partial _{\nu
}n^{B}\partial _{\lambda }n^{C}\partial _{\rho }n^{D}$, which can be given by a $\delta $-function form $$\rho _{+}(x)=-\delta ^{4}(\vec{\phi})D(\frac{\phi }{x}), \label{Roudelta}$$where $D(\phi /x)$ is a Jacobian, $\epsilon ^{ABCD}D(\frac{\phi }{x})=\;\epsilon ^{\mu \nu \lambda \rho }\partial _{\mu }\phi ^{A}\partial _{\nu
}\phi ^{B}\partial _{\lambda }\phi ^{C}\partial _{\rho }\phi ^{D}.$ Eq.([Roudelta]{}) implies that $\rho _{+}(x)=0$ iff $\vec{\phi}\neq 0$, while $\rho _{+}(x)\neq 0$ iff $\vec{\phi}=0$. So it is sufficient to study the zero-points of $\vec{\phi}$ to determine the non-zero solutions of $\rho
_{+}(x)$. Meanwhile, one should bear in mind that $\left\Vert \phi
\right\Vert =0$ corresponds to the zero-eigenvalue of Eq.(\[eigenValLap1\]).
The implicit function theory [@ImplicitFunc] shows that under the regular condition $D(\phi /x)\neq 0$, the general solutions of the zero-point equations $\phi ^{A}(x^{1},x^{2},x^{3},x^{4})=0$ are expressed as $N$ isolated points: $x^{\mu }=x_{j}^{\mu },\;j=1,\cdots ,N$. In the neighborhood of the $N$ zero points, $\delta ^{4}(\vec{\phi})$ is expanded as [@Schouten]: $\delta ^{4}(\vec{\phi})=\sum_{j=1}^{N}\left. \frac{\beta _{j}\delta ^{4}(x^{\mu }-x_{j}^{\mu })}{\left\vert D(\phi
/x)\right\vert }\right\vert _{x_{j}^{\mu }}.$ Here the positive integer $\beta _{j}$ is called the Hopf mapping index. It means topologically that when a point $x$ covers the neighborhood of the $j$th zero-point $x_{j}$ once, the vector field $\phi ^{A}$ will cover the corresponding region in the $\phi $-space for $\beta _{j}$ times. Then, $\rho _{+}(x)$ is re-expressed as$$\rho _{+}(x)=-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\beta _{j}\eta _{j}\delta ^{4}(x-x_{j}),
\label{35}$$where $\eta _{j}=\left. \frac{D(\phi /x)}{\left\vert D(\phi /x)\right\vert }\right\vert _{x_{j}}=sign[D(\frac{\phi }{x})]_{x_{j}}$ is introduced, called the Brouwer mapping degree. (\[35\]) shows that the Chern density is non-zero only at the $N$ $4$-dimensional zero-points of $\phi ^{A}$. These self-dual singular-points are regarded as instanton solutions in the $SU(2)_{+}$ sub-space, with their topological charges characterized by $\beta
_{j}$ and $\eta _{j}$.
Integrating the second Chern class yields the second Chern number: $$c_{2+}=\int C_{2+}=\int \rho _{+}(x)d^{4}x=-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\beta _{j}\eta
_{j}.$$Since the base manifold $\mathcal{M}$ is $4$-dimensional, the second Chern class $C_{2+}$ is the top Chern class, i.e., the Euler class on $\mathcal{M}$. Hence the Euler characteristic, which is the index sum of zero-points of the smooth vector field $\phi ^{A}$ on $\mathcal{M}$ (Poincaré-Hopf theorem), is obtained by the Gauss-Bonnet theorem: $$\chi _{+}(\mathcal{M})=\int C_{2+}=-\sum_{j=1}^{N}\beta _{j}\eta _{j}.$$This result demonstrates that the topological invariant $\chi _{+}(\mathcal{M})$ arises from the contribution of the topological charges of instantons.
Conclusion and Discussion
=========================
In this paper we obtain the Dirac spinor decomposition ([4-SO(4)finaldecomp7]{}), i.e. (\[decomp1\]), for the $Spin^{c}(4)$ gauge potential $\omega _{\mu }+iA_{\mu }$. Comparing it with the decomposition of the $SU(2)$ potential $\varpi _{\mu }$ we find a $U(1)$ characterizing equation (\[eigenValLap1\]). An important case for this equation is that $\lambda $ takes constant values. Then (\[eigenValLap1\]) becomes an eigenvalue problem of the Laplacian operator, with the eigenvalue being the vacuum expectation value of $\Psi $. This thus provides a possible method — the spectrum of the Laplacian operator — to determine the spinor field and twisting potential in the Seiberg-Witten equations. Moreover, topological charges of instantons are expressed in terms of the characteristic numbers $\beta _{j}$ and $\eta _{j}$.
Some remarks are in order. Firstly, in Sect.3 one has extracted ([eigenValLap1]{}) from (\[4-SpinCdec5\]). Another interesting choice is to modify the $U(1)$ potential in (\[4-SpinCdec5\]) as $A_{\mu }=\bar{A}_{\mu
}+\alpha _{\mu }$. Here $\bar{A}_{\mu }$ satisfies (\[eigenValLap1\]), while $\alpha _{\mu }$ leads to a $\delta $-function like field strength: $$d\alpha \propto \delta ^{2}(\vec{\varphi}),$$with $\vec{\varphi}$ being a vector defined from the spinor $\Phi $ in the self-dual sub-space. A choice for $\alpha _{\mu }$ is the Wu-Yang potential [@DuanLiuPRD]: $$\alpha _{\mu }\propto \vec{e}_{1}\cdot \partial _{\mu }\vec{e}_{2},$$where $(\vec{e}_{1},\vec{e}_{2},\vec{m})$ is an orthogonal frame with $\vec{m}=\frac{\Phi ^{\dagger }\vec{\sigma}\Phi }{\Phi ^{\dagger }\Phi }$ defined as a $3$-dimensional unit vector in the self-dual sub-space. Thus, $\alpha
_{\mu }$ will contribute to the LHS of (\[4-SpinCdec5\]) a Chern-class term containing a $2$-dimensional $\delta $-function, which indicates the impact of the $2$-dimensional zero-points of $(\vec{e}_{1},\vec{e}_{2})$. $\alpha _{\mu }$ will also contribute to the RHS of (\[4-SpinCdec5\]) a Schwinger term related to a central extension, which describes the $3$-dimensional zero-points of $\vec{m}$.
Secondly, it has been pointed out that $\omega _{\mu }$ below ([4-genDirac3]{}) is Hermitian but $\Omega _{\mu }$ in ([Seiberg-Witten1real]{}) is anti-Hermitian. The physical meaning of imaginary gauge potentials should be investigated [@ImPotent1]. Another consideration for this problem is the following. Notice that in ([4-genDirac3]{}) $\frac{1}{4}\bar{\omega}_{a}$, $\frac{1}{4}\tilde{\omega}_{a}$ and $iA_{a}$ are all purely imaginary potentials, i.e., they are in the equal situation. Therefore one can regard that in (\[Seiberg-Witten1real\]) an imaginary $SO(4)$ gauge potential $\Lambda _{\mu }$ can be introduced to deliver the twisting action of the potential $iA_{a}$ exerted on $\Omega
_{\mu }$.
*Acknowledgment:* The author X.L. is indebted to Prof. A.J. Bracken for the discussion on Clifford algebra, and to M.C. Hong and Y. Zheng for their help on the eigenvalue problem of the Laplacian operator. X.L. was financially supported by the IPRS and UQGSS scholarships and the GSRTA award of the University of Queensland. Y.S.D was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of P.R. China. W.L.Y. and Y.Z.Z. were supported by the Australian Research Council.
[99]{} E. Witten, Math. Res. Lett. 1 (1994) 769;C.H. Taubes, Math. Res. Lett. 1 (1994) 809;J.W. Morgan, The Seiberg-Witten Equations and Applications to the Topology of Smooth Four-Manifolds, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1996;J.D. Moore, Lectures on Seiberg-Witten Invariants, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 1629, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1996.
L. Faddeev, A.J. Niemi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 (1999) 1624; ibid., Phys. Lett. B 464 (1999) 90; ibid., Phys. Lett. B 525 (2002) 195; ibid., Nucl. Phys. B 776 (2007) 38;R. Jackiw, V.P. Nair, So-Young Pi, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 085018;Y.M. Cho, Phys. Lett. B 632 (2006) 745; ibid., J. Korean Phys. Soc. 38 (2001) 151.
Y.S. Duan, X. Liu, P.M. Zhang, J. Phys. Condensed Matter 14 (2002) 7941.
Y.S. Duan, X. Liu, Commun. Theor. Phys. 40 (2003) 447 (Available from: math-ph/0201018).
X. Liu, Y.Z. Zhang, Y.S. Duan, L.B. Fu, Ann. Phys. 318 (2005) 419;Y.S. Duan, X. Liu, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2004) 028.
J.H. Milnor, Topology from the Differential Viewpoint, University of Virginia Press, Charlottersville VA, 1965.
C.R. Allton, et al., Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 074507;S. Guruswamy, A. LeClair, A.W.W. Ludwig, Nucl. Phys. B 583 (2000) 475.
A.A. Campolattaro, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 19 (1980) 99; ibid., Int. J. Theor. Phys. 19 (1980) 127; ibid., Int. J. Theor. Phys. 29 (1990) 141; ibid., Int. J. Theor. Phys. 29 (1990) 147;L.Z. Hu, L.Y. Hu, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 37 (1998) 2115;W.A. Rodrigues Jr., Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 43 (2003) 2707, and references therein.
W. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology (Wiley, New York, 1972);Yu. Rumer, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. (JETP) 2 (1953) 271.
V.A. Fok, The theory of space, time and gravitation, 2nd ed., translated by N. Kemmer, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1964.
A. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar, Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 066013.
R. Schoen, S.-T. Yau, Lectures on Differential Geometry, International Press, Cambridge MA, 1994;T. Aubin, Some Nonlinear Problems in Riemannian Geometry, Springer, Berlin, 1998;P.B. Gilkey, Invariance Theory, The Heat Equation, and The Atiyah-Singer Index Theorem, Publish and Perish, USA, 1984.
N. Seiberg, E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 426 (1994) 19; ibid., Nucl. Phys. B 431 (1994) 484;G. Moore, E. Witten, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 1 (1997) 298 (Available from: hep-th/9709193).
L. Alvarez-Gaumé, S.F. Hassan, Introduction to S-duality in $\mathcal{N}=2$ supersymmetric gauge theory, Available from: hep-th/9701069;A. Bilal, Introduction to Supersymmetry, Available from: hep-th/0101055;G.P. Collins, Phys. Today 48 (1995) 17.
S.G. Krantz, H.R. Parks, The Implicit Function Theorem, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2003.
J.A. Schouten, Tensor Analysis for Physicists, Clarendon, Oxford, 1951.
[^1]: Corresponding author. Electronic address: [email protected]
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Although the Higgs boson mass and single production rate have been determined more or less precisely, its other properties may deviate significantly from its predictions in the standard model (SM) due to the uncertainty of Higgs data. In this work we study the Higgs pair production at the LHC in the Manohar-Wise model, which extends the SM by one family of color-octet and isospin-doublet scalars. We first scanned over the parameter space of the Manohar-Wise model considering exprimental constraints and performed fits in the model to the latest Higgs data by using the ATLAS and CMS data separately. Then we calculated the Higgs pair production rate and investigated the potential of its discovery at the LHC14. We conclude that: (i) Under current constrains including Higgs data after Run I of the LHC, the cross section of Higgs pair production in the Manohar-Wise model can be enhanced up to even $10^3$ times prediction in the SM. (ii) Moreover, the sizable enhancement comes from the contributions of the CP-odd color-octet scalar $S^A_I$. For lighter scalar $S^A_I$ and larger values of $|\lambda_I|$, the cross section of Higgs pair production can be much larger. (iii) After running again of LHC at 14 TeV, most of the parameter spaces in the Manohar-Wise model can be test. For an integrated luminosity of 100 fb$^{-1}$ at the LHC14, when the normalized ratio $R=10$, the process of Higgs pair production can be detected.'
author:
- 'Zhaoxia Heng$^1$, Liangliang Shang$^1$, Yanming Zhang$^1$, Yang Zhang$^{1,2}$, Jingya Zhu$^2$'
title: 'Pair production of 125 GeV Higgs boson in the SM extension with color-octet scalars at the LHC'
---
Introduction
============
In July 2012, both the ATLAS and CMS collaborations at the LHC announced the discovery of a new boson with mass around 125 GeV [@1207atlas; @1207cms]. The combined data at the LHC indicate that its properties are quite compatible with those of the Higgs boson in the Standard Model (SM) [@13atlas; @13cms]. However, whether the new boson is the Higgs boson predicted by the SM or new physics models still need to be further confirmed by the LHC experiment with high luminosity. So far, various new physics models like the low energy supersymmetric models can give reasonable interpretations for the properties of this SM-like Higgs boson around 125 GeV [@125-our; @125-other-MSSM; @natural-susy-125; @NMSSM-125; @cmssm-125].
Moreover, discovery of the SM-like Higgs boson is not the end of the story. The next challenge for the experiment is to precisely measure its properties including all the possible production and decay channels. As a rare production channel, the Higgs pair production can be used to test the Higgs self-couplings effectively [@self-coupling], which play an essential role in reconstructing the Higgs potential. The Higgs pair production in the SM at the LHC proceeds through the gluon fusion $gg\to hh$. At the leading order, the main contributions come from the heavy quark loops through the box diagrams and triangle diagrams with the Higgs self-coupling. Due to the weak Yukawa couplings and Higgs self-coupling, as well as the cancelations between these two types of diagrams, the cross section in the SM is too small to be detected with current integrated luminosity. Even at $\sqrt{s} =$ 14 TeV with high luminosity, it is still difficult to detect this process. The discovery potential of the LHC to detect this production process has been investigated in [@hh-detect; @Barger:2013jfa; @hh-other], and the most promising channel to detect it is $gg\to hh\to b \bar b \gamma\gamma$, other signal channels such as $h h \to b \bar{b} \tau^+ \tau^-$ are swamped by the reducible backgrounds [@Barger:2013jfa].
Compared with the predictions in the SM, the production rate of the SM-like Higgs pair production in new physics models can be enhanced significantly due to relatively large additional couplings of the SM-like Higgs boson with the introduced new particles, such as squarks in supersymmetric models [@hh-susy] or other colored particles [@color-scalar]. Therefore, the Higgs pair production can be a sensitive probe to new physics beyond the SM. In this paper we investigate the effects of color-octet scalars in the Manohar-Wise (MW) model [@MW-Model] on the Higgs pair production at the LHC. The Manohar-Wise model is a special type of two-Higgs-doublet model and predicts a family of color-octet scalars, which can have sizable couplings with the Higgs boson, since the sign of Higgs coupling with gluons is usually opposite to the prediction in the SM [@cao-octet]. Also considering the different amplitude structure of Higgs single and pair production, the cross section of Higgs pair production in the Manohar-Wise model may deviate significantly from its predictions in the SM.
This paper is structured as follows. In Sec. II we briefly introduce the Manohar-Wise model. Then in Sec. III we present the numerical results and discussions of the Higgs pair production in the Manohar-Wise model. Finally, the conclusions are presented in Sec. IV.
Model with color octet scalars —the Manohar-Wise Model
======================================================
In the SM, the scalar sector contains only one Higgs scalar doublet, which is responsible for the electroweak symmetry breaking. Additional extensions of the scalar sector is restricted by the principle of minimal flavor violation (MFV). Just motivated by this principle, the Manohar-Wise model extends the SM by adding one family color-octet scalars with $SU(3)_C \times SU(2)_L \times U(1)_Y$ quantum numbers $(8,2)_{1/2}$ [@MW-Model], $$\begin{aligned}
S^{A}=\left( \begin{array}{c}
S^A_+ \\
S^A_0
\end{array} \right),\end{aligned}$$ where $A=1,...,8$ denotes color index, $S^A_+$ and $S^A_0$ are the electric charged and neutral color-octet scalar fields respectively, and $$\begin{aligned}
S^A_0=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} (S^A_R+ i S^A_I)\end{aligned}$$ with $S^A_{R, I}$ denote the neutral CP-even and CP-odd color-octet scalar fields. In accordance with the MFV, the Yukawa couplings to the SM fermions are parameterized as $$\begin{aligned}
{\cal L} = -\eta_{U} Y_{ij}^U \bar{u}_R^i T^A S^A Q_L^j
- \eta_D Y_{ij}^D \bar{d}_R^i T^A (S^A)^\dagger Q_L^j + h.c.,\end{aligned}$$ where $Y^{U,D}_{ij}$ are the SM Yukawa matrices, $i,j$ denote flavor indices, and $\eta_{U,D}$ are flavor universal constants.
The most general renormalizable scalar potential is given by $$\begin{aligned}
V&=& \frac{\lambda}{4} \big (H^{\dagger i} H_i - \frac{v^2}{2}\big
)^2 + 2m_S^2 \text{Tr} (S^{\dagger i}S_i) + \lambda_1 H^{\dagger
i}H_i \text{Tr} (S^{\dagger j}S_j) + \lambda_2 H^{\dagger i}H_j
\text{Tr} (S^{\dagger j}S_i)
\nonumber\\
&& + \big [ \lambda_3 H^{\dagger i}
H^{\dagger j} \text{Tr}(S_iS_j) + \lambda_4 H^{\dagger i}
\text{Tr}(S^{\dagger j}S_j S_i) + \lambda_5 H^{\dagger i}
\text{Tr}(S^{\dagger j}S_i S_j) + h.c. \big ]
\nonumber\\
&& + \lambda_6 \text{Tr}
(S^{\dagger i}S_i S^{\dagger j} S_j) + \lambda_7
\text{Tr}(S^{\dagger i}S_j S^{\dagger j} S_i) + \lambda_8 \text{Tr}
(S^{\dagger i}S_i)\text{Tr}(S^{\dagger j}S_j){\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }{\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\nonumber\\
&& + \lambda_9 \text{Tr}
(S^{\dagger i} S_j) \text{Tr}(S^{\dagger j}S_i) + \lambda_{10}
\text{Tr} (S_i S_j) \text{Tr}(S^{\dagger i}S^{\dagger j})
+\lambda_{11} \text{Tr}(S_iS_j S^{\dagger j} S^{\dagger i}),\end{aligned}$$ where $H$ is usual $(1,2)_{1/2}$ Higgs doublet, the traces are over color indices with $S= S^A T^A$, $i,j$ denote $SU(2)_L$ indices and all $\lambda_i$ ($i=1,..., 11$) except $\lambda_4$ and $\lambda_5$ are real parameters. Note that the convention $\lambda_3 >0$ is allowed by a appropriate phase rotation of the $S$ fields. After the electroweak symmetry breaking, the mass spectrum of the scalars depend on the parameters in the scalar potential, and at the tree-level are given by $$\begin{aligned}
m_\pm^2 &=& m_S^2 + \lambda_1 \frac{v^2}{4}
\equiv m_S^2 + \lambda_\pm \frac{v^2}{4}, \nonumber \\
m_R^2 &=& m_S^2 + (\lambda_1 + \lambda_2 + 2\lambda_3) \frac{v^2}{4}
\equiv m_S^2 + 2\lambda_R \frac{v^2}{4}, \nonumber\\
m_I^2 &=& m_S^2 +(\lambda_1 + \lambda_2 - 2\lambda_3) \frac{v^2}{4}
\equiv m_S^2 + 2\lambda_I \frac{v^2}{4}. \label{mass}\end{aligned}$$ The interactions of these scalars with the Higgs boson (labeled as $h$ denoting the SM Higgs boson) are as follows [@hgg-NLO], $$\begin{aligned}
g_{hS^{A\ast}_i S^B_i} = \frac{v}{2} \lambda_i \delta^{AB},~~~~~~~
g_{hhS^{A\ast}_i S^B_i} = \frac{1}{2}\lambda_i \delta^{AB} \label{hss}\end{aligned}$$ with $i=\pm, R, I$, and we take $v=$ 246 GeV.
Calculations and numerical results
==================================
![Feynman diagrams for the pair production of the Higgs boson via gluon fusion in the Manohar-Wise model, with $S^A_i$ ($i=\pm, R, I$) denoting the color-octet scalars in the model. The diagrams with initial gluons or final Higgs bosons interchanged are not shown here. Due to the large Yukawa couplings, we only consider the contributions from the third generation quarks.[]{data-label="fig1"}](fig1.eps){width="15cm"}
In the Manohar-Wise model the Higgs pair production at the LHC mainly proceeds through the gluon fusion shown in Fig.\[fig1\]. Compared with the SM, the Manohar-Wise model predicts additional color octet scalars including $S^A_i (i=\pm, R, I)$, which have couplings to the Higgs boson $h$. Therefore, the pair production of $h$ in the Manohar-Wise model has additional contributions from the loops of the color octet scalars $S^A_i (i=\pm, R, I)$ besides the contributions from the loops mediated by the heavy quarks in the SM, as shown in Fig.\[fig1\]. Since the additional contributions are at the same perturbation order as those in the SM, the cross section of the Higgs pair production in the Manohar-Wise model may significantly deviate from the prediction in the SM.
In the numerical calculations we take $m_t=173$ GeV, $m_b=4.2$ GeV, $m_W=80.0$ GeV, $m_Z=91.0$ GeV, and $\alpha=1/128$ [@PDG], and fix the collision energy of LHC and the mass of Higgs boson to be 14 TeV and 125.6 GeV respectively. Then we use CT10 [@CT10] to generate the parton distribution functions, with the factorization scale $\mu_F$ and the renormalization scale $\mu_R$ chosen to be $2 m_h$. We check that the cross section of the Higgs pair production in the SM is 18.7 fb, which is consistent with the result in [@sm-lo].
In this work, following our previous work [@cao-octet], we scan over the parameter space of the Manohar-Wise model considering following theoretical and experimental constraints: (i) the constraints from the unitarity; (ii) the constraints from electroweak precision data (EWPD); (iii) the constraints from the LHC searches for exotic scalars through dijet-pair events. Based on 4.6 fb$^{-1}$ data at 7-TeV LHC for dijet-pair events collected by the ATLAS collaboration, the lower bound on the scalar mass has set to be 287 GeV at 95% confidence level [@dijet]. The lower bound from four-top channel is much higher, but it is based on some assumptions, e.g., the bound is 500 GeV (630 GeV) for the neutral scalar decays into top pair with a branching ratio of 50% (100%) [@four-top]. Since the latter constraint can be escaped from by adjusting $\eta_U$, we only require the color octet scalars to be heavier than 300 GeV. Here we can comment that, in future running of the LHC the lower bound from dijet-pair events may be higher. According to [@GoncalvesNetto:2012nt], for a color-octet scalar of 350 GeV (500 GeV), its pair production rate can reach 84.6 pb (11.4 pb) at 14-TeV LHC.
Under the above constraints, we perform fits in this model to the latest Higgs data by using the ATLAS data and CMS data respectively. The detail of the fits can be found in our previous works [@cao-octet; @LH-hfit]. From the fits we pick up the 1$\sigma$ (68% confidence level or $\chi^2_{min} \leq \chi^2 \leq \chi^2_{min} + 2.3$) and 2$\sigma$ (95% confidence level or $\chi^2_{min} + 2.3 < \chi^2 \leq \chi^2_{min} + 6.18$) samples, which correspond to $5.63 \leq \chi^2 \leq 7.93$ and $7.93 < \chi^2 \leq 11.81$ for the fit to the ATLAS data, and $2.47 \leq \chi^2 \leq 4.77$ and $4.77 < \chi^2 \leq 8.65$ for the fit to the CMS data. Then with these samples we calculate the cross section of Higgs pair production in the Manohar-Wise model and define $R$ as the ratio normalized to its SM values, $$\begin{aligned}
R\equiv \sigma_{MW}(gg\to hh)/\sigma_{SM}(gg\to hh)\end{aligned}$$
![The scatter plots of the surviving samples, showing the normalized ratio $R$ as a function of $m_S$. The red circles ’$\circ$’ denote 1$\sigma$ surviving samples, and the sky blue stars ’$\star$’ denote 2$\sigma$ samples.[]{data-label="fig2"}](fig2.ps){width="15cm"}
![Same as Fig.\[fig2\], but showing the ratio of cross section in the Manohar-Wise model with that in the SM (i. e. $R$) as a function of $\lambda_I/m_I$.[]{data-label="fig3"}](fig3.ps){width="15cm"}
In Fig.\[fig2\] we project the $1\sigma$ and $2\sigma$ samples on the plane of the normalized ratio $R$ versus $m_S$. The left panel displays the surviving samples in fitting to the ATLAS Higgs data, and the right panel shows that to the CMS data. In the figure, the red circles denote 1$\sigma$ surviving samples, and the sky blue stars denote 2$\sigma$ samples. From this figure we can clearly see that the cross section of the Higgs pair production in the Manohar-Wise model can significantly deviate from the SM prediction, and the normalized production rate $R$ can even be up to $10^3$. The figure also shows that, for $m_S\gtrsim$ 1 TeV, the ratio $R$ is relatively small, usually smaller than 10, which reflects the decoupling effect.
Now we give analytical explanations to the deviation of the cross section in the Manohar-Wise model shown in Fig.\[fig2\]. The diagrams in Fig.\[fig1\] can be divided into five parts: (1)+(2), (3)+(4), (5), (6)+(7) and (8)+(9)+(10), and each part is UV finite. We numerically check their relative size and find that the contributions to the cross section from the diagrams (3)+(4) and (5) are quite large. This is because the amplitude of these diagrams can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M} &\sim & c_1\frac{g^2_{hS^{A\ast}_\pm S^A_\pm}}{m^2_\pm} +
c_2\frac{g^2_{hS^{A\ast}_R S^A_R}}{m^2_R} +
c_3\frac{g^2_{hS^{A\ast}_I S^A_I}}{m^2_I} \label{eq1}\end{aligned}$$ where $c_i$ (i=1, 2, 3) are ${\cal{O}}(1)$ coefficients. Considering the couplings shown in Eq.(\[hss\]), we rewrite the Eq.(\[eq1\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{M} &\sim & (c_1\frac{\lambda^2_\pm}{m^2_\pm} +
c_2\frac{\lambda^2_R}{m^2_R} +
c_3\frac{\lambda^2_I}{m^2_I})\frac{v^2}{4} \label{eq2}\end{aligned}$$ And the values of $\lambda_i$ ($i=\pm, R, I$) are usually large required by the Higgs data [@cao-octet]. While the amplitude from the other diagrams, such as (6)-(10) are not enhanced by $\lambda^2_i$ and usually proportional to $(C_{hgg}/SM)_i$ , whose summation can not diverge much from that of the SM, since $|C_{hgg}/SM|\simeq 1$ according to current Higgs data (Fig. 2 in [@cao-octet]). Besides, we also find that there are strong cancelation between the diagrams (3)+(4) and (5).
In our calculation, we find that the term involving $\lambda^2_I/m^2_I$ are usually much larger than that of $\lambda^2_{\pm}/m^2_{\pm}$ and $\lambda^2_R/m^2_R$ in Eq.(\[eq2\]). The reason can be understood as follows. Firstly, the surviving samples prefer negative $\lambda_I$ and $|\lambda_I|$ is usually much larger compared with $\lambda_\pm$ and $\lambda_R$ (see Figure 1 in [@cao-octet]). Secondly, Eq.(\[mass\]) manifests that, for fixed $m_S$ and negative $\lambda_i (i=\pm, R, I)$, the larger $|\lambda_i|$, the smaller $m_i$. Therefore, the contributions of the third term are dominant in Eq.(\[eq2\]), that is, the contributions from the loops mediated by the scalar $S^A_I$ are much larger than that by the scalar $S^A_\pm$ and $S^A_R$. As a proof, in Fig.\[fig3\] we show the ratio $R$ versus $\lambda_I/m_I$. The figure clearly shows that larger $|\lambda_I/m_I|$ usually predicts larger value of ratio $R$. We checked that, for samples with $R\gtrsim 100$, the CP-odd octet scalars are not very light ($300\lesssim m_I \lesssim 600$ GeV), but the coupling $\lambda_I$ should be very large ($-25 \lesssim \lambda_I \lesssim -8$), which can also be understood from Figure 1 in [@cao-octet]. And these large-$R$ samples can also satisfy the perturbation theory, which suggests $|\lambda_i| \lesssim 8\pi$ ($i=\pm, R, I$)[@perturbation]. Fig.\[fig3\] also shows that for some special samples with $|\lambda_I/m_I|\sim 0$ in the left panel, the cross section in the Manohar-Wise model can also be enhanced up to 10 times prediction in the SM. For these samples, $|\lambda_R/m_R|$ is near 0.02 and the contributions from Eq.(\[eq2\]) can be still large, comparable to that for the samples with $|\lambda_I/m_I|\sim 0.02$. That can be understood from Figure 3 in [@cao-octet].
![Same as Fig.\[fig2\], but showing the normalized ratio $R$ as a function of $S/\sqrt{B}$, which is calculated at an integrated luminosity of 3000 fb$^{-1}$, and also marking out the corresponding luminosity for $S/\sqrt{B}=5$.[]{data-label="fig4"}](fig4.ps){width="15cm"}
Finally, we investigate the potential for discovery of Higgs pair production at the LHC14. In Fig.\[fig4\], we project samples on the plane of significance $S/\sqrt{B}$ versus the normalized ratio $R$. In calculating $S/\sqrt{B}$, we utilize the Monte Carlo (MC) simulation result of $gg\to hh \to b\bar{b}\gamma\gamma$ in the SM [@Yao:2013ika]. We assume that in the Manohar-Wise model the $\sigma\times Br$ and acceptances of the background, the acceptances of the signal are the same as that in the SM, while the $\sigma\times Br$ of the signal are calculated by ourselves, which can be expressed as $$\begin{aligned}
(\sigma\cdot Br)_{MW} &=& \sigma_{SM} \times R \times BR(h\to b\bar{b}) \times Br(h\to \gamma\gamma) \nonumber \\
&\simeq& (\sigma\cdot Br)_{SM} \times R \times (C_{h\gamma\gamma}/SM)^2,\end{aligned}$$ thus $S/\sqrt{B}$ in the Manohar-Wise model should be proportional to $R\times (C_{h\gamma\gamma}/SM)^2$. So combined with Fig.2 and Fig.3 in [@cao-octet], we can understand that there are mainly three linear relation in each planes in Fig. \[fig4\] in this paper. Since $S/\sqrt{B}$ is also proportional to $\sqrt{\emph{L}}$, in this figure we also mark out the lines of $S/\sqrt{B}=5$ for other values of luminosity, samples above which can be discovered with corresponding luminosity. For example, with the integrated luminosity of 100 fb$^{-1}$ at the 14 TeV LHC, when the cross section of Higgs pair production in the Manohar-Wise model is enhanced by 10 times the prediction in the SM, i.e. $R=10$, this process may be detected. Owing to the highly enhanced Higgs pair production rate, many samples in the Manohar-Wise model can be tested very soon after LHC running again.
Summary and Conclusion
======================
Motivated by the principle of minimal flavor violation, the Manohar-Wise model introduces one family of color-octet scalars, which can have large couplings with the Higgs boson. Since the properties of the SM-like Higgs boson around 125 GeV need to be precisely scrutinized, in this work we studied the Higgs pair production considering the effect of the color-octet scalars. Following our previous work [@cao-octet], we first scanned over the parameter space of the Manohar-Wise model considering the theoretical and experimental constraints and performed fits of the model to the latest Higgs data by using the ATLAS and CMS data separately. Then we calculated the Higgs pair production rate and investigated the potential of its discovery at the LHC14.
Base on our calculation and analysis, we get following conclusions:
- Under current constrains including Higgs data after Run I of the LHC, the cross section of Higgs pair production in the Manohar-Wise model can be enhanced up to even $10^3$ times prediction in the SM.
- Moreover, the sizable enhancement comes from the contributions of the CP-odd color-octet scalar $S^A_I$. For lighter scalar $S^A_I$ and larger values of $|\lambda_I|$, the cross section of Higgs pair production can be much larger.
- After running again of LHC at 14 TeV, most of the parameter spaces in the Manohar-Wise model can be test. For an integrated luminosity of 100 fb$^{-1}$ at the LHC14, when the normalized ratio $R=10$, the process of Higgs pair production can be detected.
Acknowledgement {#acknowledgement .unnumbered}
===============
We thank Prof. Junjie Cao for helpful discussions. This work was supported in part by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NNSFC) under grant No. 11247268, 11305050, and by Specialized Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education with grant No. 20124104120001.
[32]{} G. Aad [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**716**]{} (2012) 1 \[arXiv:1207.7214 \[hep-ex\]\].
S. Chatrchyan [*et al.*]{} \[CMS Collaboration\], Phys. Lett. B [**716**]{} (2012) 30 \[arXiv:1207.7235 \[hep-ex\]\].
The ATLAS Collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2013-012; ATLAS-CONF-2013-034.
The CMS Collaboration, CMS-PAS-HIG-13-001; CMS-PAS-HIG-13-005.
J. Cao [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1203**]{}, 086 (2012) \[arXiv:1202.5821 \[hep-ph\]\]; JHEP [**1210**]{} (2012) 079 \[arXiv:1207.3698 \[hep-ph\]\]; Phys. Lett. B [**710**]{}, 665 (2012) \[arXiv:1112.4391 \[hep-ph\]\]; Phys. Lett. B [**703**]{}, 462 (2011) \[arXiv:1103.0631 \[hep-ph\]\]; JHEP [**1206**]{}, 145 (2012) \[arXiv:1203.0694 \[hep-ph\]\]; Z. Heng, Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2012**]{}, 312719 (2012) \[arXiv:1210.3751 \[hep-ph\]\]. M. Carena [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1203**]{}, 014 (2012); A. Arbey, M. Battaglia, F. Mahmoudi, Eur. Phys. J. C [**72**]{} (2012) 1906; S. Heinemeyer, O. Stal, G. Weiglein, Phys. Lett. B [**710**]{} (2012) 201; N. D. Christensen, T. Han, S. Su, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{} (2012) 115018; P. Lodone, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A [**27**]{} (2012) 1230010; V. Barger, M. Ishida and W. -Y. Keung, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} (2013) 015003; K. Hagiwara, J. S. Lee, J. Nakamura, JHEP [**1210**]{} (2012) 002; F. Boudjema and G. D. La Rochelle, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} (2012) 115007; P. Bechtle [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**73**]{} (2013) 2354; J. Ke [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Lett. B [**723**]{} (2013) 113; K. Cheung, C. -T. Lu and T. -C. Yuan, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} (2013) 075001; A. Chakraborty [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1301.2745 \[hep-ph\]; R. S. Hundi, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} (2013) 115005; T. Han, T. Li, S. Su and L. -T. Wang, arXiv:1306.3229 \[hep-ph\]; A. Farzinnia, H. -J. He and J. Ren, arXiv:1308.0295 \[hep-ph\]. L. J. Hall, D. Pinner, J. T. Ruderman, JHEP [**1204**]{} (2012) 131; A. Arvanitaki, G. Villadoro, JHEP [**1202**]{} (2012) 144; J. L. Feng, arXiv:1302.6587 \[hep-ph\]; K. Kowalska and E. M. Sessolo, arXiv:1307.5790 \[hep-ph\]; C. Han [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1304.5724 \[hep-ph\]; JHEP [**1310**]{}, 216 (2013) \[arXiv:1308.5307 \[hep-ph\]\]. U. Ellwanger, JHEP [**1203**]{}, 044 (2012); U. Ellwanger, C. Hugonie, Adv. High Energy Phys. [**2012**]{} (2012) 625389; J. F. Gunion, Y. Jiang, S. Kraml, Phys. Lett. B [**710**]{} (2012) 454; JHEP [**1210**]{} (2012) 072; S. F. King [*et al.*]{}, Nucl. Phys. B [**860**]{} (2012) 207; Nucl. Phys. B [**870**]{} (2013) 323; R. Benbrik [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**72**]{} (2012) 2171; K. Agashe, Y. Cui and R. Franceschini, JHEP [**1302**]{} (2013) 031; K. Kowalska [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} (2013) 115010; L. Aparicio [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1302**]{} (2013) 084; T. Gherghetta [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1302**]{} (2013) 032; N. D. Christensen, T. Han, Z. Liu and S. Su, JHEP [**1308**]{} (2013) 019; M. Badziak [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1306**]{} (2013) 043; T. Cheng [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:1304.3182 \[hep-ph\]; Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{} (2013) 015031; S. Moretti, S. Munir and P. Poulose, arXiv:1305.0166 \[hep-ph\]. H. Baer [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 075010 (2012) \[arXiv:1112.3017 \[hep-ph\]\]; JHEP [**1205**]{} (2012) 091; Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} (2013) 3, 035017; J. L. Feng, K. T. Matchev and D. Sanford, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{} (2012) 075007; O. Buchmueller [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**72**]{} (2012) 2020; S. Akula [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 075001 (2012); M. Kadastik [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1205**]{} (2012) 061; L. Aparicio, D. G. Cerdeno, L. E. Ibanez, JHEP [**1204**]{} (2012) 126; J. Ellis [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**72**]{} (2012) 2005; Eur. Phys. J. C [**73**]{} (2013) 2403; Z. Kang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} (2012) 095020; A. Fowlie [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{} (2012) 075010; S. Akula, P. Nath, G. Peim, Phys. Lett. B [**717**]{} (2012) 188; O. Buchmueller [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. C [**72**]{} (2012) 2243. J. Baglio [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1304**]{}, 151 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.5581 \[hep-ph\]\]; D. Y. Shao, C. S. Li, H. T. Li and J. Wang, arXiv:1301.1245 \[hep-ph\]; M. J. Dolan, C. Englert and M. Spannowsky, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 055002 (2013).
F. Goertz, A. Papaefstathiou, L. L. Yang and J. Zurita, JHEP [**1306**]{}, 016 (2013) \[arXiv:1301.3492 \[hep-ph\]\]; A. Papaefstathiou, L. L. Yang and J. Zurita, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 011301 (2013) \[arXiv:1209.1489 \[hep-ph\]\]; J. Baglio [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1304**]{}, 151 (2013) \[arXiv:1212.5581 \[hep-ph\]\]; M. J. Dolan, C. Englert and M. Spannowsky, JHEP [**1210**]{}, 112 (2012) \[arXiv:1206.5001 \[hep-ph\]\]; N. D. Christensen, T. Han and T. Li, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 074003 (2012) arXiv:1206.5816 \[hep-ph\]; R. Contino [*et al.*]{}, JHEP [**1208**]{}, 154 (2012) arXiv:1205.5444 \[hep-ph\]; U. Baur, T. Plehn and D. L. Rainwater, Phys. Rev. D [**69**]{}, 053004 (2004) \[hep-ph/0310056\]; N. Haba, K. Kaneta, Y. Mimura and E. Tsedenbaljir, arXiv:1311.0067 \[hep-ph\]; X. Li and M. B. Voloshin, arXiv:1311.5156 \[hep-ph\].
V. Barger, L. L. Everett, C. B. Jackson and G. Shaughnessy, arXiv:1311.2931 \[hep-ph\]. J. -J. Liu [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{}, 015001 (2004); L. Wang and X. -F. Han, Phys. Lett. B [**696**]{}, 79 (2011); X. -F. Han, L. Wang and J. M. Yang, Nucl. Phys. B [**825**]{}, 222 (2010); L. Wang [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 017702 (2007); H. Sun [*et al.*]{}, Eur. Phys. J. [**72**]{}, 2011 (2012); arXiv:1211.6201. J. Cao, Z. Heng, L. Shang, P. Wan and J. M. Yang, JHEP [**1304**]{}, 134 (2013); Z. Heng, L. Shang and P. Wan, JHEP [**1310**]{}, 047 (2013); U. Ellwanger, JHEP [**1308**]{}, 077 (2013) \[arXiv:1306.5541 \[hep-ph\]\]; C. Han, X. Ji, L. Wu, P. Wu and J. M. Yang, arXiv:1307.3790 \[hep-ph\]; J. Cao, Y. He, P. Wu, M. Zhang and J. Zhu, arXiv:1311.6661 \[hep-ph\].
G. D. Kribs and A. Martin, Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 095023 (2012) \[arXiv:1207.4496 \[hep-ph\]\]; S. Dawson, E. Furlan and I. Lewis, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{}, 014007 (2013) \[arXiv:1210.6663 \[hep-ph\]\]; T. Enkhbat, arXiv:1311.4445 \[hep-ph\]; I. Dorsner, S. Fajfer, A. Greljo and J. F. Kamenik, JHEP [**1211**]{}, 130 (2012) \[arXiv:1208.1266 \[hep-ph\]\]. A. V. Manohar and M. B. Wise, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{} (2006) 035009 \[hep-ph/0606172\].
J. Cao, P. Wan, J. M. Yang and J. Zhu, JHEP [**1308**]{}, 009 (2013) \[arXiv:1303.2426 \[hep-ph\]\]. R. Bonciani, G. Degrassi and A. Vicini, JHEP [**0711**]{} (2007) 095 \[arXiv:0709.4227 \[hep-ph\]\].
J. Beringer [*et al.*]{} \[Particle Data Group Collaboration\], Phys. Rev. D [**86**]{}, 010001 (2012). H. -L. Lai [*et al.*]{}, Phys. Rev. D [**82**]{}, 074024 (2010) arXiv:1007.2241 \[hep-ph\]. A. Djouadi, W. Kilian, M. Muhlleitner and P. M. Zerwas, Eur. Phys. J. C [**10**]{}, 45 (1999). G. Aad [*et al.*]{} \[ATLAS Collaboration\], Eur. Phys. J. C [**71**]{}, 1828 (2011) \[arXiv:1110.2693 \[hep-ex\]\]; Eur. Phys. J. C [**73**]{}, 2263 (2013) \[arXiv:1210.4826 \[hep-ex\]\]. ATLAS collaboration, ATLAS-CONF-2012-130 (2012); ATL-PHYS-PROC-2013-016.
D. Goncalves-Netto, D. Lopez-Val, K. Mawatari, T. Plehn and I. Wigmore, Phys. Rev. D [**85**]{}, 114024 (2012) \[arXiv:1203.6358 \[hep-ph\]\]. X. -F. Han, L. Wang, J. M. Yang and J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D [**87**]{} (2013) 5, 055004 \[arXiv:1301.0090\]; L. Wang, J. M. Yang and J. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D [**88**]{} (2013) 075018 \[arXiv:1307.7780 \[hep-ph\]\]. S. Kanemura, T. Kasai and Y. Okada, Phys. Lett. B [**471**]{}, 182 (1999) \[hep-ph/9903289\]; E. Accomando, [*et al.*]{}, hep-ph/0608079. W. Yao, arXiv:1308.6302 \[hep-ph\].
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'A living cell senses its environment and responds to external signals. In this work, we study theoretically, the precision at which cells can determine the position of a spatially localized transient extracellular signal. To this end, we focus on the case, where the stimulus is converted into the release of a small molecule that acts as a second messenger, for example, Ca$^{2+}$, and activates kinases that change the activity of enzymes by phosphorylating them. We analyze the spatial distribution of phosphorylation events using stochastic simulations as well as a mean-field approach. Kinases that need to bind to the cell membrane for getting activated provide more accurate estimates than cytosolic kinases.'
author:
- 'Vaibhav H. Wasnik'
- Peter Lipp
- Karsten Kruse
title: 'Accuracy of position determination in Ca$^{2+}$ signaling'
---
Introduction
============
Living cells respond to external stimuli. Often these stimuli consist in binding a ligand to a cell surface receptor [@Alberts2008], but cells also react to mechanical forces that are applied to them [@Janmey:2007el], to changes in ambient light or temperature. In this way, cells can migrate towards favourable and away from unfavourable environmental conditions [@Swaney:2010by], sense the density of cells of their own kind [@Ng:2009fm], initiate or inhibit cell division, or trigger developmental programs [@Engler:2006ga]. The ability to sense external stimuli is thus of paramount importance for the success of a single- or multi-celled species to survive: The better a cell can read out signals, the better it will do.
This has led to investigations of the physical limits of cellular signalling. Berg and Purcell determined the conditions under which an organism can optimally determine the concentration of a molecule in its environment in case the cell uses independent receptors [@BERG:1977uj]. In the bacterium *Escherichia coli* some kind of chemoreceptor clusters at one cell end [@Maddock:1993tu], and physical studies revealed how this clustering can enhance sensitivity to external signals [@Bray:1998vj; @Duke:1999td; @Mello:2003cz; @Mello:2004ed; @Mello:2005fm; @Endres:2006ix]. Subsequently, these investigations have been generalized to account also for the energetics of ligand-receptor binding [@Bialek:2005kf; @Bialek:2008hb]. Whereas *E. coli* is too small to directly sense spatial gradients in the concentration of chemoattractants and thus relies to this end on detecting temporal concentration changes while moving, eukaryotic cells like neutrophils and leukocytes of the human immune system, the budding yeast *Saccharomyces cerevisiae*, or the slime mold *Dictyostelium discoideum* can directly sense spatial gradients [@VanHaastert:2004bs]. Physical constraints on the accuracy of sensing spatial gradients by single cells have been established [@Endres:2008eb; @Rappel:2008jv; @Rappel:2008bh]. In this context, spatial aspects of the intracellular signalling network have been considered [@Xiong:2010fb].
In addition to sensing spatial gradients, eukaryotic cells can also respond to spatially localized signals. For example, neurons reinforce or weaken synapses in response to transient stimuli [@Deisseroth:1996ht; @Wheeler:2008ja]. Another example is provided by cells from the immune system, which polarize upon making contact with an antigen presenting cell [@Kapsenberg:2003it].
In this work, we address the question of how the spatial resolution at which a cell can detect a stimulus depends on the intracellular mechanism of reading it out. Stimuli of any kind are typically transformed into a cell response by activating or inactivating proteins through adding or removing phosphate groups (phosphorylation and dephosphorylation) to and from certain amino acids. Proteins leading to phosphorylation are called kinases, whereas phosphatases carry out dephosphorylation. Eventually, changing the phosphorylation of proteins can lead to changes of the cytoskeletal organization on short time scales and to modifications of the cellular gene expression profile on long time scales to give but two examples. Commonly, external stimuli do not directly (de-)phosphorylate proteins, but first elicit the release of a second messenger, for example, cyclic Adenosine monophosphate (cAMP), inositol triphosphate (IP$_3$), diacylglycerol (DAG), or Ca$^{2+}$. In this way, the same machinery can be used to respond to a variety of different stimuli. At the same time it raises the question of how to obtain a specific response to a given signal.
The second messenger Ca$^{2+}$ is read out by different proteins. Notably, a number of kinases are activated by Calmodulin, a peptide diffusing in the cytoplasm that changes conformation after binding to a Ca$^{2+}$ ion. In contrast, the ubiquitously expressed conventional Protein Kinase C$\alpha$ (PKC$\alpha$) directly binds Ca$^{2+}$. For activation it requires also binding to DAG in the plasma membrane of a cell. Strikingly, the detachment rate of Ca$^{2+}$ from PKC$\alpha$ has been measured to be of the order of 50ms, whereas the phosphorylation of a target protein by PKC$\alpha$ takes about 500ms [@Nalefski:2001wy]. This suggests that PKC$\alpha$ is an inefficient kinase and raises the question of the evolutionary benefit of a high Ca$^{2+}$ detachment rate.
In this work, we develop a framework for studying the spatial distribution of phosphorylation events inside a cell. We start by studying a toy model that allows us to introduce some notation and to present the tools we will use for analyzing the stochastic processes corresponding to phosphorylation by a cytosolic and by a membrane- kinase. We will then study the spatial distribution of phosphorylation events in response to a single Ca$^{2+}$ for a cytosolic and a membrane- kinase, where we find that yields a more accurate read-out than . We will then discuss responses to Ca$^{2+}$ puffs and investigate the influence of background phosphorylation on the precision of estimating the site of Ca$^{2+}$ entry. A short account of some of the results presented in this work has been given in Ref. \[Letter\].
A toy model
===========
In order to introduce some quantities as well as some methods that we will use later to analyze the localization of Ca$^{2+}$ influx into the system, we will study a toy model in this section. It can be interpreted as describing kinase-dependent phosphorylation following the entry of a single Ca$^{2+}$ ion, see Fig. \[fig:toyModel\]a. The kinase is activated by immediately binding the Ca$^{2+}$ ion at the latter’s entry site. After inactivation of the kinase following Ca$^{2+}$ detachment, the Ca$^{2+}$ ion is immediately lost.
 Toy model for position determination of a Ca$^{2+}$ entry site. a) Illustration of the system. The Ca$^{2+}$ ion enters through the membrane at $x=0$ and immediately activates a kinase, which phosphorylates target proteins at rate $\nu_p$. The Ca$^{2+}$ ion is lost immediately after detaching from the kinase at rate $\nu_l$. b) Distribution $P$ of estimated Ca$^{2+}$ entry sites $\hat{x}$ obtained from $10^6$ stochastic simulations for $\nu_p=1$. c) Estimation error $\ell^2$ as a function of the phosphorylation rate $\nu_p$. Circles are from stochastic simulations. The yellow full line represents the error for $\nu_p\ll1$, Eq. (\[eq:errorToyModelNupSmall\]), the red dashed line the error for $\nu_p\to \infty$, Eq. (\[eq:errorToyModelNupLarge\]). d) Distribution $P$ of estimated Ca$^{2+}$ entry sites $\hat{x}$ obtained from $10^7$ stochastic simulations for $\nu_p=0.01$. In (b, d), the red line presents a Gaussian fit to the data, whereas the yellow line is the normalized distribution $P$ for $\nu_p\ll1$ given in Eq. (\[eq:distributionToyModelNupSmall\]). ](WasniketalFig1.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
The Master equation
-------------------
Consider activation of the kinase at $x=0$. We will restrict attention to the dynamics along the $x$-direction and assume that the system has no boundaries in that direction. The activated kinase phosphorylates at a constant rate $\nu_p$, while diffusing with a diffusion constant $D$. The kinase is inactivated at rate $\nu_l$. Let $n$ denote the spatial distribution of phosphorylation events. The state of the system is given by the probability $\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]$ for having an active kinase at $x$ at time $t$ and a distribution of phosphorylation events $n(\xi)$. Similarly, $\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);t\right]$ is the corresponding distribution when the kinase is inactive. In this case its position is irrelevant. The Master equation governing the time evolution of these distributions is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:masterEquationToyModelInactive}
\partial_t\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);t\right] &= \nu_l\int \mathrm{d}x\;\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]\\
\label{eq:masterEquationToyModelActive}
\partial_t\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,t\right] &= D\partial_x^2\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]-\nu_l\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad +\nu_p\left\{\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi)-\delta(\xi-x);x,t\right]-\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\delta$ denotes the Dirac distribution. The initial condition at $t=0$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi)=0;x,t=0\right] &=\delta(x)\end{aligned}$$ and all other probabilities equal to zero.
For the analysis of the Master equation, we will scale time by $\nu_l$ and space by $\sqrt{D/\nu_l}$. The only remaining dimensionless parameter is then $\nu_p/\nu_l$. We will keep the notation $\nu_p$ for the dimensionless phosphorylation rate.
Number of phosphorylation events
--------------------------------
It is instructive to first neglect the spatial aspects of the phosphorylation dynamics and to determine the distribution of the number of phosphorylation events. Consider the probability distribution $P_a(n,t)$ that $n$ phosphorylation events have taken place at time $t$ and with the kinase being active. The corresponding distribution when the kinase is inactive is $P_i(n,t)$. The Master equation for $P_a$ and $P_i$ reads $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Pp0dot}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}P_i(n) &= P_a(n)\\
\label{eq:Ppndot}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}P_a(0) &= - P_a(0) - \nu_pP_a(0)\\
\label{eq:Pp1dot}
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}t}P_a(n) &= - P_a(n) + \nu_p\left(P_a(n-1)-P_a(n)\right),\end{aligned}$$ where $n\ge0$ in Eq. (\[eq:Pp0dot\]) and $n\ge1$ in Eq. (\[eq:Pp1dot\]). The initial condition is $P_a(0,t=0)=1$, $P_a(n,t=0)=0$ for all $n>0$, and $P_i(n,t=0)=0$ for all $n\ge0$. The solution to these equations is $$\begin{aligned}
P_i(n,t) &= (1-r)r^n-(1-r)\left[\sum_{k=0}^n \frac{\left(\nu_pt\right)^k}{k!}r^{n-k}\right]\mathrm{e}^{-\left(1+\nu_p\right)t}\\
P_a(n,t)&=\frac{\left(\nu_pt\right)^n}{n!}\mathrm{e}^{-\left(1+\nu_p\right)t}\\
\intertext{with}
r &= \frac{\nu_p}{1+\nu_p}\end{aligned}$$ for all $n\ge0$. For $t\to\infty$ we have $$\begin{aligned}
P_i(n) &= (1-r)r^n\\
P_a(n) &= 0,\end{aligned}$$ which yields the average number $\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p}\equiv}\langle n\rangle=\sum_{n=0}^\infty n\left(P_i(n,t)+P_a(n,t)\right)$ of phosphorylation events, namely $\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p}}=\nu_p$. The variance around this value is $\textcolor{black}{\mathrm{var}(n)\equiv}\langle n^2\rangle-\langle n\rangle^2=\nu_p\left(1+\nu_p\right)=(1+\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p}})\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p}}$.
Estimated position of Ca$^{2+}$ release and estimation error
------------------------------------------------------------
For a given distribution of phosphorylation events $n(\xi)$, we estimate the position of Ca$^{2+}$ release by computing the distribution average: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:estimatedAverage}
\hat{\xi}_{n(\xi)} &= \int\mathrm{d}\xi\;\xi n(\xi)/\int\mathrm{d}\xi\;n(\xi),\end{aligned}$$ which obviously only exists, if $\int\mathrm{d}\xi\;n(\xi)\neq0$. If $n(\xi)= 0$ for all $\xi$, the position cannot be estimated. In this way, we obtain a distribution $P$ of estimated positions. Explicitly, this distribution is given by $$\begin{aligned}
P(\hat{\xi},t) &= \int\mathcal{D}n(\xi)\;\delta(\hat{\xi}_{n(\xi)}-\hat{\xi})\mathcal{P}[n(\xi);t],\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{\xi}_{n(\xi)}$ is the average of the distribution $n(\xi)$ according to Eq. (\[eq:estimatedAverage\]) and $\mathcal{P}[n(\xi);t]\equiv\mathcal{P}_i[n(\xi);t] + \int\mathrm{d}x\;\mathcal{P}_a[n(\xi);x,t]$ is the probability functional of phosphorylation distributions. We will use the variance $\ell^2$ of the distribution $P$ as a measure of the error in localizing the site of Ca$^{2+}$ release. Given that the mean of the estimated positions is zero, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:estimationError}
\ell^2 &= \int\mathrm{d}\hat{\xi}\;\hat{\xi}^2P(\hat{\xi},t).\end{aligned}$$ Combining Eqs. (\[eq:estimatedAverage\])-(\[eq:estimationError\]), we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:estimationError2}
\ell^2 &= \int\mathcal{D}n(\xi)\;\left(\frac{\int \mathrm{d}\xi\;\xi n(\xi)}{\int \mathrm{d}\xi\;n(\xi)}\right)^2 \mathcal{P}[n(\xi);t].\end{aligned}$$
Solution of the Master equation {#sec:numericalSolution}
-------------------------------
In general, it is not possible to solve the Master equation (\[eq:masterEquationToyModelInactive\]) and (\[eq:masterEquationToyModelActive\]) and to determine the estimation error analytically. Let us thus start our analysis by a stochastic simulation. To this end, we use a variant of the Gillespie algorithm: we define the total rate of possible events as $\nu_\mathrm{tot}\equiv1+\nu_p$ and draw the time $\Delta t$ until occurrence of the next event from the distribution $\nu_\mathrm{tot}\exp\left(-\nu_\mathrm{tot}t\right)$. Then, the kind of event is determined by drawing a number from a uniform distribution on the interval $[0,1+\nu_p]$. If the number is smaller than $1$, then the kinase is inactivated and the simulation stops. In the opposite case, the position of the kinase is changed by drawing a random number from a Gaussian distribution with zero mean and variance $2\Delta t$ and adding this value to the current position of the kinase. This position is then recorded as the site of phosphorylation and the simulation continues with drawing the time to the next event. From the distribution of positions of phosphorylation events obtained in this way, we calculate the mean position, which we take to be the estimated position at which the Ca$^{2+}$ ion entered the system. If there was no phosphorylation event, then the position of Ca$^{2+}$ entry is not estimated.
In Figure \[fig:toyModel\]b, we show the distribution of estimated Ca$^{2+}$ entry sites for $\nu_p=1$ obtained form $10^6$ simulation runs. The dependence of the error $\ell^2$ on the phosphorylation rate $\nu_p$ is given in Fig. \[fig:toyModel\]c, where for each value at least $10^6$ simulation runs have been performed. The error is about 2 for $\nu_p\to 0$ and decreases with increasing phosphorylation rate. This is expected as for increasing values of $\nu_p$ an increasing number of phosphorylations and thus position measurements occur on average for a Ca$^{2+}$ ion. In the limit $\nu_p\to\infty$, the error is $\ell^2\approx\frac{2}{3}$.
We can make some analytical progress by considering the limiting cases of very small and large phosphorylation rates.
### The limit $\nu_p\ll1$
For very small phosphorylation rates $\nu_p\ll1$, the probability of having a trajectory with two or more phosphorylation events is negligible. In that case, the Master equation (\[eq:masterEquationToyModelInactive\]) and (\[eq:masterEquationToyModelActive\]) reduces to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:pa0NupEq0}
\partial_t P_a^0 &= \partial_x^2 P_a^0 -\left(1+\nu_p\right)P_a^0\\
\label{eq:pa1NupEq0}
\partial_t P_a^1 &= \partial_x^2 P_a^1 + \nu_p\delta(x-\xi) P_a^0 - P_a^1\\
\partial_t P_i^1 &= \int\mathrm{d}x\;P_a^1 \equiv \bar{P}_a^1,\end{aligned}$$ where $P_a^0(x,t)$ is the probability of having, at time $t$, an active kinase at $x$ without any phosphorylation, whereas $P_a^1(\xi;x,t)$ is the probability of the active kinase being at $x$ and where a phosphorylation event had occurred at position $\xi$. Similarly, $P_i^1(\xi;t)$ denotes the corresponding probability after inactivation of the kinase. We do not show the dynamic equation for the probability of having lost the kinase before it phosphorylated, because it is irrelevant for estimating the position of the Ca$^{2+}$ release site. In the last equation, we have introduced the marginal distribution of the phosphorylation position after integrating out the position of the kinase, $\bar{P}_a^1(\xi,t)=\int\mathrm{d}x\;P_a^1(\xi;x,t)$. Integrating Eq. (\[eq:pa1NupEq0\]) with respect to the kinase position $x$, we obtain its dynamic equation $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t \bar{P}_a^1(\xi,t) &= \nu_p P_a^0(\xi,t) - \bar{P}_a^1(\xi,t).\end{aligned}$$
The solution to Eq. (\[eq:pa0NupEq0\]) is $$\begin{aligned}
P_a^0\left(x,t\right) &=\frac{1}{\sqrt{4\pi t}}\exp\left\{-\left(1+\nu_p\right)t-\frac{x^2}{4t}\right\}\end{aligned}$$ The distribution of the phosphorylation position $P(\xi)\equiv\bar{P}_a^1(\xi)+P_i^1(\xi)$ is obtained from the expression for $P_a^0$ through $P(\xi,t)=\nu_p\int_0^t\mathrm{d}t^\prime P_a^0\left(\xi,t^\prime\right)$. In the limit $t\to\infty$, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:distributionToyModelNupSmall}
P(\xi) &= \frac{\nu_p}{2\sqrt{1+\nu_p}}\exp\left\{-\sqrt{1+\nu_p}\left|\xi\right|\right\},\\
\intertext{such that}
\label{eq:errorToyModelNupSmall}
\ell^2&=\frac{2}{1+\nu_p}.\end{aligned}$$ For small enough values of $\nu_p$, the distribution Eq. (\[eq:distributionToyModelNupSmall\]) agrees well with the distribution of estimated entry sites obtained from stochastic simulations, see Fig. \[fig:toyModel\]d. The expression of the error as given by Eq. (\[eq:errorToyModelNupSmall\]) gives a good approximation for $\nu_p\lesssim0.1$.
### Continuous phosphorylation
We now consider the limit of a very large phosphorylation rate, such that phosphorylation occurs at any point of the kinase’s trajectory. In that case, the estimated position of release $\hat{x}$ of a single Ca$^{2+}$ as defined in Eq. (\[eq:estimatedAverage\]) is obtained by the average position of the kinase along its trajectory $x(t)$, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{x}_T &=\frac{1}{T}\int_0^T\mathrm{d}t\; x(t),\end{aligned}$$ where $T$ is the time span between entry of the Ca$^{2+}$ and loss of the kinase. The error is then given by the variance $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:errorContinuousPhosphorylation}
\ell^2 &= \int_0^\infty\mathrm{d}T\;\left\langle \hat{x}_T^2\right\rangle \mathrm{e}^{-T},\end{aligned}$$ where the exponential factor accounts for the probability of finding a trajectory of duration $T$.
To calculate the the expectation value $\left\langle \hat{x}_T^2\right\rangle$, we note that the trajectories $x(t)$ are solutions to a Langevin equation $$\begin{aligned}
\dot x(t)&=\zeta(t)\end{aligned}$$ for $0\le t\le T$, where $\zeta$ is a fluctuating “force” that obeys a Gaussian distribution at each time $t$ with zero mean, $\left\langle \zeta(t)\right\rangle=0$, and $\left\langle \zeta(t)\zeta(t^\prime)\right\rangle=2\delta(t-t^\prime)$. The solution to this equation is $x(t)=\int_0^t\mathrm{d}t^\prime\;\zeta\left(t^\prime\right)$, such that $$\begin{aligned}
\left\langle \hat{x}_T^2\right\rangle &= \frac{1}{T^2}\int_0^T\mathrm{d}t\int_0^T\mathrm{d}\bar{t}\left\langle x(t)x(\bar{t})\right\rangle\\
&=\frac{1}{T^2}\int_0^T\mathrm{d}t\int_0^T\mathrm{d}\bar{t}\int_0^t \mathrm{d}t^\prime\int_0^{\bar{t}} \mathrm{d}t^{\prime\prime}\left\langle \zeta(t^\prime)\zeta(t^{\prime\prime})\right\rangle\\
&=\frac{1}{T^2}\int_0^T\mathrm{d}t\int_0^T\mathrm{d}\bar{t}\;2\left|t-\bar{t}\right|\\
&=\frac{2}{3}T.\end{aligned}$$ From this we obtain using Eq. (\[eq:errorContinuousPhosphorylation\]) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:errorToyModelNupLarge}
\ell^2 &= \frac{2}{3},\end{aligned}$$ which is in good agreement with the numerical results presented in Fig. \[fig:toyModel\]c.
The mean-field limit {#sec:meanfieldToyModel}
--------------------
A natural approximation is to use a mean-field *ansatz* and to pose that the rate of phosphorylation at position $x$ is proportional to the probability of finding the kinase at this position. Let $p_a$ denote the probability of finding an active kinase at $x$, $p_a(x,t)=\int\mathcal{D}n(\xi)\;\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]$, where the functional integral extends over all possible phosphorylation distributions $n(\xi)$ with $n(\xi)\ge0$ for all $\xi$. Furthermore, let $p_i$ denote the probability of having no kinase, $p_i(t)=\int\mathcal{D}n(\xi)\;\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);t\right]$. The time-evolution of $p_a$ obeys $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t p_a&= \partial_x^2 p_a - p_a.\end{aligned}$$ Once $p_a$ is known, then $p_i = 1-\int\mathrm{d}x\; p_a(x)$. Furthermore, the probability of having $n$ phosphorylation events at position $x$ at time $t$, $P(n,x,t)$, is determined by $$\begin{aligned}
\dot{P}(0,x,t) &=-\nu_p p_a(x,t) P(0,x,t)\\
\dot{P}(n,x,t) &= \nu_p p_a(x,t) \left(P(n-1,x,t)-P(n,x,t)\right)\end{aligned}$$ for $n\ge1$. The normalization conditions read $\sum_{n=0}^\infty P(n,x,t)=1$ for all $x$ and all $t$ and $\int_{-\infty}^\infty \mathrm{d}x\;p_a(x,t)+p_i(t)=1$ for all $t$. The initial condition is $P(0,x,t=0)=1$ for all $x$ and $p_a(x,t=0)=\delta(x)$.
The solution to these equations is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:probabilityMF}
P(n,x,t) &= \frac{\nu_p^n}{n!}\bar p_a(x,t)^n\exp\left\{-\nu_p\bar p_a(x,t)\right\}\\
\intertext{with}
\bar p_a(x,t) &=\int_0^t\mathrm{d}t^\prime p_a(x,t^\prime)\\
\intertext{and}
p_a(x,t) &=\sqrt{\frac{\pi}{2t}}\exp\left\{ -t- \frac{x^2}{4t}\right\}.\end{aligned}$$ We are interested in the distribution as $t\to\infty$. In that case, $$\begin{aligned}
\bar p_a(x) &= \frac{1}{2}\exp\{-|x|\},\end{aligned}$$ where the bar indicates the distribution for $t\to\infty$.
In the spirit of the mean-field *ansatz*, we replace the expression for the estimation error, see Eq. (\[eq:estimationError2\]), by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:errorMF}
\ell^2 &=\frac{\int\mathrm{d}x\;x^2\hat{n}(x)}{\int\mathrm{d}x\;\hat{n}(x)}.\end{aligned}$$ Here, $\hat{n}$ is the mean number of phosphorylation events at $x$. As we will see below in Sect. \[sec:puffMF\], the expression for the estimation error as defined in Eq. (\[eq:estimationError2\]) differs from the above expression if the probability distribution is given by Eq. (\[eq:probabilityMF\]). However, the two expressions for the error are the same in the limit of a small number of phosphorylation events, $\langle n\rangle\ll1$.
From the above solution for $P(n,x,t)$ in the limit $t\to\infty$, we get for the mean number of phosphorylation events at $x$ $\hat{n}(x)=\nu_p\bar p_a(x)$ and thus $$\begin{aligned}
\ell^2&=1.\end{aligned}$$ In the rescaled units, this is just the diffusion length of the activated kinase, $\sqrt{D/\nu_l}$ in the original units. Note, that it holds for arbitrary values of $\nu_p>0$, which is different from the results of the stochastic simulations. In spite of this obvious failure of the mean-field approximation to determine the dependence of the error on $\nu_p$, it does give, however, the correct order of magnitude of the error, which varies between 2/3 and $2$, see Fig. \[fig:toyModel\]d.
Phosphorylation dynamics in response to a single Ca$^{2+}$ ion
==============================================================
We will now study the phosphorylation dynamics and the ensuing spatial distributions of phosphorylation events in two scenarios that reflect essential properties of Ca$^{2+}$ activated kinases in response to a single Ca$^{2+}$ ion entering the system, see Fig. \[fig:illustration\]. A single Ca$^{2+}$ ion entering a real cell is unlikely to elicit a response. However, when treating the case of a Ca$^{2+}$ puff below, we will assume that all Ca$^{2+}$ ions are independent of each other. Therefore, studying the response to a single Ca$^{2+}$ ion is appropriate. As we will see in Sect. \[sec:puffs\], however, the passage from one Ca$^{2+}$ ion to a Ca$^{2+}$ puff is not trivial, because not all Ca$^{2+}$ ions lead to a phosphorylation event.
The Ca$^{2+}$ ion enters the system at $x=z=0$ at $t=0$, where the $z$-direction is the direction perpendicular to the membrane, which is located at $z=0$. In the first scenario, the Ca$^{2+}$ ion diffuses in the cytoplasm until it either binds to and thereby activates a kinase or gets lost from the system. The Ca$^{2+}$ ion can detach and reattach to the kinase and can only be lost from the system, when not being attached to the kinase. In the second scenario, after attaching a Ca$^{2+}$ ion, the kinase still needs to bind to the membrane to be activated.
 Schematic of the two scenarios of Ca$^{2+}$ dependent phosphorylation. a) Cytosolic kinase: A cytosolic kinase is activated directly by Ca$^{2+}$. The Ca$^{2+}$ attaches at rate $\nu_a$ and detaches at rate $\nu_d$. The activated kinase phosphorylates target proteins at rate $\nu_p$ and Ca$^{2+}$ is lost at rate $\nu_l$. b) Membrane-binding kinase: In this case, after attaching Ca$^{2+}$, the kinase still needs to bind to the membrane before it is active. Binding and unbinding occur at rates $\nu_b$ and $\nu_u$.](WasniketalFig2.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
As in the toy model, we will consider the average position of phosphorylation events in response to a Ca$^{2+}$ ion as an estimate of the Ca$^{2+}$ entry site. This is adequate if the rate of dephosphorylation is much smaller than the rate at which the Ca$^{2+}$ ion is eventually lost form the system. It also requires that the phosphorylated target proteins remain immobile if the estimate obtained in this way should give a good proxy for the localization of the cell response. The dynamics of the target proteins, however, depends on the protein at hand and can meaningfully be studied only with a specific cell response in mind. In contrast, the results we obtain are independent of the specific response and provide a general lower bound for the estimation error.
The Master equations {#sec:masterEquations}
--------------------
In this section, we present the Master equations for the two different scenarios of phosphorylation dynamics. We will consider only the situation in which kinases are abundant and uniformly distributed, such that the attachment rate of Ca$^{2+}$ to a kinase is constant.
### Cytosolic kinase
Consider a kinase that is active immediately after attaching a Ca$^{2+}$ ion. In fact, there are no cytosolic kinases known that are directly activated by Ca$^{2+}$ binding. Instead, Ca$^{2+}$ typically binds to Calmodulin (CaM), which then binds to and thereby activates a Calmodulin-dependent kinase [^1]. In our analysis, we neglect the second step. If anything, direct activation by Ca$^{2+}$ will only increase the accuracy of position determination.
For a cytosolic kinase that is directly activated by binding a Ca$^{2+}$ ion, the system state is determined by the spatial distribution of phosphorylation events $n(\xi)$ and, if the Ca$^{2+}$ has not been lost from the system, by its position $x$, where we have to distinguish between the possibility that the Ca$^{2+}$ ion is either free or attached to a kinase. Let $\mathcal{P}_i$ be the corresponding probability distribution, when Ca$^{2+}$ is present, but not attached to the kinase, $\mathcal{P}_a$ the probability distribution in the case that Ca$^{2+}$ is attached to a kinase, and $\mathcal{P}_0$ the probability distribution, when the Ca$^{2+}$ ion is lost from the system. Then the Master equation is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:masterEquationDiffusiveKinaseInactive}
\partial_t\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);x,t\right] &= D_C\partial_x^2\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]+\nu_d\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad- (\nu_a+\nu_l)\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]\\
\label{eq:masterEquationDiffusiveKinaseActive}
\partial_t\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,t\right] &= D_K\partial_x^2\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]-\nu_d\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,t\right] +
\nu_a\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad +\nu_p\left\{\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi)-\delta(\xi-x);x,t\right]-\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]\right\} \\
\label{eq:masterEquationDiffusiveKinaseCaLost}
\partial_t\mathcal{P}_0\left[n(\xi);t\right] &= \nu_l\int \mathrm{d}x\;\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);x,t\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $D_C$ and $D_K$ are, respectively, the diffusion constants of Ca$^{2+}$ and the kinase, $\nu_a$ and $\nu_d$ are the respective rates of Ca$^{2+}$ attachment to and detachment from the kinase, $\nu_l$ is the rate at which Ca$^{2+}$ is lost from the system, and $\nu_p$ again the rate at which an active kinase phosphorylates. Note, that the dynamics in the $z$-direction is irrelevant for this scenario. The initial condition is $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi)\equiv0;x,t=0\right] &= \delta(x)\end{aligned}$$ and all other probabilities zero reflecting that the Ca$^{2+}$ enters the system at $x=0$. The probability distributions obey the normalization condition $\int\mathcal{D}n(\xi)\left\{\mathcal{P}_0+\int\mathrm{d}x\;\left[\mathcal{P}_i+\mathcal{P}_a\right]\right\}=1$ for all times $t$. In contrast to the toy model, we will scale time by $\nu_p$ and length by $\sqrt{D_C/\nu_p}$. We keep the same notation for the dimensionless parameters.
### Membrane-binding kinase
The dynamics in the case of a kinase that needs to attach to a membrane for activation follows the same reasoning. The membrane is assumed to be localized at $z=0$ and to extend infinitely into the $x$-direction. Calcium enters at $x=z=0$ into the domain $z\ge0$. In addition to the distributions $\mathcal{P}_i$, when Ca$^{2+}$ is present, but not attached to the kinase, $\mathcal{P}_a$, when the kinase has Ca$^{2+}$ attached to it, but is not bound to the membrane and thus inactive, and $\mathcal{P}_0$, when Ca$^{2+}$ is lost from the system, there is the distribution $\mathcal{P}_b$, when the kinase is active, that is, it has Ca$^{2+}$ attached to it and is bound to the membrane. They obey the following Master equation: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:masterEquationMembraneKinaseInactive}
\partial_t\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);x,z,t\right] &= D_C\left(\partial_x^2+\partial_z^2\right)\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);x,z,t\right]\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad+\nu_d\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,z,t\right]- (\nu_a+\nu_l)\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);x,z,t\right]\\
\label{eq:masterEquationMembraneKinaseCytosolic}
\partial_t\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,z,t\right] &= D_K\left(\partial_x^2+\partial_z^2\right)\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,z,t\right]\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad -\nu_d\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,z,t\right] +\nu_a\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);x,z,t\right]\\
\label{eq:masterEquationMembraneKinaseActive}
\partial_t\mathcal{P}_b\left[n(\xi);x,t\right] &= \nu_b\mathcal{P}_a\left[n(\xi);x,z=0,t\right]-\nu_u\mathcal{P}_b\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]\nonumber\\
&\quad\quad +\nu_p\left\{\mathcal{P}_b\left[n(\xi)-\delta(\xi-x);x,t\right]-\mathcal{P}_b\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]\right\} \\
\label{eq:masterEquationMembraneKinaseCaLost}
\partial_t\mathcal{P}_0\left[n(\xi);t\right] &= \nu_l\int \mathrm{d}x\int_0^\infty \mathrm{d}z\;\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);x,z,t\right],\end{aligned}$$ where $\nu_b$ and $\nu_u$ are the respective rates of kinase binding to and unbinding from the membrane. The bulk equations are complemented by no-flux boundary conditions for the Ca$^{2+}$, that is, $$\begin{aligned}
\left.\partial_z\mathcal{P}_i\right|_{z=0}&=0.\end{aligned}$$ The boundary condition for the kinase accounts for its binding to and unbinding from the membrane $$\begin{aligned}
-\left.D_K\partial_z\mathcal{P}_a\right|_{z=0}&=-\nu_b\left.\mathcal{P}_a\right|_{z=0}+\nu_u\mathcal{P}_b.\end{aligned}$$ Again, we scale time by $\nu_p^{-1}$ and length by $\sqrt{D_C/\nu_p}$ and keep the notation for the now dimensionless parameters.
Number of phosphorylation events
--------------------------------
Let us first neglect the spatial degrees of freedom and consider only the distribution of the number of phosphorylation events.
### Cytosolic kinase
In the case, we neglect the spatial degrees of freedom, the Master equation (\[eq:masterEquationDiffusiveKinaseInactive\])-(\[eq:masterEquationDiffusiveKinaseCaLost\]) can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:CndotCaM}
\dot{C}_n &= -\left(\nu_a+\nu_l\right)C_n + \nu_d K_n\\
\dot{K}_0 &= \nu_a C_0-\nu_d K_0-K_0\\
\label{eq:KndotCaM}
\dot{K}_n &= \nu_a C_n-\nu_d K_n-K_n+ K_{n-1}\\
\label{eq:PndotCaM}
\dot{P}_n &= \nu_l C_n,\end{aligned}$$ where Eqs. (\[eq:CndotCaM\]) and (\[eq:PndotCaM\]) hold for all $n\ge0$, whereas Eq. (\[eq:KndotCaM\]) is valid for $n>0$. Here, $C_n$, $K_n$, and $P_n$ denote the respective probabilities of having $n$ phosphorylation events, when the Ca$^{2+}$ ion is free, attached to the kinase, or lost from the system.
In the limit $t\to\infty$, we have $C_n=K_n=0$ for all $n\ge0$. The distribution of phosphorylation events is thus entirely determined by $P_n^\infty\equiv\lim_{t\to\infty}P_n(t)$. From Eq. (\[eq:PndotCaM\]) we have $P_n^\infty=\nu_l\int_0^\infty\mathrm{d}t\;C_n\equiv \nu_l\bar{C}_n$. Integrating the dynamic equations (\[eq:CndotCaM\])-(\[eq:KndotCaM\]) with respect to time from $t=0$ to $\infty$ and using the initial condition $C_0(t=0)=1$ and $C_{n+1}(t=0)=K_n(t=0)=0$ for all $n\ge0$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\left(\nu_a+\nu_l\right)\bar{C}_0-\nu_d \bar{K}_0 &= 1\\
\left(\nu_a+\nu_l\right)\bar{C}_n-\nu_d \bar{K}_n &= 0\\
\nu_a\bar{C}_0-\nu_d\bar{K}_0-\bar{K}_0 &= 0\\
\nu_a\bar{C}_n-\nu_d \bar{K}_n-\bar{K}_n +\bar{K}_{n-1} &=0\end{aligned}$$ for all $n>0$. The bars indicate that the corresponding quantities have been integrated from $t=0$ to $\infty$. Solving these equations, we obtain for the distribution of the number of phosphorylation events $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:distributionPhosphorylationCaM0}
P_0^\infty &= 1-\frac{\nu_a}{\nu_a+\nu_l+\nu_d\nu_l}\\
\label{eq:distributionPhosphorylationCaMn}
P_n^\infty &= \nu_a\nu_d\nu_l\frac{\left(\nu_a+\nu_l\right)^{n-1}}{\left(\nu_a+\nu_l+\nu_d\nu_l\right)^{n+1}}.\end{aligned}$$ We present an example for the distribution of the number of phosphorylation events in Fig. \[fig:phosphorylation\]a.
 Number of phosphorylation events. a) The distribution $P^\infty_n$ for a cytosolic kinase with $\nu_a=\nu_d=1$ and $\nu_l=0.1$ from stochastic simulations (blue bars) and according to Eqs. (\[eq:distributionPhosphorylationCaM0\]) and (\[eq:distributionPhosphorylationCaMn\]) (red stars). Inset: semilogarithmic plot of the same data. b,c) Mean number $\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p,CaM}}$ (b) and variance $\textcolor{black}{\mathrm{var}_\mathrm{p,CaM}}$ (c) of phosphorylation events for a cytosolic kinase from $10^5$ simulations for each parameter set and according to Eqs. (\[eq:meanPhosphorylationCaM\]) and (\[eq:varPhosphorylationCaM\]) as a function of $\nu_d$ for $\nu_a=1$ and $\nu_l=0.01$ ($\ast$, yellow), $0.1$ ($\triangle$, black), $1$ ($\diamond$, green), $10$ ($\square$, red), and $100$ ($\circ$, blue). d) The distribution $P^\infty_n$ for a membrane-binding kinase with $\nu_a=10$, $\nu_d=1$, $\nu_b=10$, $\nu_u=0.1$, $\nu_l=1$, and $D_K=1$ from stochastic simulations (blue bars) and according to Eqs. (\[eq:distributionPhosphorylationPKC0\]) and (\[eq:distributionPhosphorylationPKCn\]) (red stars). Inset: semilogarithmic plot of the same data. e,f) Mean number $\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p,PKC}}$ and variance $\textcolor{black}{\mathrm{var}_\mathrm{p,PKC}}$ of phosphorylation events as a function of $\nu_d$ for $\nu_a=10$, $\nu_b=\nu_u=1$, $D_K=0.01$, and $\nu_l=0.1$ ($\triangle$, black), $1$ ($\diamond$, green), $10$ ($\square$, red), and $100$ ($\circ$, blue). Lines are according to Eq. (\[eq:meanPhosphorylationPKC\]).](WasniketalFig3.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
For the average number of phosphorylation events $\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p,CaM}}$ and its variance we get $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:meanPhosphorylationCaM}
\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p,CaM}} &= \frac{\nu_a}{\nu_d\nu_l}\\
\label{eq:varPhosphorylationCaM}
\textcolor{black}{\mathrm{var}_\mathrm{CaM}} &= \left(1+\frac{2}{\nu_d}+\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p,CaM}}\right)\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p,CaM}}.%\frac{\nu_a}{\nu_d\nu_l}\left(1 + \frac{\nu_a}{\nu_d\nu_l}+\frac{2}{\nu_d}\right).\end{aligned}$$ Compared to the toy model, the average $\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p,CaM}}$ contains an extra factor $\nu_a/\nu_d$ and the variance has an additional term $2/\nu_d$. On Figure \[fig:phosphorylation\]b, we display the average average number of phosphorylation events as a function of the detachment rate $\nu_d$ and for several values of $\nu_l$.
### Membrane-binding kinase
The calculation in the case of a membrane-binding kinase proceeds along the same lines as for the case of a cytosolic kinase. To simplify the task, we will consider the case, when neither Ca$^{2+}$ reattaches to a kinase after detaching nor the kinase rebinds after unbinding from the membrane. The Master equation can then be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:C0dotPKC}
\partial_t C_0 &= \partial_z^2C_0 -\left(\nu_a+\nu_l\right)C_0\\
\label{eq:K0dotPKC}
\partial_t K_0 &=D_K\partial_z^2K_0+\nu_aC_0-\nu_d K_0\\
\label{eq:k0dotPKC}
\dot k_0 &= \nu_bK_0(z=0)-\nu_uk_0-k_0\\
\label{eq:kndotPKC}
\dot k_n &= -\nu_uk_n-k_n+k_{n-1}\\
\label{eq:P0dotPKC}
\dot P_0 &=\int_0^\infty\left(\nu_lC_0+\nu_dK_0\right)\;\mathrm{d}z+ \nu_u k_0\\
\label{eq:PndotPKC}
\dot P_n &=\nu_u k_n, \end{aligned}$$ where Eqs. (\[eq:kndotPKC\]) and (\[eq:PndotPKC\]) hold for all $n\ge1$. In these equations, $C_0$ and $K_0$, respectively, denote the probabilities of the free Ca$^{2+}$ ion and the Ca$^{2+}$ ion attached to the kinase diffusing the cytoplasm. Under the above conditions, phosphorylation cannot have occurred in these states. With $k_n$ and $P_n$ we denote the respective probabilities of having $n$ phosphorylation events with the kinase bound to the membrane and after the Ca$^{2+}$ ion is lost from the system. These equations are complemented by boundary condition for Eqs. (\[eq:C0dotPKC\]) and (\[eq:K0dotPKC\]). Explicitly, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z\left.C_0\right|_{z=0}&=0\\
-D_K\partial_z\left.K_0\right|_{z=0} &= -\nu_b K_0(z=0) +\nu_u k_0.\end{aligned}$$ Initially, the Ca$^{2+}$ ion is localized at $z=0$.
For the probability distribution $P_n^\infty$ of the number of phosphorylation events we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:distributionPhosphorylationPKC0}
P_0^\infty &=1-\bar{k}_0\\
\label{eq:distributionPhosphorylationPKCn}
P_n^\infty&=\nu_u\left(1+\nu_u\right)^{-n}\bar{k}_0\end{aligned}$$ for $n\ge1$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{k}_0 &= \frac{\nu_a\nu_b}{1+\nu_u}\frac{1}{\sqrt{\nu_a+\nu_l}}\frac{\sqrt{D_K}}{\sqrt{D_K\left(\nu_a+\nu_l\right)}+\sqrt{\nu_d}}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{D_K\nu_d}+\nu_b}.\end{aligned}$$ Figure \[fig:phosphorylation\]d shows an example of the distribution.
From these expressions we get for the average number of phosphorylation events and the corresponding variance $$\begin{aligned}
\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p,PKC}} &= \frac{1+\nu_u}{\nu_u}\bar{k}_0\\
\textcolor{black}{\mathrm{var}_\mathrm{PKC}} &= \left(1+\frac{2}{\nu_u}-\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p,PKC}}\right)\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p,PKC}}.\end{aligned}$$
Similarly, the distribution of the number of phosphorylation events can be calculated for the full Master equation (\[eq:masterEquationDiffusiveKinaseInactive\])-(\[eq:masterEquationDiffusiveKinaseCaLost\]), see Appendix \[app:masterEquationPhosphorylationPKC\]. For the mean value, we find $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:meanPhosphorylationPKC}
\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p,PKC}}& = \frac{\nu_b}{\nu_u} \left\{\left(\sqrt{\frac{1}{\nu_l}}+\sqrt{\frac{D_K}{\nu_d}}\right)^2%-\sqrt{\frac{D_K}{\nu_l\nu_d}}
+\frac{D_K\nu_a}{\nu_d\nu_l}\right\}^{-1/2} \frac{\nu_a}{\nu_d\nu_l}%\\
%\langle n^2\rangle-\langle n\rangle^2 &= \left(1+2\frac{\left[D_K\left(\lambda_1+\lambda_2\right)+\nu_b\right]\lambda_1\lambda_2+\nu_b\left(\nu_a+\nu_b\right)}{\nu_u\nu_dD_K\left(\lambda_1+\lambda_2\right)\lambda_1\lambda_2}-\langle n\rangle\right)\langle n\rangle.\end{aligned}$$ The expression for the variance is very lengthy and not illuminating. The mean value and variance are shown in Figure \[fig:phosphorylation\]e,f as a function of $\nu_d$ and for various values of $\nu_l$, where the variance has been obtained from a numerical solution of the Master equation.
Spatial distribution of phosphorylation events by a cytosolic kinase
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We now turn to the spatial distribution of phosphorylation events for a cytosolic kinase, for which we need to consider the full Master equation presented in Sect. \[sec:masterEquations\]. We first solve it numerically and then present results of a mean-field analysis.
### Stochastic simulations {#sec:stochasticSimsCaM}
The numerical analysis of the Master equation (\[eq:masterEquationDiffusiveKinaseInactive\])-(\[eq:masterEquationDiffusiveKinaseCaLost\]) is done through simulations as described in Sect. \[sec:numericalSolution\] with appropriate modifications. In Figure \[fig:CaMEstimate\]a, b, we present examples of the distribution $P$ of estimated positions. It is non-Gaussian and has exponential tails.
 Spatial distribution of phosphorylation events for a cytosolic kinase. a, b) Distributions $P(\hat{x})$ of estimated Ca$^{2+}$ entry site from $10^6$ numeric simulations for $\nu_a=1$, $\nu_d=1$ (a) and $\nu_a=10$, $\nu_d=0.1$ (b). Lines show a Gaussian (red) and an exponential ($\exp(-|x|/\lambda)/2\lambda$, yellow) fit. Other parameter values: $\nu_l=1$ and $D_K=1$. c) Estimation error as a function of $\nu_d$. d) Estimation error as a function of $\nu_l$. In (c,d) lines represent the mean-field result Eq. (\[eq:errorMFCaM\]). Parameter values are $\nu_a=10$, $D_K=0.01$ and $\nu_l=100$ ($\circ$, blue), $10$ ($\square$, red), $1$ ($\diamond$, green), $0.1$ ($\triangle$, black) (c) and $\nu_d=100$ ($\circ$, blue), $10$ ($\square$, red), $1$ ($\diamond$, green), $0.1$ ($\triangle$, black) (d).](WasniketalFig4.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
In Figure \[fig:CaMEstimate\]c, we present the estimation error as a function of the detachment rate $\nu_d$. Initially, it decreases as $1/\nu_d$. For $\nu_d\approx\nu_p$, the dependence changes. For large enough values of the loss rate $\nu_l$, the error apparently saturates as a function of $\nu_d$. Below a critical loss rate, the error first increases before saturating. As a consequence, there is an optimal value of $\nu_d$ for which the error is minimal. Note, however, that this minimum is not very prominent. The dependence of the error on the loss rate $\nu_l$ is similar, see Fig. \[fig:CaMEstimate\]d: initially, it decreases as $1/\nu_l$ and then saturates. Saturation occurs for $\nu_l>100\nu_p$ for values of $\nu_d\lesssim 1$. With increasing values of $\nu_d$, saturation is observed for increasing values of $\nu_l$. In contrast to the dependence on $\nu_d$, our simulations do not indicate the existence of an optimum loss rate that would minimize the error.
### Mean-field analysis
We now perform a mean-field analysis similar to Sect. \[sec:meanfieldToyModel\]. Let $p_C$ denote the probability of finding a free Ca$^{2+}$, that is, $p_C(x,t)=\int\mathcal{D}n(\xi)\;\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);x,t\right]$. Analogously, $p_K(x,t)$ denotes the probability of finding a kinase with the Ca$^{2+}$ bound at position $x$ at time $t$ and $p_0(t)$ the probability that there is no Ca$^{2+}$ in the system at time $t$. These quantities obey $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_t p_C &= \partial_x^2 p_C + \nu_d p_K -\left(\nu_a+\nu_l\right)p_C\\
\partial_t p_K &= D_K\partial_x^2 p_K -\nu_d p_K + \nu_a p_C\\
\dot{p}_0 &= \nu_l\int \mathrm{d}x\; p_C.\end{aligned}$$ The normalization condition reads $\int\left(p_C+p_K\right)\;\mathrm{d}x + p_0=1$ and the initial condition is $p_C(x,t=0)=\delta(x)$.
Let us focus on the limit $t\to\infty$. Similar to the mean-field analysis of the toy model, the distribution $P$ of having $n$ phosphorylation events at $x$ is given by $$\begin{aligned}
P(n,x)&=\frac{1}{n!}\bar{p}_K(x)^n\exp\left\{-\bar{p}_K(x)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where the barred quantities indicate as above time-integrated quantities, for example, $\bar{p}_{K}(x)=\int_0^\infty p_{K}(x,t)\;\mathrm{d}t$. To obtain the distribution of expected phosphorylation events, we are then left with solving $$\begin{aligned}
-1 &= \partial_x^2 \bar{p}_C +\nu_d\bar{p}_K-\left(\nu_a+\nu_l\right)\bar{p}_C\\
0 &= D_K\partial_x^2 \bar{p}_K -\nu_d\bar{p}_K+\nu_a\bar{p}_C.\end{aligned}$$ In Fourier space, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{p}_{K,q} &= \nu_a\left\{D_Kq^4+\left[D_K\left(\nu_a+\nu_l\right)+\nu_d\right]q^2+\nu_l\nu_d\right\}^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ We do not need the expression for $\bar{p}_{C,q}$, as the expected $\hat{n}$ number of phosphorylation events in the limit $t\to\infty$ is $\hat{n}(x)=\bar{p}_K(x)$. Using $\int\hat{n}(x)\;dx=\bar{p}_{K,0}$ and $\int x^2\hat{n}(x)\;dx=-\bar{p}^{\prime\prime}_{K,0}$ as well as expression (\[eq:errorMF\]) for determining the estimation error, we finally obtain for the error in the mean-field limit $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:errorMFCaM}
\ell_\mathrm{CaM}^2 = 2\left\{\ell_C^2 + \ell_K^2\left(1+\frac{\nu_a}{\nu_l}\right)\right\},\end{aligned}$$ where $\ell_C^2=1/\nu_l$ is the diffusion length of Ca$^{2+}$ and $\ell_K^2=D_K/\nu_d$ (we recall that in the rescaled units used here, $\nu_p=D_C=1$).
The mean-field result reproduces some of the features presented by the simulation results, see Fig. \[fig:CaMEstimate\]c,d: As for the stochastic simulations, the error decays inversely proportional with the loss- and the detachment rates if $\nu_l,\nu_d\ll1$. Furthermore, the error saturates if these rates are large with $\ell_\mathrm{CaM}^2\to2 D_K/\nu_d$ for $\nu_l\to\infty$ and $\ell_\mathrm{CaM}^2\to2/\nu_l$ for $\nu_d\to\infty$. However, neither as a function of $\nu_d$ nor of $\nu_l$ does the mean-field calculation indicate optimal rates that would minimize the error. The mean-field estimation error agrees quantitatively with the simulation result in the limits of small loss rates $\nu_l$ and large detachment rates $\nu_d$.
Spatial distribution of phosphorylation events by a membrane-binding kinase
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
### Stochastic simulations {#sec:stochasticSimsPKC}
In the case of a membrane-binding kinase, the presence of a boundary at $z=0$ requires special attention in the stochastic simulation. Whenever the system is in a state, where the Ca$^{2+}$ ion is diffusing in the cytoplasm, or when the kinase is bound to the membrane and active, we use a Gillespie-like algorithm as explained for the toy model. If the kinase is bound to the membrane at $x$ and thus active, it can either phosphorylate or unbind from the membrane. In the first case, we record the position of the phosphorylation event, otherwise the system state is changed and the new coordinates of the now unbound kinase are $(x,0)$. If the system is in a state of an unattached Ca$^{2+}$ ion, then the new position $(x_\mathrm{new},z_\mathrm{new})$ is determined as in Sec. \[sec:numericalSolution\]. Should $z_\mathrm{new}<0$, which is outside the considered domain, then the particle is assumed to have been reflected and the $z$ coordinate of the Ca$^{2+}$ is set to $-z_\mathrm{new}$.
In case, the Ca$^{2+}$ ion is attached to the kinase, which itself is residing in the cytoplasm, then binding to the membrane needs to be considered. To do so, we use in this state a scheme with continuous space and discrete time steps of length $\Delta t$ and employ the methods presented in Ref. [@Erban:2007fn]: During each time step, we first determine the new position $(x_\mathrm{new},z_\mathrm{new})$ of the particle at $t+\Delta t$, as explained in Sec. \[sec:numericalSolution\]. If $z_\mathrm{new}<0$, then the kinase has “crossed” the membrane and one has to determine, whether it bound to the membrane during this process. To this end, a new random number between 0 and 1 is drawn. If it is smaller than $1-\nu_b\sqrt{\pi \Delta t}/(2\sqrt{D_K})$, then the kinase has not bound to the membrane, but instead was reflected and the new position is $(x_\mathrm{new},-z_\mathrm{new})$. We then determine if the Ca$^{2+}$ has detached and change the state if necessary. In the opposite case, the kinase binds to the membrane at $(x_\mathrm{new},0)$ and the system state is changed accordingly. Even if $z_\mathrm{new}>0$, the kinase might still have bound to the membrane. To determine, whether this happened a random number between 0 and 1 is drawn. If it is smaller than $\exp\left\{-(z_\mathrm{new}z_\mathrm{old})/(D_K*\Delta t)\right\}\nu_b\sqrt{\pi \Delta t}/(2\sqrt{D_K})$, then the kinase bound to the membrane at $(x_\mathrm{new},0)$ [@Andrews:2004fs]. If the kinase has not bound to the membrane, we check whether the Ca$^{2+}$ detached and change the state if necessary. The size of the time step $dt$ is chosen to be $\Delta t=0.1/\max\{\nu_b,\nu_d\}$.
In Figure \[fig:PKCEstimate\]a, b two examples of the distribution of estimated positions are shown. As in the previous cases, the distributions are not Gaussian, but instead have an exponential tail. The dependence of the estimation error on the detachment rate $\nu_d$ and the loss rate $\nu_l$ are shown in Fig. \[fig:PKCEstimate\]c,d. Overall, the behavior is similar to the case of a cytosolic kinase: After an initial decrease of the error with $\nu_d$ and $\nu_l$, the error saturates. As a function of $\nu_d$, saturation occurs around $\nu_d\approx\nu_p$. In contrast to the cytosolic kinase, a clear minimum of the error as a function of $\nu_d$ cannot be detected even for small loss rates. Finally, let us note that the estimation error is independent of the membrane binding and unbinding rates $\nu_b$ and $\nu_u$, as long as they have finite values, see Fig. \[fig:PKCEstimate\]d, inset.
 Spatial distribution of phosphorylation events for a membrane-binding kinase. a, b) Distributions $P(\hat{x})$ of estimated Ca$^{2+}$ entry site from $10^6$ numeric simulations for $\nu_a=1$ (a) and $\nu_a=10$ (b). Lines show a Gaussian (red) and an exponential ($\exp(-|x|/\lambda)/2\lambda$, yellow) fit. Other parameter values: $\nu_d=1$, $\nu_l=1$, $\nu_b=1$, $\nu_u=1$, and $D_K=1$. c) Estimation error as a function of $\nu_d$. d) Estimation error as a function of $\nu_l$. Inset: estimation error as a function of $\nu_b/\nu_u$. In (c,d) lines represent the mean-field result Eq. (\[eq:errorMFCaM\]). Parameter values are $\nu_a=10$, $D_K=0.01$ and $\nu_l=100$ ($\circ$, blue), $10$ ($\square$, red), $1$ ($\diamond$, green), $0.1$ ($\triangle$, black) (c) and $\nu_d=100$ ($\circ$, blue), $10$ ($\square$, red), $1$ ($\diamond$, green), $0.1$ ($\triangle$, black) (d).](WasniketalFig5.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
### Mean-field analysis
The mean-field analysis proceeds along the same lines as for the cytosolic kinase. As above, let $p_C$ denote the probability of finding a free Ca$^{2+}$, $p_C(x,z,t)=\int\mathcal{D}n(\xi)\;\mathcal{P}_i\left[n(\xi);x,z,t\right]$. Analogously, $p_K$ denotes the probability distribution for a Ca$^{2+}$ bound kinase in the cytosol, $p_k$ the one for the membrane-bound kinase, and $p_0(t)$ the probability that the Ca$^{2+}$ is lost from the system at time $t$. These quantities obey $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:dpCdtPKC}
\partial_t p_C &= \left(\partial_x^2+\partial_z^2\right) p_C + \nu_d p_K -\left(\nu_a+\nu_l\right)p_C\\
\partial_t p_K &= D_K\left(\partial_x^2+\partial_z^2\right) p_K -\nu_d p_K + \nu_a p_C\\
\label{eq:dpkdtPKC}
\partial_t p_k &= \nu_b p_K(z=0) - \nu_u p_k\\
\label{eq:dp0dtPKC}
\dot{p}_0 &= \nu_l\int \mathrm{d}x\int \mathrm{d}z\; p_C.\end{aligned}$$ These equations are complemented by boundary conditions at the membrane. Explicitly, $\partial_z\left.p_C\right|_{z=0}=0$ and $-D_K\partial_z\left.p_K\right|_{z=0}=-\nu_bp_K(z=0)+\nu_up_k$. The normalization condition reads $\int\mathrm{d}x\int\mathrm{d}z\left(p_C+p_K\right)+\int p_k \;\mathrm{d}x+ p_0=1$ and the initial condition is $p_C(x,z,t=0)=\delta(x)\delta(z)$. Finally, the distribution of phosphorylation events in space for $t\to\infty$ is given by $\hat{n}(x)=\int_0^\infty p_k(x,t)\;\mathrm{d}t$.
To obtain the latter, we first integrate Eqs. (\[eq:dpCdtPKC\])-(\[eq:dpkdtPKC\]) with respect to time, which yields $$\begin{aligned}
-\delta(x)\delta(z) &= \left(\partial_x^2+\partial_z^2\right) \bar{p}_C + \nu_d \bar{p}_K -\left(\nu_a+\nu_l\right)\bar{p}_C\\
0 &= D_K\left(\partial_x^2+\partial_z^2\right) \bar{p}_K -\nu_d \bar{p}_K + \nu_a \bar{p}_C\\
\label{eq:barpkPKC}
0 &= \nu_b \bar{p}_K(z=0) - \nu_u \bar{p}_k,\end{aligned}$$ where the bars indicate the time-integrated quantities as above. From Eq. (\[eq:barpkPKC\]) the boundary condition for $\bar{p}_K$ at $z=0$ is seen to be $\partial_z\left.\bar{p}_K\right|_{z=0}=0$. Furthermore, it shows that $\hat{n}(x)=\nu_b \bar{p}_K(x,z=0)/\nu_u$. The solution for $\bar{p}_C$ and $\bar{p}_K$ is easiest obtained after performing a Fourier transform with respect to $x$ and a cosine transform with respect to $z$. It yields $$\begin{aligned}
-1 &= -\left(q^2+k^2\right)\bar{p}_{C,qk}+\nu_d \bar{p}_{K,qk}-\left(\nu_a+\nu_l\right)\bar{p}_{C,qk}\\
0 & = -D_K\left(q^2+k^2\right)\bar{p}_{K,qk}-\nu_d \bar{p}_{K,qk}+\nu_a\bar{p}_{C,qk},\end{aligned}$$ where the indices $q$ and $k$ denote the wavenumbers in $x$- and $z$-direction, respectively. The solution for the time-integrated distribution of the cytosolic kinase bound to Ca$^{2+}$ is $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{p}_{K,qk} &= \nu_a\left\{\left[D_K\left(q^2+k^2\right)+\nu_d\right]\left(q^2+k^2+\nu_a+\nu_l\right)-\nu_d\nu_a\right\}^{-1}.\end{aligned}$$ From this expression, we eventually get for the error $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:errorMFPKC}
\ell_\mathrm{PKC}^2 &= \frac{1}{2}\left[\ell_\mathrm{CaM}^2 + \ell_C\ell_K\right].\end{aligned}$$ Using this expression for the estimation error, we can write the average number of phosphorylation events, Eq. (\[eq:meanPhosphorylationPKC\]) as $$\begin{aligned}
\textcolor{black}{N_\mathrm{p,PKC}}\equiv\int\hat{n}(x)\;\mathrm{d}x & = \frac{\nu_b}{\nu_u} \left[2\ell^2_\text{PKC}+\ell_C\ell_K\right]^{-1/2}\frac{\nu_a}{\nu_d\nu_l}.\end{aligned}$$
Comparison between the two scenarios
------------------------------------
The simulation results show that the estimation error of the measured position for the cytosolic kinase is always larger than for the membrane-binding kinase, if we compare simulations with the same parameter values, see Fig. \[fig:ratioErrorEstimates\]. This result also obtained by the mean-field expressions for $\ell_\mathrm{CaM}$ and $\ell_\mathrm{PKC}$. However, the mean-field result for the estimation error ratio does not represent the functional dependence of the ratio on $\nu_d$ well. Instead, it is rather constant with a value that is close to the maximal value of the ratio in the interval of $\nu_d$ displayed on Fig. \[fig:ratioErrorEstimates\].
 Ratio of the estimation error $\ell_\mathrm{CaM}^2$ of a cytosolic and $\ell_\mathrm{PKC}^2$ of a membrane-binding kinase as a function of $\nu_d$. Parameter values are $\nu_a=10$, $\nu_b=1$, $\nu_u=1$, $D_K=0.01$ and .](WasniketalFig6.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Since for a membrane-binding kinase the estimation error is independent of the membrane binding and unbinding rates, $\nu_b$ and $\nu_u$, we cannot meaningfully compare the number of phosphorylation events for the two scenarios. Note, however, that by increasing the ratio $\nu_b/\nu_u$, the number of phosphorylation events can be increased without affecting the accuracy of position estimate in the case of a membrane-binding kinase. This is another advantage of membrane-binding kinases over cytosolic kinases: signals will be transmitted with higher fidelity in case more target proteins are phosphorylated.
Responses to Ca$^{2+}$ puffs {#sec:puffs}
============================
We will now turn to situations, in which more than one Ca$^{2+}$ is present in the system. Since all particles are independent of each other, one might expect that the error $\ell^2$ simply scales as $N_\mathrm{Ca}^{-1/2}$ if $N_\mathrm{Ca}$ is the number of Ca$^{2+}$ ions. However, since only those events are counted in which a phosphorylation took place, this expectation is not met. Following the presentation of simulation results, we will apply a mean-field *ansatz* to express the error for a puff in terms of the average phosphorylation profile $\hat{n}$ for a single Ca$^{2+}$ ion.
Stochastic simulations {#stochastic-simulations}
----------------------
Simulations are done as described in Sects. \[sec:stochasticSimsCaM\] and \[sec:stochasticSimsPKC\]. For a puff of $N_\mathrm{Ca}$ Ca$^{2+}$ ions, we ran $N$ simulations and recorded the positions of all phosphorylation events during these simulations. We then obtained the estimated position by calculating their average. For each data point we performed at least $2\cdot10^6$ simulations.
In Figure \[fig:puffNCa\]a,b, we present the estimation error for a puff as a function of the number $N_\mathrm{Ca}$ of Ca$^{2+}$ ions per puff. For both kinds of kinases, the estimation error decreases monotonically with increasing $N_\mathrm{Ca}$. The data points fall onto a sigmoidal curve: initially the accuracy of the estimate increases less than for larger values of $N_\mathrm{Ca}$. Note, that with increasing number of Ca$^{2+}$ ions, the gap between the estimation error for the membrane-binding kinase and the cytosolic kinase gets wider.
 Estimation error for a Ca$^{2+}$ ion puff. a, b) Estimation error as a function of the number $N_\mathrm{Ca}$ of Ca$^{2+}$ ions in a puff from simulations (blue circles) and the mean-field result (\[eq:estimationErrorMF\]) (blue line) for a cytosolic (a) and a membrane-binding kinase (b). The green dashed line in (b) is a fit of Eq. (\[eq:estimationErrorMF\]) to the simulation data with rescaled parameters $\ell^2$ and $\langle n\rangle_1$. c, d) Estimation error for a puff of $N_\mathrm{Ca}=1000$ Ca$^{2+}$ ions as a function of the loss rate from simulations (blue circles) and Eq. (\[eq:estimationErrorMF\]) (red full line) for a cytosolic (c) and a membrane-binding kinase (d). Parameters are $D_K=0.01$, $\nu_a=1$ (a,d), $\nu_a=10$ (b), and $\nu_a=0.01$ (c), $\nu_d=100$ (a) and $\nu_d=1$ (b-d), $\nu_l=10$ (a,b), $\nu_b=1$ (b,d), and $\nu_u=1$ (b,d).](WasniketalFig7.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
In the case of a cytosolic kinase and for a Calcium puff with $N_\mathrm{Ca}=1000$, the dependence of the estimation error as a function of $\nu_l$ changes qualitatively with respect to the case of a single Ca$^{2+}$ ion: In the latter case the error decreases monotonically whereas for the puff a minimum exist, around $\nu_l=1$ , see Fig. \[fig:puffNCa\]c. In contrast, for a membrane-binding kinase the dependence remains monotonically decreasing, see Fig. \[fig:puffNCa\]d. However, the estimation error saturates for smaller values of $\nu_l$ compared to the case of a single Ca$^{2+}$ ion.
Mean-field analysis {#sec:puffMF}
-------------------
We will now apply the mean-field *ansatz* introduced in Sect. \[sec:meanfieldToyModel\] to the case of Ca$^{2+}$ puffs, where we focus directly on the limit $t\to\infty$. For the general expression (\[eq:estimationError2\]) for the estimation error, we need the probability $\mathcal{P}\left[n(\xi)\right]$ for a particular realization of the phosphorylation profile $n(\xi)$. In the mean-field approximation, the probability $P(n,\xi)$ of having $n$ phosphorylation events at position $\xi$ is given by Eq. (\[eq:probabilityMF\]), where in the general case $\bar{p}_a$ has to be replaced by the time-integrated probability to find the particle in the phosphorylating state at position $\xi$. Explicitly, for a cytosolic kinase it is $\bar{p}_K$, whereas for the membrane-binding kinase it is $\bar{p}_k$. In contrast to the case of a single Ca$^{2+}$ ion, we cannot use expression (\[eq:errorMF\]) for the error, because it does not depend on the average number of phosphorylation events $\langle n\rangle$, which obviously increases with the number of Ca$^{2+}$ ions $N_\mathrm{Ca}$. Therefore, we will now calculate the exact expression of the estimation error (\[eq:estimationError2\]) in the mean-field approximation.
From $P(n,\xi)$, we obtain the mean-field probability $\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{mf}\left[n(\xi)\right]$ of a particular realization $n(\xi)$ through $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{mf}\left[n(\xi)\right] &= \mathcal{N}\prod_\xi P(n,\xi)\end{aligned}$$ for all $n(\xi)$ with $\int\mathrm{d}\xi\;n(\xi)\neq0$. The normalization factor $\mathcal{N}$ assures that $\int \mathcal{D}' n(\xi) \mathcal{P}\left[n(\xi)\right]=1$, where the prime indicates summation over all distributions $n(\xi)$ except for $n(\xi)\equiv0$. Explicitly, $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{mf}\left[n(\xi)\right]
&= \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-\int \mathrm{d}\xi'\;\hat{n}(\xi')}}{1-\mathrm{e}^{-\int \mathrm{d}\xi'\;\hat{n}(\xi')}}\prod_x\frac{1}{n(\xi)!}\left(\hat{n}(\xi)\right)^{n(\xi)},\\
\intertext{where $\hat{n}(\xi)$ is the average phosphorylation profile, such that}
\mathcal{P}_\mathrm{mf}\left[n(\xi)\right]&= \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}{1-\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}\prod_\xi\frac{1}{n(\xi)!}\left(\hat{n}(\xi)\right)^{n(\xi)}.\end{aligned}$$ Using this probability distribution in expression (\[eq:estimationError2\]) for the estimation error, we get $$\begin{aligned}
\ell_\mathrm{puff}^2&= \int\mathcal{D}'n(\xi)\frac{\int \mathrm{d}\xi_1\int\mathrm{d}\xi_2\;\xi_1\xi_2n(\xi_1)n(\xi_2)}{\left(\int\mathrm{d}\xi'\;n(\xi')\right)^2}\mathcal{P}\left[n(\xi)\right]\\
&= \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}{1-\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}\prod_\xi\sum_{n(\xi)=0}^\infty\frac{\int \mathrm{d}\xi_1\int\mathrm{d}\xi_2\;\xi_1\xi_2n(\xi_1)n(\xi_2)}{\left(\int\mathrm{d}\xi'\;n(\xi')\right)^2}\frac{1}{n(\xi)!}\hat{n}(\xi)^{n(\xi)}\\
&= \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}{1-\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}\prod_\xi\sum_{n(\xi)=0}^\infty\int\mathrm{d}\xi_1\int\mathrm{d}\xi_2\;\xi_1\xi_2\hat{n}(\xi_1)\frac{\delta}{\delta\hat{n}(\xi_1)}\hat{n}(\xi_2)\frac{\delta}{\delta\hat{n}(\xi_2)} \frac{\hat{n}(\xi)^{n(\xi)}}{n(\xi)!}\frac{1}{\left(\int\mathrm{d}\xi'\;n(\xi')\right)^2}\\
&= \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}{1-\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}\int\mathrm{d}\xi_1\int\mathrm{d}\xi_2\;\xi_1\xi_2\hat{n}(\xi_1)\frac{\delta}{\delta\hat{n}(\xi_1)}\hat{n}(\xi_2)\frac{\delta}{\delta\hat{n}(\xi_2)}\prod_\xi\sum_{n(\xi)=0}^\infty \frac{\hat{n}(\xi)^{n(\xi)}}{n(\xi)!}\frac{1}{\left(\int\mathrm{d}\xi'\;n(\xi')\right)^2}\\
&= \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}{1-\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}\int\mathrm{d}\xi_1\;\xi_1^2\hat{n}(\xi_1)\frac{\delta}{\delta\hat{n}(\xi_1)} \prod_\xi\sum_{n(\xi)=0}^\infty\frac{\hat{n}(\xi)^{n(\xi)}}{n(\xi)!}\frac{1}{\left(\int\mathrm{d}\xi'\;n(\xi')\right)^2}\\
&= \frac{\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}{1-\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}\int\mathrm{d}\xi_1\;\xi_1^2\hat{n}(\xi_1)\frac{\delta}{\delta\hat{n}(\xi_1)} \sum_{N=1}^\infty\frac{\left(\int\mathrm{d}\xi\;\hat{n}(\xi)\right)^N}{N!N^2}\\
&=\frac{\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}{1-\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}\frac{\int\mathrm{d}\xi\;\xi^2\hat{n}(\xi)}{\int\mathrm{d}\xi\;\hat{n}(\xi)}\sum_{N=1}^\infty\frac{\left(\int\mathrm{d}\xi\;\hat{n}(\xi)\right)^N}{N!N}\\
\label{eq:estimationErrorMF}
&=\ell^2\frac{\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}{1-\mathrm{e}^{-N_\mathrm{p}}}\sum_{N=1}^\infty\frac{N_\mathrm{p}^N}{N!N}.\end{aligned}$$ In the final expression $\ell^2$ is the estimation error in the mean-field approximation, see Eq. (\[eq:errorMF\]). For $N_\mathrm{p}\ll1$, we have $\ell_\mathrm{puff}^2=\ell^2$ as announced in Sect. \[sec:meanfieldToyModel\]. In the case of a Ca$^{2+}$ puff with $N_\mathrm{Ca}$ Ca$^{2+}$ ions, $N_\mathrm{p}=N_\mathrm{Ca}\langle n\rangle_1$, where $\langle n\rangle_1$ is the average number of phosphorylation events for one Ca$^{2+}$ ion, because we assume that all Ca$^{2+}$ ions are independent of each other and that there is an excess of kinases. As the final expression for $\ell_\mathrm{puff}^2$ shows, the dependence on $N_\mathrm{Ca}$ is more complicated than the usual $1/N_\mathrm{Ca}$-dependence of the variance in case one has $N_\mathrm{Ca}$ independent measurements. The reason is that not all Ca$^{2+}$ ions produce at least one phosphorylation event, such that the position of Ca$^{2+}$ influx cannot be estimated for all Ca$^{2+}$ ions. However, for $N_\mathrm{Ca}\gg1$, we find again $\ell_\mathrm{puff}^2\sim\frac{\ell^2}{N_\mathrm{Ca}}$.
We will now use this general expression in combination with the results for $\hat{n}(x)$ obtained from the mean-field analysis. For the case of a cytosolic kinase, we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:errorCaMpuff}
\ell_\mathrm{CaM,puff}^2 &= 2\left\{\ell_C^2 + \ell_K^2\left(1+\frac{\nu_a}{\nu_l}\right)\right\}\frac{\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{N_\mathrm{Ca}\nu_a}{\nu_d\nu_l}}}{1-\mathrm{e}^{-\frac{N_\mathrm{Ca}\nu_a}{\nu_d\nu_l}}}\sum_N\frac{1}{N!N}\frac{N_\mathrm{Ca}^N\nu_a^N}{\nu_d^N\nu_l^N}.\end{aligned}$$ Application of the general expression (\[eq:estimationErrorMF\]) to the case of a membrane-binding kinase is tricky. This expression depends on $N_\mathrm{p,PKC}$, which in turn can be changed by changing either $N_\mathrm{Ca}$ or $\nu_b/\nu_u$. In the simulations, however, only changing $N_\mathrm{Ca}$ affects the estimation error, whereas it is independent of the ration $\nu_b/\nu_u$ as we had seen above for the case of a single Ca$^{2+}$ ion. Since these two effects are not separated in the mean-field expression one cannot expect it to describe the dependence of the error on the number of Ca$^{2+}$ ions. We thus refrain from giving the mean-field result for the case of a membrane-binding kinase.
In Figure \[fig:puffNCa\], we present the estimation error for a puff obtained from the mean-field treatment as a function of $N_\mathrm{Ca}$. In case of a cytosolic kinase, where the error for a single Ca$^{2+}$ ion is given by the mean-field result, the dependence on the number of Ca$^{2+}$ matches the simulation results perfectly. From Equation (\[eq:errorCaMpuff\]), we see that the error only decreases significantly, when $N_\mathrm{Ca}\sim \nu_d\nu_l/\nu_a$. For the parameters chosen in Fig. \[fig:puffNCa\], we get $\nu_d\nu_l/\nu_a=1000$, which matches well the simulation data. As we have argued before, we cannot expect the mean-field error for puffs to describe simulation results for a membrane-binding kinase. For the parameters chosen in Fig. \[fig:puffNCa\]b, it is indeed off. However, by appropriately rescaling $\ell^2$ for $N_\mathrm{Ca}=1$ and $\langle n\rangle_1$, the expression (\[eq:estimationErrorMF\]) provides a fit to the data. In Figure \[fig:puffNCa\]d, we see that for increasing values of $\nu_l$, we obtain agreement between Eq. (\[eq:estimationErrorMF\]) and the simulation results. These results show that the mean-field expression does capture important aspects of the estimation error even in the case of a membrane-binding kinase.
Estimating the site of Ca$^{2+}$ release in presence of background phosphorylation
==================================================================================
Living cells have a cytosolic Ca$^{2+}$ concentration of roughly 100 nM [@Milo:2015uq]. Consequently, a fraction of calmodulin and PKC$\alpha$ are active even in absence of an external signal. How does the corresponding background phosphorylation affect the accuracy of the estimated position of the Ca$^{2+}$ release site? On general grounds, cells might be expected to suppress the influence of the background by employing a threshold mechanism: a cellular response is only elicited if the number of phosphorylation events exceeds a certain value. Still, it is interesting to account explicitly for background phosphorylation in our analysis.
In the presence of background phosphorylation, our theoretic approach has to be modified to some extent. Above, we considered the distribution of all phosphorylation sites that were generated by a Ca$^{2+}$ ion or -puff, independently of when they occurred. If we applied the same approach in presence of background phosphorylation, then the background would always outcompete the signal. We thus introduce a rate $\nu_\mathrm{dp}$ of dephosphorylation of target proteins. In this way, a phosphorylated protein contributes only during a time $1/\nu_\mathrm{dp}$ to the cellular response, which we still take to be given by the spatial distribution of the phosphorylation events. In general, it is now a time-dependent quantity, whereas before, we considered the accumulated distribution of all phosphorylation events following a signal. We will assume that phosphorylated proteins do not move. Let us denote the number of phosphorylated proteins resulting from the signal by $N_s$ and those from the background by $N_\mathrm{bg}$. Let us note again that $N_s$ depends on time and $N_\mathrm{bg}$ does not. To arrive at a single number for the error in estimating the position of Ca$^{2+}$ release, we consider the time point at which $N_s$ is maximal.
We calculate the error of the position estimate by a weighted mean of the error from the phosphorylated proteins resulting from the signal and those from the background. Since, background phosphorylation is independent of phosphorylation in response to the signal, the corresponding variances and thus errors simply add up. The error $\ell_s^2$ associated with the response to the signal is calculated as before. For the error resulting from the background, we assume that the corresponding phosphorylation events are uniformly distributed in the cell, such that $\ell_\mathrm{bg}^2$ is given by the size of the cell. The total error then is $$\begin{aligned}
\ell^2 &=\frac{N_{s,\mathrm{max}}}{N_{s,\mathrm{max}} + N_\mathrm{bg}}\ell_s^2 + \frac{N_\mathrm{bg}}{N_{s,\mathrm{max}} + N_\mathrm{bg}}\ell_\mathrm{bg}^2 .\end{aligned}$$
In Figure \[fig:background\], we present the error for estimating the Ca$^{2+}$ release site for a cytosolic and a membrane-binding kinase in presence of background phosphorylation. As expected, if the background phosphorylation exceeds a certain threshold, the signal is masked and the error equals the size of the cell, such that any information about the site of Ca$^{2+}$ release is lost.
 Estimation error in presence of background phosphorylation as a function of the number $N_\mathrm{bg}$ of phosphorylated kinases due to background phsophorylation for (a) a cytosolic kinase with $\nu_d=0.1$ (blue circles), 0.9 (red squares), and 1.9 (green stars) and (b) a membrane-binding kinase with $\nu_d=1$ (blue circles), 10 (red squares), and 100 (green stars). Other parameter values are $D_K=0.01$, $\nu_a=0.1$, $\nu_l=10$, $\nu_\mathrm{dp} = 0.001$, $\nu_b=1$, and $\nu_u=0.1$.](WasniketalFig8.pdf){width="50.00000%"}
Discussion
==========
In this work, we have presented a framework for studying cellular responses to localized signals. For concreteness, we have considered the signal to be given by a localized Ca$^{2+}$ influx and the response to be represented by the spatial distribution of phosphorylation events of either a cytosolic or a membrane-binding kinase. We very much simplified the cellular response. For example, we considered direct activation of the cytosolic kinase by binding a Ca$^{2+}$ ion, although often Ca$^{2+}$ activates Calmodulin, which in turn activates the kinase. Furthermore, we assumed that the membrane-binding kinase is activated directly by binding to the membrane, whereas the Protein Kinase C$\alpha$, for example, requires binding to Diacylglycerol (DAG) in the membrane for activation. In spite of these simplifications, we expect our general results to be valid also in more realistic situations. This holds, notably, for the tendency of the estimation error to decrease with increasing Ca$^{2+}$ detachment. Furthermore, membrane-binding kinases should provide a better spatial localization of the signal than cytosolic kinases. Beyond the specific question of how cells can localize external signals, our framework can also be applied in various other situations, in which a stochastic birth process is coupled to diffusion.
Let us estimate the error in the light of measured parameter values for the Protein Kinase C$\alpha$. The diffusion constant of free cytoplasmic Ca$^{2+}$ is about 500 $\mu$m$^2$/s [@Donahue:1987jx], whereas cytoplasmic PKC$\alpha$ has a diffusion constant on the order of 10 $\mu$m$^2$/s [@Schaefer:2001fp]. With $\nu_p\approx2$/s, $\nu_d\approx20$/s [@Nalefski:2001wy], and $\nu_l\approx40/s$ [@Smith:1998gg], the estimation error for a single Ca$^{2+}$ ion is about 7 $\mu$m. This justifies neglecting any boundaries in the lateral direction as a typical cell diameter is 50 $\mu$m. For a Ca$^{2+}$ puff this value decreases further with an increasing number of Ca$^{2+}$ ions. With regards to our assumption that membrane-binding kinases are immobile, note that the diffusion length on the membrane $\sqrt{D_{K,\textrm{mem}}/\nu_u}\approx0.25~\mu$m. In this estimate, we took the diffusion constant $D_{K,\textrm{mem}}$ of PKC$\alpha$ to be 100 times smaller than its cytoplasmic diffusion constant [@LippincottSchwartz:2001dx] and $\nu\approx7$/s [@Nalefski:2001wy]. Since this length is an order of magnitude smaller than the estimation error, our assumption seems justified.
In future studies of the Protein Kinase C$\alpha$ it should be interesting to consider its dynamics in more detail. In addition to adding the effect of binding DAG to PKC$\alpha$, it might be interesting to consider the full cascade of a signal activating Phospholipase C that breaks Phosphatidylinositol-biphosphate (PIP$_2$) into DAG and Inositol-triphosphate (IP$_3$). The latter diffuses and can open nearby internal Ca$^{2+}$ stores, making the activation of PKC$\alpha$ much more involved than considered here. In addition, PKC$\alpha$ forms clusters on the membrane that affects the lifetime of its activated state [@Bonny:2016em; @Swanson:2016jj]. Studying the dynamics of PKC$\alpha$ might yield insights into how its localized activation can help cells to obtain a specific response to external signals even though they get transformed into general purpose second messengers [@Horne:1997ig; @Maasch:2000fr].
Full Master equation for the number of phosphorylation events for a membrane-binding kinase {#app:masterEquationPhosphorylationPKC}
===========================================================================================
In case, Ca$^{2+}$ can reattach to the kinase after detachment and the kinase can rebind to the membrane after unbinding, the Master equation for the number of phosphorylation events is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:CndotPKCFull}
\partial_t C_n &= \partial_z^2C_n +\nu_d K_n-\left(\nu_a+\nu_l\right)C_n\\
\label{eq:KndotPKCFull}
\partial_t K_n &=D_K\partial_z^2K_n -\nu_d K_n +\nu_aC_n\\
\label{eq:k0dotPKCFull}
\dot k_0 &= \nu_bK_0(z=0)-\nu_uk_0-k_0\\
\label{eq:kndotPKCFull}
\dot k_n &= \nu_bK_n(z=0)-\nu_uk_n-k_n+k_{n-1}\\
\label{eq:PndotPKCFull}
\dot P_n &=\nu_l\int_0^\infty C_n\;\mathrm{d}z\end{aligned}$$ where Eqs. (\[eq:CndotPKCFull\]), (\[eq:KndotPKCFull\]), and (\[eq:PndotPKCFull\]) hold for all $n\ge0$, whereas Eq. (\[eq:kndotPKCFull\]) holds for all $n\ge1$. In these equations, $C_n$ and $K_n$, respectively, denote the probabilities of having $n$ phosphorylation events with a free Ca$^{2+}$ ion and with it bound to a cytosolic kinase, whereas $k_n$ and $P_n$ denote the respective probabilities with the kinase bound to the membrane and after the Ca$^{2+}$ ion is lost from the system. These equations are complemented by boundary condition for Eqs. (\[eq:CndotPKCFull\]) and (\[eq:KndotPKCFull\]). Explicitly, $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z\left.C_n\right|_{z=0}&=0\\
\label{eq:bcPKCFull}
-D_K\partial_z\left.K_n\right|_{z=0} &= -\nu_b K_n(z=0) + \nu_u k_n.\end{aligned}$$ Finally, initially, the Ca$^{2+}$ is located at $z=0$.
In the limit $t\to\infty$, the distribution $P^\infty_n$ of the number of phosphorylation events is given by $P^\infty_n=\nu_l\int_0^\infty \bar{C}_n\;\mathrm{d}z$, where the bar indicates integration of $C_n$ from 0 to $\infty$ with respect to time. For the barred quantities, the equations read $$\begin{aligned}
\partial_z^2\bar{C}_0+\nu_d \bar{K}_0-(\nu_a +\nu_l)\bar{C}_0 &=-\delta(z) \\
\partial_z^2\bar{C}_n+\nu_d \bar{K}_n-(\nu_a +\nu_l)\bar{C}_n &=0 \\
D_K\partial_z^2\bar{K}_0 - \nu_d\bar{K}_0+ \nu_a \bar{C}_0 &=0 \\
D_K\partial_z^2\bar{K}_n - \nu_d\bar{K}_n + \nu_a \bar{C}_n &= 0\\
\nu_b\bar{K}_0(z=0)-\nu_u\bar{k}_0-\bar{k}_0 &= 0\\
\nu_b\bar{K}_n(z=0)-\nu_u\bar{k}_n-\bar{k}_n+\bar{k}_{n-1} &= 0,\end{aligned}$$ where $n\ge1$. Their solution can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{C}_0 (z)&= \tilde{I}(z)
+ \hat{C}_0 \left(\lambda_2 \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda_1 z } - \lambda_1 \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda_2 z }\right) \\
\bar{K}_0 (z)&= \nu_a\left[I(z)
- \hat{C}_0\left(\frac{ \lambda_2}{D_K \lambda_1^2 - \nu_d } \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda_1 z } -\frac{ \lambda_1}{D_K \lambda_2^2 - \nu_d } \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda_2 z}\right)\right]\\
\bar{C}_n (z) &= \hat{C}_n\left(\lambda_2 \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda_1 z } -\lambda_1 \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda_2 z } \right) \\
\bar{K}_n(z) &= -\nu_a\hat{C}_n\left(\frac{\lambda_2}{D_K \lambda_1 ^2 - \nu_d } \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda_1 z } + \frac{\lambda_1}{D_K \lambda_2 ^2 - \nu_d } \mathrm{e}^{-\lambda_2 z }\right)\\
\intertext{with}
I(z) &= \int_0^\infty \frac{\cos(kz) }{\left(D_Kk^2+\nu_d\right)\left(k^2+\nu_a+\nu_l\right)-\nu_a\nu_d} \mathrm{d}k\\
\tilde{I}(z) &= \int_0^\infty \frac{\left(D_K k^2+\nu_d\right)\cos(kz) }{\left(D_Kk^2+\nu_d\right)\left(k^2+\nu_a+\nu_l\right)-\nu_a\nu_d} \mathrm{d}k.\end{aligned}$$ Using Equations (\[eq:k0dotPKCFull\]) and (\[eq:kndotPKCFull\]) as well as the boundary conditions (\[eq:bcPKCFull\]), we find $$\begin{aligned}
\hat{C}_0 &= \frac{\nu_bI(0)}{\left(\lambda_1-\lambda_2\right)\left[\left(1+\nu_u\right)A+B\right]}\\
\hat{C}_1 & = -\frac{\nu_b\nu_uA}{(1+\nu_u)A+B}\hat{C}_0\\
\hat{C}_n &= \left[\frac{A+B}{(1+\nu_u)A+B}\right]^{n-1}\hat{C}_1\\
\intertext{with}
A &= D_K\lambda_1\lambda_2\left(\lambda_1+\lambda_2\right)\\
B &= \frac{\nu_b}{\nu_a\nu_d}\left(\lambda_1\lambda_2+\nu_a+\nu_b\right).\end{aligned}$$ This eventually leads to the probability distribution $$\begin{aligned}
P^\infty_0 &= 1 - E\\
P^\infty_n &= \frac{\nu_uA}{(1+\nu_u)A+B}\left[\frac{A+B}{(1+\nu_u)A+B}\right]^{n-1}E\\
\intertext{for $n\ge1$ with}
E&=\frac{\nu_l\nu_b}{(1+\nu_u)A+B}\frac{\lambda_1+\lambda_2}{\lambda_1\lambda_2}I(0).\end{aligned}$$
We acknowledge funding through SFB 1027 by Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.
[36]{}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 [**]{}, ed., edited by (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [ ****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [**]{}, ed. (, ) @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{} @noop [****, ()]{}
[^1]: There are also Calmodulin phosphatases, which dephosphorylate target proteins. *Cum grano salis* the results developed in this work also apply to phosphatases.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Characterizing a microlensing planet is done from modeling an observed lensing light curve. In this process, it is often confronted that solutions of different lensing parameters result in similar light curves, causing difficulties in uniquely interpreting the lens system, and thus understanding the causes of different types of degeneracy is important. In this work, we show that incomplete coverage of a planetary perturbation can result in degenerate solutions even for events where the planetary signal is detected with a high level of statistical significance. We demonstrate the degeneracy for an actually observed event OGLE-2012-BLG-0455/MOA-2012-BLG-206. The peak of this high-magnification event $(A_{\rm max}\sim400)$ exhibits very strong deviation from a point-lens model with $\Delta\chi^{2}\gtrsim4000$ for data sets with a total number of measurement 6963. From detailed modeling of the light curve, we find that the deviation can be explained by four distinct solutions, i.e., two very different sets of solutions, each with a two-fold degeneracy. While the two-fold (so-called “close/wide”) degeneracy is well-understood, the degeneracy between the radically different solutions is not previously known. The model light curves of this degeneracy differ substantially in the parts that were not covered by observation, indicating that the degeneracy is caused by the incomplete coverage of the perturbation. It is expected that the frequency of the degeneracy introduced in this work will be greatly reduced with the improvement of the current lensing survey and follow-up experiments and the advent of new surveys.'
author:
- |
H. Park$^{U1}$, C. Han$^{U1,U,\dag}$, A. Gould$^{U2,U}$, A. Udalski$^{O1,O}$, T. Sumi$^{M1,M}$, P. Fouqué$^{P1}$,\
and\
J.-Y. Choi$^{U1}$, G. Christie$^{U3}$, D. L. Depoy$^{U4}$, Subo Dong$^{U5}$, B. S. Gaudi$^{U2}$, K.-H. Hwang$^{U1}$, Y. K. Jung$^{U1}$, A. Kavka$^{U2}$,\
C.-U. Lee$^{U6}$, L. A. G. Monard$^{U7}$, T. Natusch$^{U3,U8}$, H. Ngan$^{U3}$, R. W. Pogge$^{U2}$, I.-G. Shin$^{U1}$, J. C. Yee$^{U2,U9,\clubsuit}$,\
(The $\mu$FUN Collaboration)\
M. K. Szymański$^{O1}$, M. Kubiak$^{O1}$, I. Soszyński$^{O1}$, G. Pietrzyński$^{O1,O2}$, R. Poleski$^{O1,U2}$, K. Ulaczyk$^{O1}$, P. Pietrukowicz$^{O1}$, S. Koz[ł]{}owski$^{O1}$, J. Skowron$^{O1}$, [Ł]{}. Wyrzykowski$^{O1,O3}$,\
(The OGLE Collaboration)\
F. Abe$^{M2}$, D. P. Bennett$^{M3}$, I. A. Bond$^{M7}$, C. S. Botzler$^{M4}$, P. Chote$^{M5}$, M. Freeman$^{M4}$, A. Fukui$^{M6}$, D. Fukunaga$^{M2}$,\
P. Harris$^{M5}$, Y. Itow$^{M2}$, N. Koshimoto$^{M1}$, C. H. Ling$^{M7}$, K. Masuda$^{M2}$, Y. Matsubara$^{M2}$, Y. Muraki$^{M2}$, S. Namba$^{M1}$,\
K. Ohnishi$^{M8}$, N. J. Rattenbury$^{M4}$, To. Saito$^{M9}$, D. J. Sullivan$^{M5}$, W. L. Sweatman$^{M7}$, D. Suzuki$^{M1}$, P. J. Tristram$^{M10}$,\
K. Wada$^{M1}$, N. Yamai$^{M11}$, P. C. M. Yock$^{M4}$, A. Yonehara$^{M11}$\
(The MOA Collaboration)\
title: 'OGLE-2012-BLG-0455/MOA-2012-BLG-206: MICROLENSING EVENT WITH AMBIGUITY IN PLANETARY INTERPRETATIONS CAUSED BY INCOMPLETE COVERAGE OF PLANETARY SIGNAL'
---
INTRODUCTION
============
Gravitational microlensing is one of important methods to detect and characterize extrasolar planets. Due to its sensitivity to planets that are otherwise difficult to detect, the microlensing method is complementary to other methods. In particular, the method is sensitive to planets of low-mass stars located at or beyond the snow line, low-mass planets including terrestrial planets [@jung14], and even free-floating planets [@sumi11]. For general review of planetary microlensing, see @gaudi12.
The microlensing signal of a planet is usually a short-term perturbation to the smooth and symmetric standard light curve of the primary-induced lensing event [@mao91; @gould92b]. The planetary perturbation occurs when the source approaches planet-induced caustics, that represent the positions on the source plane at which the magnification of a point source would become infinite. For a lens composed of a star and a planet, caustics form a single or multiple sets of closed curves each of which is composed of concave curves that meet at cusps. The number, size, and shape of caustics vary depending on the separation and the mass ratio between the planet and its host star. For a given planetary system, planetary perturbations further vary depending on how the source approaches the lens. As a result, planets exhibit very diverse signals in lensing light curves.
Due to the immense diversity of planetary signals, characterizing a microlensing planet is a difficult task. This characterization is done from modeling in which an observed lensing light curve is compared to numerous theoretical curves resulting from various combinations of the parameters describing the lens and the source. In this process, it is often confronted that solutions of different lensing parameters result in similar light curves and can explain the observed light curve. This degeneracy problem causes difficulty in the unique interpretation of the lens system. Therefore, understanding the causes of various types of degeneracy is very important.
Up to now, it is known that there exist three broad categories of degeneracy in the interpretation of planetary microlensing signals. The first category corresponds to the case for which the degeneracy occurs when different planetary systems induce similar caustics. Good examples are the “close/wide” degeneracy for binary-lens events [@griest98; @dominik99; @an05] and the “ecliptic” degeneracy for events affected by parallax effects [@skowron11]. The second category is that the degeneracy occurs when light curves accidentally appear to be similar despite the fact that the caustics of the degenerate solutions are very different. @choi12 presented two examples of events for which an observed perturbation could be interpreted by either a planetary or a binary companion. The third category is that perturbations can be interpreted by solutions of totally different origins. A good example is the binary-lens/binary-source degeneracy [@gaudi98; @gaudi04; @hwang13].
In this work, we show that incomplete coverage of a perturbation can also result in degenerate solutions even for events where the planetary signal is detected with a high level of statistical significance. We demonstrate the degeneracy for an actually observed event OGLE-2012-BLG-0455/MOA-2012-BLG-206.
Observation
===========
The microlensing event OGLE-2012-BLG-0455/MOA-2012-BLG-206 occurred on a star located close to the Galactic center with equatorial coordinates $(\alpha,\delta)_{\rm J2000}
=(17^{\rm h}51^{\rm m}32^{\rm s}\hskip-2pt.42, -28^{\circ}33'42''\hskip-2pt.3)$, corresponding to the Galactic coordinates $(l,b)=(0.99^\circ, -0.92^\circ)$. The lensing induced brightening of the source star was first noticed on April 16, 2012 from the lensing survey conducted by the Optical Gravitational Lensing Experiment [OGLE: @udalski03] using the 1.3m Warsaw telescope of Las Campanas Observatory in Chile. The event was independently detected from the survey done by the Microlensing Observations in Astrophysics [MOA: @bond01; @sumi03] group using the 1.8m telescope of Mt. John Observatory in New Zealand. Based on real-time modeling of OGLE and MOA data (posted on their web sites$^,$), the Microlensing Follow-Up Network [$\mu$FUN: @gould06] issued a second level alert just 9 hours before the peak, predicting that the event would be very high magnification ($A_{\rm max}>300$) and so would be extremely sensitive to planets [@griest98]. In response to the high-magnification alert, data were taken first by using the 0.36m telescope of Kleinkaroo Observatory (KKO) in South Africa and subsequently by using the 1.3m SMARTS telescope of Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory (CTIO) in Chile and the 0.4m telescope of Auckland observatory in New Zealand. From follow-up observations, the peak of the event was densely covered, especially by the CTIO data, that are composed of 55 images in [*I*]{}, 8 images in [*V*]{}, and 295 images in [*H*]{} band. The total number of measurement is 6963. However, the coverage is not complete because the event occurred during the early Bulge season when the duration of Galactic-bulge visibility was short and follow-up observation in other parts of the Earth was not fully operational.
The OGLE and MOA data were reduced using photometry codes developed by the individual groups, based on the Difference Image Analysis technique [@alard98; @wozniak00; @bond01]. The $\mu$FUN data were initially reduced by DoPHOT pipeline [@schechter93] and were reprocessed using the pySIS package [@albrow09] to refine the photometry. Photometric errors estimated by different photometry systems may vary. Futhermore, error bars of each data set may deviate from the dispersion of the data points due to systematics in the photometry system. In order to use data sets collected from different observatories, we therefore normalize error bars. For this, we first add a quadratic term so that the cumulative distribution of $\chi^{2}$ ordered by magnification is approximately linear to ensure that the dispersion of the data points is consistent with error bars regardless of the source brightness. We then rescale the errors so that $\chi^{2}$ per degree of freedom ($\chi^{2}$/dof) for each data set becomes unity to ensure that each data set is fairly weighted according to error bars.
In Figure \[fig:one\], we present the light curve of the event. The event reached a magnification $A_{\rm max}\sim400$ at the peak.At a glance, the light curve appears to have a standard form of an event caused by a point mass. However, a single-lens fit leaves significant residual near the peak. Such a deviation at the peak is typically produced by either a planetary or a binary companion to the primary lens.
Modeling
========
Keeping the possible cause of the perturbation in mind, we analyze the light curve based on two point-mass lens modeling. Basic description of a binary-lens event requires 7 parameters. Among them, the first three describe the lens-source approach, including the time of the closest approach of the source to a reference position of the binary lens, $t_{0}$, the lens-source separation at $t_{0}$ in units of the angular Einstein radius $\theta_{\rm E}$ of the lens, $u_{0}$, and the time required for the source to cross the Einstein radius, $t_{\rm E}$ (Einstein time scale). Another three parameters describe the two-point lens, including the projected binary separation in units of the Einstein radius, $s$, the mass ratio between the lens components, $q$, and the angle between the source trajectory and the binary axis, $\alpha$. The last parameter is the ratio of the angular source radius $\theta_{\ast}$ to the Einstein radius, $\rho_{\ast}=\theta_{\ast}/\theta_{\rm E}$ (normalized source radius), which is needed to describes the effect of the extended source on the light curve.
Besides the basic lensing parameters, additional parameters are often needed to describe subtle deviations of lensing light curves caused by second-order effects. One such an effect is the orbital motion of a binary lens, which induces variation of the caustic shape during the magnification phase [@albrow00; @an05; @penny11; @shin11; @park13]. Another effect is caused by the orbital motion of the Earth which results in deviation of the source motion from rectilinear [@gould92a]. The latter effect is often referred to as parallax effect. We find that these effects are not important for OGLE-2012-BLG-0455/MOA-2012-BLG-206 mainly due to the relatively short duration of the event and moderate photometric quality in the wing and baseline.
The search for the best-fit solution of the lensing parameter is conducted in two steps. In the first step, we conduct grid search in the $(s,q,\alpha)$ parameter space in order to locate all possible local minima. In this process, the remaining parameters $(t_{0}, u_{0},
t_{\rm E}, \rho_{\ast})$ are searched by a downhill approach to yield minimum $\chi^{2}$ at each grid point. In the second step, we investigate the individual local minima found from the initial search. At this stage, we refine each local minimum by allowing all parameters to vary. For $\chi^{2}$ minimization, we use the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) method.
[lrrrr]{} $\chi^2/{\rm dof}$ & 6963.6/6956 & 6962.7/6956 & 6957.6/6956 & 6957.7/6956\
$t_{0}$ (HJD-2450000) & 6038.7683 $\pm$ 0.0004 & 6038.7689 $\pm$ 0.0004 & 6038.7768 $\pm$ 0.0005 & 6038.7770 $\pm$ 0.0005\
$u_{0}$ ($10^{-3}$) & 2.32 $\pm$ 0.17 & 2.21 $\pm$ 0.10 & 2.14 $\pm$ 0.12 & 2.23 $\pm$ 0.17\
$t_{\rm E}$ (days) & 47.4 $\pm$ 3.3 & 50.3 $\pm$ 2.3 & 50.1 $\pm$ 2.6 & 48.0 $\pm$ 3.6\
$s$ & 0.23 $\pm$ 0.02 & 4.99 $\pm$ 0.39 & 0.77 $\pm$ 0.02 & 1.33 $\pm$ 0.04\
$q$ ($10^{-3}$) & 9.55 $\pm$ 2.26 & 11.30 $\pm$ 1.74 & 0.07 $\pm$ 0.01 & 0.08 $\pm$ 0.01\
$\alpha$ (rad) & 4.777 $\pm$ 0.009 & 4.782 $\pm$ 0.009 & 4.209 $\pm$ 0.003 & 4.211 $\pm$ 0.004\
$\rho_{\ast}$ ($10^{-3}$) & 1.56 $\pm$ 0.12 & 1.35 $\pm$ 0.09 & 1.08 $\pm$ 0.06 & 1.11 $\pm$ 0.09
We compute finite-source magnifications by using the inverse ray-shooting method. In this numerical method, uniform rays are shot from the image plane, bent by the lens equation, and arrive at the source plane. We note that the term “inverse” is used to denote that rays are traced [*backward*]{} from the image plane to the source plane. Then, the magnification affected by the extended source is computed as the ratio between the number densities of rays on the source surface and on the image plane [@schneider86; @kayser86; @wambsganss97]. The lens equation of a binary lens is expressed as $$\zeta=z-\sum\limits_{i=1}^2 {\epsilon_{i} \over \overline{z}-\overline{z}_{{\rm L},i}},
\label{eq1}$$ where $\zeta$, $z_{{\rm L},i}$, and $z$ represent the complex notations of the source, lens, and image positions, the overbar denotes complex conjugate, $\epsilon_{i}$ are the mass fractions of the lens components, and the index $i=1,2$ denote the individual lens components. In computing finite magnifications, we consider the limb-darkening effect of the source star by modeling the surface brightness profile as $$S_{\lambda}\propto 1-\Gamma_{\lambda}\left( 1-{3\over2}\cos\psi \right),
\label{eq2}$$ where $\Gamma_{\lambda}$ is the linear limb-darkening coefficient, $\lambda$ is the passband, and $\psi$ is the angle between the line of sight toward the source star and the normal to the source surface. The limb-darkening coefficients are adopted from @claret00 considering the source type estimated based on the location in the color-magnitude diagram. It is estimated that the source type is an F-type main-sequence star with the dereddened color $(V-I)_{0}=0.60$ and [*I*]{} magnitude $I_{0}=18.6$. Based on the source type, we adopt the coefficients $\Gamma_{V}=0.497$, $\Gamma_{R}=0.421$, $\Gamma_{I}=0.347$, and $\Gamma_{H}=0.199$. For the MOA data, which used a non-standard filter system, we choose a mean value of the [*R*]{} and [*I*]{} band coefficients, i.e., $(\Gamma_{R}+\Gamma_{I})/2$.
Results
=======
From detailed analysis of the light curve, we find that the light curve significantly deviates from a standard point-mass model with $\Delta\chi^{2}\gtrsim4000$. However, despite such a strong signal, interpreting the deviation is difficult due to the existence of very degenerate local minima in the parameter space. Figure \[fig:two\] shows the local minima presented as $\Delta\chi^{2}$ distribution in the $(s,q)$ parameter space. It is found that there exist 4 distinct local minima. We mark the individual minima as A, B, C, and D. In Table \[table:one\], we list the lensing parameters of the individual local minima. We note that the mass ratios of all the minima are less than $10^{-2}$, implying that the companion is in the planetary mass regime. However, the degeneracy among the local solutions is very severe with $\Delta\chi^{2}\lesssim5$ for dof=6956 and thus the characteristics of the planet cannot be uniquely determined.
Among the local solutions, the degeneracy between the A-B and C-D pairs are already known. For each of these pairs, the mass ratios are similar but the projected separations have opposites signs of $\log s$, i.e. $s\leftrightarrow s^{-1}$. For such pairs of binary lenses, the caustics located near the primary lens induced by the close $(s<1)$ and wide $(s>1)$ planetary companions are similar both in size and shape, causing degeneracy in the resulting light curve. This degeneracy, known as the close/wide degeneracy, is caused by the invariance of the caustic under the $s\leftrightarrow s^{-1}$ transformation [@griest98; @dominik99; @an05; @chung05].
On the other hand, the degeneracy between the A-C and B-D pairs are not previously known. For each of these pairs, the lens systems of the individual local solutions have widely different characteristics. For example, the values of the separation and mass ratio are $(s,q)=(0.23, 9.50\times10^{-3})$ for the local solution “A” while the values are $(s,q)=(0.77, 0.07\times10^{-3})$ for the solution “C”. Based on the mass ratio, the individual solutions imply that the planet is either a super Jupiter or a Neptune-mass planet if the primary is a normal star. Due to the wide difference in the planet parameters, the caustics and the magnification patterns around the caustics of the degenerate solutions are greatly different as shown in Figure \[fig:three\]. Despite the difference in caustics, we find that the two solutions are very degenerate with $\Delta\chi^{2}\lesssim5$.
Although the former degeneracy is severe because it is intrinsically rooted in the lens equation, the latter degeneracy results from widely different lens systems and thus it might be that the degeneracy could be resolved with additional information. We, therefore, conduct three additional tests to check the feasibility of resolving the degeneracy.
The first test is to compare limb-darkening effects of the source star. For the high mass-ratio solutions (local A and B), the source approaches the caustic close enough for the edge of the source star almost to touch the caustic. For the low mass-ratio solutions (local C and D), on the other hand, the source-caustic separation is relatively wide. Then, the limb-darkening effect would be more important for the high mass-ratio solution than the low mass-ratio solution. We investigate the limb-darkening effect by measuring the color variation in the CTIO [*I*]{} and [*H*]{} data taken during the caustic approach. Unfortunately, the expected color variation from the models is substantially smaller than the photometric errors. Therefore, this method cannot be applied to resolve the degeneracy.
The second test is to compare source fluxes estimated from the degenerate solutions. If they are different, high resolution imaging from either space-based or ground-based adaptive optics observation would enable one to distinguish the solutions by resolving blended stars. However, we find that the source and blend fluxes for the 2 locals are nearly identical and thus the method cannot be applied to resolve the degeneracy, either.
The third test is to compare the relative lens-source proper motions $\mu$ of the two degenerate solutions. If they differ by an amount substantially greater than the measurement error, it would be possible to resolve the degeneracy from future follow-up observation by using high-resolution space or ground-based instrument. We estimate the proper motions by $\mu=\theta_{\rm E}/t_{\rm E}$, where the Einstein time scale $t_{\rm E}$ is measured from light curve modeling and the angular Einstein radius $\theta_{\rm E}$ is estimated from the angular source radius $\theta_\ast$ and the normalized source radius $\rho_\ast$ by $\theta_{\rm E}=\theta_{\ast}/\rho_{\ast}$. The angular source radius is estimated based on the dereddened color and brightness of the source. The measured values are $\mu=2.91\pm0.27$ $(0.16)$ mas yr$^{-1}$ for the high mass-ratio solution and $\mu=3.68\pm0.30$ $(0.15)$ mas yr$^{-1}$ for the low mass-ratio solution. We present two sets of errors where one (in the parenthesis) is estimated just based on the MCMC chain of the solution, while the other value is estimated by adding additional 7% error in quadrature to account for errors accompanied in the color-to-$\theta_\ast$ conversion process. The fractional error of the proper-motion difference is $\sigma_{\Delta\mu}/\Delta\mu\sim50\%$ $(28\%)$. Considering the large fractional error, it would not be easy to resolve the degeneracy by using this method.
Although very degenerate with the current data, however, we find that the latter degeneracy could have been resolved if the perturbation had been continuously and precisely covered by additional data. This can be seen in the model light curves of the two degenerate solutions presented in Figure \[fig:one\] (solid curve for the high mass-ratio solution and dotted curve for the low mass-ratio solution). It is found that the difference between the two model light curves in the region $6038.27\lesssim {\rm HJD}-2450000\lesssim
6038.68$ is considerable, with a maximum magnitude difference reaching $\sim0.08$ magnitude. Although a portion of this region $6038.56\lesssim {\rm HJD}-2450000\lesssim 6038.64$ was covered by the KKO data, the event was still quite faint given the smaller aperture (36cm) of the telescope and thus the signal-to-noise ratio was not high enough to distinguish between models. Considering that photometric errors of adjacent data taken by 1-m class telescopes are $\sim 0.01$ magnitude, the degeneracy could have been easily resolved if the perturbation had been continuously covered by mid-size telescopes. Therefore, the degeneracy can be attributed to the incomplete coverage of the planetary perturbation. Considering this, the degeneracy is different from the case where degenerate light curves are alike in all parts.
Conclusion
==========
We analyzed the high magnification microlensing event OGLE-2012-BLG-0455/MOA-2012-BLG-206 for which the peak of the light curve exhibited anomaly. Despite a large deviation from a standard point-mass model, it was found that there existed 4 very degenerate local solutions. While two of these were due to the well-known $s\leftrightarrow s^{-1}$ “close/wide” degeneracy, the other degeneracy, between high and low mass ratios q, was previously unknown. From the fact that the model light curves of the latter degeneracy substantially differed in the parts that were not covered by observation, it was found that the degeneracy was caused by the incomplete coverage of the perturbation. Therefore, the event illustrated the importance of continuous coverage of perturbations for accurate determinations of lens properties.
It is expected that the frequency of the degeneracy introduced in this work will be greatly reduced with the improvement of lensing surveys. Recently, there has been such improvement for the existing lensing surveys. For example, The observation cadence of the OGLE lensing survey was substantially increased with the adoption of a new wide field camera. The recent joint of the Wise survey [@shvartzvald14] being conducted in Israel enables more continuous event coverage by filling the gap between telescopes in Oceania and Chile. Furthermore, there are plans for future lensing surveys. For example, the MOA group plans to additionally locate a new telescope in Africa for better coverage of lensing events. In addition, the Korea Microlensing Telescope Network (KMTNet) will start operation from the 2014 season by using a network of telescopes at three different locations of the Southern Hemisphere (Chile, South Africa, and Australia). The KMTNet project plans to achieve 10-minute cadence. In addition to survey experiments, there also has been important progress in follow-up experiments. The most important is the completion of Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network, which is an integrated set of robotic telescopes distributed around the world, including two 2-m telescopes in Hawaii and Australia and nine 1-m telescopes sited in Chile, South Africa, Australia, and Texas [@tsapras09]. With the expansion of both survey and follow-up experiments, round-the-clock coverage of lensing events will be possible and the occurrence of the degeneracy will be greatly decreased.
Work by C.H. was supported by Creative Research Initiative Program (2009-0081561) of National Research Foundation of Korea. A.G. and B.S.G. acknowledge support from NSF AST-1103471. B.S.G., A.G., and R.W.P. acknowledge support from NASA grant NNX12AB99G. The OGLE project has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013)/ERC grant agreement No. 246678 to A.U. The MOA experiment was supported by grants JSPS22403003 and JSPS23340064. T.S. acknowledges the support JSPS 24253004. T.S. is supported by the grant JSPS23340044. Y.M. acknowledges support from JSPS grants JSPS23540339 and JSPS19340058. S.D. was supported through a Ralph E. and Doris M. Hansmann Membership at the IAS and NSF grant AST-0807444. Work by J.C.Y. was performed in part under contract with the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) funded by NASA through the Sagan Fellowship Program.
[99]{}
Alard, C., & Lupton, R. H. 1998, , 503, 325
Albrow, M. D., Beaulieu, J.-P., Caldwell, J. A. R., et al. 2000, , 534, 894
Albrow, M. D., Horne, K., Bramich, D. M., et al. 2009, , 397, 2099
An, J. H. 2005, , 356, 1409
Bond, I. A., Abe, F., Dodd, R. J., et al. 2005, , 327, 868
Claret, A. 2000, , 363, 1081
Choi, J.-Y., Shin, I.-G., Han, C., et al. 2012, , 756, 48
Chung, S.-J., Han, C., Park, B.-G., et al. 2005, , 630, 535
Dominik, M. 1999, , 349, 108
Gaudi, B. S. 1998, , 506, 533
Gaudi, B. S. 2012, , 50, 411
Gaudi, B. S., & Han, C. 2004, , 611, 528
Gould, A. 1992, , 392, 442
Gould, A., & Loeb, A. 1992, , 396, 104
Gould, A., Udalski, A., An, D., et al. 2006, , 644, 37
Griest, K., & Safizadeh, N. 1998, , 500, 37
Hwang, K.-H., Choi, J.-Y., Bond, I. A., et al. 2013, , 778, 55
Jung, Y. K., Park, H., Han, C., et al. 2014, , in press
Kayser, R., Refsdal, S., & Stabell, R. 1986, , 166, 36
Mao, S., & Paczyński, B. 1991, , 374, 37
Park, H., Udalski, A., Han, C., et al. 2013, , 778, 134
Penny, M. T., Mao, S., & Kerins, E. 2011, , 412, 607
Schechter, P. L., Mateo, M., & Saha, A. 1993, , 105, 1342
Schneider, P., & Weiss, A. 1986, , 164, 237
Shin, I.-G., Udalski, A., Han, C., et al. 2011, , 735, 85
Shvartzvald, Y., Maoz, D., Kaspi, S., et al. 2014, , 439, 604
Skowron, J., Udalski, A., Gould, A., et al. 2011, , 738, 87
Sumi, T., Abe, F., Bond, I. A., et al. 2003, , 591, 204
Sumi, T., Kamiya, K., Bennett, D. P., et al. 2011, , 473, 349
Tsapras, Y., Street, R., Horne, K., et al. 2009, Astron. Nachr., 330, 4
Udalski, A. 2003, Acta Astron., 53, 291
Wambsganss, J. 1997, , 284, 172
Woźniak, P. R. 2000, Acta Astron., 50, 421
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: '[ The collective emission from a one-dimensional chain of interacting two-level atoms coupled to a common electromagnetic reservoir is investigated. We derive the system’s dissipative few-excitation eigenstates, and analyze its static properties, including the collective dipole moments and branching ratios between different eigenstates. Next, we study the dynamics, and characterize the light emitted or scattered by such a system via different far-field observables. Throughout the analysis, we consider spontaneous emission from an excited state as well as two different pump field setups, and contrast the two extreme cases of non-interacting and strongly interacting atoms. For the latter case, the two-excitation submanifold contains a two-body bound state, and we find that the two cases lead to different far-field signatures. Finally we exploit these signatures to characterize the wavefunctions of the collective eigenstates. For this, we identify a direct relation between the collective branching ratio and the momentum distribution of the collective eigenstates’ wavefunction. This provides a method to proof the existence of certain collective eigenstates and to access their wave function without the need to individually address and/or manipulate single atoms. ]{}'
author:
- Paolo Longo
- Jörg Evers
title: |
Probing few-excitation eigenstates of interacting atoms on a lattice\
by observing their collective light emission in the far field
---
Introduction
============
In recent years, tailored lattice systems of (artificial) atoms have turned into a thriving field of experimental and theoretical research across many different subdisciplines of quantum optics. Still, the typical questions and problems addressed in the context of atomic lattice systems interacting with light often relate to basic and generic properties. Physical realizations of artificial atomic lattice systems cover a wide range of technologies with which light–matter interactions can be studied. To name just a few, these include cold atoms in optical lattices [@zoller05; @winkler06; @fukuhara13], fiber-based settings [@rauschenbeutel10], atom–cavity networks and on-chip photonics [@angelakis08; @koch13; @plenio08; @benson13], or cold polar molecules [@whaley14].
One particular line of research involves static and dynamic properties of the system in the few-excitation subspace [@valiente08; @valiente09; @evertz12; @longo13]. In particular few-excitation eigenstates in one dimension are also connected to the topic of more [“[exotic]{}”]{} eigenstates such as two-body bound states on a lattice [@winkler06; @fukuhara13; @valiente08; @valiente09; @longo13; @longo14]. These represent a nice example for how a [“[historical]{}”]{} prediction originally put forward by Bethe [@bethe32] is investigated today by means of cutting-edge experimental techniques [@winkler06; @fukuhara13].
However, oftentimes, related experiments are very demanding in that they require [*in situ*]{} tuning of parameters and/or rely on single-site manipulation. This motivates alternative approaches such as the coupling to a probing light field [@Weitenberg11; @porras08; @lesanovsky10; @Mekhov12; @lulingarxiv; @longo14]. Essentially, the key question here is about how much information on the eigenstates of an atomic lattice system can be inferred from the scattered light in the far field when the system is probed optically.
![\[fig:overview\] (color online) General structure of the analysis. (a) shows the basic setup. The two-level atoms (bare transition energy $\omega_0$) are arranged on a one-dimensional lattice (lattice constant $a$) along the $z$ direction. The atoms’ dipole moments are uniformly aligned and lie in the $x$-$z$ plane (in this sketch, we have exemplarily chosen an angle between the dipole moments and the atomic chain of $\theta=\pi/2$). The whole chain is coupled to a common reservoir indicated by the shading. In (b), the first considered pump-field configuration is shown, with an incoherent pump rate ${|{\mathcal{P}}|}^2$ applied at an excitation angle $\beta_{\mathrm{exc}}$. The pump’s electric field polarization vector lies in the $x$-$z$ plane and is perpendicular to the driving field’s wave vector ${\mathbf{k}}$. To separate the scattered field from the driving field, a detection out-of-plane (, in the $y$-$z$ plane) could be performed. (c) Two-pump setup with excitation angles $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$. The ratio of the driving fields’ pump rates is $\epsilon^2$.](fig1.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
A recent addition to the zoo of lattice systems arises from the emerging field of x-ray quantum optics [@xrayreview]. Nuclear transitions driven, e.g., by synchrotron light [@xraybook], are a particularly promising implementation, fueled by a number of recent theoretical [@theo1; @theo2; @theo3; @theo3a; @theo4; @theo5; @theo6] and experimental [@exp1; @exp2; @exp3; @exp4; @exp5; @exp6; @exp7; @exp8; @nano; @preprint] works. Typically, the nuclei are embedded in a solid state target, which may exhibit a crystalline structure. Facilitated by the Mö[ß]{}bauer effect [@mossbauer; @mossbauer2], suitable nuclei such as ${}^{57}$Fe have the additional benefit of offering recoil-less absorption or emission of light. Nanostructuring of the target, e.g., into thin-film waveguide structures [@exp4; @exp6; @exp7; @theo6] or nano-wires [@nano], allows one to explore lower-dimensional geometries. Furthermore, in state-of-the-art experiments, source limitations naturally restrict the nuclei to the low-excitation subspace. Finally, since the nuclei are probed via scattered light observed in the far field, again the question arises, how much this light reveals about the system.
Motivated by this question, here, we study the far-field signatures that emerge in the collective emission from dipole–dipole coupled two-level atoms on a one-dimensional lattice (see ). To this end, we develop an analytical framework reminiscent of spin physics, which allows us to discuss the relevant physical mechanisms in a broader context. We start by deriving the dissipative few-excitation eigenstates of the coupled atoms subject to a common reservoir. Next, we determine the collective dipole moments and related branching ratios for transitions between the eigenstates of the atomic chain. As a key result of this analysis, we identify a connection between the momentum distribution of the collective atomic states’ wavefunctions and these branching ratios. This analysis further enables us to determine the relevant level space for the spontaneous emission from an excited eigenstate, as well as under the influence of weak incoherent driving fields. We then study the dynamics within this relevant level space by means of a master equation. Relating the electric far field operator to the collective atomic eigenbasis, we can evaluate far-field observables such as the emitted intensity, the emission spectrum, and an intensity correlation function. This approach is of interest since it does not require single-atom addressability or manipulation techniques, and it is compatible with recent experiments in nuclear quantum optics.
In our analysis, we particularly contrast the two extreme cases of non-interacting and strongly interacting atoms. For the latter case, the two-excitation submanifold comprises not only scattering states but also two-body bound states of atomic excitation. We further find that the two cases lead to different dynamics, involving characteristic branching ratios between the eigenstates. These differences also manifest themselves in all optical far-field observables. As an application, we discuss different driving field setups to characterize the collective eigenstates’ wavefunctions via the scattered light. Finally, as an outlook, we calculate second-order correlation functions of the light in the far field.
This paper is organized as follows. In , we introduce our model and discuss it’s static properties. Furthermore, we determine the electric far-field operator in the collective atomic eigenbasis and define our observables. Based on a Lindblad master equation, we analyze in the angle-dependent far-field pattern emerging from the spontaneous emission of the system’s eigenstates. In , we discuss the far-field properties in the presence of external driving fields. We conclude the paper in . Appendices \[sec:appphdof\]–\[sec:appetasums\] provide technical details on the calculations performed.
Fundamentals {#sec:fundamentals}
============
The Model
---------
We start with the Hamiltonian ($\hbar \equiv 1$) of $M \equiv N+1 \gg 1$ ($N$ is even) two-level atoms that are periodically arranged on a one-dimensional lattice (lattice constant $a$), are linearly coupled to a photon bath, and are subject to a pair interaction $V_{nm}=V_{{\left|{n-m}\right|}}$ (where $V_0=0$): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:origH}
\nonumber
H = & & \sum_{n=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}} \omega_n \sigma^{+}_n \sigma^{-}_{n}
+ \sum_k \epsilon_k a^{\dagger}_k a^{\phantom \dagger}_k
\\
&+& \sum_{n=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}} \sum_k \left( g^{\phantom *}_{nk} \sigma^{+}_n a^{\phantom \dagger}_k
+ g^{*}_{nk} \sigma^{-}_n a^{\dagger}_k \right) \\ \nonumber
&+& \frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}} \sum_{m=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}} V_{{\left|{n-m}\right|}} \sigma^{+}_n \sigma^{-}_n \sigma^{+}_m \sigma^{-}_m
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ The atomic indices refer to lattice sites, $\omega_n = \omega_{0}~\forall~n$ denotes the atomic transition energies, and $g_{nk}$ signifies the coupling of atom $n$ to mode $k$ of a photon bath (whose dispersion relation is $\epsilon_k$). The photonic creation and annihilation operators $a^{\dagger}_k$ and $a^{\phantom \dagger}_k$ are bosonic operators and the index $k$ runs over all modes of the photon reservoir. The atomic raising (lowering) operator of atom $n$ is denoted by $\sigma^{+}_n$ ($\sigma^{-}_n$), satisfying the commutation relation $\left[ \sigma^{+}_n , \sigma^{-}_m \right] = \delta_{nm} \sigma^z_n$, where $\sigma^{+}_n = {|{\uparrow}\rangle}_n {\langle{\downarrow}|}_n$, $\sigma^{-}_n = \left( \sigma^{+}_n \right)^{\dagger}$, and $\sigma^z_n = {|{\uparrow}\rangle}_n {\langle{\uparrow}|}_n - {|{\downarrow}\rangle}_n {\langle{\downarrow}|}_n$. Here, ${|{\uparrow}\rangle}_n$ (${|{\downarrow}\rangle}_n$) denotes the excited (ground) state of atom $n$.
Upon eliminating the photonic degrees of freedom similarly to the formalism presented in Ref. [@li12] (see for details), we arrive at the effective, non-Hermitian Hamiltonian $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\label{eq:Heff}
H_{\mathrm{eff}}
&=& \sum_{n=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}} \omega_0 ~\sigma^+_n \sigma^-_n
- \frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2} \sum_{n=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}} \sum_{m=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}} \Gamma_{{\left|{n-m}\right|}} \sigma^+_n \sigma^-_m \\
&& ~+~ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{n=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}} \sum_{m=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}} V_{{\left|{n-m}\right|}} \sigma^+_n \sigma^-_n \sigma^+_m \sigma^-_m
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ The individual terms in this Hamiltonian can be understood as follows. Being coupled to an electromagnetic reservoir, an individual atom experiences an energy shift (Lamb shift) of $\mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_0)/2$ and it is subject to spontaneous decay at a rate of $\mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_0) \equiv \gamma_0$. Photons can be exchanged between nearby atoms via the common electromagnetic reservoir by virtue of dipole–dipole coupling. These processes are incorporated into the terms with $\mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_{{\left|{n-m}\right|} \geq 1})$, while the dissipative part (, $\mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_{{\left|{n-m}\right|} \geq 1})$) leads to a modification of the spontaneous emission rate. Furthermore, two atoms at a relative distance of ${\left|{n-m}\right|} a$ experience an interaction-induced energy shift $V_{{\left|{n-m}\right|}}$ if they are both in the excited state. Hamiltonian (\[eq:Heff\]) can also be seen as describing interacting and dissipative spin-$1/2$ excitations on a one-dimensional lattice.
In this paper, we aim at investigating the regime of an extended sample, where the bare atomic emission wavelength $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}} = 2\pi/k_{\mathrm{at}} = 2\pi c / \omega_{0}$ ($c$ is the speed of light) is smaller than the lattice constant, , $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}} / a < 1$, contrasting the established [“[small-volume limit]{}”]{} originally investigated by Dicke [@dicke54; @haroche82]. In the following, we restrict the dipole–dipole coupling and the atom–atom interactions to nearest neighbors. The only parameters left in this regime are $\Gamma_0$, $\Gamma_1$, and $U \equiv V_1$, resulting in the tight-binding formulation $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Hefftb}
H^{\mathrm{tb}}_{\mathrm{eff}}
&=& \sum_{n=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}} \left( \omega_0 - \frac{{\mathrm{i}}\Gamma_0}{2} \right)~ \sigma^+_n \sigma^-_n \\
\nonumber
&& ~-~ \frac{{\mathrm{i}}\Gamma_1}{2} \sum_{n=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}-1} \left( \sigma^+_{n+1} \sigma^-_n + \mathrm{h.c.} \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~+~ U \sum_{n=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}-1} \sigma^+_{n+1} \sigma^-_{n+1} \sigma^+_n \sigma^-_n
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ For atoms coupled to free space, the complex rates that enter Hamiltonians (\[eq:Heff\]) and (\[eq:Hefftb\]) are given by [@li12] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fullrates}
\frac{\Gamma_0}{\gamma_0} &=& 1 - \frac{2 {\mathrm{i}}}{\pi} {\,,}\\
\frac{\Gamma_{x \neq 0}}{\gamma_0} &=& A_x \sin^2\theta + B_x \cdot \frac{3 \cos^2 \theta - 1}{2} {\,,}\\
A_x &=& - \frac{3 {\mathrm{i}}{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\xi_x}}{2 \xi_x} {\,,}\\
\nonumber
B_x &=& \frac{3}{\xi^3_x} \cdot
\big{[} \sin \xi_x - \xi_x \cos \xi_x \\
&& \hspace{1.2cm} ~-~ {\mathrm{i}}\left( \cos \xi_x + \xi_x \sin \xi_x \right) \big{]} {\,,}\\
\label{eq:fullrateslast}
\xi_x &=& k_{\mathrm{at}} a {\left|{x}\right|} = \omega_{0} a {\left|{x}\right|} / c
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where $x \equiv n-m$ and $\theta$ denotes the angle between the atomic chain ($z$ axis) and the atomic dipole moment ${\mathbf{d}}$ (see also a)).
Exemplarily, orders of magnitudes in the field of Rydberg atoms trapped in an optical lattice are [@weidemueller13] $\lambda_\mathrm{at} \sim 500~\mathrm{nm}$, ($\omega_{0} / 2 \pi \sim 500~\mathrm{THz}$), $\gamma_0 \sim \mathrm{MHz}$, and $U \sim 50~\mathrm{GHz}$ (for $a \sim 1~\mu\mathrm{m}$), representing separated scales $\omega_{0} \gg U \gg \gamma_0$. Alternatively, in the realm of x-ray quantum optics [@exp1; @exp2; @exp3; @exp4; @exp5; @exp6; @exp7; @exp8; @nano], for instance the ${}^{57}$Fe Mössbauer transition is characterized by $\omega_{0}/2\pi \sim 10^{18}$ Hz, $\gamma_0 \sim $ MHz, $a \sim \mathrm{pm}$, and $U=0$. For these systems, crystalline solid state targets naturally provide ordered arrays of x-ray emitters.
Eigenstates and Eigenvalues {#subsec:eigenstates}
---------------------------
In this Section, we investigate the non-Hermitian eigenvalue problem $$\left( H_{\mathrm{eff}} - E \right) {|{\Psi}\rangle}=0
{\,.}$$ The resulting eigenvalues $E$ are complex and the real part plays the role of the eigenstate’s excitation energy, whereas $-2 \mathrm{Im}(E)$ can be interpreted as the decay rate of the eigenstate’s occupation number [@li12]. Also note that for a non-Hermitian Hamiltonian, the left eigenstates are in general not just the Hermitian conjugate of the right eigenstates (as it would be for a Hermitian Hamiltonian). Generally, the notion of biorthogonality needs to be taken into account (for instance, see Ref. [@biorth]). However, these details will not be important in the course of this paper since we are led by the following train of thought.
First, we use an effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian to obtain the energies and decay rates in the system’s eigenbasis. Later on, when switching to a Lindblad formulation (), the coherent time evolution is given with respect to the [“[closed]{}”]{} system described by the Hermitian part of the Hamiltonian which is realized formally by setting the real parts of the complex rates to zero, , $\mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_x)=0$. Note that setting the real part of the complex decay rates to zero results in a Hermitian Hamiltonian, yielding real energy eigenvalues (which are the system’s transition energies). Expressed differently, the coherent part of the Lindblad equation is diagonal with respect to the [“[non-dissipative]{}”]{} basis (which we also utilize for the calculation of matrix elements). Likewise, the dissipators in the incoherent part of the Lindblad equation contain the eigenstates’ total decay rates as obtained from the imaginary part of the complex eigenenergies of the original non-Hermitian Hamiltonian [@noteequiv].
### Single-Excitation Eigenstates and Eigenvalues
A solution to the single-excitation eigenproblem (see for details) can be formulated in terms of a Bloch wave $${\left|{k}\right\rangle}=\sum_n \frac{{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}k a n}}{\sqrt{M}} \sigma^+_n {\left|{0}\right\rangle}
{\,,}$$ where $ka = -\pi + 2 \pi \ell / M$ ($\ell=0,1,\dots,M-1$) is a wavenumber from the first Brillouin zone and ${|{0}\rangle}$ signifies the vacuum state. The complex eigenvalues for the general Hamiltonian (\[eq:Heff\]) are essentially given as the Fourier lattice transform of the complex rates, , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigen1ex1dlatt}
\nonumber
E^{(1)}_k &=& \omega_{0} - \frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2} \sum_{x=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}} \Gamma_{{\left|{x}\right|}} {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}k a x} \\
&=& \omega_{0} - \frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2} \Gamma_0 - {\mathrm{i}}\sum_{x=1}^{\frac{N}{2}} \Gamma_{x} \cos(k a x) {\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Rewritten in terms of the collective Lamb shift and decay rate we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:1exrealimagpart}
\mathrm{Re}(E^{(1)}_k) &=& \omega_{0} + \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_0) + \sum_{x=1}^{\frac{N}{2}} \mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_x) \cos(k a x) {\,,}\\
\label{eq:1exrealimagpartB}
\Gamma_k &\equiv& -2 \mathrm{Im}(E^{(1)}_k) = \gamma_0 + 2 \sum_{x=1}^{\frac{N}{2}} \mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_x) \cos(k a x) {\,.}\end{aligned}$$ As a side note we would like to point out that the superradiant Dicke state [@dicke54; @haroche82] in the small-volume limit $a \rightarrow 0$ is also accounted for in the above expressions. For $a \rightarrow 0$, we have $\Gamma_x \rightarrow \Gamma_0$ (see Eqs. (\[eq:fullrates\])–(\[eq:fullrateslast\])) so that the state with $k=0$ (symmetric Dicke state) exhibits a decay rate as well as a Lamb shift proportional to the number of emitters $M$ in the volume. Hence, $\Gamma_{k=0} \overset{a \rightarrow 0}{\rightarrow} M \gamma_0$ and $\mathrm{Re}(E^{(1)}_k=0) \overset{a \rightarrow 0}{\rightarrow} \omega_{0} - M \gamma_0 / \pi$.
However, for the remainder of this paper, we focus on the regime of an extended sample and utilize the tight binding Hamiltonian (\[eq:Hefftb\]). In that case, the above formulae reduce to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigen1extblatt_B}
\mathrm{Re}(E^{(1)}_k) &=& \omega_{0} + \frac{1}{2} \mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_0) + \mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_1) \cos(ka) \simeq \omega_{0} {\,,}\\
\label{eq:eigen1extblatt_C}
\Gamma_k &=& \gamma_0 + 2 \mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_1) \cos(ka) \simeq \gamma_0 {\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where the approximated expressions are valid for $\gamma_0 / \omega_{0} \ll 1$, describing sharp optical resonances. The single-excitation dispersion relation for the tight-binding case is depicted in a).
### Two-Excitation Eigenstates and Eigenvalues {#subsubsec:twoexcst}
The solution to the two-excitation problem (see for details) can be written in terms of a product of the center-of-mass motion (described by a plane wave with a center-of-mass wavenumber $K$) and a relative wavefunction $\Psi^{(K \nu)}_{{\left|{n_1-n_2}\right|}}$, , $$\label{eq:twobodyansatz}
{\left|{K \nu}\right\rangle} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{M}} \sum_{n_1 n_2}
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\frac{Ka}{2} \left(n_1+n_2\right)}
\cdot \Psi^{(K \nu)}_{{\left|{n_1-n_2}\right|}}
~\sigma^+_{n_1} \sigma^+_{n_2} {\left|{0}\right\rangle}
{\,.}$$ Here, $K/2$ is from the first Brillouin zone and $\nu$ is a quantum number still to be determined. For $n_1=n_2$, the wavefunction needs to vanish ($\Psi^{(K \nu)}_0 = 0$) since a single atom cannot be doubly excited, expressing the fact that the excitations of a 1D spin-$1/2$ chain are hard-core bosons.
Note that this eigenproblem is similar to the problem of two excitations in the extended Bose-Hubbard model [@valiente09; @valiente08] and also occurs in the study of biexcitons in arrays of coupled chromophores [@agranovichbook; @spano91; @spano95]. Originally put forward by Bethe [@bethe32] (and, for instance, also addressed in Refs. [@bethe32; @winkler06; @fukuhara13; @valiente09; @valiente08; @longo13]), is the remarkable fact that a complete basis of the two-excitation submanifold comprises scattering states *and* bound states. We will now discuss these two classes of solutions.
[*Scattering States.—*]{} For each center-of-mass wavenumber $K$, we have scattering states characterized by their relative wavenumber $p$ (from the first Brillouin zone). The relative wave function is of the form ($x \neq 0$) $$\label{eq:ansatzscattstat}
\Psi^{(K p)}_x = \frac{1}{\sqrt{M}} \left( {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}pa {\left|{x}\right|}}
+ {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp}} {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}pa {\left|{x}\right|}} \right)
{\,,}$$ where $\delta_{K p}$ is the scattering phase shift due to the atom–atom interaction. The corresponding complex energy eigenvalues can be written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigen2extblatt_B}
\nonumber
\mathrm{Re}(E^{(2)}_{Kp}) &=& 2 \omega_{0} + \mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_0) + 2 \mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_1) \cos\left( \frac{Ka}{2} \right)\cos(pa)
\\
&\simeq& 2 \omega_{0}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:eigen2extblatt_C}
\nonumber
\Gamma^{Kp}_{\mathrm{tot}} &\equiv& -2 \mathrm{Im}(E^{(2)}_{Kp})
\\
&=&
2 \gamma_0 + 4 \mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_1) \cos\left( \frac{Ka}{2} \right)\cos(pa)
\\ \nonumber
&\simeq& 2 \gamma_0
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ This two-excitation dispersion relation is depicted in b). As in Eqs. (\[eq:eigen1extblatt\_B\]) and (\[eq:eigen1extblatt\_C\]), the approximated expressions are valid for $\gamma_0 / \omega_{0} \ll 1$. Note that the eigenvalues (\[eq:eigen2extblatt\_B\]) and (\[eq:eigen2extblatt\_C\]) do not depend on the scattering potential $U$. In fact, the (complex) eigenenergy is just the energy of the [“[free]{}”]{} particles as it is always the case in scattering theory. This becomes most apparent when expressing the center-of-mass and the relative wavenumbers in terms of single-particle wavenumbers $k_1$ and $k_2$, , $E^{(2)}_{Kp} = E^{(2)}_{k1+k2, (k_1-k_2)/2} = E^{(1)}_{k_1} + E^{(1)}_{k_2}$. In particular, when there is no interaction ($U = 0$) the full many-body solution can be written as a direct product of single-excitation states and the many-body eigenenergy is the sum of the single-excitation energies.
In the introduction of , we mentioned that the eigenstate’s wavefunction coefficients belonging to the non-dissipative, Hermitian system (realized by setting $\mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_0)=\mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_1)=0$) are important for a later calculation of matrix elements. The corresponding scattering phase shift for the non-dissipative system is [@fnphaseshift] $$\label{eq:phaseshiftclosedsys}
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp}} =
- \frac{ \mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_1) \cos\left( \frac{Ka}{2} \right) - U {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}pa}}
{\mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_1) \cos\left( \frac{Ka}{2} \right) - U {\mathrm{e}}^{- {\mathrm{i}}pa}}
{\,.}$$ For the remainder of this paper, we will concentrate on the two cases of non-interacting atoms ($U=0$) and strong atom–atom interactions ([“[large $U$ limit]{}”]{}). For $U=0$ the phase shift is $$\label{eq:expfacU0}
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp}} = -1~~~~~(U=0)
{\,.}$$ This is a result of the hard-core constraint $\Psi^{(K \nu)}_0 = 0$ and can be understood as an infinite repulsion at zero relative coordinate. Conversely, in the limit of strong atom–atom interactions, where $U \gg \gamma_0 > \mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_1)$, the phase shift is $$\label{eq:expfacUinf}
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp}} = - {\mathrm{e}}^{2 {\mathrm{i}}pa}~~~~~(U \gg \gamma_0)
{\,.}$$ Further note that, for both $U=0$ and large $U$, the $p=0$-wavefunction vanishes. This also includes the so-called symmetric Dicke state with $K=p=0$ for which the relative phases between the different wavefunction coefficients is constant. Unlike for the original Dicke model, two excitations in our tight-binding model interfere destructively for $p=0$ due to the mentioned hard-core constraint (see ${\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp}} = -1$ in Eqs. (\[eq:expfacU0\]), (\[eq:expfacUinf\]), and (\[eq:ansatzscattstat\])).
[*Bound States.—*]{} Additionally, the system may also feature bound states [@valiente08; @valiente09; @longo13], whose relative wavefunction is of the form ($x \neq 0$) $$\label{eq:ansatzboundstat}
\Psi^{(K, \mathrm{BS})}_x = \alpha^{{\left|{x}\right|}-1}_K
{\,,}$$ where $\alpha_K = - {\mathrm{i}}\Gamma_1 \cos\left( \frac{Ka}{2} \right)/U$ and the complex energy eigenvalues are $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eigen2extblattBS_B}
\mathrm{Re}({E}^{(2)}_{K, \mathrm{BS}}) &=&
2\omega_{0} + \mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_0) + U \\ \nonumber
&& ~- \cos^2\left( \frac{Ka}{2}\right) \cdot \frac{ \left[ \left( \mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_1) \right)^2 -\left( \mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_1) \right)^2 \right] }{U}
\\ \nonumber
&\simeq& 2\omega_{0} + U {\,,}\\
\label{eq:eigen2extblattBS_C}
\nonumber
\Gamma^{K, \mathrm{BS}}_{\mathrm{tot}} &\equiv& -2 \mathrm{Im}({E}^{(2)}_{K, \mathrm{BS}})
\\
&=& 2\gamma_0 + 4 \cos^2\left( \frac{Ka}{2} \right) \cdot \frac{\mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_1) \mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_1) }{U} \\
\nonumber
&\simeq& 2 \gamma_0
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Again, the approximated expressions are valid for $\omega_{0} \gg U \gg \gamma_0$, , for sharp optical resonances and strong atom–atom interactions. The dispersion relation for the two-body bound states is compared with the scattering states’ properties in b). Figure \[fig:disprels\]c) summarizes the few-excitation Hilbert space in terms of a simplified level scheme consisting of quasi-degenerate bands (which is valid for $\omega_0 \gg \gamma_0$).
Note that—in contrast to the scattering states—the energy of the bound states also depends on the dissipative property $\mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_1)$. This can be understood as a dissipation-induced energy shift due to the dressing of the bound state through the reservoir. However, this effect is negligible for strong atom–atom interactions $U \gg \gamma_0$.
If we, as before, imagine the non-dissipative system (where $\mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_0)=\mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_1)=0$) and require the relative wavefunction to be spatially confined, the condition ${\left|{\alpha_K}\right|}<1$ translates into $$\label{eq:critforexist}
{\left|{ {\mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_1)} \cos\left( \frac{Ka}{2} \right) }\right|} < {\left|{U}\right|}
{\,.}$$ This criterion for the existence of a two-body bound state with a center-of-mass wavenumber $K$ is always fulfilled for $U \gg \gamma_0$. In this regime of strong atom–atom interactions, the two-body bound state is tightly confined with respect to the relative coordinate, , $$\Psi^{(K, \mathrm{BS})}_x = \delta_{{|{x}|},1}~~~~~(U \gg \gamma_0)
{\,,}$$ describing a composite two-excitation object moving along the lattice. Because only neighboring sites are occupied here, the minimal spatial separation between two excitations is given by the lattice constant $a$.
The nearest neighbor interaction $U$ can be understood as the discrete variant of a $\delta$-like potential. Therefore, for each center-of-mass wavenumber $K$, there is at most one bound state in the spectrum. There are no bound states in the case of non-interacting atoms ($U=0$).
When comparing the complex eigenenergies of scattering states and bound states, we find that two excitations approximately all decay at a rate of $\Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}} \simeq 2 \gamma_0$ (for both $\nu=p$ and $\nu = \mathrm{BS}$). However, the bound states’ energies are detached from the quasicontinuum of scattering states due to an interaction induced shift which is on the order of $U$ (see also ).
Collective Dipole Moments and Momentum Distribution
---------------------------------------------------
We now turn to the problem of how in detail a two-excitation eigenstate decays ([[cf.]{} ]{}a)) and show that the relevant key quantity here is intimately linked to the state’s momentum distribution.
{width="\textwidth"}
### Dipole Moments and Branching Ratio
As the effective Hamiltonian (\[eq:Heff\]) lacks the detailed information of the various possible decay paths (degrees of freedom have been integrated out), we need to consider the collective operator $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:collop}
\nonumber
D^- &=& \sum_{\mu} \sum_{y=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}} D^-_{y \mu} {\,,}\\
D^-_{y \mu}
&=& g^{*}_{y \mu} \sigma^-_y a^{\dagger}_{\mu} \\ \nonumber
&=& g^{*}_{\mu} \frac{ {\mathrm{e}}^{- {\mathrm{i}}\mu a y } }{\sqrt{M}}
\sigma^-_y a^{\dagger}_{\mu} {\,,}\end{aligned}$$ which induces one-photon transitions. Here, $g_{\mu}$ signifies the atom–photon coupling strength (which can be considered being wave number independent across the spectral window that is relevant here), and $\mu$ denotes the wavenumber that is transferred to the photon field. This collective operator transfers a collective $n$-excitation atomic state to the sub-manifold of $n-1$ excitations, which is accompanied by the emission of a photon.
To identify the possible decay paths, we calculate the transition matrix elements $\sum_f {\langle{f}|} D^- {|{i}\rangle}$ with respect to the non-dissipative eigenstates (as explained in the introduction of ). As an initial state, we take the direct product of the photon reservoir being in the vacuum state and the atomic system being in a two-excitation eigenstate, , ${|{i}\rangle} = {|{K \nu}\rangle} \otimes {|{\{0\}}\rangle}$. Consequently, the target states ${|{f}\rangle} = {|{k}\rangle} \otimes {|{1_{\mu}}\rangle}$ consist of an atomic single-excitation state and a single photon (in mode $\mu$). Explicit calculation reveals that $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\sum_f {\langle{f}|} D^- {|{i}\rangle} & = &
\sum_{\mu} \sum_{y} g^{*}_{\mu} \frac{ {\mathrm{e}}^{- {\mathrm{i}}\mu a y } }{\sqrt{M}}
{\langle{k}|} \sigma^-_y {|{K \nu}\rangle}
\\
&=&
g^*_{K-k} \bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where the quantity $\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k}$ (for details, we refer to ) can be interpreted as a collective dipole moment. This quantity (which will be discussed later in this Section) can be used to define the branching ratio $b^{(K \nu)}_k$ for the decay ${|{K \nu}\rangle} \rightarrow {|{k}\rangle}$ via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:defbranchrat}
\nonumber
b^{(K \nu)}_k
&\equiv&
\frac{{\left|{g_{K-k}}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k}}\right|}^2 }{\displaystyle \sum_{q=-\frac{\pi}{a}}^{\frac{\pi}{a}} {\left|{g_{K-q}}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-q}}\right|}^2} \\
&\simeq& \frac{{\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k}}\right|}^2 }{\displaystyle \sum_{q=\frac{K}{2}-\frac{\pi}{a}}^{\frac{K}{2}+\frac{\pi}{a}} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_q}\right|}^2}
= \frac{1}{2} \cdot {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k}}\right|}^2
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ In the second last step, we have exploited that the coupling strength is practically constant over the spectral range that corresponds to the wavenumbers involved. Also note that $\sum_{q} {|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_q}|}^2 = 2$ holds (see ), which results from the branching ratio’s sum over all decay channels $\sum_k b^{(K \nu)}_k=1$. The partial rate for the decay ${|{K \nu}\rangle} \rightarrow {|{k}\rangle}$ is therefore $$\Gamma^{K \nu}_k \equiv b^{K \nu}_k \cdot \Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}}
= \frac{1}{2} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k}}\right|}^2 \cdot \Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}}
{\,.}$$ Hence, the collective dipole moment determines the branching ratio.
### Momentum Distribution, Direct and Background Fluorescence {#subsubsec:dirbgetc}
The quantity ${|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_q}|}^2$ has yet another precise physical meaning. The Fourier transform of the two-body wave function (see for details), , $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&&
\sum_{n_1=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}}
\sum_{n_2=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}}
\frac{{\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}k_1 a n_1}}{\sqrt{M}} \frac{{\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}k_2 a n_2}}{\sqrt{M}}
\Phi_{n_1 n_2}
= \\ \nonumber
&&
\frac{1}{2M^{\frac{3}{2}}}
\sum_{n_1=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}}
\sum_{n_2=-\frac{N}{2}}^{\frac{N}{2}}
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\left( \frac{K}{2}-k_1 \right)a n_1}
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\left( \frac{K}{2}-k_2 \right)a n_2}
\Psi^{(K \nu)}_{n_1-n_2}
=
\\
&&
~~~ \frac{1}{2} \bar{\eta}^{(K\nu)}_{\frac{1}{2}\left( k_1-k_2 \right)} ~ \delta_{ \left[ K-k_1-k_2 \right]_{\frac{2\pi}{a}} , 0}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ demonstrates that ${|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_q}|}^2$ can indeed be interpreted as the momentum distribution of the relative wave function with respect to a relative momentum $q$. The Kronecker-$\delta$ expresses the conservation of the center-of-mass wavenumber and the notation $\left[ a \right]_{b}$ stands for [“[$a$ modulo $b$]{}”]{}. As a result, the information about the individual decay paths of a two excitation eigenstate, , collective dipole moments and branching ratios, are fully encoded in the momentum distribution of the eigenstate’s relative wavefunction.
The explicit expressions are given as ($q \geq 0$ and $p>0$, see for details) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:etascattredgen}
\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_{q} &=&
\begin{cases}
\frac{1+{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp}}}{2}
&
p = q \\
\frac{2}{M} {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\frac{\delta_{Kp}}{2}}
\frac{\sin\left[ \frac{1}{2} \left( \delta_{Kp} - \left(p-q\right)a \right) \right]}{\sin\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(p-q\right)a\right]}
&
\left[\frac{\left(p-q\right)aM}{2\pi}\right]_{2} \neq 0
\end{cases}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:etaBSred}
\bar{\eta}^{(K, \mathrm{BS})}_{q} &=& \frac{2}{\sqrt{M}} \cdot \frac{\cos(qa) - \alpha_K}{1-2\alpha_K \cos(qa) + \alpha_K^2}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ For the case of non-interacting atoms ($U=0$), we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:etaU0}
{\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K, p>0)}_{q}}\right|}^2 &=&
\begin{cases}
0
&
p = q \\
\frac{4}{M^2} \frac{1}{\tan^2\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(p-q\right)a\right]}
&
\left[\frac{\left(p-q\right)aM}{2\pi}\right]_{2} \neq 0
\end{cases}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ whereas in the regime of strong atom–atom interactions ($U \gg \gamma_0$) we are left with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:etaUlargscatt}
{\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K, p>0)}_{q}}\right|}^2 &=&
\begin{cases}
\sin^2\left(pa\right)
&
p = q \\
\frac{4}{M^2} \frac{1+ \cos\left[\left(p+q\right)a\right]}{1- \cos\left[\left(p-q\right)a\right]}
&
\left[\frac{\left(p-q\right)aM}{2\pi}\right]_{2} \neq 0
\end{cases}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:etaUlargeBS}
{\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K, \mathrm{BS})}_{q}}\right|}^2 &=& \frac{4}{M} \cos^2\left(qa\right)
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Note that the symmetry properties ${|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_{q}}|}^2 = {|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_{-q}}|}^2$ and ${|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_{q}}|}^2 = {|{\bar{\eta}^{(K, -p)}_{q}}|}^2$ hold.
In b)–d), we plot the relative wavefunction’s momentum distributions (\[eq:etaU0\])–(\[eq:etaUlargeBS\]) on a linear scale. These figures reveal many details of the two-excitation states’ properties and their respective decay channels. We start the discussion with a scattering state ${|{K p}\rangle}$ for the case of non-interacting atoms ($U=0$). Given the quantum numbers $K$ and $p$, we can extract the values of $q = K/2-k$ for which the momentum distribution is non-zero from b). This determines the wavenumbers $\{k\}$ of the intermediate single-excitation states that contribute to the overall decay ${|{Kp}\rangle} \rightarrow \{ {|{k}\rangle} \} \rightarrow {|{0}\rangle}$. Since the main diagonal in b) is strictly zero, we can conclude that the decay channel with $\pm q=p$ is fully suppressed for $U=0$. Upon expressing the center-of-mass and relative wavenumbers in terms of single-excitation wavenumbers $k_1$ and $k_2$ (, $K=k_1+k_1$, $p=(k_1-k_2)/2$), it becomes apparent that this [“[direct]{}”]{} channel with $\pm q=p$ (in the following also termed [“[direct fluorescence]{}”]{}) stands for decay processes where the intermediate single-excitation states are ${|{k_1}\rangle}$ and ${|{k_2}\rangle}$. In other words, the direct fluorescence refers to decay processes for which the single-excitation wavenumbers are individually conserved. This suppression which occurs for $U=0$ is a consequence of the interaction-induced phase shift ${\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp}}=-1$ between the two excitations (see Eqs. (\[eq:phaseshiftclosedsys\]) and (\[eq:etascattredgen\])). Even though the atoms are non-interacting, the two excitations experience an infinitely strong on-site repulsion due to the hard-core constraint of spin-$1/2$ excitations ($\Psi^{(K \nu)}_0=0$, see also ), ultimately leading to the suppression of the direct channel. In addition to that, we have a [“[background]{}”]{} channel (also termed [“[background]{}”]{} fluorescence) for $\pm q \neq p$, yielding non-zero entries on the secondary diagonals in b) (see also e) for a logarithmic scale). The background fluorescence plays the dominant role for $U=0$ and represents decay channels which do not conserve the individual single-excitation wavenumbers (the intermediate single-excitation states exhibit wavenumbers $k \neq k_1, k_2$).
Conversely, the details of a two-excitation scattering state’s decay in the regime $U \gg \gamma_0$ depend on the relative wavenumber $p$. From the relative wavefunction’s momentum distribution in c) (see also f) for a logarithmic scale), we infer that both direct and background fluorescence channels can occur. Specifically, at $p=\pi/2a$ the background channel is fully suppressed and only the direct fluorescence contributes. However, for relative wavenumbers away from $p=\pi/2a$, a combination of direct and background terms can be observed. Ultimately, close to $p=0$ or $p=\pi/a$, the background fluorescence dominates and c) resembles b) (note the different scales). On the whole, the relative wavefunction’s momentum distribution for a scattering state in the regime $U \gg \gamma_0$ exhibits features as a function of the relative wavenumber $p$, whereas the regime of non-interacting atoms ($U=0$) yields a featureless distribution ([[cf.]{} ]{}b) and e)).
Finally, we discuss the respective momentum distribution of a bound state ${|{K, \mathrm{BS}}\rangle}$ for $U \gg \gamma_0$. For a bound state, the concepts of [“[direct]{}”]{} and [“[background fluorescence]{}”]{} do not exist since the concept of a relative wavenumber $p$ as a quantum number does not apply (a bound state is fully characterized by its center-of-mass wavenumber $K$). In d) we see that the momentum distribution is a broad function in momentum space (, non-zero over a wide range of $q$). Hence, there are many intermediate single-excitation states to which a two-body bound state can decay. This property clearly contrasts a bound state from scattering states and will eventually lead to the characteristic and distinct features in the emission patterns which we discuss later.
Far-Field Observables {#subsec:ffobs}
---------------------
In this paper, we focus on the far-field signatures that emerge from the light that is scattered by the atoms. The Glauber decomposition of the electric field operator for the scattered far field can be written as [@glauber; @mandelwolf] $$\label{eq:eopfarfield}
\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}^{(-)}({\mathbf{r}},t) = \xi {\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}) \sum_n \sigma^{+}_{n}(t-t_n) {\,,}$$ where $\xi = \omega_{0}^2/4 \pi \epsilon_0 c^2$ ($\epsilon_0$ is the vacuum permittivity), $${\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}) = \frac{{\mathbf{d}}}{r} - \left({\mathbf{d}} \cdot {\mathbf{r}}\right) \frac{{\mathbf{r}}}{r^3}
~~~~~(r={|{{\mathbf{r}}}|})$$ signifies the far-field pattern of a single dipole, and $\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}^{(+)} = \left( \hat{{\mathbf{E}}}^{(-)} \right)^{\dagger}$. The retarded times in the argument of the atomic operators in are $$\begin{aligned}
t_n &=& \frac{1}{c} {|{{\mathbf{r}}-{\mathbf{r}}_n}|} = t_n(\beta_{\mathrm{det}}) \\
&\simeq& \frac{r}{c} - \frac{a}{c} \sin\left(\beta_{\mathrm{det}}\right) \cdot n
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where the last line represents the far-field approximation. Here, ${\mathbf{r}}_n = na \hat{{\mathbf{e}}}_z$ and $\beta_{\mathrm{det}}$ denotes the elevation coordinate of the detector position ${\mathbf{r}}=r ( \cos\beta_{\mathrm{det}} \cos\varphi_{\mathrm{det}} , \cos\beta_{\mathrm{det}} \sin\varphi_{\mathrm{det}} , \sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}} )$ ($\beta_{\mathrm{det}}=0$ signifies detection perpendicular to the atomic chain and $\varphi_{\mathrm{det}}$ is the azimuthal angle).
We now transform to the basis of the system’s eigenstates by virtue of the expansion (for details, see ) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:usefulsigma}
\sigma^{-}_n &=&
\sum_k {\left|{0}\right\rangle} {\left\langle{0}\right|} \sigma^{-}_n {\left|{k}\right\rangle} {\left\langle{k}\right|}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~ ~+~
\sum_k \sum_{K \nu} {\left|{k}\right\rangle} {\left\langle{k}\right|} \sigma^{-}_n {\left|{K \nu}\right\rangle} {\left\langle{K \nu}\right|}
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}} \sum_k {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}ka n} \hat{S}_{0; k}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~ ~+~ \frac{1}{2 \sqrt{M}} \sum_k \sum_{K \nu}
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}(K-k)a n} \bar{\eta}^{(K,\nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k}
\hat{S}_{k; K \nu} {\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{S}_{0; k} = {|{0}\rangle} {\langle{k}|}$ and $\hat{S}_{k; K \nu} = {|{k}\rangle} {\langle{K \nu}|}$. The quantum number $\nu$ runs over all scattering states ($\nu=p$) and a possible bound state ($\nu=\mathrm{BS}$). Assuming the [“[harmonic decomposition]{}”]{} [@ficek] for the operators $\hat{S}_{0; k}$ and $\hat{S}_{k; K \nu}$, , $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:harmdec1}
\hat{S}_{k;0}\left(t-t_n(\beta_{\mathrm{det}}) \right) &\simeq&
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\frac{\Delta^k_0}{c} a \sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}} \cdot n} \hat{S}_{k;0}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} \right) {\,,}\\
\label{eq:harmdec2}
\hat{S}_{K \nu;k}\left(t-t_n(\beta_{\mathrm{det}}) \right) &\simeq&
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\frac{\Delta^{K \nu}_k}{c} a \sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}} \cdot n} \hat{S}_{K \nu;k}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} \right)
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ (where $\Delta^{K \nu}_{k} \equiv \mathrm{Re}(E^{(2)}_{K \nu} - E^{(1)}_{k})$ and $\Delta^k_0 \equiv \mathrm{Re}(E^{(1)}_k)$ signify the transition energies and $t_{\mathrm{ret}} \equiv t - r/c$ is the retarded time), turns into $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:opfarfield4}
{\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}}^{(-)}({\mathbf{r}},t) &=&
\xi {\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}) \sqrt{M} \times
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{-1.8cm} \sum_{k}
\Bigg{(} \delta_{ k , \left[ \Delta^k_0 \sin\left(\beta_{\mathrm{det}}\right)/c \right]_{\left( 2\pi / a \right)} }
{\hat{S}}_{k;0}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} \right) \\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{-1.8cm} ~~~ ~+ \sum_{K \nu}
\delta_{ K-k , \left[ \Delta^{K \nu}_k \sin\left(\beta_{\mathrm{det}}\right)/c \right]_{\left( 2\pi / a \right)} }
\left( \bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k} \right)^*
{\hat{S}}_{K \nu;k} \left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} \right)
\Bigg{)}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ The Kronecker terms represent a constraint which relates the quantum numbers of a one-photon transition to the corresponding observation angle $\beta_{\mathrm{det}}$ via $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:qconstraint}
k &=& \left[ \frac{\Delta^k_0}{c} \sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}} \right]_{\frac{2\pi}{a}} {\,,}\\
\label{eq:sconstraint}
K - k &=& \left[ \frac{\Delta^{K \nu}_k}{c} \sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}} \right]_{\frac{2\pi}{a}}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ These expressions can be understood as specifying the wavenumbers that are transferred to the photon field under a given observation angle. Alternatively, for given $K$, $\nu$, and/or $k$, we can determine the emission direction from these equations.
Since $\omega_{0} \gg \gamma_0$, the Lamb shifts only yield a negligible wavenumber correction in Eqs. (\[eq:qconstraint\]) and (\[eq:sconstraint\]) and we can use the approximated expressions $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:qconstraintappr}
k &\simeq& \left[ k_{\mathrm{at}} \sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}} \right]_{\frac{2\pi}{a}} {\,,}\\
\label{eq:sconstraintappr}
K - k &\simeq& \left[ k_{\mathrm{at}} \sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}} \right]_{\frac{2\pi}{a}} {\,.}\end{aligned}$$ To be precise, the decay of single-excitation states ${|{k}\rangle} \rightarrow {|{0}\rangle}$ requires $ka = 2 \pi \left[ (a/\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}) \sin \beta_{\mathrm{det}} \right]_1$, whereas for ${|{K \nu}\rangle} \rightarrow {|{k}\rangle}$ we have $(K-k)a = 2 \pi \left[ (a/\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}) \sin \beta_{\mathrm{det}} \right]_1$ (which is valid for both $U=0$ and $\omega_{0} \gg U \gg \gamma_0$). These expressions are reminiscent of Bragg’s law and the emission angles are determined by matching the wave numbers transferred to the free-space photon field. For the remainder, $$\label{eq:barkeq}
\bar k = \bar{k}({\mathbf{r}}) = \bar{k}(\beta_{\mathrm{det}}) = \left[ k_{\mathrm{at}} \sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}} \right]_{\frac{2\pi}{a}}$$ denotes the wavenumber that can be detected at ${\mathbf{r}}$ (which allows us to set $k= \bar k$ in the first and $k = K - \bar k$ in the second sum of , respectively). In terms of angles, we can rewrite this expression as $$\label{eq:barkangle}
\sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}} = \frac{\bar{k}}{k_{\mathrm{at}}} + \frac{2 \pi}{k_{\mathrm{at}} a} \cdot n
{\,,}$$ where $n=0,\pm 1,\dots$ (such that ${|{\sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}}}|} \leq 1$) signifies the Bragg order.
From , we can now construct arbitrary far-field observables. Specifically, the field–field auto-correlation function can be calculated from $$\hat{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}},t,t+\tau) \equiv {\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}}^{(-)}({\mathbf{r}},t) ~ {\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}}^{(+)}({\mathbf{r}},t+\tau)
{\,.}$$ Evaluated at $\tau = 0$, we obtain the emitted intensity $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:fieldcorr}
&& \frac{\hat{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}},t)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2 M} =
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~ {\hat{S}}_{\bar k; \bar k}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} \right)
+ \sum_{K \nu \nu^\prime}
\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu^\prime)}_{\frac{K}{2}-\bar{k}} \left( \bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-\bar{k}} \right)^*
{\hat{S}}_{K \nu; K \nu^\prime}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} \right)
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ For a stationary state, the emission spectrum is defined as [@orszag] $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:specdef}
{S}({\mathbf{r}},\omega) =
\lim_{t \rightarrow \infty}
2 \mathrm{Re}\left[ \int \limits_{0}^{\infty} \mathrm{d} \tau ~
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\omega \tau}
{\langle{ \hat{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}},t,t+\tau) }\rangle} \right]
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where ${\langle{ \dots }\rangle}$ denotes an expectation value. We employ the quantum regression theorem [@mandelwolf] for the calculation of the auto-correlation function’s expectation value (see for details).
Furthermore, the intensity correlation $$\hat{G}^{(2)}({\mathbf{r}}_1,{\mathbf{r}}_2) \equiv
{\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}}^{(-)}({\mathbf{r}}_1,t) ~
\hat{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}}_2,t) ~
{\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}}^{(+)}({\mathbf{r}}_1,t)$$ for zero time-delay and two detector positions ${\mathbf{r}}_1$ and ${\mathbf{r}}_2$ can be obtained from $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:intcorr}
&& \frac{ \hat{G}^{(2)}({\mathbf{r}}_1,{\mathbf{r}}_2) }{ \xi^4 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}\right|}^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_2)}\right|}^2 M^2 } =
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~
\sum_{\nu \nu^\prime}
\bar{\eta}^{(k_1+k_2 , \nu^\prime)}_{\frac{1}{2}\left(k_1-k_2\right)} \left( \bar{\eta}^{(k_1+k_2, \nu)}_{\frac{1}{2}\left(k_1-k_2\right)} \right)^*
{\hat{S}}_{k_1+k_2, \nu; k_1+k_2, \nu^\prime}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where $k_1$ and $k_2$ are the wavenumbers detected at ${\mathbf{r}}_1$ and ${\mathbf{r}}_2$ (elevation angles $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$), respectively. The normalized intensity correlation $$\label{eq:intcorrnorm}
g^{(2)}({\mathbf{r}}_1,{\mathbf{r}}_2) = g^{(2)}(\beta_1,\beta_2) = \frac{ {\langle{\hat{G}^{(2)}({\mathbf{r}}_1,{\mathbf{r}}_2)}\rangle} }{ {\langle{\hat{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}\rangle} {\langle{\hat{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}}_2)}\rangle} }$$ only depends on $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ and not on the details of the single-dipole patterns ${\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}\right|}^2$ and ${\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_2)}\right|}^2$.
Spontaneous Emission Dynamics {#sec:spontemdyn}
=============================
In this Section, we investigate the far-field signatures that emerge in the context of spontaneous decay, assuming the system has been prepared in a (pure) eigenstate at time $t=0$.
Lindblad Equation {#subsec:lindbladeq}
-----------------
Based on the knowledge of the dissipative eigenstates, we formulate a Lindblad equation in order to account for the full dynamics that includes the decay from the two-excitation submanifold via the single-excitation subspace to the vacuum. To this end, we write the density matrix as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:densmat}
\hat{\varrho} &=& \sum_{K \nu} \sum_{K^\prime \nu^\prime} \varrho_{K \nu; K^\prime \nu^\prime} {|{K \nu}\rangle} {\langle{K^\prime \nu^\prime}|}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~+~ \sum_{k k^\prime} \varrho_{k ; k^\prime} {|{k}\rangle} {\langle{k^\prime}|}
~+~ \varrho_{0; 0} {|{0}\rangle} {\langle{0}|} \\
\nonumber
&& ~+~ \sum_{K \nu} \sum_k \varrho_{K \nu; k} {|{K \nu}\rangle} {\langle{k}|} + \mathrm{h.c.} \\
\nonumber
&& ~+~ \sum_{K \nu} \varrho_{K \nu; 0} {|{K \nu}\rangle} {\langle{0}|} + \mathrm{h.c.} \\
\nonumber
&& ~+~ \sum_k \varrho_{k; 0} {|{k}\rangle} {\langle{0}|} + \mathrm{h.c.}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where we utilize the non-dissipative basis (formally realized by setting $\mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_0)=\mathrm{Re}(\Gamma_1)=0$) as explained in the introduction of . The dynamics is governed by the Lindblad equation $$\label{eq:lindblad}
\partial_t \hat{\varrho} = {\mathrm{i}}\left[ \hat{\varrho} , H^\prime \right] + \mathcal{L}(\hat{\varrho}) {\,,}$$ where $$\begin{aligned}
H^\prime &=& \sum_{K \nu} \mathrm{Re}(E^{(2)}_{K \nu}) ~\hat{S}_{K \nu; K \nu}
+ \sum_k \mathrm{Re}(E^{(1)}_k) ~\hat{S}_{k; k} {\,,}\\
\label{eq:lindbladian}
\nonumber
\mathcal{L}(\hat{\varrho}) &=&
\sum_{K \nu} \sum_k
\left[ R_{K \nu; k} \hat{\varrho} R^\dagger_{K \nu; k}
- \frac{1}{2} \left\{ R^\dagger_{K \nu; k} R^{\phantom \dagger}_{K \nu; k} , \hat{\varrho} \right\} \right]
\\
&& ~+~
\sum_k
\left[ R_{k;0} \hat{\varrho} R^\dagger_{k;0}
- \frac{1}{2} \left\{ R^\dagger_{k;0} R^{\phantom \dagger}_{k;0} , \hat{\varrho} \right\} \right]
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ The dissipators are given as $$\begin{aligned}
R_{K \nu; k} &\equiv& \sqrt{\Gamma^{K \nu}_k} \hat{S}_{K \nu; k}
{\,,}\\
R_{k; 0} &\equiv& \sqrt{\Gamma_k} \hat{S}_{k;0}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ The curly brackets in denote an anti-commutator.
The resulting equations of motion read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:eqstart}
\partial_t \varrho_{K \nu;K^\prime \nu^\prime} &=&
\left[ - \frac{1}{2} \left( \Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}} + \Gamma^{K^\prime \nu^\prime}_{\mathrm{tot}} \right) - {\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{K \nu}_{K^\prime \nu^\prime} \right] ~ \varrho_{K \nu; K^\prime \nu^\prime}
{\,,}\\
\partial_t \varrho_{k;k^\prime} &=&
\left[ - \frac{1}{2} \left( \Gamma_{k} + \Gamma_{k^\prime} \right) - {\mathrm{i}}\Delta^k_{k^\prime} \right] ~ \varrho_{k; k^\prime}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~ ~+~ \delta_{k, k^\prime} ~ \sum_{K \nu}
\Gamma^{K \nu}_k \varrho_{K \nu; K \nu}
{\,,}\\
\partial_t \varrho_{0;0} &=&
\sum_k \Gamma_k \varrho_{k;k}
{\,,}\\
\partial_t \varrho_{K \nu;k} &=&
\left[ -{\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{K \nu}_k - \frac{1}{2} \left( \Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}} + \Gamma_k \right) \right] \varrho_{K\nu; k}
{\,,}\\
\partial_t \varrho_{K \nu;0} &=&
\left[ -{\mathrm{i}}\mathrm{Re}(E^{(2)}_{K \nu}) - \frac{1}{2} \Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}} \right] \varrho_{K\nu; 0}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:eqend}
\partial_t \varrho_{k;0} &=&
\left[ -{\mathrm{i}}\Delta^k_0 -\frac{1}{2} \Gamma_k \right] \varrho_{k;0}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Delta^{K \nu}_{K^\prime \nu^\prime} \equiv \mathrm{Re}(E^{(2)}_{K \nu} - E^{(2)}_{K^\prime \nu^\prime})$ and $\Delta^{k}_{k^\prime} \equiv \mathrm{Re}(E^{(1)}_{k} \nolinebreak - \nolinebreak E^{(1)}_{k^\prime})$. The solution to this set of equations is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sol1}
\varrho_{K \nu; K^\prime \nu^\prime} (t)
&=& {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{K \nu}_{K^\prime \nu^\prime} t}
{\mathrm{e}}^{- \frac{1}{2} \left( \Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}} + \Gamma^{K^\prime \nu^\prime}_{\mathrm{tot}} \right) t} \varrho_{K \nu; K^\prime \nu^\prime}(0) {\,,}\\
\nonumber
\label{eq:sol2}
\varrho_{k; k^\prime} (t)
&=&
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{-1cm} \delta_{k k^\prime} \sum_{K \nu} \frac{\Gamma^{K \nu}_{k}}{\Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}} - \Gamma_k} \left( {\mathrm{e}}^{-\Gamma_{k} t} - {\mathrm{e}}^{-\Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}} t} \right) \cdot \varrho_{K \nu; K \nu}(0) \\
&& \hspace{-1cm} ~ ~+~ {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{k}_{k^\prime} t}
{\mathrm{e}}^{- \frac{1}{2} \left( \Gamma_k + \Gamma_{k^\prime} \right) t} \varrho_{k;k^\prime}(0) {\,,}\\
\label{eq:sol3}
\varrho_{0; 0}(t)
&=& 1 - \sum_{K \nu} \varrho_{K \nu; K \nu}(t) - \sum_k \varrho_{k; k}(t) {\,,}\\
\label{eq:sol4}
\varrho_{K \nu; k}(t)
&=& {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{K \nu}_k t} {\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{1}{2} \left( \Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}} + \Gamma_k \right) t } \varrho_{K \nu; k}(0) {\,,}\\
\label{eq:sol5}
\varrho_{K \nu; 0}(t)
&=& {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}\mathrm{Re}(E^{(2)}_{K \nu}) t} {\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{1}{2} \Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}} t} \varrho_{K \nu; 0}(0) {\,,}\\
\label{eq:sol6}
\varrho_{k; 0}(t)
&=& {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}\Delta^k_0 t} {\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{1}{2} \Gamma_k t} \varrho_{k; 0}(0)
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$
For the initial condition of a pure eigenstate, the coherences are zero at all times. In addition to that, for $\omega_0 \gg \gamma_0$, the above equations can be reduced to $$\begin{aligned}
\varrho_{K \nu; K \nu} (t)
&\simeq& {\mathrm{e}}^{- 2 \gamma_0 t} \varrho_{K \nu; K \nu}(0) {\,,}\\
\nonumber
\varrho_{k; k} (t)
&\simeq& \sum_{K \nu} 2 b^{(K \nu)}_k \left( {\mathrm{e}}^{-\gamma_0 t} - {\mathrm{e}}^{-2 \gamma_0 t} \right) ~\varrho_{K \nu; K \nu}(0)
\\
&& ~ ~+~ {\mathrm{e}}^{- \gamma_0 t} ~\varrho_{k;k}(0)
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ To be precise, for an initial single-excitation state, , $\varrho_{k;k}(0)=1$ (for a single $k$), we simply find $$\label{eq:sol1ex}
\varrho_{k;k}(t) \simeq {\mathrm{e}}^{-\gamma_0 t}
{\,.}$$ Similarly, for an initial two-excitation state ($\varrho_{K \nu; K \nu}(0) \nolinebreak = \nolinebreak 1$), the dynamics is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sol2exa}
\varrho_{K \nu; K \nu} (t)
&\simeq& {\mathrm{e}}^{- 2 \gamma_0 t} {\,,}\\
\label{eq:sol2exb}
\varrho_{k; k} (t)
&\simeq& 2 b^{(K \nu)}_k \left( {\mathrm{e}}^{-\gamma_0 t} - {\mathrm{e}}^{-2 \gamma_0 t} \right)
\\ \nonumber
&=& {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k}}\right|}^2 \left( {\mathrm{e}}^{-\gamma_0 t} - {\mathrm{e}}^{-2 \gamma_0 t} \right)
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ In the next Section, we answer the question of how this [“[internal]{}”]{} dynamics of the atomic system translates to signatures that can be detected in the optical far field.
Emitted Intensity
-----------------
The intensity which is emitted by an initial eigenstate and detected in the far field can be obtained from the expectation value of via ${G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}},t) \equiv {\langle{\hat{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}},t)}\rangle} = \mathrm{tr}[\hat{G}^{(1)} \hat{\varrho}]$, , $$\frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}},t)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2 M} =
{\varrho}_{\bar k; \bar k}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} \right)
+
{\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-\bar{k}}}\right|}^2
{\varrho}_{K \nu; K \nu}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} \right)
{\,.}$$
According to , an initial single-excitation state ${|{k}\rangle}$ yields the far-field intensity $$\label{eq:G11exc}
\frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}},t)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2 M} =
{\mathrm{e}}^{-\gamma_0 t_{\mathrm{ret}}} \delta_{k , \left[ k_{\mathrm{at}} \sin_{\beta_{\mathrm{det}}} \right]_{(2\pi/a)}}
{\,,}$$ which can be observed for elevation angles (see also ) $$\label{eq:singleexcangle}
\sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}} = \frac{k}{k_{\mathrm{at}}} + \frac{2 \pi}{k_{\mathrm{at}} a} \cdot n
{\,.}$$ The spontaneous decay of a two-excitation state ${|{K \nu}\rangle}$ according to Eqs. (\[eq:sol2exa\]) and (\[eq:sol2exb\]) results in $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:emittintspontem}
\nonumber
\frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}},t)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2 M} &=&
{\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-\bar{k}}}\right|}^2 \left( {\mathrm{e}}^{-\gamma_0 t} - {\mathrm{e}}^{-2 \gamma_0 t} \right)
+
{\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-\bar{k}}}\right|}^2
{\mathrm{e}}^{- 2 \gamma_0 t}
\\
&=&
{\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-\bar{k}}}\right|}^2
{\mathrm{e}}^{-\gamma_0 t_{\mathrm{ret}}}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ which is mono-exponential even though the overall decay is a two-step process (${|{K \nu}\rangle} \rightarrow {|{\bar{k}}\rangle} \rightarrow {|{0}\rangle}$). Hence, we observe a mono-exponential decay at a rate $\gamma_0$ for scattering states ($\nu=p$), bound states ($\nu=\mathrm{BS}$), as well as for single-excitation states (). In other words, the temporal decay as such cannot serve as a characteristic fingerprint for identifying a specific state.
We therefore now turn to the discussion of the angle dependent emission pattern. According to , the far-field intensity as a function of the detection angle $\beta_{\mathrm{det}}$ normalized to the single-dipole pattern and the atom number (and, for simplicity, evaluated at a fixed time $t_{\mathrm{ret}}=0$) is completely determined by the momentum distribution of the eigenstate’s relative wavefunction. In other words, the quantity ${G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}}(\beta_{\mathrm{det}}))/{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r(\beta_{\mathrm{det}})}})}\right|}^2 M}$ is in principle just another way of plotting the momentum distribution ${|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{K/2-\bar{k}}}|}^2$. Hence, Figs. \[fig:momdists\] already contain the information about the emission pattern but we have to analyze this information as a function of the detection angle $\beta_{\mathrm{det}}$ (rather than as a function of $q=K/2-\bar{k}$).
### Emission Pattern of Scattering States
{width="\textwidth"}
In , we depict the normalized emission pattern emerging from the decay of an initial scattering state ${|{K=0, p}\rangle}$ for the two cases $U=0$ and $U \gg \gamma_0$ and for different relative wavenumbers $p$. We visualize this pattern as a function of the detection angle $\beta_{\mathrm{det}}$ and use the emission wavelength $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}$ (in units of $a$) as a parameter.
Similarly to , we begin the discussion with the case of non-interacting atoms ($U=0$, a)–c) in ). We notice that the [“[middle regions]{}”]{} of the emission peaks are zero. This is a consequence of the background fluorescence which is the relevant decay mechanism for $U=0$. These [“[dark]{}”]{} middle regions (which are surrounded by non-zero contributions) correspond to the direct channel (, the case $\pm q=p$ in ) which is completely suppressed for $U=0$. This observation is unique to all relative wavenumbers $p$ for $U=0$ (a)–c)) since the momentum distributions in the case of non-interacting atoms are featureless with respect the relative wavenumber (see the discussion in ). In contrast to this, for $U \gg \gamma_0$, we found that the momentum distributions can be qualitatively different for different relative wavenumbers since a combination of background and direct fluorescence can occur. These properties manifest themselves in the emission patterns as depicted in d)–f). For $p=\pi/2a$ (d)), we observe single peaks as a function of the emission angle. This is a direct consequence of the fact that the momentum distribution for $p=\pi/2a$ in the regime $U \gg \gamma_0$ exclusively exhibits the direct channel as an allowed decay mechanism. Hence, we observe emission peaks at exactly those angles which would correspond to the aforementioned [“[dark]{}”]{} middle regions for $U=0$. However, as we choose relative wavenumbers away from $p=\pi/2a$ (, $p=\pi/4a$ in e) and $p=\pi/8a$ in f)), light emitted via background fluorescence becomes important. Especially in f), we can see that for $p=\pi/8a$ the emission pattern almost looks as in the case of non-interacting atoms (c)), except for the [“[middle region]{}”]{} of the emission peaks that stems from some remaining contribution of the direct fluorescence. The relative intensities between direct and background fluorescence can be inferred from the corresponding momentum distributions in Figs. \[fig:momdists\]b) and c).
Based on we can also discuss the case where the bare atomic emission wavelength is much larger than the distance between the atoms, , ${\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}}/{a} \rightarrow \infty$, as well as the case of an isolated atom (${\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}}/{a} \rightarrow 0$). However, one should keep in mind that our tight-binding model becomes invalid when ${\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}}/{a} \rightarrow \infty$ and one would have to sum up all dipole–dipole coupling terms for the eigenproblem in (not just the coupling to nearest neighbors). From we can deduce that, in the limit ${\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}}/{a} \rightarrow \infty$, the emission angles can only remain real-valued for $n=0$, which means that only a single Bragg order would be observable. In contrast to this, the opposite limit of an isolated atom (${\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}}/{a} \rightarrow 0$) results in a continuum of possible emission angles as infinitely many Bragg orders are allowed.
![\[fig:emissionpattern2\] Spontaneous emission patterns as in for an initial scattering state ${|{K=0,p=\pi/2a}\rangle}$ but for a fixed value of the emission wavelength $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a=0.5$. In essence, this figure represents a cut of Figs. \[fig:emissionpattern1\]a) and d) along $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a=0.5$. We have plotted the angle-dependent emission pattern for various atom numbers $M=51,99,199,399$. Note that the $x$-axis is discrete and that we have plotted each data point with a width $\delta\beta_{\mathrm{det}}(M)$ with respect to the $x$-axis. ](fig5.pdf){width="40.00000%"}
Finally, we utilize to conclude the discussion with some remarks on the width of the emission peaks. Remember that the wavenumber spacing is $\delta k \equiv 2\pi/aM$. Since the allowed wavenumbers are discrete, the resulting emission angles are also discrete. As an estimation for the resulting spacing of the detection angles, we can employ and assume two transferred wavenumbers differing by $\delta k$, resulting in an angle difference of $\delta \beta_{\mathrm{det}} \sim \delta k / k_{\mathrm{at}} = \lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/aM$. However, in the limit of many atoms, the angles become infinitely sharp. Hence, also the aforementioned [“[middle region]{}”]{} associated to the background fluorescence becomes infinitesimally small. Figure \[fig:emissionpattern2\] illustrates how the spacing of the discrete emission angles affects the emission pattern of an initial scattering state ${|{K=0,p=\pi/2a}\rangle}$ as the number of atoms $M$ increases. As before, we have chosen the value of $p=\pi/2a$ for the relative wavenumber in to highlight the differences between the background and direct fluorescence channels for $U=0$ and $U \gg \gamma_0$, respectively. For instance, note how the [“[middle region]{}”]{} of the emission peaks for $U=0$ becomes smaller as $M$ increases.
### Emission Pattern of Bound States {#subsubsec:empattbs}
For a bound state ${|{K, \mathrm{BS}}\rangle}$ in the presence of strong atom–atom interactions $U \gg \gamma_0$, the far-field intensity can be written as ([[cf.]{} ]{}Eqs. (\[eq:etaUlargeBS\]) and (\[eq:emittintspontem\])) $$\label{eq:emittintBS}
\frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}},t)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2} =
4 \cos^2\left( \frac{Ka}{2} - \frac{2\pi a}{\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}} \left[ \sin{\beta_{\mathrm{det}}} \right]_{\frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}}{a}} \right)
{\mathrm{e}}^{-\gamma_0 t_{\mathrm{ret}}}
{\,.}$$ Note that this expression does not depend on the number of atoms $M$, which can be interpreted as a consequence of the bound state being spatially localized (rather than delocalized which would cover all atoms).
{width="\textwidth"}
{width="\textwidth"}
Figure \[fig:emissionpattern3\] displays the bound state’s emission pattern, which can be regarded as a distinct feature for proofing the existence of a bound state on the lattice. The bound state sets a minimal spatial scale given by the relative wavefunction’s spatial extent. For $U \gg \gamma_0$, this is simply the lattice constant $a$. Therefore, the momentum distribution covers a finite window in momentum space (on the order of $\delta k \sim 2\pi/a$), which translates into emission peaks having a finite width $\delta \beta_{\mathrm{det}} \sim \lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a$. This width is independent of the number of atoms $M$ and it is larger than the emission angle spacing due to a finite lattice (see discussion in the context of scattering states). This property is in stark contrast to the sharp peaks that would be observed for delocalized single-excitation states or for two-excitation scattering states. In , we additionally display the influence of the strength of the atom–atom interaction $U$, where we utilize together with . Already moderate values of $U/\gamma_0$ realize the result we obtained for $U \gg \gamma_0$ (, see $U/\gamma_0=5$ in ), justifying our previous assumptions. Note that a) depicts the special situation where the criterion (\[eq:critforexist\]) for the existence of a bound state is not fulfilled for certain of the shown values of $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a$. Consequently, no light emission from a bound state can be observed in these regions which are [“[dark]{}”]{} across all detection angles $\beta_{\mathrm{det}}$. For $K=0$ and $U>0$ criterion (\[eq:critforexist\]) simply reads ${\left|{\mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_1)}\right|} < U$. Since the quantity $\mathrm{Im}(\Gamma_1)$ displays an oscillatory behavior as a function of $k_{\mathrm{at}} a = 2 \pi a / \lambda_{\mathrm{at}}$ ([[cf.]{} ]{}Eqs. ([\[eq:fullrates\]]{})–([\[eq:fullrateslast\]]{})), a [“[bright]{}”]{} region in between two [“[dark]{}”]{} regions can be observed (as a function of $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a$) in a).
In conclusion, the angle-dependent far-field spontaneous emission pattern provides a distinct signature for identifying and studying the individual single- and two-excitation eigenstates. Moreover, without the need to address and/or manipulate single atoms, we gain access to the relative wavefunction’s complete momentum distribution (see also ). This is achieved by tuning the argument $q = K/2 - \bar{k}(\beta_{\mathrm{det}})$ across the first Brillouin zone. Given a value for $K$, this means we would need to sweep over the detection angles $\beta_{\mathrm{det}}$ for realizing different values of $\bar k = \left[ k_{\mathrm{at}} \sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}} \right]_{2\pi/a}$.
Steady-State Signatures under the Influence of a Weak Driving Field {#sec:steadystatesigs}
===================================================================
All considerations in assumed the system to be prepared in a pure eigenstate at time $t=0$ and the far-field intensity discussed is a consequence of the system’s evolution in the absence of external driving fields. The pulsed excitation of x-ray quantum optical systems [@xraybook] already approximately realizes these conditions. For example, in the archetype setup of ${}^{57}$Fe Mössbauer nuclei driven by synchrotron radiation, the exciting synchrotron pulse has a duration of order 10-100ps, whereas the natural lifetime of the nuclei is about 140ns. Our study is of high significance for this field, since state-of-the-art experiments operate in the single-excitation regime, and have the capability of probing individual eigenstates via a delicate choice of the sample geometry [@exp4; @exp6; @exp7; @preprint]. It would be highly desirable to make the double-excitation states studied in our paper accessible to those experiments. However, since such constraints may be difficult with regard to experimental realizations in general, we now turn to the discussion of the system’s response to an external driving field. In particular, we focus on the steady state that emerges when the system is probed optically in a very simple way.
Rate Equations
--------------
Specifically, we consider a weak (, strongly attenuated) incoherent driving field (, pseudothermal light [@meschedebuch]) with a spatial plane-wave pattern. Choosing the external field to be incoherent greatly simplifies the theoretical description as we can resort to a set of rate equations rather than solving the master equation with all coherences (see Eqs. (\[eq:ssI\]) and (\[eq:ssII\]) below). Let ${|{\mathcal{P}_n}|}^2$ be the pump rate of the driving field’s $n$-th plane wave component whose spatial projection on the direction of the atomic chain is of the form $\exp({{\mathrm{i}}k^{(z)}_n z})$, where $k^{(z)}_n$ signifies the $z$-component of the driving field’s wavevector ${\mathbf{k}}_n$ (magnitude ${|{{\mathbf{k}}_n}|}=k_L =k_{\mathrm{at}}= 2\pi / \lambda_{\mathrm{at}}$). This external wavenumber [“[imprints]{}”]{} the [“[internal]{}”]{} wavenumber $$k_n = \left[ k^{(z)}_n \right]_{\frac{2\pi}{a}} = \left[ k_L \sin{\beta^{(n)}_{\mathrm{exc}}} \right]_{\frac{2\pi}{a}}$$ on the atomic system, where $\beta^{(n)}_{\mathrm{exc}}$ signifies the excitation angle (${\mathbf{k}}^{(n)}=k_L ( \cos{\beta^{(n)}_{\mathrm{exc}}} , 0 , \sin{\beta^{(n)}_{\mathrm{exc}}})$, see also b)). A weak drive with ${|{\mathcal{P}_n}|}^2 \ll \gamma_0$ allows us to work in the truncated Hilbert space of at most two excitations. Note that in practice the pump rates actually depend on the external field’s angle of incidence since ultimately the projection of the pump’s linearly polarized electric field on the atomic dipole moments is of relevance. There is especially no coupling for angles where the dipole moment and the electric field are perpendicular to each other. In the following, this specific dependence of the pump rate on the angle of incidence will not be taken into account explicitly. Rather, we assume the external field’s parameters to be tunable such that the pump rate is adjusted for each angle and we effectively get angle-independent driving terms.
We can then extend Eqs. (\[eq:eqstart\])–(\[eq:eqend\]) to account for the external driving field, ultimately yielding a set of coupled rate equations for the diagonal elements $N_m \equiv \varrho_{m;m}$ of the density matrix. The steady state can be determined through (see for details) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ssI}
N_{K \nu}
&=&
\sum_n \frac{{\left|{\mathcal{P}_n}\right|}^2}{\Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}}} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K,\nu)}_{\frac{K}{2} - k_n}}\right|}^2 N_{K-k_n}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:ssII}
N_{k}
&=&
\sum_n \frac{{\left|{\mathcal{P}_n}\right|}^2}{\tilde{\Gamma}_k} \delta_{k k_n} \left( 1- \sum_k N_k - \sum_{K \nu} N_{K \nu} \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~ ~+~ \sum_{K \nu} \frac{\Gamma^{K \nu}_k}{\tilde{\Gamma}_k} N_{K \nu}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$
We begin with the investigation of the atomic system’s steady state that emerges for the simple case where the external field exhibits only a single spatial Fourier component. In other words, we investigate the system’s response to a single external pump.
Single-Pump Setup {#subsec:spump}
-----------------
![\[fig:singlepumpsketch\] Driving the 1D lattice of two-level atoms with an incoherent drive as sketched in b), reduces the Hilbert space to the levels shown here. Since the external pump [“[imprints]{}”]{} the wave number $k_P$ on the atomic system the relevant Hilbert space comprises only two-excitation states with $K = 2 k_P$. ](fig8.pdf){width="35.00000%"}
We envision an external driving field with a single spatial Fourier component which [“[imprints]{}”]{} the wavenumber $k_P=[ k_L \sin{\beta^{(n)}_{\mathrm{exc}}} ]_{{2\pi}/{a}}$ on the atomic system (see Figs. \[fig:overview\]b) and \[fig:singlepumpsketch\]). The pump rate is ${|{\mathcal{P}}|}^2$ and for a weak pump we have $\Xi \equiv {|{\mathcal{P}}|}^2 / \gamma_0 \ll 1$. The steady-state occupation numbers according to Eqs. (\[eq:ssI\]) and (\[eq:ssII\]) are (see for details) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ssIappr}
N_{k} &\simeq&
\Xi \delta_{k k_P}
+ \Xi^2 \sum_{\nu} b^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_k {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\Xi \delta_{k k_P}
+ \frac{\Xi^2}{2} \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{k_P-k}}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:ssIIappr}
N_{K \nu} &\simeq&
\frac{\Xi^2}{2}
{\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2
\delta_{K, 2 k_P}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where we have assumed $\omega_0 \gg \gamma_0 \gg {|{\mathcal{P}}|}^2$. The external pump only directly drives single-excitation states ${|{k=k_P}\rangle}$ such that states ${|{k \neq k_P}\rangle}$ are populated via spontaneous emission of a two-excitation state ${|{K=2k_P, \nu}\rangle}$, which is of order $\Xi^2$. Furthermore, only two-excitation states with $K=2k_P$ are excited (see ).
Even though the pump only excites certain wavenumbers, the steady state that results from this simple, incoherent excitation scheme is still a mixed state. In the following, we analyze the signatures that emerge from this mixed state and investigate how they can be used for inferring information about the atomic system from the far field.
### Far-Field Intensity
According to , the far-field intensity that emerges in the steady state is given by $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}})}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2 M}
= N_{\bar{k}} + \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{k_P-\bar{k}}}\right|}^2 N_{2 k_P, \nu}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where, as before, $\bar k = [ k_{\mathrm{at}} \sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}} ]_{{2\pi}/{a}}$ (and $\beta_{\mathrm{det}}$ is the elevation angle of the detector position ${\mathbf{r}}$). The intensity detected in the far field is thus always a sum of a contribution from a single-excitation state (first term), two-excitation scattering states, *and* a two-excitation bound state (if it exists). Upon insertion of the steady-state solutions (\[eq:ssIappr\])–(\[eq:ssIIappr\]), we arrive at $$\label{eq:g1full}
\frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}})}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2 M}
= \Xi \cdot \left(
\delta_{\bar{k} k_P}
+ \Xi \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{k_P-\bar{k}}}\right|}^2
\right)
{\,.}$$ A contribution that scales linearly with the pump power can only be observed for wavenumbers that match the wavenumber excited by the pump field ($\bar k=k_P$). Varying the pump-power would in principle allow to identify and separate the linear and quadratic terms in .
Performing the sum over $\nu$ in (see for details) yields the explicit expression $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:g1full2}
&& \frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}})}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2 M}
= \Xi \delta_{\bar{k} k_P}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~+~ \Xi^2
\begin{cases}
\frac{1}{3} \delta_{\bar{k} k_P}
&
\mathrm{for~}U=0
\\
\frac{1}{3} \delta_{\bar{k} k_P} + \frac{16}{M^2} \cos^2\left[\left(\bar{k}-k_P\right)a\right]
&
\mathrm{for~}U \gg \gamma_0
\end{cases}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Hence, for detected wavenumbers that are different from the wavenumber enforced by the pump (, $\bar{k} \neq k_P$), only light originating from the bound state contributes (see also for details). However, this contribution is suppressed in the limit of many atoms $M \gg 1$ (scaling as ${G}^{(1)} \propto 1/M$). The only difference between the two cases $U=0$ and $U \gg \gamma_0$ with respect to the far-field intensity for this single-pump setup is thus a small correction to the $M\gg1$-limit that comes from the bound state. Furthermore, the quantity (\[eq:g1full2\]) is a result of a sum over different states since the steady state is a mixed state. We therefore now turn to a frequency-specific far-field quantity—the emission spectrum.
### Emission Spectrum {#subsubsec:emspecspump}
Using the definition (\[eq:specdef\]), the emission spectrum reads (see for details on the calculation of the field–field autocorrelation’s expectation value via the quantum regression theorem) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:specfinal}
&& \frac{S({\mathbf{r}},\omega) \gamma_0}{2 \xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2 M} =
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~ \Xi
\Bigg{[} \frac{2}{\left( 2 \frac{\omega-\omega_0}{\gamma_0} \right)^2 + 1 }
\left( \delta_{\bar{k} k_P} + \frac{\Xi}{2} \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{k_P-\bar{k}}}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2 \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~+~ \frac{\Xi}{3} \frac{1}{\left( \frac{2}{3} \frac{\omega-\omega_0}{\gamma_0} \right)^2 + 1 }
\sum_{p}
{\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P,p)}_{k_P-\bar{k}} }\right|}^2
{\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, p)}_{0}}\right|}^2
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~+~ \frac{\Xi}{3} \frac{1}{\left( \frac{2}{3} \frac{\omega-\omega_0-U}{\gamma_0} \right)^2 + 1 }
{\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P,\mathrm{BS})}_{k_P-\bar{k}} }\right|}^2
{\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \mathrm{BS})}_{0}}\right|}^2
~~~ \Bigg{]}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Again, the light emitted by the driven single-excitation state ${|{k_P}\rangle}$ scales linearly with the pump power ($\propto \Xi$), whereas all other contributions scale quadratically ($\propto \Xi^2$). Specifically, the contributions around $\omega=\omega_0$ (first and second Lorentzian) contain light from single-excitation states (first line) *and* two-excitation scattering states (see the sum over the relative wavenumber $p$ in the second line). The contribution around $\omega=\omega_0 + U$ (third Lorentzian) is exclusively due to the bound state.
For $U=0$, the last line in would be absent. For $U \gg \gamma_0$, we can exploit the bound states’ separation in energy from the band of scattering states ([[cf.]{} ]{}). In other words, since $U \gg \gamma_0$, the corresponding emission spectrum at the frequency $\omega=\omega_0+U$ has practically no overlap to transitions around $\omega=\omega_0$. We may then extract the following information around the resonance $\omega = \omega_0 + U$: $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{S({\mathbf{r}},\omega=\omega_0+U) \gamma_0}{2 \xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2 M} &=&
\frac{\Xi^2}{3}
{\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P,\mathrm{BS})}_{k_P-\bar{k}} }\right|}^2
{\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \mathrm{BS})}_{0}}\right|}^2
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\frac{\Xi^2}{3} \cdot \frac{16}{M^2} \cos^2\left[ \left( \bar{k}-k_P \right) a \right]
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ When compared with , we see that this is the [“[pure]{}”]{} far-field signature for the existence of a two-body bound state on the lattice. Moreover, if we imagine the emission spectrum being measured at ${\mathbf{r}}$ (elevation $\beta_{\mathrm{det}}$) and, for convenience, normalize this signal to the value recorded at a fixed direction ${\mathbf{r}}^\prime$ (${|{{\mathbf{r}}}|}={|{{\mathbf{r}}^\prime}|}=r$, elevation $\beta_{\mathrm{exc}}$) in the $y$-$z$ plane, we have $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Sbssig}
\frac{S({\mathbf{r}},\omega=\omega_0+U)}{S({\mathbf{r}}^\prime,\omega=\omega_0+U)}
\cdot
\frac{{\left|{{\mathbf{d}}}\right|}^2/r^2}{{\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2}
&=&
\cos^2\left[ \left(k_P - \bar{k}\right) a \right]
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{-3cm} =
\cos^2\left( k_P a - k_{\mathrm{at}} a \left[\sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}}\right]_{\frac{2 \pi}{a}} \right)
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$
This is the same signature as obtained in the context of spontaneous emission from a pure eigenstate (see ), even though here the external probing field is incoherent and weak. The discussion from therefore applies to this result as well. Hence, does not only represent an explicit far-field feature for the existence of a bound state on a lattice. This expression can, analogous to the discussion of , be utilized to extract the relative wave function’s complete momentum distribution by tuning the argument $k_P-\bar{k}$ across the first Brillouin zone. To this end, one could, for instance, vary the detection angle $\beta_{\mathrm{det}}$ while keeping the excitation angle $\beta_{\mathrm{exc}}$ fixed. The spectrum only needs to be recorded at a single frequency $\omega=\omega_0+U$.
Conversely, around the frequency $\omega = \omega_0$ we can extract $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&& \frac{S({\mathbf{r}},\omega=\omega_0) \gamma_0}{2 \xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2 M} =
2 \Xi \delta_{\bar{k} k_P}
+ \frac{4}{3} \Xi^2 \sum_{p} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, p)}_{k_P-\bar{k}}}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, p)}_{0}}\right|}^2
\\
&& ~~~
~+~ \Xi^2 {\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \mathrm{BS})}_{k_P-\bar{k}} }\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \mathrm{BS})}_{0}}\right|}^2
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ which can be rewritten performing the sums over $\nu$ and $p$ as (see for details) $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&& \frac{S({\mathbf{r}},\omega=\omega_0) \gamma_0}{2 \xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2 M} =
2 \Xi \delta_{\bar{k} k_P}
+ \frac{4}{9} \Xi^2 \delta_{\bar{k} k_P}
\\
&& ~~~
~+~ \Xi^2
\begin{cases}
0
&
\mathrm{for~}U=0
\\
\frac{16}{M^2} \cos^2\left[\left( \bar{k} - k_P \right)a\right]
&
\mathrm{for~}U \gg \gamma_0
\end{cases}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Similar to the discussion of , the contribution from the bound state only appears for detected wavenumbers $\bar{k} \neq k_P$ as a correction to the $M\gg1$-limit. However, also here, we cannot infer more specific properties on the nature of the scattering states from the far field. This prompts for an extension of this simple single-pump excitation scheme to the case of an external field with two Fourier components.
Two-Pump Setup {#subsec:twopump}
--------------
![\[fig:2psetup\] An external, incoherent field with two spatial Fourier components (as depicted in c)) drives the atomic system and [“[imprints]{}”]{} the wavenumbers $k_1$ and $k_2$ (the ratio of the driving fields’ pump rates is $\epsilon^2$). The reduced level scheme for this two-pump excitation setup comprises single-excitation states ${|{k_1}\rangle}$ and ${|{k_2}\rangle}$, and two-excitation states ${|{2k_1, \nu}\rangle}$, ${|{2k_2, \nu}\rangle}$, and ${|{k_1+k_2, \nu}\rangle}$. The figure shows the situation for the case $k_1 \neq k_2$. Single-excitation levels that are only populated via spontaneous emission from two-excitation states are not shown here since they would only be relevant for detection angles $\beta^{(1)}_{\mathrm{det}} \neq \beta_1, \beta_2$ (which we do not consider).](fig9.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
In this Section, we investigate the atomic system’s far-field response along the same lines as in but for a two-pump setup (see c)). We thus imagine two plane wave components with wavevectors ${\mathbf{k}}^{(1)}$ and ${\mathbf{k}}^{(2)}$, respectively (${|{{\mathbf{k}}^{(1)}}|}={|{{\mathbf{k}}^{(2)}}|}=k_L=k_{\mathrm{atom}}$). The corresponding wavenumbers that are [“[imprinted]{}”]{} on the atomic system are $k_i = \left[ k_{\mathrm{atom}} \sin\beta_{i} \right]_{2 \pi/a}$ ($i=1,2$), where $\beta_i$ signify the excitation angles (angles of incidence). We choose the corresponding pump rates according to ${|{\mathcal{P}_1}|}^2 \equiv {|{\mathcal{P}}|}^2$ and ${|{\mathcal{P}_2}|}^2 \equiv \epsilon^2 {|{\mathcal{P}}|}^2$.
In , we have revealed that the signatures at detection angles corresponding to wavenumbers that are not directly driven by the external pump (, $\bar{k} \neq k_P$ in , see also ) only provide information about the bound state. Conversely, at detection angles corresponding to the wavenumber that is directly driven by the pump (, $\bar{k} = k_P$ in ), the single-pump setup failed to provide specific details about the scattering states’ properties.
In the following, we will show how a two-pump setup can be exploited to gain further insight. To this end, we will, unlike in , exclusively focus on an out-of-plane detection scheme where the detection angles coincide with the excitation angles, , $\beta^{(i)}_{\mathrm{det}} = \beta_{i}$. This choice considerably simplifies the relevant expressions for the steady-state occupation numbers (which can be found in ). Furthermore, it allows us to only consider those wavenumbers in the description that are imposed by the external field (, $\bar{k}_i = k_i$).
### Far-Field Intensity {#subsubsec:ffinttwopumps}
The far-field intensity measured at a detector position ${\mathbf{r}}_1$ out-of-plane (elevation $\beta_1$, detected wavenumber $k_1$) can be determined from , yielding $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}\right|}^2 M} =
N_{k_1} + \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_1, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2 N_{2 k_1, \nu}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~ ~~~~ + \left( 1-\delta_{k_1 k_2} \right)~
\sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(k_1+k_2, \nu)}_{\frac{1}{2} \left( k_1-k_2 \right)}}\right|}^2 N_{k_1+k_2, \nu}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the steady-state occupation numbers (\[eq:2pssbegin\])–(\[eq:2pssend\]) leads to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:G1twopumpcompl}
&& \frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}\right|}^2 M} =
\Xi
\left( 1 + \epsilon^2 \delta_{k_1 k_2} \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~
~+~ \Xi^2 \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_1, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^4
+ 2 \epsilon^2 \Xi^2 \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(k_1+k_2, \nu)}_{\frac{1}{2}\left(k_1-k_2\right)}}\right|}^4
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~
~+~ \epsilon^4 \frac{\Xi^2}{2} \left( 1 + \delta_{k_1 k_2} \right)
\sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_2, \nu)}_{k_2-k_1}}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_2, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ For $\epsilon=0$ (, zero second field) we simply recover (for the case $\bar k = k_P$).
Note that contains linear and non-linear terms in the dimensionless pump power $\Xi$. In order to investigate the dependence on the parameters that can be tuned externally, , $\beta_1$, $\beta_2$, and $\epsilon$, we start from the quantity $$\bar{G}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{NL}}(\beta_1, \beta_2, \epsilon)
=
\left[ \frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}\right|}^2 M}
- \Xi
\left( 1 + \epsilon^2 \delta_{k_1 k_2} \right)
\right]
\cdot
\frac{1}{\Xi}
{\,,}$$ which is the rescaled, nonlinear part of the emitted intensity (low-power limit subtracted). In particular, we focus on the relative difference of this quantity for zero and non-zero second driving field. In other words, we define $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:G1nlpart}
\nonumber
&& \delta \bar{G}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{NL}}(\beta_1, \beta_2, \epsilon)
\equiv
\frac{\bar{G}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{NL}}(\beta_1, \beta_2, \epsilon)-\bar{G}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{NL}}(\beta_1, \beta_2, \epsilon=0)}{\bar{G}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{NL}}(\beta_1, \beta_2, \epsilon=0)}
\\
&& ~~~ =
\delta_{q 0} ~\epsilon^2 \left( \epsilon^2 + 2 \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~ ~+~
\left( 1-\delta_{q 0} \right) ~\epsilon^2
\Bigg{(} 2 \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(k_1+k_2, \nu)}_{q}}\right|}^4
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~~~~~~ ~+~
\frac{\epsilon^2}{2} \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_2, \nu)}_{2q}}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_2, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2
\Bigg{)}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~\times~ \frac{1}{\sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_1, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^4}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where $q \equiv (k_1-k_2)/2$. Explicitly performing the sums (see ), we arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:deltag1}
&& \delta \bar{G}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{NL}}(\beta_1, \beta_2, \epsilon) / \epsilon^2
=
\delta_{q 0}~\left( \epsilon^2+2 \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~ ~+~ \left( 1 - \delta_{q 0} \right)
\begin{cases}
4 & \mathrm{for}~U=0 \\
\frac{\frac{4}{3}\cos^4(qa) + 4 \sin^4(qa) + \frac{32}{M^2} \cos^4(qa)}{\frac{1}{3} + \frac{16}{M^2}}
& \mathrm{for}~U \gg \gamma_0
\end{cases}
{\,,}\\
\nonumber
&& \overset{M \gg 1}{\simeq}
\delta_{q 0}~\left( \epsilon^2+2 \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~ ~+~ 4 \left( 1 - \delta_{q 0} \right)
\begin{cases}
1 & \mathrm{for}~U=0 \\
\cos^4(qa) + 3 \sin^4(qa)
& \mathrm{for}~U \gg \gamma_0
\end{cases}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~ ~+~ \left( 1 - \delta_{q 0} \right)
\begin{cases}
0 & \mathrm{for}~U=0 \\
\frac{96}{M^2} \cos^4(qa)
& \mathrm{for}~U \gg \gamma_0
\end{cases}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$
![\[fig:nonlinresponse\] (color online). Relative difference of the normalized far-field intensity for zero and non-zero second driving field, , $\delta \bar{G}^{(1)}_{\mathrm{NL}}(\beta_1, \beta_2, \epsilon)$ according to (in the limit of many atoms). We have chosen $\lambda_{\mathrm{atom}} / a = 0.5$ and $\beta_2=\arcsin(\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a)$. The signatures for the two cases of non-interacting ($U=0$, a)) and strongly interacting atoms ($U \gg \gamma_0$, b)) are clearly different. See the main text for the identification and discussion of the individual features.](fig10.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
Also here, signatures emerging from a bound state (last line in , see for details) appear as a small correction to the $M \gg 1$-limit. In , we plot the quantity (\[eq:deltag1\]) (for $\lambda_{\mathrm{atom}} / a = 0.5$) in the limit of many atoms (such that the last line in vanishes). For simplicity, we choose the second driving field to impinge under an angle such that it excites a zero wavenumber mode, , $\beta_2=\arcsin(\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a)$ (which translates into $k_2=0$ and, therefore, $q=k_1/2$). The individual peaks in as a function of the angle $\beta_1$ can be identified as follows. According to , we have $$\label{eq:simpleeq}
\beta_1 = \arcsin \left[ \frac{\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}}{a} \left( \frac{qa}{\pi} + n \right) \right]
~~~~~(n=0,\pm 1,\dots)
{\,.}$$
The level scheme for the reduced Hilbert space of the driven states (as shown in ) effectively reduces to the situation of a single pump ([[cf.]{} ]{}) when $k_1=k_2$, which is realized here for $q=0$. From the properties of the momentum distributions (\[eq:etaU0\])–(\[eq:etaUlargeBS\]), we know that for both $U=0$ and $U \gg 0$ only the background fluorescence contributes at the argument $q=0$. Employing for $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a=0.5$, the first Bragg order ($n=1$) of this background fluorescence is the peak visible at $\beta_1 / \pi = 1/6 \simeq 0.17$ in both Figs. a) and b). In contrast to this, the decay channel for the direct fluorescence, which only occurs for $U \gg \gamma_0$ (b)), has its maximum contribution for $q=\pi/2a$. The corresponding $n=0$-order for $q=\pi/2a$ yields the peak at $\beta_1 / \pi \simeq 0.08$ b), whereas the first Bragg order ($n=1$) results in $\beta_1 / \pi \simeq 0.27$.
On the whole, the additional degrees of freedom in the context of a two-pump setup (, two angles and a relative strength between the two pumps) open up a way to reveal the scattering states’ properties of direct and background fluorescence from a suitably normalized far-field intensity. This possibility is absent if one had only a single pump (as discussed in ). However, in contrast to the two-body bound states, the band of scattering states is quasi-degenerate (see ) such that scattering states with different relative wavenumbers overlap spectrally. As a result, it is not possible to extract the full momentum distribution of an individual scattering state. Instead, the far-field signature is a superposition from scattering states with different relative wavenumbers (see the sum over $\nu$ in ). Signatures from a bound state are suppressed as $1/M^2$ in the limit of many atoms.
### Emission Spectrum around $\omega=\omega_0+U$
Analogous to , the steady-state emission spectrum for the two-pump scheme recorded at the position ${\mathbf{r}}_1$ around the frequency $\omega=\omega_0+U$ reads (see for details) $$\frac{S({\mathbf{r}}_1,\omega=\omega_0+U) \gamma_0}{2 \xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}\right|}^2 M} =
\frac{16 \Xi^2}{3 M^2}
\left[
\left( 1+\epsilon^4 \delta_{q 0} \right)
+ 2 \epsilon^2 \cos^4(qa)
\right]
{\,.}$$ Along the same lines as in the previous section, we define the relative difference for zero and non-zero second driving field as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:bssigtwopumps}
&& \delta {S}(\beta_1, \beta_2, \epsilon, \omega=\omega_0+U)
\equiv
\\ \nonumber
&&
~~~
\frac{ S({\mathbf{r_1}}, \omega=\omega_0+U) \vert_{\epsilon \neq 0}
- S({\mathbf{r_1}}, \omega=\omega_0+U) \vert_{\epsilon = 0} }
{S({\mathbf{r_1}}, \omega=\omega_0+U) \vert_{\epsilon = 0}}
\\ \nonumber
&&
~~~
=
\epsilon^2 \left( \epsilon^2 \delta_{q 0} + 2 \cos^4(qa) \right)
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$
![\[fig:bssigtwopumps\] (color online). Spectral signature $\delta {S}(\beta_1, \beta_2, \epsilon, \omega=\omega_0+U)$ of a bound state as a function of the detection angle according to . As the bound states’ momentum distribution has a maximum at the argument $q=0$ (see ), we observe peaks around (see also the discussion in ) $\beta_1 / \pi \simeq 0, 0.17, 0.5$ (for $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a=0.5$, a)). For $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a=0.3$ (b)), we have $\beta_1 / \pi \simeq 0, 0.10, 0.20, 0.36$.](fig11.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
This expression represents an approach which is complimentary to the signature (\[eq:emittintBS\]) we obtained in the context of spontaneous emission or the emission spectrum (\[eq:Sbssig\]) for a single-pump setup. Unlike in Eqs. (\[eq:emittintBS\]) and (\[eq:Sbssig\]) where we relied on the collection of spontaneously emitted light, the bound state signature here is a consequence of collected photons which correspond to transitions directly driven by the external pumps (see the introduction of for the choice of the detector positions).
In , we visualize the bound state signature according to . Similarly to , the positions of the peaks can be determined according to . The bound state’s momentum distribution (\[eq:etaUlargeBS\]) has a maximum at the argument $q=0$. Employing for $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a=0.5$, this leads to the peaks around $\beta_1/\pi = 0$ ($n=0$), $\beta_1/\pi \simeq 0.17$ ($n=1$), and $\beta_1/\pi \simeq 0.5$ ($n=2$), which can be seen in a). Likewise, for a smaller wavelength $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a=0.3$ more Bragg orders become visible at $\beta_1/\pi = 0$ ($n=0$), $\beta_1/\pi \simeq 0.10$ ($n=1$), $\beta_1/\pi \simeq 0.20$ ($n=2$), and $\beta_1/\pi \simeq 0.36$ ($n=3$) in b).
In the next section, we conclude our investigations on the two-pump setup with some thoughts on the measurement of consecutive photon counts. Within this framework, we analyze, as a complement to the previous studies, what can be learned from the intensity correlations with respect to the detection angle.
### Intensity Correlations
We envision a coincidence detection scheme, where two detectors are positioned out-of-plane ($y$-$z$ plane) at ${\mathbf{r}}_1$ and ${\mathbf{r}}_2$, respectively. The two detectors have the same distance to the origin (, ${|{{\mathbf{r}}_1}|}={|{{\mathbf{r}}_2}|}$) and we aim at events with zero time delay ($\tau=0$). Note that the detection angles are chosen such that they are equal to the excitation angles (see introduction of ).
According to , the intensity correlation function is $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&& \frac{ {G}^{(2)}({\mathbf{r}}_1,{\mathbf{r}}_2) }{ \xi^4 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}\right|}^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_2)}\right|}^2 M^2 } =
\sum_{\nu} {\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(k_1+k_2, \nu)}_{\frac{1}{2}\left(k_1-k_2\right)} }\right|}^2
N_{k_1+k_2, \nu; k_1+k_2, \nu}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~ =
\Xi^2 \left( \delta_{k_1 k_2} \frac{\left( 1+\epsilon^2 \right)^2}{2} + \left( 1-\delta_{k_1 k_2 }\right) \epsilon^2 \right)
\sum_{\nu} {\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(k_1+k_2, \nu)}_{\frac{1}{2}\left(k_1-k_2\right)} }\right|}^4
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ To arrive at the normalized correlation function, we use $$\begin{aligned}
\frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}\right|}^2 M} &=&
\Xi \left( 1 + \delta_{k_1 k_2} \epsilon^2 \right) + \mathcal{O}(\Xi^2)
{\,,}\\
\frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}}_2)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_2)}\right|}^2 M} &=&
\Xi \left( \epsilon^2 + \delta_{k_1 k_2} \right) + \mathcal{O}(\Xi^2)
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ leading to $$\begin{aligned}
&&
\frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}\right|}^2 M}
\cdot
\frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}}_2)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_2)}\right|}^2 M}
=
\\ \nonumber
&&
~~~~~~
\Xi^2 \left[ \delta_{k_1 k_2} \left(1+\epsilon^2\right)^2 + \left( 1-\delta_{k_1 k_2}\right) \epsilon^2 \right]
+ \mathcal{O}(\Xi^3)
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ According to , the normalized correlation function reads (taking into account orders up to $\mathcal{O}(\Xi^2)$ for both the nominator and the denominator) $$\begin{aligned}
g^{(2)}(\beta_1, \beta_2)
&=&
\left( 1 - \frac{1}{2} \delta_{k_1 k_2} \right)
\sum_{\nu} {\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(k_1+k_2,\nu)}_{\frac{1}{2}\left( k_1-k_2 \right)} }\right|}^4
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Performing the sum over $\nu$ (see for details), we finally arrive at $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:g2final}
&& g^{(2)}(\beta_1,\beta_2) =
\frac{1}{6} \delta_{q 0}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~ ~+~
\frac{2}{3}
\left( 1- \delta_{q 0} \right)
\begin{cases}
1
& \mathrm{for~}U=0
\\
\cos^4(qa) + 3 \sin^4(qa)
& \mathrm{for~}U \gg \gamma_0
\end{cases}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~ ~+~
\begin{cases}
0
& \mathrm{for~}U=0
\\
\frac{16}{M^2} \left( 1 -\frac{1}{2} \delta_{q0} \right) \cos^4(qa)
& \mathrm{for~}U \gg \gamma_0
\end{cases}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where again $q \equiv (k_1-k_2)/2$ (which depends on $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$). This correlation function measures two photon counts with zero time delay at the detection angles $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$. Note that our two-pump setup is such that excitation and detection angles coincide. Hence, varying $\beta_1$ and $\beta_2$ represents a simultaneous change of both the detection and excitation angles.
![\[fig:g2plot\] (color online). Normalized photon–photon correlation function $g^{(2)}(\beta_1,\beta_2=\arcsin(\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a))$ according to in the limit of many atoms (such that the last line in vanishes). For $U=0$ (blue line), the correlation function exhibits a constant value of $2/3$, except for angles where $q=0$ is realized (red crosses). For $U \gg \gamma_0$ (black line), the $g^{(2)}$-function varies smoothly with respect to the angle $\beta_1$, but is also interrupted when $q=0$ (red crosses). At $q=0$, the correlation function always has a value of $1/6$ (denoted by the red dashed line) for both $U=0$ and $U \gg \gamma_0$. The green dashed lines indicate reference values from Refs. [@wiegand; @ficekPRA; @commentficek; @cordes; @machnikowski], referring to a two-atom system (see text for discussion).](fig12.pdf){width="48.00000%"}
As before, the contribution from a bound state (last line in ) appears as a correction to the $M\gg1$-limit and is suppressed as $1/M^2$. Still, this correlation function provides some very characteristic features for the two cases of non-interacting atoms ($U=0$) and strong atom–atom interactions ($U \gg \gamma_0$). For $U=0$, the intensity correlation is essentially flat. This can again be seen as a consequence of the momentum distribution being featureless for $U=0$ ([[cf.]{} ]{}b)). The correlation function only jumps between the values $1/6$ and $2/3$ if the atomic system’s level scheme undergoes the sudden change from an effective single-pump setup ($q=0$, degenerate pump fields) to a two-pump setup ($q \neq 0$). In contrast to this, for $U \gg \gamma_0$, we observe a continuous angle-dependence because the underlying relevant momentum distributions also exhibit contributions from the decay channel of direct fluorescence ([[cf.]{} ]{}c)). Also here, we can see jumps to the value of $1/6$ that occurs at angles where the pump fields are degenerate ($q=0$). We depict these findings in for $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a=0.5$ and $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a=0.3$. The features of a) are visible at the same angles as in , which can be calculated from . When compared to a), b) features more peaks because the smaller wavelength of $\lambda_{\mathrm{at}}/a=0.3$ allows for the observation of more Bragg orders.
The sharp jumps in due to the [“[collapse]{}”]{} from a two-pump scheme to the Hilbert space accessible by a single pump refer to the case of infinitely sharp excitation and detection angles. In practice, finite apertures will eventually lead to a smoothening of the curves (imagine averaging over a small angular window).
We conclude the discussion of the zero time delay intensity correlation function by referring to results which have been obtained for the case of two atoms. Generally, as a consequence of spatial interference effects as pointed out in Refs. [@wiegand; @ficekPRA], the values of the $g^{(2)}$-function depend on the direction of observation and on the distance between the two atoms. In the case of a weak driving field, the zero-time delay intensity correlation $g^{(2)}(0)$ for the same detection geometry as described in this section (the two atoms are aligned along the $z$-axis) has the value $g^{(2)}(0)=1/4$ [@wiegand; @ficekPRA; @commentficek] (see the corresponding green dashed line in ). Interestingly, $g^{(2)}(0)=3/4$ would be observed in the limit of a strong driving field in the case of zero detuning [@cordes]. This value would drop down to $g^{(2)}(0)=1/4$ if the driving field is tuned far off-resonant [@cordes]. In the context of spontaneous emission from two initially excited and independent (, uncoupled) atoms, the zero-time correlation function yields a value of $g^{(2)}(0)=4/5$ [@machnikowski]. Likewise, going beyond two atoms, the spontaneous emission from $M$ independent atoms (that are initially all in the excited state) results in $g^{(2)}(0)=1-1/M$ [@machnikowski], which is exactly the same expression one would also obtain for an $M$-photon Fock state of a single-mode radiation field [@orszag].
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
In conclusion, we have analyzed the characteristic, angle-dependent far-field signatures emerging from the excitation of collective few-excitation atomic states in the context of a one-dimensional lattice of (interacting) two-level atoms. Compared to state-of-the-art experimental techniques that rely on single-atom addressability and/or manipulation, the schemes presented in this paper represents an alternative approach for studying collective phenomena in a quantum-optical context.
In particular, we started in with the static properties of the underlying model system. This included an in-depth discussion of the dissipative eigenstates in the submanifold of one and two atomic excitations. We put special emphasis on the distinction between the two classes of possible two-excitation states, , two-excitation scattering states (which can be thought of as two colliding spin waves) and two-body bound states whose relative wavefunction is spatially localized (with respect to the relative coordinate of the two excitations). We then showed that characteristic key quantities such as the collective dipole moments, branching ratios, and, most importantly, the momentum distribution of the collective states’ relative wavefunctions are intimately linked to each other. Moreover, an expansion of the operator for the electric far field in terms of the collective atomic eigenbasis allowed us to construct operators for the emitted intensity, the emission spectrum, and an intensity correlation function.
In , we continued with the angle-dependent far-field pattern emerging from the spontaneous emission of the system’s eigenstates. We especially discussed the characteristic differences of the light emitted by two-body scattering states and bound states, arguing that the emission patterns can serve as a distinct fingerprint for identifying and proofing the existence of certain eigenstates on the lattice. In the course of the discussion, we also contrasted the differences between the two cases of non-interacting atoms and strong atom–atom interactions. Further, we pointed out how one could in principle extract the relative wave function’s complete momentum distribution from the far-field pattern. This is particularly appealing for the case of strong interactions, where a tightly confined two-body bound state exists.
However, since the preparation of a pure eigenstate for studying its spontaneous emission may, admittedly, pose severe challenges from a practical point of view, we turned to the investigation of the atomic system’s response to a weak and incoherent driving field in . Starting from an external pump field with a single spatial Fourier component, we explained the relevant excitation and relaxation mechanisms and identified the corresponding reduced level scheme. Within this framework of a single-pump setup, we were able to extract signatures for the existence of a two-body bound state from the steady-sate intensity and emission spectrum in the far field.
Still, this scheme failed to reveal detailed information on the characteristics of the involved scattering states. As another approach to inferring information on the collective atomic eigenstates from the far field, we therefore extended the scheme to a special two-pump setup, where detectors were chosen such that they exclusively detect photons from driven transitions. With regard to the detected steady-state intensity and emission spectrum, the Hilbert space accessible to the external fields now not only results in a distinct signature for the existence of a bound state. Unlike for a single pump, we were also able to identify features that stem from the scattering states’ momentum distribution and which are related to the decay channels which we termed [“[background fluorescence]{}”]{} and [“[direct fluorescence]{}”]{}. However, due to the spectral overlap of scattering states with different relative wavenumbers it is not possible to extract the momentum distribution of a single scattering state and we were instead left with far-field observables resulting from the superposition of different scattering states. Moreover, we also contrasted the results for the two cases of non-interacting atoms and strong atom–atom interactions, which exhibit very different far-field patterns. In addition to that, we showed that in the framework of such a two-pump setup, an angle-dependent intensity correlation function represents another tool for analyzing the scattering states’ properties for both interacting and non-interacting atoms.
Future studies might include the dynamics induced by one or more coherent driving fields, requiring a description beyond the rate equations utilized in this work. In the context of coherent fields, an analysis of how interference effects modify the far-field emission patterns discussed in this paper would be highly interesting. This would also address whether these signatures may reveal additional or complimentary information on the properties of the collective few-excitation wavefunction. Besides that, going from weak driving fields to higher pump powers would in principle open up a way to probe the more complicated Hilbert space beyond two-excitations, which is still largely unexplored in detail. Finally, our analysis provides a promising approach to the theoretical modeling and understanding of recent experiments in nuclear quantum optics on a microscopic level.
Integrating out the Photonic Degrees of Freedom {#sec:appphdof}
===============================================
The Heisenberg equations of motion for Hamiltonian (\[eq:origH\]) read $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:Heisa}
{\mathrm{i}}\partial_t a^{\phantom \dagger}_k & = & \epsilon_k a_k + \sum_{n} g^{*}_{nk} \sigma^{-}_n {\,,}\\
\label{eq:Heisb}
\nonumber
{\mathrm{i}}\partial_t \sigma^{-}_n & = & - \omega_n \sigma^z_n \sigma^-_n - \sum_k g^{\phantom *}_{nk} \sigma^z_n a_k
\\
&& ~~~ ~+~ \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m} V_{{\left|{n-m}\right|}} \sigma^+_m \sigma^-_m \sigma^-_n {\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Transforming to a rotating frame (, $a^{\phantom \dagger}_k \rightarrow a^{\phantom \dagger}_k {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}\epsilon_k t}$, $\sigma^{-}_i \rightarrow \sigma^{-}_i {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}\omega_i t}$), formally integrating , tracing out the photonic degrees of freedom (we assume the reservoir to be initially in the vacuum state), and inserting the result back into , we arrive at the integro-differential equation for the atomic operators: $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\label{eq:integrodiffeq}
\partial_t \sigma^-_n(t) &=&
\displaystyle \int \limits_0^t \mathrm{d} t^{\prime} \sum_{m} K_{nm}(t,t^{\prime}) \sigma^z_n(t) \sigma^-_m(t^{\prime}) \\
&& ~~~ - \frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2} \sum_{m} V_{{\left|{n-m}\right|}} \sigma^+_m(t) \sigma^-_m(t) \sigma^-_n(t) {\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $K_{nm}(t,t^{\prime})$ denotes a memory kernel, which we assume to describe atom–photon coupling to a featureless continuum of modes. In other words, we apply a Markov approximation, which reduces the memory kernel to a set of complex rates, , $$K_{nm}(t-t^{\prime}) = \frac{\Gamma_{{\left|{n-m}\right|}}}{2} \delta(t-t^{\prime})$$ (the details of the rates depend on the reservoir, see Eqs. (\[eq:fullrates\])–(\[eq:fullrateslast\])), turning into $$\label{eq:diffeqintermed}
\partial_t \sigma^-_n = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{m} \Gamma_{{\left|{n-m}\right|}} \sigma^z_n \sigma^-_m
- \frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2} \sum_{m} V_{{\left|{n-m}\right|}} \sigma^+_m \sigma^-_m \sigma^-_n {\,.}$$ Hamiltonian (\[eq:Heff\]) is the effective non-Hermitian Hamiltonian corresponding to the equations of motion (\[eq:diffeqintermed\]).
Eigenequations {#sec:appeigeq}
==============
Single-Excitation Eigenstates {#subsec:appeigeq1}
-----------------------------
The eigenproblem with respect to Hamiltonian (\[eq:Heff\]) for a single-excitation state $${\left|{\varphi}\right\rangle}=\sum_n \varphi_n \sigma^+_n {\left|{0}\right\rangle}$$ yields the difference equation $$\label{eq:1exeigeq}
0 = - \frac{{\mathrm{i}}}{2} \sum_m \Gamma_{{\left|{n-m}\right|}} \varphi_m - E \varphi_n {\,.}$$ Note that the atom–atom interaction terms are absent in the single-excitation submanifold.
Two-Excitation Eigenstates {#subsec:appeigeq2}
--------------------------
The eigenproblem with respect to Hamiltonian (\[eq:Heff\]) for a two-excitation state $$\label{eq:twobodyansatz0}
{\left|{\Phi}\right\rangle} = \sum_{n_1 n_2} \Phi_{n_1 n_2} \sigma^+_{n_1} \sigma^+_{n_2} {\left|{0}\right\rangle}
{\,,}$$ which we rewrite as a product of the center-of-mass motion (described by a plane wave with a center-of-mass wavenumber $K$) and a relative wavefunction $\Psi^{(K \nu)}_{{\left|{n_1-n_2}\right|}}$, , $$\label{eq:twobodyansatz}
{\left|{K \nu}\right\rangle} = \frac{1}{2\sqrt{M}} \sum_{n_1 n_2}
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\frac{Ka}{2} \left(n_1+n_2\right)}
\cdot \Psi^{(K \nu)}_{{\left|{n_1-n_2}\right|}}
~\sigma^+_{n_1} \sigma^+_{n_2} {\left|{0}\right\rangle}
{\,,}$$ reduces to an effective single-particle problem on a half-infinite lattice ($x > 0$, $\Psi^{(K \nu)}_0 = 0$): $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\label{eq:eigen2ex1dlatt}
0 &=& - {\mathrm{i}}\sum_{j \neq x} \Gamma_j \cos\left(\frac{Kaj}{2} \right) \left( \Psi^{(K \nu)}_{{\left|{x-j}\right|}} + \Psi^{(K \nu)}_{{\left|{x+j}\right|}} \right)
\\
&& ~~~ ~+~ \left( V_{x} - E - {\mathrm{i}}\Gamma_0 \right) \Psi^{(K \nu)}_{x} {\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Here, $K/2$ is from the first Brillouin zone and $\nu$ is a quantum number still to be determined (see main text). Note that for each center-of-mass wavenumber $K$ the effective particle [“[sees]{}”]{} a different lattice (different hopping terms). The two-body atom–atom interaction terms now play the role of a potential for the effective particle. For the tight-binding Hamiltonian (\[eq:Hefftb\]), the difference equation simplifies to ($x>0$) $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
\label{eq:eigen2ex1dlatttb}
0 &=& - {\mathrm{i}}\Gamma_1 \cos\left(\frac{Ka}{2} \right) \left( \Psi^{(K \nu)}_{x-1} + \Psi^{(K \nu)}_{x+1} \right)
\\
&& ~~~ ~+~ \left( U \delta_{x,1} - E - {\mathrm{i}}\Gamma_0 \right) \Psi^{(K \nu)}_x {\,.}\end{aligned}$$
Expansion of the Atomic Operator $\sigma^-_n$ in the Eigenbasis {#sec:appexpineig}
===============================================================
We transform the operator $\sigma^-_n$ to the basis of the system’s single- and two-excitation eigenstates by virtue of the expansion $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sigma^{-}_n =
\sum_k {|{0}\rangle} \underbrace{{\langle{0}|} \sigma^-_n {|{k}\rangle} }_{=\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}} {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}ka n}} {\langle{k}|}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~ ~+~
\sum_{k; K \nu} {|{k}\rangle} \underbrace{{\langle{k}|} \sigma^-_n {|{K \nu}\rangle}}_{={\langle{k}|} \sum_{x_1 x_2} \Phi_{x_1 x_2} \sigma^-_n \sigma^+_{x_1} \sigma^+_{x_2} {|{0}\rangle}} {\langle{K \nu}|}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~ =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}} \sum_k {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}ka n} \hat{S}_{0; k}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~ ~+~
2 \sum_{k; K \nu} \sum_{m=-N/2}^{N/2}
\underbrace{\Phi_{n m}}_{\frac{1}{2\sqrt{M}} {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\frac{Ka}{2} (n+m)} \Psi^{(K \nu)}_{n-m} }
\underbrace{{\langle{k}|} \sigma^+_{m} {|{0}\rangle}}_{~~ \frac{1}{\sqrt{M}} {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}ka m}}
\hat{S}_{k; K \nu}
\\
&& ~~~ =
\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}} \sum_k {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}ka n} \hat{S}_{0; k}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~ ~+~ \frac{1}{2\sqrt{M}} \sum_k \sum_{K \nu}
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}(K-k)a n} \eta^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k; n}
\hat{S}_{k; K \nu} {\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where $\hat{S}_{0; k} = {|{0}\rangle} {\langle{k}|}$ and $\hat{S}_{k; K \nu} = {|{k}\rangle} {\langle{K \nu}|}$. The quantum number $\nu$ runs over all scattering states ($\nu=p$) and a possible bound state ($\nu=\mathrm{BS}$).
The quantity $$\label{eq:etafacdef}
\eta^{(K \nu)}_{q;n} = \frac{2}{\sqrt{M}}
\sum_{z=-N/2-n}^{N/2-n}
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}qa z}~
\Psi^{(K \nu)}_{z}$$ may be interpreted as the windowed Fourier lattice transform of the relative wavefunction (with respect to the relative coordinate). According to , the electric field operator in the eigenbasis involves a sum over all atom positions, which is of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&& {\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}}^{(-)}({\mathbf{r}},t) =
\xi {\mathbf{w}}_0({\mathbf{r}})
\sum_{n k} \Bigg{(} \dots
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~
~+~
\sum_{K \nu}
\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{M}}
{\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}\left( K-k + \frac{\Delta^{K \nu}_k}{c} \sin\beta_{\mathrm{det}} \right)a n}
\left(\eta^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k;n}\right)^*
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~\times~
{\hat{S}}_{K \nu;k}(t-\frac{r}{c})
\Bigg{)}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Performing the sum over $n$ yields $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber
&& {\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}}^{(-)}({\mathbf{r}},t) =
\xi {\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})
\sum_{k}
\Bigg{(} \dots
\\
\nonumber
&& ~~~~~ + ~
\sqrt{M} \sum_{K \nu} \left( \bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k} \right)^*
\delta_{k \bar{k}}
{\hat{S}}_{K \nu;k}\left( t -\frac{r}{c}\right)
\Bigg{)} {\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where we now have the [“[reduced]{}”]{} quantity $\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k}$, which is defined via $$\label{eq:etafacred}
\frac{1}{2M} \sum_{n=-N/2}^{N/2}
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\kappa a n} \eta^{(K,\nu)}_{q; n}
=
\bar{\eta}^{(K,\nu)}_{q} \delta_{ \left[ \kappa \right]_{\frac{2\pi}{a}} , 0}
{\,.}$$ We will discuss $\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{q;n}$ and $\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{q}$ in more detail in .
Expectation Value of the Field–Field Auto Correlation {#sec:appautocorr}
=====================================================
In order to arrive at an expression for ${G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}},t,t+\tau) = {\langle{ \hat{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}},t,t+\tau) }\rangle}$, where $$\begin{aligned}
&& \hat{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}},t,t+\tau) \equiv
{\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}}^{(-)}({\mathbf{r}},t) ~ {\hat{{\mathbf{E}}}}^{(+)}({\mathbf{r}},t+\tau) \\
\nonumber
&& = ~~ \xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2 M
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~ \times
\Bigg{(}
{\hat{S}}_{\bar{k};0}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} \right) {\hat{S}}_{0;\bar{k}}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} + \tau \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{1.5cm}
+ ~ \sum_{K \nu}
\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-\bar{k}}
{\hat{S}}_{\bar{k}; 0}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} \right) {\hat{S}}_{K-\bar{k}; K \nu}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} + \tau \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{1.5cm}
+ ~ \sum_{K \nu}
\left( \bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-\bar{k}} \right)^*
{\hat{S}}_{K \nu; K-\bar{k}}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} \right) {\hat{S}}_{0; \bar{k}}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} + \tau \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{1.5cm}
+ ~ \sum_{K \nu} \sum_{K^\prime \nu^\prime}
\left( \bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-\bar{k}} \right)^*
\bar{\eta}^{(K^\prime \nu^\prime)}_{\frac{K^\prime}{2}-\bar{k}}
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{2.0cm}
\times
{\hat{S}}_{K \nu; K-\bar{k}}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} \right)
{\hat{S}}_{K^\prime-\bar{k}; K^\prime \nu^\prime}\left( t_{\mathrm{ret}} + \tau \right)
\Bigg{)}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ we ultimately need to calculate (cross-)correlations such as ${\langle{ \hat{S}_{k;0}(t) \hat{S}_{0;k^\prime}(t+\tau) }\rangle}$, ${\langle{ \hat{S}_{k;0}(t) \hat{S}_{k^\prime,K \nu}(t+\tau) }\rangle}$, ${\langle{ \hat{S}_{K \nu;k}(t) \hat{S}_{0;k^\prime}(t+\tau) }\rangle}$, and ${\langle{ \hat{S}_{K \nu;k}(t) \hat{S}_{k^\prime,K^\prime \nu^\prime}(t+\tau) }\rangle}$. Generally, this can be achieved by exploiting the quantum regression theorem [@mandelwolf], which we will use in the form (in the following, we have $t \nolinebreak \rightarrow \nolinebreak \infty$, denoting a steady state) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:regtheo}
{\langle{\hat{A}(t) \hat{B}(t+\tau)}\rangle}_{t \rightarrow \infty}
&=& \sum_j \mathcal{G}_j(\tau) {\langle{\hat{A} \hat{B}_j}\rangle}_{t \rightarrow \infty} {\,,}\\ \nonumber
{\langle{\hat{B}(\tau)}\rangle} &=& \sum_j \mathcal{G}_j(\tau) {\langle{\hat{B}_j(0)}\rangle}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$
Explicitly, we have $$\begin{aligned}
{\langle{ \hat{S}_{k;0}(t) \hat{S}_{0;k^\prime}(t+\tau) }\rangle}
&=&
\mathcal{G}_{0;k^\prime}(\tau) ~ {\langle{ \hat{S}_{k;0} \hat{S}_{0;k^\prime} }\rangle}
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\mathcal{G}_{0;k^\prime}(\tau) ~ \varrho_{k^\prime; k}
{\,,}\\ \nonumber
{\langle{ \hat{S}_{0;k}(\tau) }\rangle}
&=&
\mathcal{G}_{0;k}(\tau) ~ {\langle{ \hat{S}_{0;k}(0) }\rangle}
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\mathcal{G}_{0;k}(\tau) ~ \varrho_{k;0}(0)
{\,,}\\
{\langle{ \hat{S}_{k;0}(t) \hat{S}_{k^\prime; K \nu}(t+\tau) }\rangle}
&=&
\mathcal{G}_{k^\prime;K \nu}(\tau) ~ {\langle{ \hat{S}_{k;0} \hat{S}_{k^\prime; K \nu} }\rangle}
\\ \nonumber
&=& 0 {\,,}\\
{\langle{ \hat{S}_{K \nu;k}(t) \hat{S}_{0;k^\prime}(t+\tau) }\rangle}
&=&
\mathcal{G}_{0;k^\prime}(\tau) ~ {\langle{ \hat{S}_{K \nu;k} \hat{S}_{0;k^\prime} }\rangle}
\\ \nonumber
&=& 0
{\,,}\\
{\langle{ \hat{S}_{K \nu;k}(t) \hat{S}_{k^\prime; K^\prime \nu^\prime}(t+\tau) }\rangle}
&=&
\mathcal{G}_{k^\prime; K^\prime \nu^\prime}(\tau) ~ {\langle{ \hat{S}_{K \nu;k} \hat{S}_{k^\prime; K^\prime \nu^\prime} }\rangle}
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\mathcal{G}_{k^\prime; K^\prime \nu^\prime}(\tau) ~ \delta_{k k^\prime} ~
\varrho_{K^\prime \nu^\prime; K \nu}
{\,,}\\
{\langle{ \hat{S}_{k;K \nu}(\tau) }\rangle}
&=&
\mathcal{G}_{k;K \nu}(\tau) ~ {\langle{ \hat{S}_{k;K \nu}(0) }\rangle}
\\ \nonumber
&=& \mathcal{G}_{k;K \nu}(\tau) ~ \varrho_{K \nu;k}(0)
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ We can extract the propagators from Eqs. (\[eq:incpumpcohstart\])–(\[eq:incpumpcohend\]), yielding $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}_{0;k}(\tau) &=& {\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{k}_0 \tau}~{\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{1}{2} \left( \tilde{\Gamma}_k + \sum_n {\left|{ \mathcal{P}_n }\right|}^2 \right) \tau} {\,,}\\
\mathcal{G}_{k;K \nu}(\tau) &=& {\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{K \nu}_k \tau}~{\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{1}{2} \left( \Gamma^{K \nu}_\mathrm{tot} + \tilde{\Gamma}_k \right) \tau}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ and therefore $$\begin{aligned}
&& {\langle{ \hat{S}_{k;0}(t) \hat{S}_{0;k^\prime}(t+\tau) }\rangle}
= \\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~~~~
{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{k}_0 \tau}~{\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{1}{2} \left( \tilde{\Gamma}_k + \sum_n {\left|{ \mathcal{P}_n }\right|}^2 \right) \tau} ~ \varrho_{k^\prime;k} {\,,}\\
&& {\langle{ \hat{S}_{K \nu;k}(t) \hat{S}_{k^\prime; K^\prime \nu^\prime}(t+\tau) }\rangle}
= \\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~~~~
{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{K \nu}_k \tau}~{\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{1}{2} \left( \Gamma^{K \nu}_\mathrm{tot} + \tilde{\Gamma}_k \right) \tau}
~ \delta_{k k^\prime}
~ \varrho_{K^\prime \nu^\prime; K \nu}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ The simplified expressions (for $\omega_0 \gg U \gg \gamma_0 \gg {|{ \mathcal{P}_n }|}^2$) for the propagators are $$\begin{aligned}
\mathcal{G}_{0;k}(\tau) &\simeq& {\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\omega_0 \tau}~{\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma_0 \tau} {\,,}\\
\mathcal{G}_{k;K p}(\tau) &\simeq& {\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\omega_0 \tau}~{\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{3}{2} \gamma_0 \tau} {\,,}\\
\mathcal{G}_{k;K, \mathrm{BS}}(\tau) &\simeq& {\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\left( \omega_0+U \right) \tau}~{\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{3}{2} \gamma_0 \tau}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Note that in the presence of an incoherent pump, we have $\varrho_{k^\prime;k} \propto \delta_{k k^\prime}$ and $\varrho_{K^\prime \nu^\prime; K \nu} \propto \delta_{K K^\prime} \delta_{\nu \nu^\prime}$.
Hence, $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}},t,t+\tau)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2 M} =
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~
\left(
\mathcal{G}_{0; \bar{k}}(\tau) ~ N_{\bar{k}}
~+~ \sum_{K \nu}
{\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-\bar{k}} }\right|}^2
\mathcal{G}_{K-\bar{k};K \nu}(\tau) ~ N_{K \nu}
\right)
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Specifically, for the single-pump setup (see Eqs. (\[eq:sssol1appr\])–(\[eq:sssol2appr\]) for the nonzero occupation numbers) $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}},t,t+\tau)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}})}\right|}^2 M} =
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~
\left(
\mathcal{G}_{0; \bar{k}}(\tau) ~ N_{\bar{k}}
~+~ \sum_{\nu}
{\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(2k_P, \nu)}_{k_P-\bar{k}} }\right|}^2
\mathcal{G}_{2k_P-\bar{k};2k_P, \nu}(\tau) ~ N_{2k_P, \nu}
\right)
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ whereas for the two-pump setup as introduced in we have (see for the steady-state solution) $$\begin{aligned}
&& \frac{{G}^{(1)}({\mathbf{r}}_1,t,t+\tau)}{\xi^2 {\left|{{\mathbf{w}}({\mathbf{r}}_1)}\right|}^2 M} =
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~
\Bigg{(}
\mathcal{G}_{0; k_1}(\tau) ~ N_{k_1}
~+~ \sum_{\nu}
{\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(2k_1, \nu)}_{0} }\right|}^2
\mathcal{G}_{k_1;2k_1, \nu}(\tau) ~ N_{2k_1, \nu}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~
~+~
\left( 1 - \delta_{k_1 k_2} \right)
\sum_{\nu}
{\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(k_1+k_2, \nu)}_{\frac{1}{2}\left(k_1-k_2\right)} }\right|}^2
\mathcal{G}_{k_2;k_1+k_2, \nu}(\tau) ~ N_{k_1+k_2, \nu}
\Bigg{)}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ The Fourier transform according to then finally yields the emission spectrum.
Calculation of $\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_q$ {#sec:eta}
=======================================
Let us start with a closer inspection of (remember that $\Psi^{(K \nu)}_0=0$): $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:etaredximed}
\eta^{(K \nu)}_{q;n} &=& \frac{2}{\sqrt{M}}
\sum_{z=-N/2-n}^{N/2-n}
{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}qa z}
\Psi^{(K \nu)}_{z}
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\frac{2}{\sqrt{M}}
\left( \sum_{z=-N/2-n}^0 {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}qa z} \Psi_z + \sum_{z=0}^{N/2-n} {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}qa z} \Psi^{(K \nu)}_z \right)
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\frac{2}{\sqrt{M}}
\left( \sum_{z=0}^{N/2-n} {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}qa z} \Psi_z + \sum_{z=0}^{N/2+n} {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}qa z} \Psi^{(K \nu)}_z \right)
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\frac{2}{\sqrt{M}}
\Bigg{(} \theta\left(\frac{N}{2}-n-1\right) \sum_{z=1}^{N/2-n} {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}qa z} \Psi^{(K \nu)}_z
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~
~+~ \theta\left(n+\frac{N}{2}-1\right) \sum_{z=1}^{N/2+n} {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}qa z} \Psi^{(K \nu)}_z \Bigg{)}
\\ \nonumber
&=&
2
\sum_{\zeta = \pm}
\theta\left(\frac{N}{2} + \zeta n - 1 \right) \sum_{z=1}^{N/2 + \zeta n} \frac{{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\zeta qa z}}{\sqrt{M}} \Psi^{(K \nu)}_z
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Here, we have used the discrete version of the Heaviside step function according to $\theta(n) = 1$ if $n \geq 0$ and $\theta(n) = 0$ if $n < 0$. From , we see that the quantity $\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{q}$ can be determined via (setting $\kappa=0$ in ) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:etaredimed}
\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{q} &=&
\frac{1}{2M} \sum_{n=-N/2}^{N/2} \eta^{(K \nu)}_{q; n}
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\frac{1}{M}
\sum_{\zeta = \pm}
\sum_{n=-N/2}^{N/2}
\theta\left(\frac{N}{2} + \zeta n - 1 \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~
\times
\sum_{z=1}^{N/2 + \zeta n} \frac{{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\zeta qa z}}{\sqrt{M}} \Psi^{(K \nu)}_z
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$
Before we proceed with the actual calculation, we need to be cautious regarding the wavefunction’s boundary conditions. Usually, the boundary conditions must not play a role for a lattice with many atoms ($M \gg 1$). However, being pedantic, the eigenstates presented in actually do not satisfy hard-wall boundary conditions for a finite lattice (in the calculation, it is assumed that $M$ is still finite). At the boundary, the wavefunction should actually vanish. This is not the case here as the ansatz we employed (both for single- and two-excitation states) represents open boundary conditions, , in- and outgoing waves that are suited in the context of an infinite lattice. To be precise, Equations (\[eq:etaredximed\]) and (\[eq:etaredimed\]) explicitly depend on the boundary values (for instance, the term for $n=\zeta N/2$ in requires the relative wavefunction at the relative coordinate $z=N$, which may stand for two excitations at the boundaries $x_1=N/2$ and $x_2=-N/2$). Furthermore, the sum over $z$ depends on $n$ and represents a finite [“[window]{}”]{}. If we, however, combine the demand that [“[integrated]{}”]{} quantities such as must be independent of the boundary conditions in the limit of a large (eventually infinite) lattice, we come to the conclusion that the [“[window length]{}”]{} should not affect Eqs. (\[eq:etaredximed\]) and (\[eq:etaredimed\]). Hence, we proceed with the expressions $$\begin{aligned}
\eta^{(K \nu)}_{q;n} &=&
2 \sum_{\zeta = \pm}
\sum_{z=1}^{N/2} \frac{{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\zeta qa z}}{\sqrt{M}} \Psi^{(K \nu)}_z
{\,,}\\
\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{q} &=&
\frac{1}{M}
\sum_{\zeta = \pm}
\sum_{n=-N/2}^{N/2}
\sum_{z=1}^{N/2} \frac{{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\zeta qa z}}{\sqrt{M}} \Psi^{(K \nu)}_z
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ (where we additionally ignored the $\theta$-function for similar reasons). Performing the sum over $n$, we are ultimately left with $$\label{eq:etafacredexpr2calc}
\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{q} =
\sum_{\zeta = \pm}
\sum_{z=1}^{N/2} \frac{{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\zeta qa z}}{\sqrt{M}} \Psi^{(K \nu)}_z
{\,.}$$
Scattering States ($\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_q$)
------------------------------------------
For scattering states, we arrive at (the Kronecker symbols $\delta_{p , \pm q}$ should not be confused with the scattering phase shift in $\exp({\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp})$) $$\begin{aligned}
&& \bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_{q} =
\sum_{\zeta = \pm}
\frac{1}{M}
\sum_{z=1}^{N/2}
\left( {\mathrm{e}}^{ {\mathrm{i}}\left( p - \zeta q \right)a z} + {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp}} {\mathrm{e}}^{ -{\mathrm{i}}\left( p + \zeta q \right)a z} \right)
\\
\nonumber
&& =
\sum_{\zeta = \pm}
\Bigg{[}
\frac{1}{2} \left( \delta_{p, \zeta q} + {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp}} \delta_{p,-\zeta q} \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~~
+ \frac{1}{M} \left( 1 - \delta_{p,\zeta q} \right) \left( \frac{1 - {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\left( p-\zeta q \right)a\left( \frac{N}{2}+1\right)}}{1 - {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\left( p-\zeta q \right)a}} - 1 \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~~
+ \frac{1}{M} \left( 1 - \delta_{p,-\zeta q} \right) \left( \frac{1 - {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}\left( p+\zeta q \right)a\left( \frac{N}{2}+1\right)}}{1 - {\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}\left( p+\zeta q \right)a}} - 1 \right) {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp}}
\Bigg{]}
\\ \nonumber
&& =
\frac{1}{2} \left( 1+{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp}} \right) \left( \delta_{pq} + \delta_{p,-q} \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~
+ \frac{1}{M} \left( 1-\delta_{pq} \right)
\left(
\frac{ 1-{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\left(p-q\right)a \frac{N}{2} } }{{\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}\left( p-q \right)a}-1}
+ {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp}} \frac{ 1-{\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}\left(p-q\right)a \frac{N}{2} } }{{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\left( p-q \right)a}-1}
\right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~
+ \frac{1}{M} \left( 1-\delta_{p,-q} \right)
\left(
\frac{ 1-{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\left(p+q\right)a \frac{N}{2} } }{{\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}\left( p+q \right)a}-1}
+ {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp}} \frac{ 1-{\mathrm{e}}^{-{\mathrm{i}}\left(p+q\right)a \frac{N}{2} } }{{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\left( p+q \right)a}-1}
\right)
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ During the derivation, we have used the formula for finite geometric sums, and we also assumed $M,N \gg 1$. Note the symmetry property $\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_{q} = \bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_{-q}$. For $q \geq 0$ and $p>0$, we may therefore write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:etascattred}
\bar{\eta}^{(K, p>0)}_{q \geq 0} &=&
\frac{1+{\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\delta_{Kp}}}{2} \delta_{pq}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~
+~
\frac{2 {\mathrm{e}}^{{\mathrm{i}}\frac{\delta_{Kp}}{2}}}{M} \cdot
\frac{\sin\left[ \frac{1}{2} \left( \delta_{Kp} - \left(p-q\right)a \right) \right]}{\sin\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(p-q\right)a\right]}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~~
~\times~
\left( 1-\delta_{pq} \right)
\left( 1-\delta_{\left[\frac{\left(p-q\right)aN}{2\pi}\right]_{2} ,0} \right)
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ During this derivation, we have exploited the fact that the difference of the wavenumbers $p$ and $q$ can be written as $p-q = m \cdot 2 \pi/Ma$, where $m$ is an integer. Hence, $(p-q)Na/2 \overset{M \gg 1}{=} (p-q)Ma/2 = m \pi$ and $\exp\left[ (p-q)N/2 \right] = (-1)^m$ so that we only have a contribution from the [“[background term]{}”]{} if $m$ is odd (expressed through the second Krocker-$\delta$).
Bound States ($\bar{\eta}^{(K, \mathrm{BS})}_q$)
------------------------------------------------
Proceeding along the same lines for the case of a bound state, we have the expression $$\begin{aligned}
\bar{\eta}^{(K,\mathrm{BS})}_{q} &=&
\sum_{\zeta = \pm}
\sum_{z=1}^{N/2} \frac{{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\zeta qa z}}{\sqrt{M}} \alpha_K^{z-1}
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{M} \alpha_K}
\sum_{\zeta = \pm}
\sum_{z=1}^{N/2} \left( {\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\zeta qa} \alpha_K \right)^z
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\frac{1}{\sqrt{M} \alpha_K}
\sum_{\zeta = \pm}
\left( \frac{1 - \left( {\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\zeta qa} \alpha_K \right)^{N/2+1} }{ 1 - {\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\zeta qa} \alpha_K } - 1 \right)
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\frac{2}{\sqrt{M}} \cdot \frac{\cos(qa) - \alpha_K}{1-2\alpha_K \cos(qa) + \alpha_K^2}
\\ \nonumber
&\overset{U \gg \gamma_0}{\simeq}&
\frac{2 \cos(qa)}{\sqrt{M}}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ In the derivation, we have exploited the fact that $\alpha_K^{N/2}$ vanishes since $N \gg 1$. In the last line, we have additionally assumed $U \gg \gamma_0$, meaning the bound state is tightly confined with respect to the relative coordinate.
Sum over ${\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_q}\right|}^2$
----------------------------------------------------
Consider the quantity $$\begin{aligned}
Z^{(K \nu)} &\equiv& \sum_{qa=\frac{K}{2}-\pi}^{\frac{K}{2}+\pi} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_q}\right|}^2
= \sum_{qa=-\pi}^{\pi} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_q}\right|}^2
\\ \nonumber
&=& 2 \sum_{qa=0}^{\pi} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_q}\right|}^2 - {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_0}\right|}^2
\\ \nonumber
&\overset{M\gg1}{=}& 2 \sum_{qa=0}^{\pi} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_q}\right|}^2
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$
For scattering states, we have $$\begin{aligned}
Z^{(K p)} &=& 2 \left( \sum_{qa=0, q \neq p}^{\pi} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_q}\right|}^2 + {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_p}\right|}^2 \right)
\\ \nonumber
&=& 2 \Bigg{(}
\cos^2 \left( \frac{\delta_{Kp}}{2} \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~
~+~
\frac{4}{M^2}
\sum_{qa=0, q \neq p}^{\pi}
\frac{\cos\left[\delta_{Kp} +(q-p)a \right]-1}{\cos\left[(p-q)a\right]-1}
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~
~\times~ \left( 1-\delta_{\left[\frac{\left(p-q\right)aN}{2\pi}\right]_{2} ,0} \right)
\Bigg{)}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ The lattice sum can be performed in the limit $M \gg 1$. Defining $\delta \equiv 2\pi/aM \ll 1$ and rewriting $q=p+\delta \cdot n$, we essentially have to calculate $$\frac{\delta^2}{\pi^2} \sideset{}{^\prime}\sum_{n}^{} \frac{\cos\left(\delta_{Kp} + \delta n \right)-1}{\cos\left(\delta n\right)-1}
{\,,}$$ which can be expanded into a Taylor series in $\delta$ in which only terms of order $\delta^0$ remain in the limit $M \gg 1$, yielding $$\frac{2}{\pi^2} \left( 1-\cos\delta_{Kp} \right) \sideset{}{^\prime}\sum_n \frac{1}{n^2}
{\,.}$$ The sum runs over those odd values of $n$ such that all wavenumbers from $0 \rightarrow p-\delta$ as well as from $p + \delta \rightarrow \pi/a$ are covered. In the limit $M\gg1$, $n$ runs over all odd values from $1$ to $\infty$ as well as from $-1$ to $-\infty$, resulting in $$2 \underbrace{\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{\left( 2n + 1\right)^2}}_{\frac{\pi^2}{8}} = \frac{\pi^2}{4}
{\,.}$$ This eventually leads to $$Z^{(K p)} = 2 \cdot \left(
\cos^2 \left( \frac{\delta_{Kp}}{2} \right)
+
\frac{1}{2} \left( 1 - \cos\delta_{Kp} \right)
\right)
= 2
{\,.}$$
Similarly, the calculation for a bound states is ($U \nolinebreak \gg \nolinebreak \gamma_0$) $$\begin{aligned}
Z^{(K, \mathrm{BS})} &=& \sum_{qa=-\pi}^{\pi} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K, \mathrm{BS})}_q}\right|}^2
\\ \nonumber
&=& \frac{4}{M} \sum_{qa=-\pi}^{\pi} \cos^2\left(qa\right) \\ \nonumber
&\rightarrow&
4 \int \limits_{-\frac{\pi}{a}}^{\frac{\pi}{a}} \frac{\mathrm{d}q}{2 \pi} \cos^2\left(qa\right)
= 2
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$
Hence, we can generally write $Z^{(K \nu)} = 2$.
Equations of Motion with Incoherent Driving Field {#sec:eqominc}
=================================================
We can extend Eqs. (\[eq:eqstart\])–(\[eq:eqend\]) to account for an external, incoherent driving field, yielding the following equations of motion for the density matrix elements: $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:glA}
\partial_t \varrho_{K \nu;K^\prime \nu^\prime} &=&
\left[ - {\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{K \nu}_{K^\prime \nu^\prime} - \frac{1}{2} \left( \Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}} + \Gamma^{K^\prime \nu^\prime}_{\mathrm{tot}} \right) \right]
~ \varrho_{K \nu; K^\prime \nu^\prime}
\\ \nonumber
&&
\hspace{-1.2cm} ~+~ \delta_{K K^\prime} \delta_{\nu \nu^\prime} \sum_{k} \sum_n
\delta_{K, k+k_n} {\left|{\mathcal{P}_n}\right|}^2 {\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(k+k_n,\nu)}_{\frac{1}{2} \left( k_n -k \right)} }\right|}^2
~\varrho_{k;k}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:glB}
\partial_t \varrho_{k;k^\prime} &=&
\left[ -{\mathrm{i}}\Delta^k_{k^\prime} - \frac{1}{2} \left( \Gamma_{k} + \Gamma_{k^\prime} \right) \right] ~ \varrho_{k; k^\prime}
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{-1.2cm}
~-~ \frac{1}{2} \sum_n \sum_{\nu}
{\left|{ \mathcal{P}_n }\right|}^2
\left(
{\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(k+k_n,\nu)}_{\frac{1}{2} \left( k_n -k \right)} }\right|}^2
+
{\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(k^\prime+k_n,\nu)}_{\frac{1}{2} \left( k_n -k^\prime \right)} }\right|}^2
\right)
~\varrho_{k;k^\prime}
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{-1.2cm}
~+~ \delta_{k, k^\prime} ~ \sum_n {\left|{ \mathcal{P}_n }\right|}^2 \delta_{k, k_n} ~ \varrho_{0;0}
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{-1.2cm}
~+~ \delta_{k, k^\prime} ~ \sum_{K^\prime \nu^\prime}
\Gamma^{K^\prime \nu^\prime}_k \varrho_{K^\prime \nu^\prime; K^\prime \nu^\prime}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:glC}
\partial_t \varrho_{0;0} &=&
\sum_k \Gamma_k \varrho_{k;k}
~-~ \sum_n {\left|{ \mathcal{P}_n }\right|}^2 ~ \varrho_{0;0}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:glD}
\partial_t \varrho_{K \nu;k} &=&
\left[ -{\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{K \nu}_k - \frac{1}{2} \left( \Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}} + \Gamma_k \right) \right] \varrho_{K\nu; k} \\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{0.3cm}
- ~ \frac{1}{2} \sum_n \sum_{\nu^\prime} ~
{\left|{ \mathcal{P}_n }\right|}^2 {\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(k+k_n,\nu^\prime)}_{\frac{1}{2} \left( k_n -k \right)} }\right|}^2
~\varrho_{K \nu;k}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:glE}
\partial_t \varrho_{K \nu;0} &=&
\left[ -{\mathrm{i}}\mathrm{Re}(E^{(2)}_{K \nu}) - \frac{1}{2} \Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}} \right] \varrho_{K\nu; 0}
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{0.3cm}
-~ \frac{1}{2} \sum_n {\left|{ \mathcal{P}_n }\right|}^2 ~ \varrho_{K \nu; 0}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:glF}
\partial_t \varrho_{k;0} &=&
\left[ -{\mathrm{i}}\Delta^k_0 -\frac{1}{2} \Gamma_k \right] \varrho_{k;0}
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{0.3cm}
-~ \frac{1}{2} \sum_n \sum_{\nu}
{\left|{ \mathcal{P}_n }\right|}^2 {\left|{ \bar{\eta}^{(k+k_n,\nu)}_{\frac{1}{2} \left( k_n -k \right)} }\right|}^2
~\varrho_{k;0} \\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{0.3cm}
-~ \frac{1}{2} \sum_n {\left|{ \mathcal{P}_n }\right|}^2 ~\varrho_{k;0}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ The coherences ($K \neq K^\prime$, $\nu \neq \nu^\prime$, $k \neq k^\prime$) evolve in time according to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:incpumpcohstart}
\varrho_{K \nu; K^\prime \nu^\prime}(t)
&=&
\varrho_{K \nu; K^\prime \nu^\prime}(0)
~{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{K \nu}_{K^\prime \nu^\prime} t}
~{\mathrm{e}}^{- \frac{1}{2} \left( \Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}} + \Gamma^{K^\prime \nu^\prime}_{\mathrm{tot}} \right) t}
{\,,}\\
\varrho_{k; k^\prime}(t)
&=&
\varrho_{k; k^\prime}(0)
~{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{k}_{k^\prime} t}
~{\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{1}{2} \left( \tilde{\Gamma}_k + \tilde{\Gamma}_{k^\prime} \right) t}
{\,,}\\
\varrho_{K \nu; k}(t)
&=&
\varrho_{K \nu; k}(0)
~{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{K \nu}_k t}
~{\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{1}{2} \left( \Gamma^{K \nu}_\mathrm{tot} + \tilde{\Gamma}_k \right) t}
{\,,}\\
\varrho_{K \nu; 0}(t)
&=&
\varrho_{K \nu; 0}(0)
~{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\mathrm{Re}(E^{(2)}_{K \nu}) t}
~{\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{1}{2} \left[ \Gamma^{K \nu}_\mathrm{tot} + \sum_n {\left|{ \mathcal{P}_n }\right|}^2 \right] t}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:incpumpcohend}
\varrho_{k; 0}(t)
&=&
\varrho_{k; 0}(0)
~{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\Delta^{k}_0 t}
~{\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{1}{2} \left( \tilde{\Gamma}_k + \sum_n {\left|{ \mathcal{P}_n }\right|}^2 \right) t}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where $\tilde{\Gamma}_k \equiv {\Gamma}_k + \sum_n \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\mathcal{P}_n}\right|}^2 ~ {|{\bar{\eta}^{(k+k_n,\nu)}_{\frac{1}{2} \left( k_n -k \right)}}|}^2$. For $\omega_0 \gg \gamma_0 \gg {\left|{\mathcal{P}_n}\right|}^2$ we are left with $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:cohsimpA}
\varrho_{K \nu; K^\prime \nu^\prime}(t)
&\simeq&
\varrho_{K \nu; K^\prime \nu^\prime}(0)
~{\mathrm{e}}^{- 2 \gamma_0 t}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:cohsimpB}
\varrho_{k; k^\prime}(t)
&\simeq&
\varrho_{k; k^\prime}(0)
~{\mathrm{e}}^{- \gamma_0 t}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:cohsimpC1}
\varrho_{K p; k}(t)
&\simeq&
\varrho_{K p; k}(0)
~{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\omega_0 t}
~{\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{3}{2} \gamma_0 t}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:cohsimpC2}
\varrho_{K, \mathrm{BS}; k}(t)
&\simeq&
\varrho_{K, \mathrm{BS}; k}(0)
~{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\left( \omega_0 + U \right) t}
~{\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{3}{2} \gamma_0 t}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:cohsimpD1}
\varrho_{K p; 0}(t)
&\simeq&
\varrho_{K p; 0}(0)
~{\mathrm{e}}^{ - 2 {\mathrm{i}}\omega_0 t}
~{\mathrm{e}}^{- \gamma_0 t}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:cohsimpD2}
\varrho_{K, \mathrm{BS}; 0}(t)
&\simeq&
\varrho_{K, \mathrm{BS}; 0}(0)
~{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\left( 2 \omega_0 + U \right) t}
~{\mathrm{e}}^{- \gamma_0 t}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:cohsimpE}
\varrho_{k; 0}(t)
&\simeq&
\varrho_{k; 0}(0)
~{\mathrm{e}}^{ - {\mathrm{i}}\omega_0 t}
~{\mathrm{e}}^{-\frac{1}{2} \gamma_0 t}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$
For the diagonal elements $N_m \equiv \varrho_{m;m}$, we arrive at a set of coupled rate equations, which can be compactly written as $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:incpumpratesI}
\left[ \partial_t + \Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}} \right] N_{K \nu}
&=&
\sum_n {\left|{\mathcal{P}_n}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K,\nu)}_{\frac{K}{2} - k_n}}\right|}^2 N_{K-k_n}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:incpumpratesII}
\left[ \partial_t + \tilde{\Gamma}_k \right] N_{k}
&=&
\sum_n {\left|{\mathcal{P}_n}\right|}^2 \delta_{k k_n} \left( 1- \sum_k N_k - \sum_{K \nu} N_{K \nu} \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~ ~+~ \sum_{K \nu} \Gamma^{K \nu}_k N_{K \nu}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where we have exploited the conservation of the total probability $$N_0 + \sum_{k} N_k + \sum_{K \nu} N_{K \nu} = 1
{\,.}$$ Consequently, the steady state obeys $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:ssIapp}
N_{K \nu}
&=&
\sum_n \frac{{\left|{\mathcal{P}_n}\right|}^2}{\Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}}} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K,\nu)}_{\frac{K}{2} - k_n}}\right|}^2 N_{K-k_n}
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:ssIIapp}
N_{k}
&=&
\sum_n \frac{{\left|{\mathcal{P}_n}\right|}^2}{\tilde{\Gamma}_k} \delta_{k k_n} \left( 1- \sum_k N_k - \sum_{K \nu} N_{K \nu} \right)
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~ ~+~ \sum_{K \nu} \frac{\Gamma^{K \nu}_k}{\tilde{\Gamma}_k} N_{K \nu}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$
Steady-State Solution: Single Pump {#subsec:appsingpump}
----------------------------------
The steady-state solution to Eqs. (\[eq:ssIapp\]) and (\[eq:ssIIapp\]) for the case of a driving field with a single Fourier component (pump rate ${|{P}|}^2$, [“[imprinted]{}”]{} wavenumber $k_P$) can be constructed as follows. We insert into and approximate $N_0 \approx 1$ (weak pump) and arrive at $$\label{eq:steadstatimed}
N_k \simeq \frac{{\left|{\mathcal{P}}\right|}^2}{\tilde{\Gamma}_k}
\left( \delta_{k k_P}
+ \sum_{K \nu} \frac{\Gamma^{K \nu}_k}{\Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}}} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k_P}}\right|}^2 N_{K-k_P} \right)
{\,.}$$ Evaluating this equation for $k \neq k_P$ yields the occupation of a single excitation state ${|{k}\rangle}$ that is not directly connected to the pump field and can only be populated via spontaneous emission from a driven two-excitation state. The dominant contributions in the sum on the right-hand side of is thus from the driven states with $K-k_P=k_P$. The other states ($K-k_P \neq k_P$) are of even higher order in the pump rates and may be neglected. This idea leads us to $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:imedofpump}
N_{k \neq k_P}
&\simeq&
\frac{{\left|{\mathcal{P}}\right|}^2}{\tilde{\Gamma}_k}
\sum_{\nu} \frac{\Gamma^{2 k_P, \nu}_k}{\Gamma^{2 k_P, \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}}} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2 N_{k_P}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Conversely, if we evaluate for $k=k_P$ we may assume $$1 \gg \sum_{K \neq 2 k_P} \sum_{\nu} \frac{\Gamma^{K \nu}_k}{\Gamma^{K \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}}} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_{\frac{K}{2}-k_P}}\right|}^2 N_{K-k_P}$$ so that $$N_{k=k_P} \simeq
\frac{{\left|{\mathcal{P}}\right|}^2}{\tilde{\Gamma}_{k_P}}
\left( 1
+ \sum_{\nu} \frac{\Gamma^{2 k_P, \nu}_{k_P}}{\Gamma^{2 k_P, \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}}} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2 N_{k_P} \right)
{\,.}$$ Up to second order in the pump rates, we can therefore write (remember $1/(1-x) \approx 1+x,~x \ll 1$) $$N_{k=k_p} \simeq
\frac{{\left|{\mathcal{P}}\right|}^2}{\tilde{\Gamma}_{k_P}}
+ \left( \frac{{\left|{\mathcal{P}}\right|}^2}{\tilde{\Gamma}_{k_P}} \right)^2 \sum_{\nu} \frac{\Gamma^{2 k_P, \nu}_{k_P}}{\Gamma^{2 k_P, \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}}} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2
{\,.}$$ Inserted back into , we arrive at $$N_{k \neq k_P}
\simeq
\frac{{\left|{\mathcal{P}}\right|}^2}{\tilde{\Gamma}_k}
\frac{{\left|{\mathcal{P}}\right|}^2}{\tilde{\Gamma}_{k_P}}
\sum_{\nu} \frac{\Gamma^{2 k_P, \nu}_k}{\Gamma^{2 k_P, \nu}_{\mathrm{tot}}} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2$$ for the undriven single-excitation states. Going back to and using the previous results, we see that the dominant terms on the right-hand side stem from $K=2 k_P$. Any other $K$ value implies a scaling with the third power in the pump rates, which we neglect.
For $\omega_0 \gg \gamma_0$, we can then finally write $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:sssol1appr}
N_{k} &\simeq&
\Xi \delta_{k k_P}
+ \Xi^2 \sum_{\nu} b^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_k {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\Xi \delta_{k k_P}
+ \frac{\Xi^2}{2} \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{k_P-k}}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:sssol2appr}
N_{K \nu} &\simeq&
\frac{\Xi^2}{2}
{\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2
\delta_{K, 2 k_P}
{\,,}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Xi \equiv {|{\mathcal{P}}|}^2 / \gamma_0$.
Steady-State Solution: Two Pumps {#subsec:apptwopump}
--------------------------------
Using the same reasoning as in , the steady-state occupation numbers can be obtained for the case of an external field with two spatial Fourier components. The pump rates are, respectively, ${|{\mathcal{P}_1}|}^2 \equiv {|{\mathcal{P}}|}^2$ and ${|{\mathcal{P}_2}|}^2 \equiv \epsilon^2 {|{\mathcal{P}}|}^2$, and $k_1$ and $k_2$ denote the [“[imprinted]{}”]{} wavenumbers. We only need the solution for wavenumbers $K=2 k_1, 2 k_2, k_1+k_2$ and $k=k_1,k_2$ (see main text). For $k_1 \neq k_2$, the solution reads (again, $\Xi \equiv {|{\mathcal{P}}|}^2 / \gamma_0$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:2pssbegin}
N_{2k_1, \nu} &\simeq& \frac{\Xi^2}{2} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_1, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2
{\,,}\\
N_{2k_2, \nu} &\simeq& \epsilon^4 \frac{\Xi^2}{2} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_2, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2
{\,,}\\
N_{k_1+k_2, \nu} &\simeq& \epsilon^2 \Xi^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(k_1+k_2, \nu)}_{\frac{1}{2}\left(k_1-k_2\right)}}\right|}^2
{\,,}\\
N_{k_1} &\simeq& \Xi
~+~ \frac{\Xi^2}{2} \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_1, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^4
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~ ~+~ \epsilon^2 \Xi^2 \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(k_1+k_2, \nu)}_{\frac{1}{2}\left(k_1-k_2\right)}}\right|}^4
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~ ~+~ \epsilon^4 \frac{\Xi^2}{2} \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_2, \nu)}_{k_2-k_1}}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_2, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2
{\,,}\\
N_{k_2} &\simeq& \epsilon^2 \Xi
~+~ \epsilon^4 \frac{\Xi^2}{2} \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_2, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^4
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~ ~+~ \epsilon^2 \Xi^2 \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(k_1+k_2, \nu)}_{\frac{1}{2}\left(k_1-k_2\right)}}\right|}^4
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~ ~+~ \frac{\Xi^2}{2} \sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_1, \nu)}_{k_2-k_1}}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_1, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ For $k_1=k_2 \equiv k_P$, we use the single-pump results (\[eq:sssol1appr\])–(\[eq:sssol2appr\]), where we need to replace ${\left|{\mathcal{P}}\right|}^2 \rightarrow {\left|{\mathcal{P}}\right|}^2 \left( 1 + \epsilon^2 \right)$, yielding $$\begin{aligned}
N_{2 k_P, \nu} &\simeq&
\left( 1 + \epsilon^2 \right)^2 \frac{\Xi^2}{2} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^2
{\,,}\\
\label{eq:2pssend}
N_{k_P} &\simeq&
\left( 1 + \epsilon^2 \right) \Xi
+ \left( 1 + \epsilon^2 \right)^2 \frac{\Xi^2}{2}
\sum_{\nu} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(2 k_P, \nu)}_{0}}\right|}^4
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$
Sums over Products of ${\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_q}\right|}^2$ {#sec:appetasums}
=================================================================
In this paper, we encounter sums of the form $$\begin{aligned}
\sum_\nu {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K \nu)}_q}\right|}^4 &=& {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K, \mathrm{BS})}_q}\right|}^4 + \sum_p {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_q}\right|}^4
\\ \nonumber
&\equiv& \begin{cases}
Q^{(\mathrm{bg})}_q + Q^{(\mathrm{dir})}_q & U=0 \\
R^{(\mathrm{bg})}_q + R^{(\mathrm{dir})}_q + R^{(\mathrm{BS})}_q & U \gg \gamma_0
\end{cases}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Exploiting the symmetry properties, we can further write $$\begin{aligned}
&& \sum_p {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_q}\right|}^4
=
2 \cdot \sum_{p>0} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_q}\right|}^4 + {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K, p=0)}_q}\right|}^4
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~
= 2 \cdot \left( \sum_{p>0, p \neq q} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_q}\right|}^4 + {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K q)}_q}\right|}^4 \right) + {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K, p=0)}_q}\right|}^4.\end{aligned}$$ Here, the first part (the sum over $p>0$ but $p \neq q$) represents the contribution from the [“[background fluorescence]{}”]{} ([“[bg]{}”]{}), whereas the second term ($p=q$) stems from the emission via a [“[direct channel]{}”]{} ([“[dir]{}”]{}). The last term refers to a $p=0$-relative wavefunction and therefore vanishes for both $U=0$ and $U \gg \gamma_0$ (see also ).
The relevant quantities to be calculated are $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{(\mathrm{bg})}_q &\equiv& 2 \sum_{p>0, p \neq q} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_q}\right|}^4~~~\mathrm{for~U=0} {\,,}\\
R^{(\mathrm{bg})}_q &\equiv& 2 \sum_{p>0, p \neq q} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_q}\right|}^4~~~\mathrm{for~}U \gg \gamma_0 {\,,}\\
R^{(\mathrm{dir})}_q &\equiv& 2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K q)}_q}\right|}^4~~~\mathrm{for~}U \gg \gamma_0 {\,,}\\
R^{(\mathrm{BS})}_q &\equiv& {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K, \mathrm{BS})}_q}\right|}^4~~~\mathrm{for~}U \gg \gamma_0 {\,,}\\
Q^{(\mathrm{cross})}_q &\equiv& \sum_{p} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_0}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_q}\right|}^2~~~\mathrm{for~U=0} \\ \nonumber
&=& 2 \Bigg{(} \sum_{p>0, p \neq q} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_0}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_q}\right|}^2
\\ \nonumber
&& ~~~~~~~~~~
~+~ \underbrace{{\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_0}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K q)}_q}\right|}^2}_{\overset{U=0}{=} 0} \Bigg{)} \\ \nonumber
&=& 2 \sum_{p>0, p \neq q} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_0}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_q}\right|}^2
{\,,}\\
R^{(\mathrm{cross})}_q &\equiv& \sum_{p} {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_0}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K p)}_q}\right|}^2
~~~\mathrm{for~}U \gg \gamma_0 {\,,}\\
R^{(\mathrm{cross~BS})}_q &\equiv& {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K, \mathrm{BS})}_0}\right|}^2 {\left|{\bar{\eta}^{(K, \mathrm{BS})}_q}\right|}^2
~~~\mathrm{for~}U \gg \gamma_0
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Inserting the expressions for the momentum distributions from , we ultimately have to calculate ($M \gg 1$) $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:lattsumQ}
Q^{(\mathrm{bg})}_q &=&
\frac{32}{M^4}
\sum_{p>0, p \neq q}
\frac{1}{\tan^4\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(p-q\right)a\right]}
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{2cm} ~\times~ \left( 1-\delta_{\left[\frac{\left(p-q\right)Na}{2\pi}\right]_{2} ,0} \right)
{\,,}\\
R^{(\mathrm{bg})}_q &=&
\frac{32}{M^4}
\sum_{p>0, p \neq q}
\frac{\cos^4\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(p+q\right)a\right]}{\sin^4\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(p-q\right)a\right]}
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{2cm} ~\times~
\left( 1-\delta_{\left[\frac{\left(p-q\right)Na}{2\pi}\right]_{2} ,0} \right)
{\,,}\\
R^{(\mathrm{dir})}_q &=& 2 \sin^4(qa)
{\,,}\\
R^{(\mathrm{BS})}_q &=&
\frac{16}{M^2} \cos^4(qa)
{\,,}\\
Q^{(\mathrm{cross})}_{q} &=&
\frac{32}{M^4} \sum_{p>0, p \neq q}
\frac{1}{\tan^2\left(\frac{pa}{2}\right)} \frac{1}{ \tan^2\left[\frac{1}{2}\left(p-q\right)a \right] }
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{2cm} ~\times~
\left( 1-\delta_{\left[\frac{\left(p-q\right)Na}{2\pi}\right]_{2} ,0} \right)
{\,,}\\
R^{(\mathrm{cross})}_{q} &=&
\frac{32}{M^4} \sum_{p>0, p \neq q}
\frac{1}{\tan^2 \left(\frac{pa}{2}\right)}
\frac{1+\cos\left[(p+q)a\right]}{1-\cos\left[(p-q)a\right]}
\\ \nonumber
&& \hspace{2cm} ~\times~
\left( 1-\delta_{\left[\frac{\left(p-q\right)Na}{2\pi}\right]_{2} ,0} \right)
{\,,}\\
R^{(\mathrm{cross~BS})}_q &=& \frac{16}{M^2} \cos^2(qa)
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$
The remaining lattice sums can be performed for $M \gg 1$ as follows. We explain the procedure for . The other quantities can be obtained in a similar manner. Defining $\delta \equiv 2\pi/aM \ll 1$ and rewriting $p=q+\delta \cdot n$ ($n$ is an integer), we essentially need to calculate $$Q^{(\mathrm{bg})}_q =
\frac{2 \delta^4 a^4}{\pi^4} \sideset{}{^\prime}\sum_n \frac{1}{\tan^4\left( \frac{\delta a}{2} \cdot n \right)}
{\,,}$$ where the sum runs over those odd values of $n$ such that all wavenumbers from $0 \rightarrow q-\delta$ as well as from $q + \delta \rightarrow \pi/a$ are covered. Since $M \gg 1$, this expression can be expanded into a Taylor series in $\delta$ (around $\delta=0$). In the limit $M \gg 1$, only terms of order $\delta^0$ remain, yielding $$\begin{aligned}
Q^{(\mathrm{bg})}_q &=&
\frac{2 a^4}{\pi^4} \cdot \frac{16}{a^4} \cdot
\left( 2 - \delta_{q0} \right) \cdot
\underbrace{\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{\left(2n+1\right)^4}}_{= \frac{\pi^4}{96}}
\\ \nonumber
&=&
\frac{1}{3} \left( 2- \delta_{q0} \right)
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ If $q \neq 0$, then there are (for $M \rightarrow \infty$) infinitely many wavenumbers on either side of $q$ (, from $0 \rightarrow q-\delta$ as well as from $q + \delta \rightarrow \pi/a$). Hence, we have a factor of $2$ in front of the sum over all odd values. In contrast to this, if $q=0$, there is only a single interval (and therefore we just have the factor of $1$).
The other quantities can be calculated in a similar manner, yielding $$\begin{aligned}
R^{(\mathrm{bg})}_{q} &=&
\cos^4\left( qa \right) Q^{(bg)}_q
{\,,}\\
Q^{(\mathrm{cross})}_{q} &=& \frac{1}{3} \delta_{q 0} = Q^{(bg)}_q \delta_{q0}
{\,,}\\
R^{(\mathrm{cross})}_{q} &=& Q^{(bg)}_q \delta_{q0}
{\,.}\end{aligned}$$ Note that $R^{(\mathrm{cross})}_{q=0}=Q^{(\mathrm{cross})}_{q=0} = R^{(\mathrm{bg})}_{q=0} = Q^{(\mathrm{bg})}_{q=0}=1/3$.
[99]{}
K. Winkler, G. Thalhammer, F. Lang, R. Grimm, J. Hecker Denschlag, A. J. Daley, A. Kantian, H. P. Büchler, and P. Zoller, Nature [**441**]{}, 853 (2006).
T. Fukuhara, P. Schnauß, M. Endres, S. Hild, M. Cheneau, I. Bloch, and C. Gross, Nature [**502**]{}, 76 (2013).
D. Jacksch and P. Zoller, Annals of Physics [**315**]{}, 52 (2005).
E. Vetsch, D. Reitz, G. Sague, R. Schmidt, S. T. Dawkins, and A. Rauschenbeutel, , 203603 (2010).
A. Kay and D. G. Angelakis, Europhys. Lett. [**84**]{}, 20001 (2008).
G. Zhu, S. Schmidt, and J. Koch, , 115002 (2013).
M. J. Hartmann, F. G. S. L. Brandão, and M. B. Plenio, Laser & Photon. Rev. [**2**]{}, 527 (2008).
A. W. Schell, J. Kaschke, J. Fischer, R. Henze, J. Wolters, M. Wegener, and O. Benson, Sci. Rep. [**3**]{}, 1577 (2013).
F. Herrera, Y. Cao, S. Kais, K. B. Whaley, , 075001 (2014).
M. Valiente and D. Petrosyan, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**41**]{}, 161002 (2008).
M. Valiente and D. Petrosyan, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**42**]{}, 121001 (2009).
V. M. Agranovich, M. D. Galanin, and O. Glebov, [*Electronic excitation energy transfer in condensed matter*]{}, Nort-Holland Amsterdam (1982).
F. C. Spano, V. Agranovich, and S. Mukamel, J. Chem. Phys. [**95**]{}, 1400 (1991).
F. C. Spano, Chem. Phys. Lett. [**234**]{}, 29 (1995).
M. Ganahl, E. Rabel, F. H. L. Essler, and H. G. Evertz, , 077206 (2012).
P. Longo, A. D. Greentree, K. Busch, and J. H. Cole, Phys. Lett. A [**377**]{}, 1242 (2013).
P. Longo and J. Evers, , 193601 (2014).
H. Bethe, Z. Phys. [**71**]{}, 205 (1932).
C. Weitenberg, P. Schau[ß]{}, T. Fukuhara, M. Cheneau, M. Endres, I. Bloch, and Stefan Kuhr, , 215301 (2011).
D. Porras and J. I. Cirac, , 053816 (2008).
B. Olmos and I. Lesanovsky, , 063404 (2010).
I. B. Mekhov and H. Ritsch, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. [**45**]{}, 102001 (2012).
L. Jin, M. Macovei, and J. Evers, arXiv:1202.0699
B. W. Adams, C. Buth, S. M. Cavaletto, J. Evers, Z. Harman, C. H. Keitel, A. Palffy, A. Picon, R. Röhlsberger, Y. Rostovtsev, and K. Tamasaku, J. Mod. Opt. [**60**]{}, 2 (2013).
R. Röhlsberger, [*Nuclear Condensed Matter Physics with Synchrotron Radiation*]{}, Springer Tracts in Modern Physics, Vol. [**208**]{} (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2005).
O. Kocharovskaya, R. Kolesov, and Y. Rostovtsev, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**82**]{}, 3593 (1999).
A. Palffy, C. H. Keitel, and J. Evers, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**103**]{}, 017401 (2009).
T. J. Bürvenich, J. Evers, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**96**]{}, 142501 (2006).
T. J. Bürvenich, J. Evers, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. C [**74**]{}, 044601 (2006).
N. ten Brinke, R. Schützhold, and D. Habs, Phys. Rev. A [**87**]{}, 053814 (2013).
W.-T. Liao, A. Palffy, and C. H. Keitel, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**109**]{}, 197403 (2012).
K. P. Heeg and J. Evers, Phys. Rev. A [**88**]{}, 043828 (2013).
Y. V. Shvyd’ko, T. Hertrich, U. van Bürck, E. Gerdau, O. Leupold, J. Metge, H. D. Rüter, S. Schwendy, G. V. Smirnov, W. Potzel, and P. Schindelmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**77**]{}, 3232 (1996).
R. Coussement, Y. Rostovtsev, J. Odeurs, G. Neyens, H. Muramatsu, S. Gheysen, R. Callens, K. Vyvey, G. Kozyreff, P. Mandel, R. Shakhmuratov, and O. Kocharovskaya, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**89**]{}, 107601 (2002).
R. N. Shakhmuratov, F. Vagizov, J. Odeurs, and O. Kocharovskaya, Phys. Rev. A [**80**]{}, 063805 (2009).
R. Röhlsberger, K. Schlage, B. Sahoo, S. Couet, and R. Rüffer, Science [**328**]{}, 1248 (2010).
R. N. Shakhmuratov, F. Vagizov, and O. Kocharovskaya, Phys. Rev. A [**84**]{}, 043820 (2011).
R. Röhlsberger, H.-C. Wille, K. Schlage, and B. Sahoo, Nature [**482**]{}, 199 (2012).
K. P. Heeg, H.-C. Wille, K. Schlage, T. Guryeva, D. Schumacher, I. Uschmann, K. S. Schulze, B. Marx, T. Kämpfer, G. G. Paulus, R. Röhlsberger, and J. Evers, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**111**]{}, 073601 (2013).
F. Vagizov, V. Antonov, Y. V. Radeonychev, R. N. Shakhmuratov, and O. Kocharovskaya, Nature [**508**]{}, 80 (2014).
Q.-F. Zhan, J.-H. Gao, Y.-Q. Liang, N.-L. Di, and Z.-H. Cheng, Phys. Rev. B [**72**]{}, 024428 (2005).
K. P. Heeg, J. Haber, D. Schumacher, L. Bocklage, H.-C. Wille, K. S. Schulze, R. Loetzsch, I. Uschmann, G. G. Paulus, R. Rüffer, R. Röhlsberger, and J. Evers, arxiv:1409.0365 \[quant-ph\].
R. Mössbauer, Z. Phys. [**151**]{}, 124 (1958).
M. Kalvius and P. Kienle (Eds.), [*The Rudolf Mössbauer Story*]{}, Springer, Heidelberg (2012).
Y. Li, J. Evers, H. Zheng, and S.-Y. Zhu, , 053830 (2012).
R. H. Dicke, , 99 (1954).
M. Gross and S. Haroche, Phys. Rep. [**93**]{}, 301 (1982).
C. S. Hofmann, G. Günter, H. Schempp, M. Robert-de-Saint-Vincent, M. Gärttner, J. Evers, S. Whitlock, and M. Weidemüller, , 203601 (2013).
D. C. Brody, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. [**47**]{}, 035305 (2014).
This procedure is equivalent to setting up a Lindblad equation with respect to the bare atomic basis in the first place and then diagonalizing the coherent part.
Note that by redefining the phase shift as $\delta^\prime_{Kp} = - \delta_{Kp}/2 + \pi/2$ our ansatz (\[eq:ansatzscattstat\]) for the relative wavefunction can be brought into the form $\Psi^{(K p)}_x \propto \sin\left( pa {\left|{x}\right|} + \delta^\prime_{Kp} \right)$, which is often used in the context of cold-atom scattering.
R. J. Glauber, , 2529 (1963).
L. Mandel and E. Wolf, [*Optical Coherence and Quantum Optics*]{}, Cambride University Press (1995).
Z. Ficek and S. Swain, [*Quantum Interference and Coherence*]{}, Springer (2005).
M. Orszag, [*Quantum Optics*]{}, Springer (2000).
D. Meschede, [*Optics, Light and Lasers: The Practical Approach to Modern Aspects of Photonics and Laser Physics*]{}, Wiley-VCH (2007).
M. Wiegand, Optics Communications [**36**]{}, 297 (1981).
Z. Ficek, R. Tanas, and S. Kielich, , 2004 (1984).
In the expressions for $g^{(2)}(0)$ in Refs. [@wiegand; @ficekPRA], we neglect the [“[cooperativity parameters]{}”]{} and assume $(1+a)^2+b^2 \approx 1$ (assuming the inter-atomic dipole–dipole coupling to be small). Furthermore, the angle-dependence which is encoded in the $\cos$-terms drops out for the special geometry considered in .
J. G. Cordes and J. A. Chevary, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Phys. [**17**]{}, 1913 (1984).
F. Miftasani and P. Machnikowski, arXiv:1407.4603
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Kiryung Lee, Yihong Wu, and Yoram Bresler [^1]'
bibliography:
- 'IEEEabrv.bib'
- 'lra.bib'
- 'linalg.bib'
- 'cs.bib'
- 'bdconv.bib'
- 'preprint.bib'
- 'appl.bib'
- 'refs.bib'
title: 'Near Optimal Compressed Sensing of Sparse Rank-One Matrices via Sparse Power Factorization'
---
Introduction
============
Sparse power factorization algorithms {#sec:alg}
=====================================
Recovery Guarantees: Sufficient Conditions {#sec:ub}
==========================================
Fundamental Limits: Necessary Conditions {#sec:lb}
========================================
Numerical Results {#sec:numres}
=================
Conclusion {#sec:conclusion}
==========
Proofs {#sec:pf}
======
Proof of Theorem \[thm:conv\_spf\] {#subsec:pgspf}
----------------------------------
Proof of Theorem \[thm:pgrip\_init\_ds\] {#subsec:initds}
----------------------------------------
Proof of Theorem \[thm:pgrip\_init\_rs\] {#subsec:initrs}
----------------------------------------
Proof of {#sec:pf-lb}
---------
Acknowledgements {#acknowledgements .unnumbered}
================
K. Lee and Y. Bresler are supported in part by the National Science Foundation under Grants CCF 10-18789 and CCF 10-18660. K. Lee would like to thank Marius Junge and Angelia Nedić for discussions related to this paper.
RIP Lemmas
==========
Proofs of Lemmas in Section \[sec:ub\]
======================================
[^1]: The authors are with Coordinated Science Laboratory and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801. Emails: {klee81,yihongwu,ybresler}@illinois.edu.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'We present a high angular resolution millimeter-wave dust continuum imaging survey of circumstellar material associated with the individual components of 23 multiple star systems in the Taurus-Auriga young cluster. Combined with previous measurements in the literature, these new data permit a comprehensive look at how the millimeter luminosity (a rough tracer of disk mass) relates to the separation and mass of a stellar companion. Approximately one third (28-37%) of the individual stars in multiple systems have detectable millimeter emission, an incidence rate half that for single stars ($\sim$62%) which does not depend on the number of companions. There is a strong, positive correlation between the luminosity and projected separation ($a_p$) of a stellar pair. Wide pairs ($a_p > 300$AU) have a similar luminosity distribution as single stars, medium pairs ($a_p \approx 30$-300AU) are a factor of 5 fainter, and close pairs ($a_p < 30$AU) are $\sim$5$\times$ fainter yet (aside from a small, but notable population of bright circumbinary disks). In most cases, the emission is dominated by a disk around the primary (or a wide tertiary in hierarchical triples), but there is no clear relationship between luminosity and stellar mass ratio. A direct comparison of resolved disk sizes with predictions from tidal truncation models yields mixed results; some disks are much larger than expected given the projected distances of their companions. We suggest that the presence of a stellar companion impacts disk properties at a level comparable to the internal evolution mechanisms that operate in an isolated system, with both the multiple star formation process itself and star-disk tidal interactions likely playing important roles in the evolution of circumstellar material. From the perspective of the mass content of the disk reservoir, we expect that (giant) planet formation is inhibited around the components of close pairs or secondaries, but should be as likely as for single stars around the primaries (or wide tertiaries in hierarchical triples) in more widely-separated multiple star systems.'
author:
- 'Robert J. Harris, Sean M. Andrews, David J. Wilner'
- 'Adam L. Kraus'
bibliography:
- 'references.bib'
title: A Resolved Census of Millimeter Emission from Taurus Multiple Star Systems
---
Introduction
============
Many, if not most, stars are born with close companions [@abt76; @dm91; @fm92; @raghavan10 but see @lada06]. Depending on their orbits, tidal interactions between individual stellar components in these multiple systems can dominate the evolution of their natal circumstellar material and potentially have drastic consequences for the planet formation process [e.g., @papaloizou77; @lin79a; @lin79b; @al94]. But even in these hazardous dynamical environments, many young multiples harbor long-lived circumstellar material [see @duchene07] and a growing number of their more mature counterparts are being identified as exoplanet hosts [e.g., @patience02; @raghavan06; @desidera07; @doyle11]. Given the prevalence of stellar multiplicity, an improved empirical understanding of the dynamical interplay between the stars and disks in these systems – including effects like tidal truncation, stripping, and the orbital evolution of companions – is fundamental for the development of a comprehensive model for the formation of stars and planetary systems. Moreover, constraints on these dynamical processes in multiple star systems can be used as high mass-ratio touchstones for theoretical work on analogous disk-planet interactions, particularly the creation of tidal gaps and subsequent planet migration.
A wealth of theoretical work suggests that the fate of the circumstellar material in a young multiple star system is primarily dependent on the separation ($a$) and mass ratio ($q$) of the individual components, as well as the orbital eccentricity ($e$) [e.g., @al94]. Systems with eccentric orbits have an enhanced likelihood of star-disk tidal interactions. For a given orbit, a near equal-mass companion ($q \sim 1$) should have a more destructive impact on disk material than a low-mass companion. But in most cases, the effects of {$e$, $q$} on the circumstellar material are secondary to the orbital separation. Systems with large separations ($a \sim$ hundreds of AU) should impart little or no dynamical effects on their circumstellar material, leaving disks around each stellar component that are similar to those around single stars. Conversely, individual disks in a small-separation ($a
\sim$ a few AU or less) system will likely not survive. Instead, these systems can host a circum-multiple disk with a dynamically cleared central cavity out to a radius comparable to the stellar separation ($\sim$2-3$a$). However, most multiple systems both in the field and in young clusters have intermediate separations [$a \sim$ tens of AU; @mathieu00]. The disks in these systems may suffer the most dramatic effects of star-disk interactions, resulting in their external truncation at a fraction of the component separation ($\sim$0.2-0.5$a$), or their complete dispersal.
Qualitatively, these theoretical predictions find some observational support. Statistical analyses of warm gas and dust diagnostics (accretion signatures and/or a near-infrared excess) indicate that the presence of a companion with separation $\lesssim$40AU may significantly hasten disk dispersal near the stars [on $\sim$1-10AU scales; @cieza09; @kraus11b]. This diminished frequency of disk signatures for “close" multiples was first noted at (sub)millimeter wavelengths by @jensen94, and later confirmed in surveys of increasing size and sensitivity to dust emission [@osterloh95; @jensen96; @aw05]. Since the continuum emission at such long wavelengths is primarily optically thin [e.g., @beckwith90], the systematically lower millimeter-wave luminosities from close multiples compared to systems with wider separations or single stars were taken as compelling evidence for decreased disk masses due to tidal truncation or disruption. However, that evidence is indirect: those observations relied on single-dish photometers that do not resolve the individual stellar components nor their disks. A quantitative investigation of the theory of star-disk interactions requires observations that can address how disk masses and sizes depend on the properties of the stellar system (particularly $a$ and $q$). With the right combination of angular resolution and mass sensitivity, interferometric measurements of the optically-thin millimeter continuum emission from the dusty disks in these systems are uniquely qualified for that task. Aside from a small collection of systems [e.g., @jensen96b; @akeson98; @jensen03; @patience08], such data are rare.
In this article, we present a Submillimeter Array (SMA) survey of the millimeter-wave continuum emission from 23 young multiple star systems in the Taurus-Auriga star formation region. These data represent the most comprehensive resolved census of cool dust emission from the disks that reside in young multiple systems to date. The motivation for the survey sample is introduced in §2, and the observations and data calibration are reviewed in §3. A simple modeling analysis of these data is conducted in §4, with a focus on retrieving luminosities and sizes from individual disks whenever possible. The results of this imaging survey are synthesized with other information in the literature in §4 to extract a statistically representative view of circumstellar material in multiple star systems. Based on that analysis, we attempt to reconcile the observations with theoretical predictions from tidal interaction models in §5. Finally, our key conclusions are summarized in §6.
The Sample
==========
Multiplicity searches in the Taurus molecular clouds have a long history of success with a variety of techniques, ranging from straightforward direct imaging [@rz93; @wg01; @correia06; @kraus09] and radial velocity monitoring [e.g., @mathieu97] to more specialized methods like lunar occultations [@simon92; @simon95; @richichi99], speckle interferometry [@ghez93; @leinert93], and most recently aperture-mask interferometry [@kraus11]. There is now a reasonably complete census of Taurus multiple systems that have angular separations $\rho \approx 0.03$-30, $K$-band contrast ratios of $\le$6 magnitudes ($\le$4 mags for the systems with the smallest separations), and primary spectral types between F0 and M4. Assuming a mean distance of 145pc [@loinard07; @torres07; @torres09] and a crude estimation of stellar masses [see @kraus11], this region of multiplicity parameter-space corresponds to projected separations $a_p \approx
5$-5000AU, stellar mass ratios $q \approx 0.1$-1.0 (well into the brown dwarf regime), and primary star masses $M_p \sim 0.2$-2M$_{\odot}$. There are currently 71 such multiple “systems" known in Taurus, consisting of 111 “pairs" of 179 individual stars. For the sake of clarity, we adopt a simple nomenclature in this article such that a “system" refers to any group of associated stars and a “pair" is meant as any subset of the system that could potentially interact dynamically. A simple binary (2 stars) counts as 1 system and 1 pair. In a higher-order hierarchical multiple like UZ Tau, we consider the 4 stars UZ Tau Ea, Eb, Wa, and Wb to comprise 1 system of 3 pairs based on their relative projected separations: Ea$-$Eb, Wa$-$Wb, and Eab$-$Wab (i.e., this phenomenological scheme implicitly assumes that pairs like Ea$-$Wa are unlikely to interact directly: all such pairs are listed in §5).
The selection criteria for our resolved millimeter-wave imaging survey were motivated by practical observational limitations and consist of two requirements: (1) a composite system flux density of $\ge$20mJy at 880$\mu$m, and (2) an angular separation of $\ge$03 for at least one pair in the system. The first criterion is a sensitivity restriction that would ensure that our observations could firmly detect (3-5$\sigma$) two equivalent disks around individual stellar components with the typical expected RMS sensitivity of $\sim$2-3mJy beam$^{-1}$ (see §3). Flux density estimates for unresolved systems were compiled from the single-dish survey of @aw05. If no suitable 880$\mu$m flux density was available, the 1.3mm measurements of @beckwith90 or @osterloh95 were scaled up by a conservative factor of $(1.3/0.88)^2
\approx 2.2$ based on the median emission ratio at those wavelengths [@aw05; @aw07]. Note that for the standard optically thin and isothermal assumptions for converting luminosity into mass, this sensitivity threshold corresponds to $\sim$5M$_{\oplus}$ of dust (or a total mass of $\sim$1.5M$_{\rm Jup}$ for a 100:1 gas-to-dust mass ratio). The second criterion is a resolution restriction set by the longest available baselines of the SMA ($\sim$0.5km) that ensures we would be able to resolve the individual stellar components of a given pair. Only systems where the angular separations of all its constituent pairs are $<$03 were excluded. The resulting sample includes systems where some pair has a projected separation $a_p > 40$AU.
Of the original 71 systems, 29 exceed the 880$\mu$m luminosity selection threshold. Of those 29 systems, only 2 fail to meet the resolution criterion (IS Tau and DQ Tau; the latter is a spectroscopic binary). The resulting 27 systems are comprised of 52 pairs and a total of 77 individual stars. We elected not to observe 4 of those systems with the SMA (FS Tau/Haro 6-5B, XZ/HL Tau, FZ/FY Tau, and V807/GH Tau) because their wide-separation pairs were already resolved with single-dish telescopes and their remaining pairs were too faint or too close to meet our selection criteria. The systems in our 880$\mu$m flux- and resolution-limited sample are listed in Table \[table:sample\].
Given the practical restrictions that were imposed in its construction, it is important to investigate the resulting sample for unintended biases. Since our selection criteria do not specifically address the stellar masses in these systems, the key potential biases could be related to the mass ratios of pairs ($q$), the “primary" masses ($M_p$; meaning the mass of the brighter component of a pair), or the total pair masses (the sum of the primary and secondary components of a pair, $M_{\rm pair} = M_p + M_s$). Figure \[fig:biases\] directly compares the cumulative distributions of $q$, $M_p$, and $M_{\rm
pair}$ for the pairs included in our sample ([*black*]{}) against those that were excluded due to their low millimeter luminosities and/or small angular separations ([*gray*]{}). Note that masses were typically determined from the @baraffe98 models by @kraus11; complete references are provided in §5. A two-sided Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test confirms that our sample is not biased with respect to $q$ or $M_p$, with probabilities that the sample multiples and other multiples are drawn from the same parent distributions of mass ratios or primary masses being $\sim$73% and 20%, respectively. However, the distribution of $M_{\rm pair}$ for the pairs in our sample are found to be drawn from a marginally different – and systematically [ *higher*]{} – parent distribution than their counterparts that were not selected, with a K-S probability of only 2% (although it is worthwhile to keep in mind that these individual stellar mass estimates are crude).
Observations and Data Reduction
===============================
The 23 multiple systems listed in Table \[table:sample\] (not including the additional 4 systems in italics; see §2) were observed with the SMA interferometer [@ho04] in a variety of observing configurations and receiver settings over the past 6 years, with most of the data obtained in the past 20 months. An observing log is provided in Table \[table:log\]. All systems were observed in the compact (C) array configuration, with baseline lengths of 8-70m. Additional measurements were made with the extended (E: 28-226m baselines) or very extended (V: 68-509m baselines) configurations for the systems that contain pairs with smaller angular separations. Some of these data were presented in previous work [@aw07b; @andrews11]. All but 4 of these 23 systems were observed with the 345GHz receivers: the pairs in the HP Tau, GI/GK Tau, MHO 1/2, and GG Tau systems that we aimed to probe have wide enough separations that they were instead observed with slightly lower resolution at 230GHz. We made some additional observations of systems that were [*not*]{} in our sample, since they had not yet been observed at millimeter wavelengths (see §5).
In most cases, the SMA dual-sideband receivers were tuned to a local oscillator (LO) frequency of 340.755GHz (880$\mu$m) or 225.497GHz (1.3mm). Some tracks used shifted LO settings to accomodate other projects that shared one night of observing. The data obtained in 2010-2011 employs two IF bands (per sideband) spanning $\pm$4-6GHz and and $\pm$6-8GHz from the LO frequency (only the lower IF band was available for the 2 observations in 2005 and 2009). Each IF band contains 24 partially overlapping 108MHz-wide spectral chunks (per sideband). Aside from one chunk reserved for the local CO transition, each of these was coarsely divided into 32 channels to observe the continuum. A finer sampling of 256 channels per chunk was used to probe the CO emission, corresponding to a velocity resolution of 0.40 and 0.55km s$^{-1}$ near the $J$=3$-$2 and $J$=2$-$1 transitions, respectively. The observations cycled between various target systems and the nearby quasars 3C 111 and J0510+180 on timescales of $\sim$20 minutes for the compact array and 10minutes for the longer baseline configurations. Bright quasars (3C 279 or 3C 454.3), Uranus, and satellites (Titan, Callisto) were observed as bandpass and absolute amplitude calibrators when the targets were at low elevations. Observing conditions were often excellent, with precipitable water vapor levels ranging from 1.0-1.6mm and $\sim$2-3mm for the 880$\mu$m and 1.3mm observations, respectively.
The data were reduced with the IDL-based [MIR]{} software package. The spectral response was calibrated using observations of bright quasars as references, and the central 82MHz from the individual spectral chunks in each sideband and IF band were averaged into an effective continuum channel (excluding the chunk containing a CO transition). The antenna-based complex gain response of the system was determined using the phase calibrator nearest to the target. The absolute amplitude scale was set based on observations of Uranus or planetary satellites, and is expected to be accurate at the level of $\sim$10%. For each target, the continuum channels for both IF bands and sidebands from each set of observations were combined into a composite set of calibrated visibilities. The [MIRIAD]{} software package was used to Fourier invert those visibilities, perform a deconvolution using the [CLEAN]{} algorithm, and restore the [CLEAN]{}ed maps with a synthesized beam. The synthesized beam dimensions and RMS noise levels for the naturally weighted datasets are provided in Table \[table:maps\]. The SMA continuum maps are shown in Figures \[fig:images1\]-\[fig:images3\]. In most cases, the observations of a given multiple system were not sufficient to clearly detect CO emission from any circumstellar gas: the few exceptions will be discussed elsewhere.
Disk Properties from Simple Emission Models
===========================================
The SMA survey observations described above comprise the largest resolved millimeter-wave census of circumstellar material in young multiple star systems to date. In this section, we aim to measure two fundamental properties from these data – luminosities (which are related to dust masses) and sizes – for the disks around the individual stellar components in each multiple system. These basic disk parameters are estimated by fitting a simple model of the continuum emission morphology directly to the observed visibilities. The 27 multiple systems in our sample contain 77 individual stars. The available data have sufficient angular resolution to associate any dust emission with 50 of those stars. The individual components in the close pairs MHO 2 AB, T Tau Sab, FS Tau AB, DI Tau AB, UX Tau Bab, XZ Tau AB, GG Tau Aab, UZ Tau Eab, V807 Tau AB, GH Tau AB, HP Tau/G3 AB, HV Tau AB, and Haro 6-37 Aab are not resolved. We treat the millimeter signal from each of these 13 pairs as if it arises from a “composite" disk (see §5.1).
Including two of those composites, there are 14 individual disks in this sample that are sufficiently well-resolved to provide robust estimates of their basic parameters. In these cases, we define a simple, azimuthally symmetric and geometrically flat emission model with a power-law radial surface brightness distribution, $I_{\nu} \propto R^{-x}$, that extends to an outer edge, $R_d$. The emission profile is normalized such that the total flux density $F_d = \int
I_{\nu} d\Omega$. This parametric emission morphology is designed to mimic what would be expected from a disk structure model with power-law surface density ($\Sigma_d \propto R^{-p}$) and temperature ($T_d \propto R^{-q}$) profiles. Pressing that resemblance, the radial index $x$ is analogous to the sum $p+q$ and the normalization $F_d$ is a rough proxy for the product $\kappa_d \langle T_d \rangle M_d$, where $\kappa_d$ is the dust opacity, $\langle T_d \rangle$ is a characteristic temperature, and $M_d$ is the dust mass, modulo small correction factors for any high optical depths in the disk center [@beckwith90; @aw05]. Our data do not generally have enough sensitivity on long baselines to provide useful quantitative constraints on both the emission gradient and size, which are effectively degenerate at this modest resolution [see @mundy96; @aw07b]. Since the key parameters of interest from the perspective of tidal interaction models are {$F_d$, $R_d$}, we elect to fix the gradient to a fiducial value, $x = 1.5$, motivated by the standard assumptions for irradiated accretion disks [$p = 1$, $q = 0.5$; see @hartmann98]. For reference, adjustments to the radial index of $\pm$30% ($\Delta x \approx \pm 0.5$) induce systematic changes in the size estimates of $\sim$20-40%: steeper (shallower) gradients produce larger (smaller) sizes.
In addition to the two free parameters in the surface brightness model, {$F_d$, $R_d$}, there are formally five other parameters related to the projection of the model into the sky plane: the disk center relative to the observed phase center {$\Delta \alpha$, $\Delta \delta$}, the disk viewing geometry described by its apparent inclination and orientation {$i_d$, PA$_d$}, and the distance to the observer {$d$}. The latter is fixed to $d
= 145$pc, with a systematic uncertainty estimated to be roughly $\pm$10% [@loinard07; @torres07; @torres09]. We fix the centroid positions before estimating other parameters, typically based on an elliptical Gaussian fit to the visibilities for individual components that exhibit continuum emission. In general, that technique recovers the expected stellar positions well within the position accuracy of the SMA data ($\sim$01 in an absolute sense, and considerably better in a relative sense for the few cases with multiple disk detections). For stellar components that do not exhibit any millimeter emission or may be partially blended with other components, we rely on the positions (or projected angular separations and orientations) provided from optical/infrared measurements in the literature to assign their {$\Delta
\alpha$, $\Delta \delta$} values. In practice, we estimate the best-fit values of 4 free parameters {$F_d$, $R_d$, $i_d$, PA$_d$} and their uncertainties for each resolved disk by comparing model predictions directly with the SMA visibilities using the non-linear $\chi^2$ minimization routine [MPFIT]{} [@markwardt09]. In each case, several randomized initial parameter sets were employed to avoid trapping in local minima. The results are compiled in Table \[table:modelfits\]. Figure \[fig:fit\_demo\] shows an example model fit for the well-separated and resolved disks of the HK Tau binary.
For 4 of the 14 disks with modeling results in Table \[table:modelfits\], the emission is not sufficiently resolved to place meaningful constraints on the disk viewing geometry. In those cases (FX Tau A, UZ Tau Wb, HN Tau A, and Haro 6-37 B), we assumed a fiducial {$i_d = 45\degr$, PA$_d = 90\degr$} in order to calculate a reasonable estimate of {$F_d$, $R_d$} (alternative viewing geometry selections produce the same flux densities and sizes within the quoted uncertainties). The viewing geometries for the HK Tau B, HV Tau C, and GG Tau Aab disks were fixed based on observations of their scattered light morphologies or molecular kinematics [@duchene10; @mccabe11; @guilloteau99]. The UX Tau A and GG Tau Aab disks were modeled as rings, with empty central regions out to radii of 25 and 185AU based on the more sophisticated analyses of @andrews11 and @guilloteau99, respectively. The UZ Tau Eab circumbinary disk was also modeled as a ring, with no emission inside a radius of 15AU: a detailed analysis of this disk will be provided elsewhere (Harris et al., in preparation). Of the remaining 49 individual stars or close-pair composites, 27 have firmly detected – but [*unresolved*]{} – millimeter emission and 22 others do not. For simplicity, point source models were used to measure $F_d$ for the population of detected, but unresolved, disks. After subtracting models of any emission from nearby stars, upper limits (3$\sigma$) on $F_d$ were estimated for the undetected components by computing the RMS noise level in a $4\arcsec\times4\arcsec$ box centered on the stellar position in a synthesized residual map. The point source flux densities and upper limits for these 49 individual stellar components (or close-pair composites) are compiled in Table \[table:modelfits\_unresolved\].
The emission from the individual disks in the RW Aur and DD Tau binaries is blended. In these cases, we adopted an iterative modeling strategy. First, a single disk model was fitted to the dominant emission component (the primaries) and subtracted from the data. An initial estimate of the disk model for the blended component (the secondaries) was made from the residuals. Based on those results, a composite model with both disk components was then used to fit the data and derive proper parameter estimates and uncertainties. This method naturally accounts for the blending with inflated formal parameter uncertainties for each model component. None of the disks in these pairs is spatially resolved, so the underlying model for each component disk is a point source.
Results
=======
We aim to take advantage of this resolved millimeter-wave census to address some key aspects of disk evolution in the presence of stellar companions. To do that, we link our SMA survey results into a comprehensive compilation of stellar separations ($\rho$), component masses ($M_p$ and $M_s$) and mass ratios ($q$), and millimeter luminosities (defined as the summed emission in a pair: $F_{\rm pair} = F_{d,p}+F_{d,s}$) for [*all*]{} of the known potentially interacting stellar pairs in Taurus (with spectral types F0 to M4). Those data are compiled in Table \[table:pairs\]. A complementary list of [*single*]{} stars in Taurus with available millimeter-wave observations in the literature is provided in Table \[table:singles\]. We should note that there are 36 other single stars in this spectral type range in the compilation of @luhman10 that, to our knowledge, have not yet been observed at millimeter wavelengths.
Millimeter Detection Statistics
-------------------------------
If interactions with companions efficiently remove material from circumstellar disks in young multiple systems, there should be a clear signature in the relative detection fractions of millimeter-wave emission (a rough proxy for dust mass) between isolated (single) stars and the individual stellar components of multiple systems: the fraction of stars that exhibit detectable millimeter emission, $f_{\rm mm} = N_{\rm det} / N_{\rm tot}$, should be substantially higher for singles compared to multiples. This feature has been noted anecdotally in the past [e.g., @jensen94; @jensen96; @osterloh95; @aw05], but the inability to assign millimeter emission to individual components in multiple systems has limited any firm quantitative assessment of the detection statistics.
There are millimeter-wave continuum measurements available for 52 single stars in Taurus, 48 binaries (96 stars), 13 triples (39 stars), 7 quadruples (28 stars), 2 quintuples (10 stars), and 1 sextuple (6 stars; the LkH$\alpha$ 332 system). Using the component-resolved $F_d$ measurements in Tables \[table:modelfits\] and \[table:modelfits\_unresolved\] along with the additional literature photometry compiled in Tables \[table:pairs\] and \[table:singles\], we computed the $f_{\rm mm}$ values for single stars and multiples listed in Table \[table:fmm\]. The ranges of $N_{\rm det}$ and $f_{\rm mm}$ for multiples correspond to the potential distribution of the observed millimeter emission among any unresolved components. We find that 32 of 52 single stars show millimeter emission, $f_{\rm mm} = 62\pm11$%, while only 50-67 of 179 individual stars in multiple systems have millimeter-wave detections, $f_{\rm mm} = 28$-37$\pm5$%. A two-tailed Fisher Exact test confirms that these are indeed statistically different detection fractions, with a $p$-value $<0.002$. Remarkably, the millimeter detection fraction for individual stars in multiple systems does not depend on the number of companions: binaries, triples, and higher-order groups all have $f_{\rm mm}
\approx 1/3$, roughly half the detection rate for singles. That uniformity is a testament to the hierarchical nature of multiples, where higher-order ($N_{\ast} \ge 3$) systems tend to be be constructed of sets of binary pairs.
Given that the detection fraction for stars with companions is roughly half that for stars without them, it may seem natural to assume that only one stellar component in a multiple retains disk material. While not uncommon, this is not necessarily the typical scenario. Of the 48 binaries in Taurus, 20 exhibit millimeter emission. Of those 20 pairs, our millimeter observations have resolved the individual components of 12 (from 24 stars). In 6 of those pairs, the emission is concentrated solely around the primary. In the other 6, both components show some emission – however, the primary is [*always*]{} brighter. So, for the sub-population of component-resolved binaries with millimeter emission, the detection fraction for individual stars is actually fairly large (18/24). In the higher order multiples, the situation is slightly more complicated by their hierarchical structure. In some cases, we find dust emission coincident with all components, albeit usually with some pair presumably surrounded by a circum[*binary*]{} disk (e.g., UZ Tau, MHO 1/2). In others, the dust emission is only present around a more isolated, distant companion (e.g., HV Tau, Haro 6-37).
As might be expected, the likelihood that any individual component of a multiple system harbors a circumstellar disk that is massive enough to generate detectable millimeter emission depends critically on the individual details of the system. The following sections explore the potentially observable signatures expected from star-disk interactions, with a more explicit focus on some key connections between the stellar properties tied to orbital dynamics and the basic disk characteristics that can be inferred from the millimeter data.
Pair Demographics and Disk – Star Connections
---------------------------------------------
Theoretical models of star-disk interactions in binary pairs suggest that the separation between the stellar components is the key property that controls the tidal truncation of individual circumstellar disks [@al94; @pichardo05]. These interactions effectively remove mass from the outer regions of these disks (either by accretion or ejection into the local interstellar medium), such that stellar pairs with smaller separations should harbor smaller – and therefore less massive – disks. Since the cool dust in the outer disk that is being stripped by this process emits continuum radiation at millimeter wavelengths, these tidal interactions should naturally produce an observable trend where the millimeter luminosity is positively correlated with the separation of the stellar pair. Indeed, the pioneering work on this subject by @jensen94 [@jensen96] clearly identified that the millimeter luminosities for pairs with projected separations $a_p \le 50$-100AU were statistically lower than their more widely-separated counterparts or single stars. These different populations were confirmed with larger and deeper millimeter-wave surveys [@osterloh95; @aw05], but the detailed distribution of $F_{\rm pair}$ with respect to $a_p$ has remained unclear for two reasons: the low resolution of single-dish millimeter-wave photometry often included several pairs together, and the multiplicity census of the nearest star-forming regions was incomplete. Our survey mitigates these issues, providing an opportunity to look at the details of the millimeter luminosity–separation distribution.
Figure \[fig:flux\_sep\]$a$ shows $F_{\rm pair}$ as a function of $a_p$ for the 111 stellar pairs in Taurus (see Table \[table:pairs\]), along with the 52 single stars that have millimeter-wave measurements (see Table \[table:singles\]; black points, gray upper limits). This diagram is a striking confirmation of the original conclusions of Jensen et al., plainly demonstrating that millimeter continuum luminosities scale with the separation between stellar pairs. However, as the pair separation decreases, the [ *maximum*]{} millimeter luminosities appear to decline in discrete jumps (rather than continuously) at two relatively well-defined locations: $a_p \approx 300$ and 30AU ($\rho \approx 2$ and 0.2, respectively). These features facilitate a natural breakdown of the Taurus pairs into distinct sub-populations. The distribution of $F_{\rm pair}$ for wide pairs, with projected separations greater than 300AU ([*blue*]{}), is similar to the distribution for single stars. At medium separations – $a_p = 30$-300AU ([*red*]{}) – we find a notable absence of bright pairs and a decreased detection rate. At yet smaller separations, $a_p < 30$AU ([*green*]{}), only a few pairs exhibit very weak millimeter-wave emission. A small group of dramatic outliers sparsely populate the otherwise empty region of bright pairs with small separations ([*purple*]{}): these pairs are known or suspected to harbor massive circum[*binary*]{} rings [e.g., see @pietu11 regarding GG Tau Aab].
The cumulative distributions of $F_{\rm pair}$ for each separation-based sub-population can better quantify this apparent trend. The ${\mathcal
P}_a(>$$F_{\rm pair})$ distributions shown together in Figure \[fig:flux\_sep\]$b$ were constructed using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimator to properly account for the substantial number of pairs in each sub-population that exhibit no millimeter emission [see @feigelson85]. The distributions are compared directly with the standard two-sample tests used in survival analysis in Table \[table:surv\_tests\]. These tests confirm the qualitative examination of Figure \[fig:flux\_sep\]$a$: (1) wide pairs and single stars have statistically indistinguishable millimeter luminosity distributions; (2) medium pairs have significantly lower luminosities; and (3) small pairs have yet less millimeter emission. The ${\mathcal P}_a(>$$F_{\rm
pair})$ in Figure \[fig:flux\_sep\]$b$ have similar functional forms, albeit shifted in luminosity. A simple scaling indicates that $F_{\rm pair}$ decreases by a factor of $\sim$5 from wide to medium separations, and then another factor of 5 from medium to small separations. These trends are not an artifact of including non-detections in the analysis: similar conclusions are drawn by comparing only the detected pairs in the same sub-populations using the two-sided Kolmogorov-Smirnov (K-S) test (see Table \[table:surv\_tests\]).
Models of star-disk interactions also postulate an association between the amount of disk truncation and the component masses of the stellar pair. Massive companions impart larger dynamical perturbations to individual disks, producing more tidal stripping, and leading to lower disk masses and therefore less millimeter-wave emission. In that case, $F_{\rm pair}$ should be anti-correlated with $q$: higher mass ratio pairs should have fainter disk emission. No such trend is obvious in Figure \[fig:flux\_q\]$a$. If we separate the full population into high and low mass ratio pairs at some critical $q_c$, we find the largest difference between those sub-categories for $q_c = 0.5$. Figure \[fig:flux\_q\]$b$ compares the cumulative distributions of the millimeter flux densities for high ($q > 0.5$; [*blue*]{}) and low ($q <
0.5$; [*red*]{}) mass ratio pairs, again with $\mathcal{P}_q(>F_{\rm pair})$ constructed using the Kaplan-Meier estimator to include the pairs that do not have detectable millimeter emission. The same two-sample tests employed above indicate a weak relationship between $F_{\rm pair}$ and $q$ (see Table \[table:surv\_tests\]), such that pairs with low stellar mass ratios have slightly less millimeter emission – the opposite of expectations from tidal interaction models. However, the evidence for any increase in the millimeter emission with higher stellar mass ratios is contained entirely in the relative detection ratios: a larger fraction of pairs with low $q$ are not detected at millimeter wavelengths (see Figure \[fig:flux\_q\]$a$). If only the detected pairs are compared, the millimeter luminosity is found to be independent of $q$ (see the K-S test results in Table \[table:surv\_tests\]). Moreover, this trend is present (and in fact enhanced) only for stellar pairs with wide separations: no clear relationship between $F_{\rm pair}$ and $q$ exists for pairs with $a_p < 300$AU (see Table \[table:surv\_tests\]).
The absence of a firm connection between the millimeter luminosity and stellar mass ratio for smaller-separation pairs is consistent with the weak $q$-dependence predicted by tidal interaction models. Nevertheless, the correlation between $F_{\rm pair}$ and $q$ for widely-separated pairs is compelling. Since star-disk interactions in these cases should be inherently less destructive, this trend might indicate a relationship between the millimeter luminosity and the absolute (and not relative) stellar masses in the pair. Indeed, Figure \[fig:flux\_m\]$a$ demonstrates a marginal association between the millimeter luminosity and total stellar mass in Taurus pairs. Taking only the detections, we find a $\sim$3$\sigma$ correlation between $F_{\rm pair}$ and $M_{\rm pair}$ (this improves slightly to 3.7$\sigma$ if the labeled outliers are excluded). Figure \[fig:flux\_m\]$b$ demonstrates that this relationship is not restricted to stellar pairs, but apparently also applies to [*individual*]{} stars, both isolated (single) cases and members of multiple systems. In the latter case, we have combined the component-resolved $F_d$ estimates from Table \[table:modelfits\] and the single star measurements from the literature (Table \[table:singles\]): the result is again a $\sim$3$\sigma$ positive correlation (4.5$\sigma$ if SU Aur is excluded). It is worth noting that the $M_{\ast}$ distributions for isolated stars and individual stars in multiple systems are statistically indistinguishable. However, it is premature to draw any firm conclusions from these weak trends for two reasons: (1) the dispersion is large relative to the range of the trend, and (2) the stellar masses used here have large systematic uncertainties.
The demographic properties of stellar pairs discussed above are certainly informative, but they also naturally hide some characteristics of individual components that are available from this resolved survey. The two panels in Figure \[fig:fratios\] are intended to compare the millimeter-wave luminosities from individual disk components [*within*]{} each stellar pair, as a function of their stellar host masses. Figure \[fig:fratios\]$a$ directly compares the resolved 880$\mu$m flux densities for each component in each pair. As mentioned in §5.1, the emission from the primary is usually more luminous than from the secondary. The exceptions above the dashed line are comprised of the widely-separated tertiary companions of close pairs and the UZ Tau Wab and FS Tau/Haro 6-5B pairs. The relative dominance of the primary disk emission is unaffected by the projected separation to a companion, and is typically more than would be expected if the amount of millimeter-wave disk emission scales linearly with the stellar host mass. This latter feature is shown more directly in Figure \[fig:fratios\]$b$, which compares the cumulative distributions of the ratio of the millimeter flux density to the stellar mass (akin to a disk:star mass ratio) for singles, primaries, and secondaries. In some studies of disks around low-mass stars and brown dwarfs, this $F_d/M_{\ast}$ ratio is found to be roughly constant; the weaker emission (or lower detection rate) is a manifestation of inherently lower host masses [e.g., @scholz06; @schaefer09]. That implicit sensitivity threshold is not the case for the secondaries in our sample: the $F_d/M_{\ast}$ ratio is systematically lower for secondaries compared to primaries and singles, with a probability that it is drawn from the same parent distributions as the primaries or singles of $<$0.008 (two-sample test results are compiled in Table \[table:surv\_tests\]). The results suggest that the millimeter-wave disk emission from the secondaries is inherently less luminous than around the primaries (or isolated stars), regardless of the stellar host mass.
Disk Sizes and Tidal Truncation
-------------------------------
A more direct test of dynamical predictions for star-disk interactions lies with our measurements of individual disk sizes. Theoretical models provide a way to estimate the truncated equilibrium tidal radii ($R_t$) for the disks around each component of a stellar pair given a few key orbital parameters, {$a$, $e$, $q$}, and some characterization of the viscous properties of the disk material [@al94]. Although they remain uncertain, there are reasonable ways to estimate stellar mass ratios ($q$) from optical/infrared measurements and pre-main sequence stellar evolution models (see the references in Table \[table:pairs\]). However, the stellar pairs in this sample have wide enough projected separations that they are expected to have prohibitively long orbital periods and exhibit little apparent motion on reasonable time baselines for observations: therefore, we generally do not have any direct knowledge about their true orbital separations ($a$) or eccentricities ($e$).
Nevertheless, we can construct a probabilistic model of $R_t$ using only the [*projected*]{} physical separation of any pair, $a_p$ (based on the projected angular separation, $\rho$, and assumed distance, $d$). Following @torres99, the ratio of the semimajor axis to the projected physical separation is $$\mathcal{F} \equiv \frac{a}{a_p} = \frac{1-e^2}{1+e\cos{\nu}}\sqrt{1-\sin^2{(\omega+\nu)}\sin^2{i}},$$ where $e$ is the eccentricity, $\nu$ is the true anomaly, $\omega$ is the longitude of periastron, and $i$ is the orbital inclination relative to the observer (note that the ratio $\mathcal{F}$ is exact for binaries; we expect only modest deviations from it for well-separated hierarchical pairs). Since we do not know {$\omega$, $i$, $e$, $\nu$} for any individual stellar pair, we have to construct a probability distribution for the true-to-projected separation ratios, $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{F})$, using a Monte Carlo approach. To accomplish that, we assume that stellar pairs are not observed at any preferential orbital location and adopt uniform distributions for the orbital phase (or mean anomaly) and longitude of periastron ($\omega$). The assumption of random viewing geometries suggests that the distribution of orbital inclinations ($i$) has a $\sin{i}$ dependence. However, inferring an appropriate functional form for the eccentricity ($e$) distribution (and by extension the distribution of true anomalies, $\nu$) is more challenging.
There is little empirical information available to constrain the eccentricity distribution for the pre-main sequence binary population. Pairs with short orbital periods have low eccentricities ($e < 0.1$), due to the rapid tidal circularization of their orbits [@zahn77; @zahn89; @melo01]. At longer periods, the eccentricity distribution appears relatively uniform in the range $e \approx 0.1$-0.9 [@mathieu94]. It is not clear if the apparent dearth of young stellar pairs with extreme (circular or parabolic) eccentricities is real or an artifact of low-number statistics and selection effects. Based on their samples of main sequence field binaries, @dm91 and @tokovinin98 suggested an increasing eccentricity distribution, where $\mathcal{P}(e) \propto 2e$ [see also @ambartsumian37]. However, the recent comprehensive survey of such systems by @raghavan10 instead suggests that a flat eccentricity distribution is preferable for orbital periods of $\sim$10-10$^5$ days. Similar results are also noted for very low mass binaries [@dupuy11]. Based on these more recent studies, we assume that the eccentricity distribution is uniform. For reference, Figure \[fig:trunc\_exs\]$a$ illustrates the influence of different forms for $\mathcal{P}(e)$ on the shape of $\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{F})$.
Having established the infrastructure to derive a probabilistic model of the true orbital separation ($a$) given the observed projected separation ($a_p$), we can build on that to determine the distribution of tidal truncation radii, $\mathcal{P}(R_t)$, for a given stellar pair. Because of its relative simplicity, we adopt the semi-analytic approximations for truncated disk sizes based on the analysis of stable invariant loops by @pichardo05. Using their formulation, the tidal radius is $$R_t \approx 0.337 \left[\frac{(1-e)^{1.20} \,\, \varphi^{2/3} \,\, \mu^{0.07}}{0.6 \, \varphi^{2/3}+\ln{(1+\varphi^{1/3})}}\right] \mathcal{F} \,\, a_p \, ,$$ where $\mu = q/(1+q)$ is the mass fraction of the stellar pair and $\varphi$ is the mass ratio of the host star for which $R_t$ is being calculated relative to its companion. For example, the truncation radius of the disk around the primary star is calculated with $\varphi = M_p/M_s = 1/q$, whereas the $R_t$ for the disk around the secondary is determined by setting $\varphi = M_s/M_p =
q$. For any pair in a multiple system, there is a direct measurement of $a_p$ (or rather $\rho$, and an assumed distance) and an estimate of $q$ (see Table \[table:pairs\]). Fixing these quantities, we constructed the probability distribution $\mathcal{P}(R_t)$ that a component of the pair hosts a disk with a tidally truncated radius $R_t$ using a Monte Carlo simulation with $\sim$10$^7$ realizations of Equation (2), assuming the priors for the distributions of the orbital elements {$\omega$, $i$, $e$, $\nu$} (and therefore $\mathcal{F}$) discussed above.
As an example, Figure \[fig:trunc\_exs\]$b$ shows $\mathcal{P}(R_t)$ for the HK Tau binary, where $a_p = 340$AU and $q \approx 1$, for three representative assumptions about the underlying eccentricity distribution (note that the same $R_t$ distribution applies to both components for this equal-mass stellar pair). The best-fit estimates of the disk radii from our modeling of the SMA data (see §4) are marked as red (HK Tau A) and blue (HK Tau B) vertical bars. Tidal interaction models predict that the disk sizes have a rather steep dependence on the orbital eccentricity (see Equation 2), which means that the assumption of an underlying $\mathcal{P}(e)$ that permits or favors high eccentricities will lead to the [*general*]{} prediction of very small disk sizes (gray or green curves in Figure \[fig:trunc\_exs\]$b$) and, therefore, low millimeter-wave luminosities. While such eccenticity distributions may be relevant for the general population of multiple systems, the luminosity-based selection criterion used to build our component-resolved SMA sample creates a strong bias that would exclude high-$e$ pairs. With that bias in mind, we favor the use of a truncated eccentricity distribution to make comparisons between the measured and predicted disk radii; we assume $\mathcal{P}(e)$ is uniform for $e \in [0.0,0.7]$ (black curves in Figure \[fig:trunc\_exs\]).
Figure \[fig:trunc\_RtRd\] makes a direct comparison between the measurements of dust disk sizes ($R_d$) that were determined in §4 (see Tables \[table:modelfits\] and \[table:modelfits\_unresolved\]) and the truncation radii ($R_t$) predicted by our probabilistic treatment of the @pichardo05 models. The location of the points along the $R_t$ axis (abscissae) correspond to the peaks of their $\mathcal{P}(R_t)$ distributions (for the assumed $\mathcal{P}(e)$ described above), and their asymmetric error bars encapsulate the central 68% of those probability distributions (see the shaded yellow region of Figure \[fig:trunc\_exs\]$b$ for an example). Of the 14 disks with available $R_d$ measurements, eight have sizes that are in good agreement with predictions from the tidal interaction models, two are smaller than expected (around GG Tau Aab and DK Tau A), and the remaining four are considerably larger. These decidedly mixed results for the @pichardo05 model predictions could be at least partially ameliorated by introducing a term that incorporates viscosity into the interaction calculations, which would tend to increase $R_t$ due to the viscous spreading of disk material [see @al94]. Quantitatively comparable shifts in the measured $R_d$ values could be accomodated by permitting a range of emission gradients ($x$) in model fits to the observations. Reconciling the measured disk sizes with the predictions from tidal interaction models would require that the disk viscosity increases and/or the millimeter-wave emission gradient ($x$) decreases as a function of pair separation ($a$).
Discussion
==========
We have carried out a luminosity and separation limited survey of the millimeter-wave dust continuum emission from the disks around individual components of 23 young multiple star systems in the $\sim$1-2Myr-old Taurus-Auriga star formation region. With a simple morphological model, we fitted the continuum visibilities observed with the SMA interferometer to determine the luminosity and size of each individual disk in these systems. These component-resolved measurements were then coupled with a comprehensive database of millimeter-wave luminosities for [*all*]{} of the multiple systems in Taurus (with spectral types F0-M4) to estimate millimeter detection frequencies, evaluate the dependence of continuum emission levels on the separations and masses of companion stars, and make direct comparisons with predictions from tidal interaction models.
We find that roughly one third (28-37%) of the individual stars in multiple systems harbor disks with dust masses that are large enough to emit detectable millimeter continuum radiation (see §5.1). This low incidence rate is approximately half that for isolated single stars (62%), and does not depend on the number of stellar companions in the system. Similar disk frequencies have been inferred from accretion and infrared excess signatures [@cieza09; @kraus11b], although without component-resolved diagnostics. Given these disk frequencies, it is clear that some [*external*]{} processes driven by the presence of a companion act to hasten the dispersal of circumstellar material in multiple systems at a level comparable to any [ *internal*]{} disk evolution mechanisms (e.g., photoevaporation, grain growth, planet formation, etc.) on $\sim$1-2Myr timescales.
Some basic demographic properties of stellar pairs in Taurus can provide new insights into the mechanics of those external evolution processes. Building on the initial work by @jensen94 [@jensen96], we have shown that the millimeter-wave luminosity from a pair of stars depends strongly on their (projected) separation (see §5.2). We identified substantial changes in the millimeter luminosity distributions of pair populations at discrete separations of 30 and 300AU. Widely-separated pairs ($a_p > 300$AU) have emission levels similar to single stars. Pairs with medium separations ($a_p =
30$-300AU) are typically 5$\times$ fainter, with a lower overall detection fraction. Millimeter emission is rarely detected around pairs with small separations ($a_p < 30$AU), representing at least another factor of $\sim$5 reduction in luminosity. We demonstrated that there is a weak tendency for pairs with comparable stellar masses (higher $q$) to have brighter millimeter emission, with the effect being considerably stronger for wider pairs. We suggested this is related to a marginal correlation between stellar mass and millimeter luminosity, although verifying that tentative trend is a challenge due to the systematic uncertainties involved in estimating stellar masses.
The relationship between millimeter luminosity and pair separation (Fig. \[fig:flux\_sep\]) suggests that the external process relevant for the evolution of circumstellar material in multiple systems may be tied to tidal stripping from the outer regions of their constituent disks [e.g., @al94]. However, we found mixed results in a comparison of individual disk sizes that were measured (from the SMA data; §4) and predicted from tidal interaction models (see §5.3). Using a probabilistic treatment of orbital parameters, we showed that about half of the resolved disks in our sample have sizes that are consistent with the truncation predictions of the @pichardo05 models. Most of the remainder have sizes that are substantially larger than expected, given the smaller projected separations to their companions (Fig. \[fig:trunc\_RtRd\]). Analogous discrepancies have been noted regarding the observed and predicted inner edges of circumbinary rings [e.g., @beust05; @nagel10]. These results hint that [*another*]{} external process also shapes the circumstellar environments of young multiples. Further support for this additional evolutionary process is found in the observed distributions of circumstellar dust around individual stellar components. Tidal interaction models predict that disks should survive around both components of a pair, with their relative sizes roughly set by $q$ (for a given $a$). However, Fig. \[fig:fratios\] (see §5.2) demonstrates that this is often not the case. Roughly half of the multiple systems with detectable millimeter emission harbor only a single disk, usually around the primary component (or the wide tertiary in some hierarchical triples; e.g., HV Tau or Haro 6-37). Moreover, aside from a few exceptional counterexamples (see Fig. \[fig:flux\_sep\]$a$), we find little millimeter-wave evidence for the circumbinary disks that should be common around pairs with small separations if tidal interactions were the sole external evolution mechanism.
To be fair, tidal interactions alone may still be able to explain many of these observed properties. The processes of stripping and truncation in pairs where the orbital and disk planes are misaligned has not yet been explored in detail [although see, e.g., @akeson07; @verrier08], but might be substantially enhanced for some configurations. With limited orbital information, the prevalence of such misalignment is not known: but, there is some indication from polarization measurements that it is common [@jensen04] and a number of specific examples have been identified [e.g., HK Tau or HD 98800; @duchene03; @andrews10]. Moreover, it is important to keep in mind that the emission we have measured is only capable of probing the trace population of dust particles in these disks, and not their dominant mass reservoirs of molecular gas. The total disk masses that would be inferred from this emission could be substantially under-estimated [see @aw05; @aw07], as could the apparent disk sizes [e.g., @hughes08; @panic09; @andrews12]. Future complementary observations of emission line probes would help better address such uncertainties.
Alternatively, the disk properties we observe may be set at very early stages by the processes that regulate accretion during multiple star formation. Numerical simulations indicate that the ratio of the specific angular momenta of the infalling material ($j_{\rm gas}$) to the stellar pair ($j_{\ast}$) is fundamental in determining how the gas and dust accreted from a proto-system envelope is distributed among individual stellar components [@bonnell94; @bate97]. If $j_{\rm gas} < j_{\ast}$, most of the infalling material will form a disk around the stellar primary. Conversely, if $j_{\rm
gas} \ge j_{\ast}$, then a circum-secondary or circumbinary disk will dominate [see also @ochi05]. In the many cases with only circum-primary disk detections described above, the data are consistent with the former scenario. Similar millimeter-wave observations suggest that primary stars preferentially harbor more circumstellar material at the even earlier Class 0/I stages of protostellar evolution [e.g., @launhardt04; @patience08 and references therein].
To summarize, there is a body of observational evidence suggesting that (at least) two fundamental processes related to the presence of stellar companions play significant roles in the evolution of circumstellar material in young multiple systems. The first is associated with the multiple star formation process itself, where the fraction of angular momentum associated with infalling material relative to that contained in the orbital motion of the stellar pair determines how circumstellar material is apportioned to each component. This is likely responsible for the pairs we observe with very large primary-to-secondary millimeter luminosity ratios. The second is a tidal interaction process that strips material from any individual disks that survive the formation process. This is thought to be the origin of the millimeter luminosity – pair separation relationship.
At the typical $\sim$1-2Myr age of Taurus-Auriga multiples, both of these evolution mechanisms have already made their mark on disk properties. The long-term fate of the circumstellar material in these multiple systems now rests with the same internal mechanisms that govern the subsequent evolution and dissipation of the disks around their isolated (single) counterparts. The formation and evolution of planets from this disk material are mechanisms of particular interest in these systems. The relatively straightforward, albeit uncertain, relationship between millimeter-wave luminosities and total disk masses enables at least a preliminary assessment of the likelihood of planet formation around individual components in multiple systems. Using the conversion advocated by @aw05 [@aw07] – which assumes optically thin, isothermal dust emission with a mean temperature of 20K and (gas+dust) opacity of 0.034cm$^2$ g$^{-1}$ at 880$\mu$m – $F_d \approx 15$mJy corresponds to a disk mass of $\sim$1M$_{\rm Jup}$, and $F_d \approx
150$mJy represents the standard estimate of the minimum mass of the solar nebula, $\sim$0.01M$_{\odot}$. Taking these conversions at face value, we would conclude that giant planets are unlikely to form around stars in close pairs (Fig. \[fig:flux\_sep\]) or around the secondary components of most pairs with wider separations (Fig. \[fig:fratios\]). However, we would likewise infer that the primary components in wider pairs, the wide tertiaries in hierarchical triples, and perhaps the population of spectroscopic binaries should be just as likely to host giant planets as single stars.
Direct exoplanet searches of main sequence multiple systems in the field confirm these general expectations from the disk survey: planet formation is not severely inhibited by the presence of a stellar companion [e.g., @patience02; @raghavan06; @duchene10], and giant planets are preferentially found around primaries, the isolated components of hierarchical triples [@desidera07; @bonavita07; @mugrauer09; @desidera11], and perhaps even spectroscopic binaries [e.g., @doyle11]. That corroboration of results is a promising sign for planet formation studies in multiple systems, but the characterization of the disks around individual stellar components in these systems is still in its early stages. In the near future, we expect that new facilities like the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA) will shift the focus to study these individual disks in detail to directly compare their density structures and particle growth signatures with the disks around isolated (single) stars. Ultimately, such observations will help determine the impact of a nearby stellar neighbor on the planet formation process.
Summary
=======
We have presented the results of an SMA imaging survey of the millimeter-wave (880$\mu$m or 1.3mm) thermal continuum emission from circumstellar dust in 23 young multiple systems in the Taurus-Auriga star-forming region. This census was designed to target relatively bright ($>$20mJy at 880$\mu$m) and well-separated ($\rho > 0\farcs3$) systems with primary spectral types between F0 and M4. We employed simple morphological models of the SMA visibilities to measure component-resolved millimeter luminosities and disk sizes whenever possible. Those results were considered together with a comprehensive literature compilation of the millimeter luminosities from [*all*]{} Taurus multiples (in this spectral type range) to better analyze how the presence of a stellar compaion affects basic disk properties. Our primary conclusions are the following:
1. The millimeter detection frequency for individual stars in multiple systems is approximately 1/3 (28-40%), about half that for single stars (62%), and independent of the number of companions. These relative incidence rates suggest that the presence of a stellar companion plays a substantial [ *external*]{} role in the early development and evolution of circumstellar material, at a level comparable to the standard [*internal*]{} disk evolution mechanisms that can operate in isolation (e.g., photoevaporation, particle growth, planet formation, etc.).
2. The millimeter luminosity from a pair of stars depends strongly on their projected separation ($a_p$), such that closer pairs are substantially fainter. We find natural breaks in the luminosity–separation plane at $a_p
\approx 30$ and 300AU. The luminosity distribution of wide pairs ($a_p >
300$AU) is indistinguishable from that of single stars. Pairs with medium separations ($a_p = 30$-300AU) are $5\times$ fainter, and the very few close pairs ($a_p < 30$AU) that we detect are $5\times$ fainter yet – although a few bright circum[*binary*]{} disks represent notable exceptions.
3. There is no clear relationship between the millimeter luminosity from a pair and its stellar mass ratio ($q$) in general, but wide pairs with higher $q$ tend to be brighter. We show that this latter behavior is produced by a marginal correlation between millimeter luminosities and stellar masses (both summed among pairs and for individual stars). However, the significance of this trend is questionable: the scatter is large, and there are substantial systematic uncertainties in estimating individual stellar masses that are not considered here. In nearly all cases, the primary component of a binary pair or the wide tertiary of a hierarchical triple harbors the disk material that dominates the millimeter luminosity of the system (higher-order systems show a range of behavior, depending on the hierarchical nature of their pairings).
4. We find mixed results from a direct comparison of the disk sizes measured from the data and predicted from tidal interaction models, based on a probabilistic treatment of the orbital parameters for each system. Of the 15 resolved disks in our sample, the radii expected from the models described by @pichardo05 are commensurate with the observed radii for eight disks; two others are found to be too small, and the remaining five are notably larger than would be expected given the relatively small (projected) distances to their companions.
5. These millimeter-wave observations suggest that at least two external mechanisms contribute to the evolution of circumstellar material in young multiple star systems. Star-disk tidal interactions strip material from the outer regions of individual disks, a process responsible for the strong dependence of the millimeter luminosity on the projected separation to a companion. We are lead to infer that accretion during the multiple star formation process itself also plays a substantial role in apportioning disk material, in many cases setting the initial disk masses such that primary stars harbor substantially more circumstellar material than their companions. The long-term prospects for (giant) planet formation in multiple systems are poor for stars in close pairings and around secondaries, but should be comparable to those around single stars for primaries, wide tertiaries in hierarchical triples, and perhaps around both components of very close spectroscopic binaries.
We are grateful to Trent Dupuy for his assistance with the probabilistic treatment of projected orbits, to Joanna Brown for kindly providing some supplementary observing time on the FQ Tau binary, and to an anonymous referee for helpful suggestions on clarifying the draft manuscript. The Submillimeter Array (SMA) is a joint project between the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and the Academia Sinica Institute of Astronomy and Astrophysics and is funded by the Smithsonian Institution and the Academia Sinica.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: |
We have studied the influence of nearest-neighbor (NN) repulsions on the low frequency phases diagram of a quarter-filled Hubbard-Holstein chain. The NN repulsion term induces the apparition of two new long range ordered phases (one $4k_F$ CDW for positive $U_{e\!f\!f} =
U-2g^2/\omega$ and one $2k_F$ CDW for negative $U_{e\!f\!f}$) that did not exist in the $V=0$ phases diagram. These results are put into perspective with the newly observed charge ordered phases in organic conductors and an interpretation of their origin in terms of electron molecular-vibration coupling is suggested.
author:
- Philippe Maurel
- 'Marie-Bernadette Lepetit'
title: ' Effect of nearest neighbor repulsion on the low frequency phase diagram of a quarter-filled Hubbard-Holstein chain'
---
Introduction
============
It is well know that low dimensional systems are susceptible to structural distortions driven by electron-phonons interactions. The most commonly studied phonons-driven instability is the metal to insulator Peierls transition in one-dimensional (1D) conductors. The insulating state is a periodic modulation of bonds charge density (BDW) associated to a lattice distortion. Such instabilities are driven by the coupling between the electrons and the inter-site phonons modes, the interaction been essentially supported by a modulation of the hopping integrals between two nearest neighbor (NN) sites. The consequence is an alternation of the bond orders while the on-site charge remains homogeneous on the whole system.
When a “site” stands for a complex system with internal degrees of freedom, there is another important type of electron-phonons (e-ph) interaction, namely the one that couples the electrons with the internal phonons modes of each “site”. This is, for instance, the case in molecular crystals where a site represents a whole molecule. In such cases the totally-symmetric (Raman active) molecular vibrational modes can couple to the system electronic structure. Holstein [@hols] was one of the first to understand the importance of such e-ph coupling, showing that it may lead to a self trapping of the conducting electrons by local molecular deformations. In the 60’s Little [@little] even suggested that intra-molecular vibrations could be responsible for super-conductivity in the organic conductors. More recently it was again proposed to be the super-conductivity mediator in fullerides-based systems [@c60].
Even-though the electron molecular-vibrations (e-mv) has now been excluded as super-conductivity mediator in organic conductors, a simple analysis shows that they should in anyway be relevant to these systems. Indeed, the conductivity-supporting molecules, such as the $TMTTF$ or $TMTSF$ -based molecules, the $TCNQ$-based molecules, the $M(dmit)_2$-based molecules, etc, have a certain number of characteristics in common. They are large, planar, conjugated and based on organic cycles, all characteristics favorable to a strong coupling of the conduction electrons (which, belonging to the $\pi$ conjugated system of the molecules, are strongly delocalized on the molecular skeleton) with the molecular totally symmetric ($A_g$) vibrational modes. This analysis is fully supported by Raman spectroscopy measurements [@vib; @review_1D] which assert both the existence of low frequency vibrational modes (associated with ring angular deformations) and e-mv coupling constants belonging to the intermediate regime.
It is widely admitted that the simplest pertinent model for describing the 1D organic conductors electronic structure is the extended Hubbard (eH) model with NN bi-electronic repulsions. The present study seeks therefore at studying the combined effects of the electron correlation within the eH model and the e-mv interactions, in a quarter-filled 1D chain, relevant for organic 1D conductors. The e-mv problem have been largely addressed in the case of the one-dimensional half-filled chain [@hf]. Quarter-filled systems have been treated in several regimes. In the weak coupling regime renormalization group (RG) approaches [@rg1] show that the transition line between the Luttinger Liquid [@ll1; @rev_ll] (LL) phase and the Luther-Emery [@le; @rev_ll] (LE) phase (gaped spin channel and dominating $2k_F$ charge fluctuations) is displaced toward positive $g_1$ parameters when the e-mv coupling increases. In addition, the Luttinger Liquid parameters are renormalized by the e-mv interactions. In the adiabatic and small inter-site repulsion regime [@adiab1; @adiab2], small systems diagonalizations exhibit three different phases, one uniform phase at small e-mv coupling, associated with LL, one $2 k_F$ charge density wave (CDW) phase for large enough e-mv coupling and small values of the on-site electron correlation, and one $4k_F$ CDW phase for large enough e-mv coupling and on-site repulsion. When inter-site repulsion is omitted, we have studied [@ph1] the whole phases diagram as a function of both the phonons frequency, the e-mv coupling and the on-site correlation strength. We have shown that the dependence of the phases diagram to the phonons frequency is crucial. Indeed, while for high frequencies (corresponding to the highest $A_g$ molecular vibrations of the Bechgaard salts) the phases diagram is very poor and well reproduced by the weak coupling approximation, for low phonons frequencies (corresponding to the lowest $A_g$ molecular vibrations of the Bechgaard salts), the phases diagram is on the contrary very rich. At small e-mv coupling, and in agreement with the RG results, we found LL and LE phases with renormalized parameters. In the intermediate coupling regime, we found at surprisingly small values of the on-site repulsion (from $U/t\sim 2$), a metallic phase with dominating $4k_F$ CDW fluctuations. For large e-mv coupling we found polaronic phases where the electrons are self-trapped by the molecular deformations, either by pairs (low electron-correlation regime) or alone (large electron-correlation regime).
The NN bi-electronic repulsions are crucial for a reliable description of the 1D organic conductors. The present paper will therefore study the interplay between the e-mv and the NN bi-electronic repulsion within an extended Hubbard model. In regards to the previous results we will limit us to the low phonons frequencies where we can expect significant effects to occur.
The next section will be devoted to the model description and the computational details. Section 3 will present the results and section 4 will discuss their relevance to the organic conductor physics. The last section will conclude.
Computational details and model
===============================
Model
-----
The simplest way to couple dynamically dispersion-less molecular vibrations to the electronic structure is through local harmonic oscillators and linear e-mv coupling. We will therefore use an extended-Hubbard-Holstein model (eHH). If $U$ stands for the on-site repulsion, $V$ for the nearest-neighbor coulomb repulsion and $g$ for the e-mv coupling constant the eHH model can be written as $H_{e} +
H_{ph} + H_{e-mv}$ with $$\begin{aligned}
%\hspace*{-3eM}
H_{e} &=& t\sum_{i,\sigma}{(c_{i+1,\sigma}^{\dagger}c_{i,\sigma}}+
h.c.) +
U\sum_{i}{n_{i,\uparrow}n_{i,\downarrow}}+V\sum_{i}{n_{i}n_{i+1}}\\
H_{ph} &=&\omega\sum_{i}{(b_{i}^{\dagger}b_{i}+1/2)}\\ \hspace*{-2eM}
H_{e-mv}&=&g\sum_{i}{n_{i}(b_{i}^{\dagger}+b_{i})}\end{aligned}$$ $c_{i,\sigma}^{\dagger }$, $c_{i,\sigma}$ and $n_{i,\sigma}$ are the usual creation, annihilation and number operators for an electron of spin $\sigma$ located on site $i$ ($n_i=n_{i,\uparrow}+n_{i,\downarrow}$). $b_{i}^{\dagger}$ and $b_{i}$ are the intra-molecular phonons creation and annihilation operators and $\omega$ the phonons frequency. The energy scale is fixed by $t=1$.
As noticed in ref. [@ph1], the on-site part of the Hamiltonian can be rewritten (apart from constant terms) as $$\begin{aligned}
\hspace*{-5eM}
\label{hi}&&
\omega \left[ \left( b_{i}^{\dagger} + n_i{g\over \omega} \right)
\left( b^{\hfill}_{i} + n_i{g\over \omega} \right) \right] - n_i
{g^2 \over \omega} + \left(U- 2{g^2 \over \omega} \right)
n_{i,\uparrow}n_{i,\downarrow}\end{aligned}$$
On may highlight the following points.
- The on-site bi-electronic repulsion term is renormalized by the e-mv coupling and the effective interaction $U_{e\!f\!f} = U- 2 g^2/
\omega$ becomes attractive in the strong coupling regime.
- One sees from eq. \[hi\] that the phonons and e-ph parts of the Hamiltonian can be rewritten as a displaced harmonic oscillator. The noticeable point is that the displacements are proportional to the sites charge, simulating this way the relaxation of the molecular geometry as a function of the ionicity of the site.
- The natural basis for the phonons states is therefore the eigenstates of the displaced oscillators. Such a vibronic representation is not only very physical, but also particularly suited for the representation of the low energy physics. Despite the fact that one would have a complete basis set for each value of the sites occupation, the necessity to work in a truncated representation lift the problem of over-completeness.
- One should also notice that there is a strong renormalization of the hopping integrals between the initial and final vibronic states of two neighboring sites, by the Franck-Condon factors. In this representation the Franck-Condon factors correspond to the overlaps between the vibronic states associated with $\pm 1$ occupation numbers. As physically expected, when an electron hopes between two sites vibronic ground states, the hopping integral is exponentially renormalized by the displacement : $t \longrightarrow t \;
\exp{\left[-\left(g/\omega\right)^2\right]}$. The direct consequence is an increased tendency to electron localization. Indeed, vibronic high energy states need to be summon up for delocalization processes when the e-mv coupling is large.
- The pertinent e-mv coupling parameter is not $g$ but rather $g/\omega$, in the light of which it becomes clear that only vibrations of low frequencies may produce significant effects other than a simple renormalization of the pure electronic interactions. The model pertinent parameters are therefore $U/t$, $V/t$, $\omega/t$ and $g/\omega$
Computational details {#ss:cd}
---------------------
The calculations have been carried out using the infinite system density-matrix renormalization group (DMRG) method [@dmrg] with open boundary conditions.
Since an infinite number of phononic quantum states lives on each site we have truncated the phonons basis set according to the previous section analysis, that is we kept only the two lowest vibronic states on each site (i.e. the two lowest eigenstates of the on-site Hamiltonian). This choice is physically reasonable since (i) we work at $T=0$ and therefore only the lowest vibronic states are expected to be involved, (ii) the molecules form well defined entities that are only perturbatively modified by the presence of their neighbors. As already mentioned, when an electron hopes between two nearest neighbors sites the hopping integral is renormalized by the Franck-Condon factors, i.e. the overlap between the initial and final vibronic states of the sites, $\langle (n, \nu, Sz)_i~; (n^\prime,
\nu^\prime, Sz^\prime)_{i+1}|H| (n-1, \mu, Sz\pm 1/2)_i~; (n^\prime+1,
\mu^\prime, Sz\mp 1/2)_{i+1}\rangle = t \, \langle \nu|\mu\rangle \,
\langle \nu^\prime|\mu^\prime\rangle$ ($n$ and $n^\prime$ being the number of electrons on sites $i$ and $i+1$ respectively, $\nu$ and $\mu$, $\nu^\prime$ and $\mu^\prime$ the phonons states and $Sz$, $Sz^\prime$ the spin projection quantum numbers). Figure \[fig:rec\] shows the overlap between the vibronic ground state of a site supporting $n$ electrons and the vibronic states of the same site supporting $n\pm 1$ electrons. As can be seen, when $g/\omega$ is small the overlap, and therefore the Franck-Condon factor, decreases very quickly with the number of bosons, thus only the first few vibronic states are involved and the truncation is totally pertinent. This fact is confirmed by exact calculations on small systems (4 sites) where four phononic quantum numbers have been considered. For instance, the weight of the 3 and 4 bosons contributions in the wave functions is only $0.012$ for $g/\omega =
0.5$, $U/t=4$ and $U/V=4$. When $g/\omega$ increases, the maximum of the Franck-Condon factors is rapidly displaced toward very large number of bosons. These vibronic states being strongly hindered by their large vibrational energy, they have a small weight in the wave function and the system tends to localize. For instance for $g/\omega
= 3$, $U/t=4$ and $U/V=4$, the weight of the 3 and 4 bosons contributions in the 4 sites system is only $1.2\times 10^{-3}$. In the intermediate region the contribution of intermediately large phonons states (with occupations $3,4,5$) is not as negligible ($0.3$ for $g/\omega = 1.5$, $U/t=4$ and $U/V=4$), and the basis set truncation lowers the total hoping between nearest neighbors sites and thus increases the system localization. One can therefore expect that in the intermediate regime the true phases transitions will be displaced — compared to our results — toward larger values of the electron-phonon interaction. It is however clear that any truncated basis set will have a great deal of problem to accurately treat systems too close to a phases transition since the effective softening of the frequency near the transition translates into the implication of a quasi-infinite number of phonons states. From the above analysis, one can be quite confident in the quality of the numerical results and in particular in the different phases found in this work, provided that the exact position of the transitions is not seek at, in the intermediate coupling region. In order to estimate more precisely the transition displacement due to the basis set truncation, we have run additional calculations using up to three bosons states per site occupation number (that is 12 on-site states) for a set of chosen electronic parameters ($U/t=4, \quad U/V=4$) and all values of the electron-phonon coupling constant.
In order to characterize the phases diagram, we have computed the charge and spin gaps, defined as usual : $$\Delta_{\rho} = E_{0}(2N,N+1,0)+E_{0}(2N,N-1,0)-2E_{0}(2N,N,0)$$ and $$\Delta_{\sigma}=E_{0}(2N,N,1)-E_{0}(2N,N,0)$$ where $E_{0}(N_s,N_e,Sz)$ is the ground state (GS) energy of a system of $N_e$ electrons, $N_s$ sites and spin projection $Sz$. In addition, we have computed the charge-charge, spin-spin correlation functions : $c_A(j)= \langle \left(A_{0}-\langle A_{0}\rangle\right)
\left(A{j}-\langle A_{j}\rangle\right) \rangle$ where $A$ stands either for the number operator, $n$, or for the spin projection operator, $Sz$, and the on-site singlet correlation function : $c_{Sg}(j)=\langle {Sg_{0}}^{\dagger} Sg_{j}\rangle$ where ${Sg_i}^{\dagger}= c_{i,\uparrow}^{\dagger}c_{i,\downarrow}^{\dagger}$ and $Sg_i$ are the singlet creation and annihilation operators on a site.
The properties calculation have been computed using $255$ states per renormalized block, whereas for the gaps calculations we have used a double extrapolation (i) on the systems size, and (ii) on the number, $m$, of states kept, using $m=100,150$ and $255$. In all calculations we have computed systems of size up to 80 sites and extrapolated to the infinite chain.
To have more information on the localized phases wave functions we have also computed the density matrices at the central sites and performed exact diagonalization of small systems.
Result
======
The present work explores the whole range of the on-site repulsion strength and of the e-mv coupling. The vibration frequency have been chosen to be $\omega/t=0.2$ for the reasons already exposed in the preceding paragraphs. The phases diagrams have been computed for two values of the nearest-neighbor versus on-site repulsions ratio $V/U$ which are recognized to be generic for the 1D organic conductors [@corr_v], namely $V=U/4$ and $V=U/2$.
Figure \[fig:diag1\] and \[fig:diag2\] report the phases diagrams for $V=U/4$ and $V=U/2$ as a function of $g/\omega$ and $U/t$. The two diagrams present the same general features with seven different phases. The major effect of the introduction of NN repulsion in the Hubbard-Holstein model is to stabilize two new phases in the e-mv intermediate coupling regime. From another point of view, the inclusion of the e-mv coupling in the extended Hubbard model has similar consequences as its inclusion in the pure Hubbard model; that is : the apparition of polaronic and bi-polaronic phases in the strong coupling regime, the apparition of a $4k_F$ CDW phase in the intermediate regime for extremely low values of the on-site repulsion.
To summarize, in the weak coupling regime one find both the Luttinger Liquid phase for $U_{e\!f\!f}>0$ and the Luther Emery phase for $U_{e\!f\!f}<0$. In the strong coupling regime one has the polaronic ($U_{e\!f\!f}>0$) and bi-polaronic ($U_{e\!f\!f}<0$) phases where the electrons are self-trapped (alone or by pairs) by the molecular geometry deformations. In between these two regimes, that is for intermediate e-mv coupling, one finds the two new phases. The first one is an insulating long-range ordered $4k_F$ CDW phase which develops at the extend of the metallic $4k_F$ CDW phase for $U_{e\!f\!f}>0$. The second one is an insulating long-range ordered $2k_F$ CDW phase which develops for $U_{e\!f\!f}<0$ at the expends of the localized bi-polaronic phase. It is noticeable the $U_{e\!f\!f}=0$ line seems to remain a strict phases boundary. On the contrary the other frontiers have been shifted. For $U_{e\!f\!f}>0$ the localized phases are enhanced and the delocalized ones reduced. On the contrary, for $U_{e\!f\!f}<0$ the bi-polaronic phase is reduced.
The $U_{e\!f\!f}>0$ phases
--------------------------
### Luttinger liquid phase
For small values of $g/\omega$, up to intermediate ones if the on-site repulsion $U$ is not too large, one finds, both in the $U/V=4$ and $U/V=2$ cases, the expected LL phase. The computed charge and spin correlation functions exhibit power law behavior with dominant $2k_F$ SDW fluctuations and sub-dominant CDW fluctuations. The spin and charge gaps extrapolate nicely to zero to numerical accuracy.
Similarly to what happens in the pure extended Hubbard model [@eH], the $2k_F$ SDW fluctuations and the $4k_F$ CDW fluctuations are enhanced by increasing values of the NN repulsions.
From the charge structure factor $S_\rho(q)$ we have computed the LL $K_\rho$ parameter as $$\begin{aligned}
K_{\rho} &=& \pi \left.{d\over dq} S_{n}(q) \right|_{q=0}\end{aligned}$$ Figure \[fig:kp\] reports the $K_\rho$ parameter as a function of both $U/V$ and $g/\omega$. Once again the results are a simple superposition of the $K_\rho$ reduction effect due to the NN repulsions and the reduction effect due to the e-mv coupling.
### The $4k_F$ CDW phase
The LL phase is bordered, both for $V=U/4$ and for $V=U/2$, by a metallic phase presenting dominating $4k_F$ charge fluctuations. This phase have very similar characteristics as the $4k_F$ CDW phase found for $V=0$ [@ph1], that is no charge neither spin gap (to numerical accuracy), power law decreasing of the charge and spin correlation functions, dominant $4k_F$ CDW fluctuations and very small values of $K_\rho$ compared to the purely electronic model. One has for instance, for $U/t=4$ and $V/t=1$, $K_\rho= 0.28$ when $g/\omega=1.5$ instead of $K_\rho = 0.55$ in the pure electronic eH model (see fig. \[fig:kp\]). One should however notice that while the $K_\rho$ values remain always larger than the $1/4$ minimal value predicted by the LL theory [@rev_ll] for metallic behavior, it can be as large as $0.48$ for $U=2.5$, $g/\omega=1.25$ and $V=U/4$, that is much above the $1/3$ limiting value predicted by the LL theory for dominant $4k_F$ CDW fluctuations [@rev_ll]. Despite the absence of long range coulombic repulsions, this phase is in fact, in many ways very alike a Wigner crystal.
Figures \[fig:diag1\] and \[fig:diag2\] show that the NN repulsions have a strongly destructive effect on this phase. Indeed, it reduces strongly its domain of existence for increasing $g/\omega$. Compared to the $V=0$ case a new insulating, long-range order (LRO) $4k_F$ CDW phase has taken a large part of the $g/\omega$ parameters range of the metallic $4k_F$ CDW phase. For increasing $V/U$ the metal to insulator phases transition (MIT) is repelled to smaller values of $g/\omega$, squeezing the metallic $4k_F$ CDW phase toward the LL one.
### The LRO $4k_F$ CDW phase
As $g/\omega$ increases, the system undergoes a metal to insulator phases transition and the $4k_{F}$ CDW fluctuation phase condensates into a long range ordered $4k_{F}$ CDW phase.
In order to characterize this new phase, we have computed the staggered charge correlation functions $(-1)^{j}{\cal C}_{n}(j)$ where $${\cal C}_{n}(j)=\langle(n_{i} - \bar n)(n_{i+j} - \bar n)\rangle$$ and $\bar n = N_{e}/N_{s} = 1/2$ is the average charge per site. The associated order parameter is therefore $$X_{4k_F}=\lim\limits_{N_{s}\rightarrow+\infty}
\sum_{j}{(-1)^{j}{\cal C}_{n}(j)}$$ In this gaped regime, one should be careful and clearly distinguish between the correlation functions ${\cal C}_{n}(j)$ and the correlation functions of the observable fluctuations ${c_{n}}(j)$. Indeed, while in delocalized phases the two do not differ, in gaped phases the correlation functions tends toward a non zero constant as the inter-site distance increases, while the fluctuations decrease quickly to zero at infinite inter-site distances [@rev_ll].
Figure \[fig:xnch\] reports both the charge gap $\Delta_\rho$ and the order parameter $X_{4k_F}$ as a function of $g/\omega$, for the two values of the NN repulsion. One sees immediately that the opening of the charge gap from the metallic $4k_F$ CDW phase is simultaneous with the formation of the long range order. Similarly the computed charge fluctuations correlation functions ${c_{n}}(j)$ go from a power law behavior as a function of increasing inter-site distances to an exponential behavior. One should note that the spin channel remains ungaped and the corresponding fluctuations correlation functions ${c_{Sz}}(j)$ decrease as a power law with increasing inter-site distances.
At the metal to insulator phases transition, that is for intermediate values of $g/\omega$ ($\simeq 1$), one observes a smooth opening (exponential like) of both the charge gap and the order parameter ; opening that seems consistent with a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition. For large value of $g/\omega$, the order parameter saturates and the system undergoes a self-trapping transition of the electrons toward a polaronic phase. It is noticeable that, while the MIT is very soft, the self-trapping transition is on the contrary rather sharp.
### The small polaronic phase
As expected from previous works [@hols; @pol2; @pol3; @ph1], in the strong coupling regime but still positive effective on-site repulsion, $U_{eff}=U-2g^2/\omega$, the system undergoes a transition toward a polaronic phase where the electrons are self-trapped by the molecular distortions. This trapping is mediated by the Franck Condon factors, that strongly renormalize the hopping integrals between low energy vibronic states. One can remember that the hopping between the ground vibronic states is renormalized as $t\rightarrow t_{eff}\sim t\
exp(-(g/\omega)^2)$. The ground state of the system is therefore dominated by configurations such as : $$..10101010..$$ where the $1$ stand for sites supporting one electron and the $0$ stand for empty sites. The validity of this picture has been checked both on the GS wave function of small systems (4 and 8 sites, PBC, exact diagonalization) and the on-site density matrix in the DMRG calculations. On small systems the computed weight of those configurations is always larger $0.85$ with, for instance, $0.900$ for $U=4$, $V=2$, $g/\omega=2$ and $4$ sites. On large systems, we have computed the central sites density matrices and found that the probability of having double occupations is extremely small, with for instance, $\rho(\uparrow\downarrow) \le 10^{-9}$ for $U=4$, $g/\omega
= 2.5$ and all values of $U/V$. Coherently, the GS energy per site is nearly independent of the system size and verify — up to at least 4 significant numbers — on all the computed points, the formula $-N_e/N_s \, g^2/\omega + \omega/2$. Such a GS is strongly quasi-degenerated due to the equivalence between the odd and even sites and the different spin configurations. The small splitting is due to the residual delocalization and therefore scales as $t_{e\!f\!f}=t\exp(-(g/\omega)^2)$ (see figure \[fig:tr\_lc\_dlc\]). The spin channel remains ungaped. The main difference between the present phase and the phase found in the HH model stays in the charge channel. Indeed, the NN repulsion is responsible for the opening of a strong gap (see figure \[fig:xnch\]) that did not exist in the $V=0$ case. In fact, the charge gap scales as the cost to add an extra electron to the system. In the case of open systems the end sites being always occupied, $\Delta_\rho$ scales as $\min{\left(U_{e\!f\!f},V\right)}$ (according to whether the extra electron is located on an “empty” site or on an already “occupied” one) while in periodic systems is scales as $\min{\left(U_{e\!f\!f},2V\right)}$. The change of behavior in $\Delta_\rho$ can be clearly seen on figure \[fig:xnch\], where, for instance, the gap for $U=4$, $U/V=4$ undergoes a saturation to $\Delta_\rho=V=1$ at the self-trapping transition (that occurs between $g/\omega =2$ and $g/\omega =2.2$) and then a strong decrease for $g/\omega\ge \sqrt{15/2}\simeq 2.74$ ($U_{e\!f\!f}=V$), where is behaves as $U-2g^2/\omega$. One should notice that the full saturation of the order parameter occurs only after the second transition.
In order to better study the position of the phases transition between the $4k_F$ LRO CDW and the polaronic phase, we performed exact diagonalizations on periodic small systems (4 sites, 2 electrons). One should remember that while the $4k_F$ LRO CDW phase has a non-degenerated GS, the polaronic phase presents a quasi-degenerated GS, the degeneracy lifting being of the order of magnitude of $t_{e\!f\!f}$. We have therefore used the first excitation energy, $\Delta_{10}$, as a criteria for the phases transition. Figure \[fig:tr\_lc\_dlc\](a) reports $\Delta_{10}$ as a function of $g^2/\omega^2$ for different values of $U$ and $V$. One first notice that the excitation energies depend in a negligible way on on-site repulsions. On the contrary it does strongly depend on the NN repulsion. Going from very large e-mv coupling to smaller values, the excitation energy first increases as a power law of $t_{e\!f\!f}=t\exp(-g^2/\omega^2)$ (see figure \[fig:tr\_lc\_dlc\](c)) in the polaronic phase then linearly as a function of $g^2/\omega^2$ in the $4k_F$ CDW LRO phase. Decreasing $g^2/\omega^2$ to even lower values this excitation energy should go through a maximum and then decrease back to zero at the MIT. The location of the phases transition between the $4k_F$ LRO CDW and the polaronic phase have been evaluated as the point where the linearly extrapolated excitation energy of the $4k_F$ LRO CDW phase crosses the zero axis. Figure \[fig:tr\_lc\_dlc\](b) reports the phase boundary as a function of $t_{e\!f\!f}$ and $V$. One sees immediately that it follows a perfectly linear curve that can be fitted as $V=129.36t_{e\!f\!f} -
0.93t$, in these coordinates. This curve have been reported on the phases diagrams (figures \[fig:diag1\] and \[fig:diag2\]) as the $V_c$ curves. One sees immediately that the phases transition position is very weakly dependent of the system size (as expected from such localized systems) and that the small systems estimations work pretty well for the infinite systems.
The $U_{e\!f\!f}<0$ phases
--------------------------
### The Luther-Emery phase
For negative values of $U_{e\!f\!f}$ and small values of $g/\omega$, we found a metallic phase for which all spin, charge and on-site singlet fluctuations correlation functions decrease with the inter-site distances, as power law. All three correlation functions exhibit dominating $2k_{F}$ components. In all computed cases, the $2k_{F}$ CDW fluctuations have the largest amplitudes. The main effect of the NN repulsion is to increase the amplitude of the CDW fluctuations and to strongly decrease the amplitude of the on-site singlet fluctuations. The charge gaps clearly extrapolate to zero, whereas we found a very small gap in the spin channel ($\Delta_{\sigma}\sim 0.002-0.003$). This fact is not incompatible with the behavior of the spin-spin correlation function, since very small gaps means very large correlation lengths of the order of magnitude of $\Delta_{\sigma}^{-1}$. The expected exponential behavior of the spin correlation functions should therefore take place at inter-site distances larger than the computed chain lengths. One can easily recognize in this phase a weakly gaped Luther-Emery phase. The values of $K_{\rho}$ extracted from the charge structure factors are strongly reduced compare to the values of the purely electronic model, in a similar way as what has been found in the $V=0$ case. It should be noted that $K_{\rho}$ always remains lower than $1$ in agreement with dominant CDW fluctuations.
### The LRO $2k_{F}$ phase
When $g/\omega$ increases toward the intermediate regime ($g/\omega >
1.5$), the system undergoes a MIT toward an insulating phase presenting a $2k_{F}$ long range order. One should notice that this phase is induced by the NN repulsions and does not exist in the Hubbard Holstein model. In comparison to the $V=0$ case, the $2k_F$ LRO phase develops at the expense of the bi-polaronic phase . It is interesting to point out that for positive $U_{e\!f\!f}$ the development of the $4k_F$ LRO phase, induced by the NN repulsions, have a tendency to localize the electronic structure, while for negative $U_{e\!f\!f}$, the development of the $4k_F$ LRO phase corresponds to a tendency toward a less localization. The amplitude of the charge correlation functions ${\cal C}_{n}(j)$ extrapolate at infinite inter-site distances toward finite values (for instance $0.06$ for $U=1$, $V=0.5$ and $g/\omega=2$). The order parameter has been defined in the usual way $$X_{2k_F} = \lim \limits_{N_{s}\rightarrow+\infty}
|\sum_{j}{e^{i2k_Fj}{\cal C}_{n}(j)}|$$ and is reported on figure \[fig:x2kf\]. One can see that, as in the $4k_{F}$ LRO phase, the order parameter increases very slowly at the MIT as in a Kosterlitz-Thouless transition.
Both spin and charge channels are gaped. It is noticeable that the gaps values are always of the same order of magnitude : $\Delta_{\rho}=\Delta_{\sigma}=1.04$ for $U=0.2$, $V=0.1$ and $g/\omega=2$, $\Delta_{\rho}= 0.35$, $\Delta_{\sigma}= 0.33$ for $U=1$, $V=0.25$ and $g/\omega=2$. Coherently, the fluctuations correlation functions (spin, charge and on-site singlet) decrease exponentially with the inter-site distances (see figure \[fig:ll1\]).
One should note that, for large $|U_{e\!f\!f}|$, the on-site singlet fluctuations correlations are dominant, whereas, for weak $|U_{e\!f\!f}|$, the charge fluctuations correlations dominate. On the contrary the increase of $V$, increases the CDW at the expense of the singlet fluctuations.
### bi-polaronic phase
For large values of $g/\omega$ the system goes in a bi-polaronic phase where the attractive nature of the effective on-site interaction strongly couples the electrons in pairs. This pairing is associated with a strong localization and a self-trapping of the pairs, due to the rescaling of the hopping integrals between low energy vibronic states by Franck Condon factors. The remaining delocalization processes are very small and the ground state wave functions have dominant configurations of the type $$..20002000..$$ where $2$ stands for a double occupancy of a site and $0$ for an empty site. The probability of having a lonely electron on a site is extremely small with for instance values smaller than $10^{-7}$ for $U/t=1$, $V/t=0.25$ and $g/\omega=2.5$. The energy per site is nearly constant and in excellent agreement with the formula $1/4\, U_{e\!f\!f} - 1/2\, g^2/\omega + 1/2\, \omega$ (the difference between the computed values and the formula being of the oder of $
10^{-5}$ for $U/t=1$, $V/t=0.25$ and $g/\omega=2.5$). Let us notice that the GS is strongly quasi-degenerated due to the equivalence between the four different phases of the CDW and to the absence of second neighbors repulsion terms. As in the polaronic phase the degeneracy splitting scales as $t_{e\!f\!f}$. Finally the system is strongly gaped both in the charge and spin channels. Indeed, either to extract an electron from the system or to build a triplet state, one needs to break an electron pair. Such a mechanism cost the energy $U_{e\!f\!f}$ and therefore both gaps scale as it.
The basis set truncation effect
-------------------------------
As we already mentioned the phononic basis set truncation to two vibronic states per occupation number should induce a bias toward excessive localization in the intermediate regime. This is precisely the range of coupling parameters where the new phases appears and, as we will see later, the coupling regime which is the most interesting for the physics of real systems. In order to quantify the effects of the basis set truncation we have performed, in addition to the small systems calculations presented in section \[ss:cd\], infinite system DMRG calculations with three vibronic states kept for each site occupation and spin. Each site is then described by twelve states instead of eight. Since these calculations are very expansive we have only performed them for a fixed set of electronic parameters $U/t=4$ and $V/U=1/4$. Varying the electron-phonons coupling parameter therefore leads us to go from the Luttinger Liquid phase up to the polaronic phase. Figure \[fig:23ph\] reports the order parameter $X_{4k_F}$ for the two and three phonons states.
As expected the increase of the basis set results in a displacement of the phases transitions toward larger value of the coupling constant, that is a larger delocalization of the system for a given value of $g/\omega$. The Luttinger Liquid phase is only slightly enlarged, in agreement with the weak participation of excited vibronic states in the small systems wave functions. The phase which is the most favored by the basis set increase is the metallic $4k_F$ CDW phase. Indeed this phase is substantially extended toward larger values of $g/\omega$ while the insulating LRO $4k_F$ phase is essentially translated by $0.75g/\omega$.
In conclusion the basis set truncation does mot change the structure of the phases diagram, its main effect being of reducing the range of the metallic $4k_F$ CDW phase, essentially on the side of the larger values of the electron-phonons coupling parameter, and shifting the LRO $4k_F$ phase toward smaller values of $g/\omega$. All these results are in complete agreement with the small system calculations.
Relevance to the organic conductors physics
===========================================
In this section we are going to discuss the pertinence of the above calculations for the low energy physics of organic conductors and more specifically for the $\left(DX-DCNQI\right)_2M$ family and the Bechgaard salts family. Indeed, as already mentioned in the introduction, the building molecules of these systems present a certain number of similar characteristics that are crucial for the relevance of the molecular vibrations to the electronic structure. The $DX-DCNQI$ as well as the $TMTTF$ or $TMTSF$ molecules are planar, strongly conjugated and their skeleton is based on organic cycles ; the quinone cycle for the $DX-DCNQI$ and the two pentagonal cycles of the fulvalene for the $TMTTF$ and $TMTSF$. These geometrical properties strongly favor the existence of low frequency vibrational modes, namely the angular distortion of the cycles, the bond length remaining untouched. Among these, the $A_g$ modes couple to the electronic structure in a relatively strong manner, leading to e-mv coupling constants in the intermediate range (as can be seen in Raman experiments [@vib] or in the geometry relaxation of the molecules with their ionization [@geomrlx]). In addition, one should notice that due to their conjugated character, the $\pi$ system of the considered molecules are strongly delocalized on their skeleton and thus strongly polarizable. The consequence is that the second neighbor coulombic interactions should be strongly screened by the “metallic plate” of the in-between molecule. One can therefore reasonably assume that the on-site and first neighbor repulsion terms are the only pertinent ones for the physics of these organic 1D systems.
Recently charge ordered phases presenting similar characteristics with the $4k_F$ LRO CDW state have been observed both in the $\left(DX-DCNQI\right)_2M$ family and in the Bechgaard salts family.
The most characteristic compound is certainly the $\left(DI-DCNQI\right)_2A\!g$ compound. Indeed, this system which is strongly one dimensional undergoes a MIT phases transition at $220K$ toward a $4k_F$ CDW state [@dcnqi2]. Both NMR [@dqirmn] and X-ray [@dqirx] show that the insulating state exhibit a on-site charge disproportionation between two adjacent molecules. This charge order saturates at a $3:1$ ratio below $140K$ and is associated with a molecular geometry deformation due to the ionicity modification. In addition, the spin channel remains ungaped [@dqirmn]. This compound, which is usually considered as strictly non-dimerized (despite a recent doubt raised by Meneghetti [*et al*]{} [@dcnqidim]) seems to be the perfect example of an e-mv driven $4k_F$ LRO CDW state as the one discussed in this paper. Most authors assume that this LRO state is driven by a Wigner crystallization due to strong long range electronic repulsions. We have seen in the previous sections, that the e-mv driven $4k_F$ CDW phases present very similar characteristics as the Wigner crystals, without the need of very strong correlation effects and without long range repulsions. In the light of the previous considerations on the strongly polarizable electronic structure of the quinone cycles, on the usually assumed values of the electronic correlation strength (in the intermediate range rather than the strong range for the $DCNQI$ family [@DCNQIdft]), and on the e-mv coupling characteristics, it seems to us more plausible that the considered $4k_F$ CDW state is driven by the e-mv than by the usual unscreened strong coulombic repulsions. At very low temperatures the $\left(DI-DCNQI\right)_2A\!g$ undergoes a second phases transition toward a spin ordered state where the $4k_F$ LRO CDW is associated with a $2k_F$ anti-ferromagnetic LRO. These results are in agreement with the $2k_F$ SDW fluctuations exhibited in the $4k_F$ LRO CDW phase of the eHH model, fluctuations that could easily be pinned at low temperatures by impurities or inter-chains interactions.
Another family for which the preceding analyses are relevant about the e-mv influence on the electronic structure, is the Bechgaard salts family. This fact should be put in the light of the newly discovered $4k_F$ charge ordered phase. This phase have been observed on several systems such as in the $\left(TMTTF\right)_2 PF_6$ or the $\left(TMTTF\right)_2A\!sF_6$ [@nmrpf6]. The charge ordered (CO) phase appears when the temperature is lowered from the metallic Luttinger Liquid phase through a soft cross over. It is noticeable that transport measurements observe $4k_F$ CO fluctuations in the normal LL phase, indicating that the interactions driving the transition are relevant far inside the normal phase and over a large range of pressures [@transp; @diel1]. X-ray diffraction measurements do not see any n-merization associated with this phases transition, excluding a Peierls mechanism. NMR measurements on the carbon atoms of the central double bond of the fulvalene (on which the Highest Occupied Molecular Orbital, responsible for the low energy physics of these systems, have large coefficients) exhibit a charge disproportionation on NN molecules. Magnetic susceptibility measurements are transparent to this phases transition and the spin channel remain ungaped. It is clear that all these experimental results are in full agreement with the characteristics found in the present work for the $4k_F$ LRO phases transition. Despite the fact that the system dimerization has not been taken into account in the present work, the e-mv coupling appears as a strong candidate for the CO driving mechanism. It is however clear that the dimerization degree of freedom should be taken into account, in addition to the correlation degrees of freedom (both on-site and inter-sites) and the e-mv degrees of freedom treated in the present work, for a complete description of the Bechgaard salts.
Finally, one can point out that the mechanism underlying a MIT transition toward an on-site charge modulation, driven by the e-mv, does not imply any lattice distortion apart from small modifications in the molecular geometries, in particular in the angles of the cycles (the fulvalene cycles in the Bechgaard salts). Indeed such geometrical relaxations can be expected to be a consequence of the charge disproportionation. These transitions should therefore be $q=0$ transitions.
conclusion
==========
The present paper studies the influence of the electron-molecular vibration coupling on the electronic structure of correlated 1D quarter-filled chains. The model chosen is the extended-Hubbard Holstein model, that is the simplest one containing both electron correlation effects relevant for the physics of molecular crystals such the organic conductors, and e-mv coupling whose effects can be expected to play a crucial role. We have found that for low phonons frequencies the electronic structure is strongly affected by the presence of molecular vibrations. One of the most striking results being the existence of $4k_F$ CDW phases, one metallic and one insulating charge ordered phase, for small values of the correlation strength (as small as $U/t=2$), small values of the nearest neighbor repulsion and in the absence of long range coulombic repulsion. A study of these phases shows however that they have similar characteristics as a Wigner crystal. In this light a new interpretation — based on the e-mv coupling — of the origin of the $4k_F$ charge ordered phase in the $(DI-DCNQI)_2A\!g$ and of the recently discovered CO phase in the $(TMTTF)_2X$ family has been proposed. Such an interpretation of the apparition of the $4k_F$ CO phase present the advantage over the usual purely electronic interpretation to be in agreement with the usual values of the correlation strength for these systems and the strong screening of the long range bi-electronic repulsions that can be expected from the $\pi$ conjugated character of the building molecules. To conclude we would like to point out that for a complete description of the Bechgaard’s salts physics, one should treat in addition to the intra-molecular phonons modes, the inter-molecular modes responsible for the known dimerization in these compounds. In view of the recent work of Campbell, Clay and Mazumdar [@CCM] on the adiabatic dimerized extended-Hubbard Holstein model that forecasts the existence of mixed phases such as the Bond Charge Density Wave and the Spin-Peierls $4k_F$ CDW phase, it would be of interest to conduct the same type of study as the present one on the dimerized extended-Hubbard Holstein model. Indeed, such a model would include all degrees of freedom important for 1D organic conductors as well as the phonons quantum fluctuations that have been proved to be crucial for a correct description of the e-mv coupling [@sol]
[1005]{} T. Holstein, Ann. Phys. [**8**]{}, 325 (1959).
W. A .Little, Phys. Rev. [**134**]{}, A1415 (1964).
A.S. Alexandrov , V.V. Kabanov, Phys. Rev. [**B 54**]{}, 3655, (1996).
M. Meneghetti, R. Bozio, I. Zanon, C. Pelice, C. Ricotta, M. Zanetti, J. Chem. Phys. [**80**]{}, 6210 (1984).
T. Ishiguro, K. Yamaji, and G. Saito, in [*Organic Superconductors*]{}, 2nd ed., Springer Series in Solid-State Sciences, Vol. 88 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998) ; C. Bourbonnais and D. Jerome, in [*Advances in Synthetic Metals, Twenty Years of Progress in Science and Technology*]{}, ed.by P. Bernier, S. Lefrant, and G. Bidan (Elvesier, New York, 1999).
J.E. Hirsch, Phys. Rev. [**B 31**]{}, 6022, (1985).
J. Voit and H. J. Schulz, Phys. Rev. [**B 37**]{}, 10068 (1988) ; J. Voit, Phys. Rev. Letters [**64**]{}, 323 (1990).
F.D.M. Haldane, J. Phys. C [**14**]{}, 2585 (1981) A. Luther and V.J. Emery, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**33**]{}, 589 (1974) J. Riera and D. Poilblanc, Phys. Rev. [**B 59**]{}, 2668 (1999). K. C. Ung, S. Mazumber and D. Toussaint, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**73**]{}, 2603 (1994).
P. Maurel and M. B. Lepetit, Phys. Rev. [**B 62**]{}, 10744 (2000).
S. R. White, Phys. Rev. lett. [**69**]{}, 2863 (1992) ; S. R. White, Phys. Rev. [**B 48**]{}, 10345 (1993).
A. Fritsch and L. Ducasse, J. Physique I [**1**]{} (1991) 855 ; F. Castest, A. Fritsch and L. Ducasse, J. Physique I [**6**]{} (1996) 583.
J. E. Hirsch and D. J. Scalapino, Phys. Rev. [**B 27**]{}, 7169 (1983) ; [*ibid*]{} Phys. Rev. [**B 29**]{}, 5554 (1984).
J. Voit, Rep. Prog. Phys. [**58**]{}, 977 (1995).
A.S. Alexandrov, V.V. Kabanov and D.K. Ray, Phys. Rev. [**B 49**]{}, 9915 (1994). M. Capone, M. Grilli and W. Stephan, J. Supercond., [**12**]{}, 75 (1999).
J.R. Andersen, K. Bechgaard, C.S. Jacobsen, G. Rindorf, H. Solig and N. Thorup, Acta Crystallogr. sect. B, [**B 34**]{}, 1901 (1978) ; T.J. Kistenmacher, T.J. Emge, P. Shu and D.E. Cowan, Acta Crystallogr. sect. B, [B35]{}, 772 (1979).
K. Hiraki and K. Kanoda, Phys. Rev. [**B 54**]{}, R17276 (1996).
K. Hiraki and K. Kanoda, Phys. Rev. Letters [**80**]{}, 4737 (1998) ; K. Kanoda, K. Miyagawa, A. Kawamoto and K. Hiraki, Synth. Metals [**103**]{}, 1825 (1999).
Y. Nogami, K. Oshima, K. Hiraki and K. Kanoda, J. Phys. IV France [**9**]{}, 357 (1999).
M. Meneghetti, C. Pecile, K. Kanoda, K. Hiraki and K. Yakushi, Synth. Metals [**120**]{}, 1091 (2001).
T. Miyazaki, K. Terakura, Y. Morikawa and T. Yamasaki, Phys. Rev. Letters [**74**]{}, 5104 (1995).
D.S. Chow, F. Zamborszky, B. Alavy, D.J. Tantillo, A. Baur, C.A. Merlic and S. Brown, Phys. Rev. Letters [**85**]{}, 1698 (2000).
H.H.S. Javadi, R. Laversanne and A.J. Epstein, Phys. Rev. [**B 37**]{}, 4280 (1988).
F. Nad, P. Monceau, C. Carcel and J.M. Fabre, Phys. Rev. [**B 62**]{}, 1753 (2000) ; [*ibid*]{} J. Phys. Condens. Matter [**12**]{}, L435-L440 (2000).
S. Mazumdar, R.T. Clay and D.K. Campbell, Synth. Metals [**120**]{}, 679 (2001) ; R.T. Clay, S. Mazumdar and D.K. Campbell, cond-mat/0112278.
Ph. Maurel, M.-B. Lepetit and D. Poilblanc, Eur. Phys. J. [**B 21**]{}, 481 (2001).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[Phenomenological Formulae for ]{}
[ Quarks, Baryons and Mesons ]{}
[Jiao Lin Xu ]{}
[The Center for Simulational Physics, The Department of Physics and Astronomy]{}
[University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, U. S. A.]{}
E- mail: [ [email protected]]{}
**Abstract**
[We assume that there is only]{} [one unflavored elementary quark family ]{}$\epsilon $ [with three colors and two isospin states (]{}$\epsilon _{u}$[ with I]{}$_{z}$=$\frac{1}{2}$[ and Q=]{}$\frac{2}{3},$[ ]{}$\epsilon _{d}$[ with I]{}$_{z}$=$\frac{-1}{2}$[ and Q=]{}$\frac{-1}{3}$[) in the vacuum. Using phenomenological formulae, we can deduce the rest masses and intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q) of the excited quarks, from the symmetries of the regular rhombic dodecahedron. The five deduced ground quarks correspond to the five current quarks \[u(313)]{}$\leftrightarrow $[u, d(313)]{}$\leftrightarrow $[d, d]{}$_{S}$[(493)]{}$\leftrightarrow $s[, u]{}$_{C}$[(1753)]{}$\leftrightarrow $c[ and d]{}$_{b}$[(4913)]{}$\leftrightarrow $[b\]. We can then deduce the baryon spectrum and the meson spectrum, from the excited quarks, using sum laws and the phenomenological binding energy formulae of baryons (qqq) and mesons (q]{}$\overline{\text{{\small q}}}$)[. The deduced intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q) of the baryons and the mesons are the same as those of the experimental results. The deduced rest masses of the baryons and the mesons agree with about 98% of the experimental results. Experiments have already discovered almost all of the deduced quarks in Table 11. This paper infers that there are large constant binding energies (M]{}$_{\Pr oton}$)[ in baryons and mesons. These large binding energies provide a possible foundation for the confinement of the quarks.]{} [This paper predicts many new hadrons (]{}$\Lambda _{c}^{+}$[(6599), ]{}$\Lambda _{\text{b}}^{0}$([9959]{}), [D(6231), B(9503) and ]{}$\Upsilon $[(17868)) and a “fine structure” phenomenon of baryons and mesons with large widths. The experimental investigation of the “fine structure” (for example f]{}$_{0}$[(600) with ]{}$\Gamma $[= 600-1000) provides a crucial test. PACS Numbers: 12.39.-x, 14.65.-q, 14.40.-n, 14.20.-c]{}
Introduction
============
The Quark Model [@Quark; @Model] has been in use for 40 years. Already it has greatly advanced and pushed forward the particle physics. During the past 40 years, experimental physicists have discovered many new baryons and new mesons with the Quark Model guidance. Today we know of more than three times the number of new particles [@Particle(04)] than we knew of 40 years ago [@Particle(1964)]. We think that many new particles will be found, as the development of the experimental equipment and techniques advances, just as astronomers have discovered many new stars after developing more powerful telescopes. In order to account for new experimental discoveries and to advance new experiments, original theoretical models usually need modification. In this paper, we will use phenomenological formulae to modify the current Quark Model. The following problems of the current Quark Model will be addressed in this paper.
What Problems Need to Be Solved?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A1. A formula that can deduce the rest masses of the quarks is necessary; a formula that can deduce the rest masses of all baryons from the rest masses of the quarks and a formula that can deduce the rest masses of all mesons from the rest masses of the quarks are also necessary. Unfortunately, there is no united mass formula that can deduce the rest masses of the quarks, the baryons or the mesons in the current Quark Model. There is not even a phenomenological formula in the elated literature that can do so.
A2. In order to explain the masses of the light unflavored mesons ($\eta $, $\omega $, $\phi $, h and f) with I = 0, the Quark Model has to depart from the principle that a meson is made of a quark and an antiquark and allow a meson to be a mixture of three quark-antiquark pairs (u$\overline{u}$, d$\overline{d}$ and s$\overline{s})$. (Note: the meson is not a superposition of three quark-antiquark pairs (u$\overline{u}$, d$\overline{d}$ and s$\overline{s})$ because the three pairs are independent elementary particle pairs in the current Quark Model). For example [@3Pair-Mixture]:
$$\begin{tabular}{|l|}
\hline
$\eta $(548) = $\eta _{8}\cos \theta _{p}$-$\eta _{1}\sin \theta _{p}$, \\
\hline
$\eta ^{\prime }$(958) = $\eta _{8}\sin \theta _{p}$+$\eta _{1}\cos \theta
_{p}$, \\ \hline
$\eta _{1}$ = (u$\overline{u}$+d$\overline{d}$+s$\overline{s}$)/$\sqrt{3}$,
\\ \hline
$\eta _{8}$ = (u$\overline{u}$+d$\overline{d}$-2s$\overline{s}$)/$\sqrt{6}$.
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \label{Mixture Moson}$$
This mixture violates the principle that a meson is made of a quark and an antiquark. It is difficult to understand what physical force could unite the three different independent quark pairs to form one meson. This also causes the model to need a parameter $\theta _{p}$. There are more than 20 such mixture mesons [ ]{}\[$\omega $[(782), ]{}$\phi $[(1020)\], ]{}\[[h]{}$_{1}$[(1170), h]{}$_{1}$[(1380)\], ... , ]{}\[$f_{2}$[(1810),f]{}$_{2}$[(2010)\]]{} [@3Pair-Mixture]. Therefore, according to the principle that a meson is made of a quark and an antiquark, more quarks are needed to compose these mixture mesons. This paper will show that we actually have the quarks to compose these mesons without the three independent-quark-pair mixture.
A3. According to the current Quark Model, there are 12 experimental heavy mesons that are composed of b$\overline{\text{b}}$ [@Heavy-Meson]: $$\begin{aligned}
& \text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Table 1.\
\ The Heavy Mesons of b}\overline{\text{b}}\text{\ \ } \\
&
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
q$_{i}\overline{\text{q}_{j}}$ & Meson(M) & $\Gamma $ & I$^{G}$( J$^{PC}$) &
* & q$_{i}\overline{\text{q}_{j}}$ & Meson(M) & I$^{G}$( J$^{PC}$) \\ \hline
b$\overline{\text{b}}$ & $\Upsilon $(1S)(9460) & 53kev & 0$^{\text{-}}$(1$^{\text{- -}}$) & * & b$\overline{\text{b}}$ & $\chi _{b0}$(1P) (9860) & 0$^{\text{+}}$(0$^{\text{+ +}}$) \\ \hline
b$\overline{\text{b}}$ & $\Upsilon $(2S)(10023) ) & 44kev & 0$^{\text{-}}$(1$^{\text{- -}}$) & * & b$\overline{\text{b}}$ & $\chi _{b1}$(1P) (9893) & 0$^{\text{+}}$(1$^{\text{+ +}}$) \\ \hline
b$\overline{\text{b}}$ & $\Upsilon $(3S)(10355) & 26kev & 0$^{\text{-}}$(1$^{\text{- -}}$) & * & b$\overline{\text{b}}$ & $\chi _{b2}$(1P)(9913) & 0$^{\text{+}}$(2$^{\text{+ +}}$) \\ \hline
b$\overline{\text{b}}$ & $\Upsilon $(4S)(10580) & 14Mev & 0$^{\text{-}}$(1$^{\text{- -}}$) & * & b$\overline{\text{b}}$ & $\chi _{b0}$(2P)(10232) & 0$^{\text{+}}$(0$^{\text{+ +}}$) \\ \hline
b$\overline{\text{b}}$ & $\Upsilon $(10860) & 110Mev & 0$^{\text{-}}$(1$^{\text{- -}}$) & * & b$\overline{\text{b}}$ & $\chi _{b1}$(2P)(10255) & 0$^{\text{+}}$(1$^{\text{+ +}}$) \\ \hline
b$\overline{\text{b}}$ & $\Upsilon $(11020) & 79Mev & 0$^{\text{-}}$(1$^{\text{- -}}$) & * & b$\overline{\text{b}}$ & $\chi _{b2}$(2P)(10269) & 0$^{\text{+}}$(2$^{\text{+ +}}$) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$ The mesons $\Upsilon $(1S)(9460), $\Upsilon $(2S)(10023), $\Upsilon $(3S)(10355), $\Upsilon $(4S)(10580), $\Upsilon $(10860) and $\Upsilon $(11020), all have the same I$^{G}$( J$^{PC}$) = 0$^{\text{-}}$(1$^{\text{- -}}$) showing that these mesons are not all b$\overline{\text{b}}$ with different I$^{G}$( J$^{PC}$). They need more quarks to be explained. This paper will show that there are other quarks that can explain these mesons.
A4. The intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q) of the quarks need to be deduced [@Handin]. This paper will do so using phenomenological formulae \[(\[S-Number\]), (\[IsoSpin\]), (\[S+DS\]) and (\[DaltaS\])\] from the symmetries of the regular rhombic dodecahedron.
A5. The s-quark, the c-quark and the b-quark can only compose unstable baryons and mesons, giving reason to doubt that these quark are independent elementary particles. Experimental results show that higher mass quarks can decay into lower mass ones, such as b$\rightarrow $c , c$\rightarrow $s and s$\rightarrow $u (or s$\rightarrow $d). This might indicate that the five quarks (u, d, s, c and b) are not all independent elementary particles. This paper will show that there may be only two elementary quarks \[$\epsilon _{u}$ and $\epsilon _{d}$\] in the vacuum and that all quarks inside hadrons are excited states of these two elementary quarks.
A6. Why do SU(3) and SU(4) work well, and how many quarks will there be inside hadrons? This paper attempts to explain.
A7. A reduction of the number of parameters in the Quark Model is necessary [@Standard].
A8. There are very large full widths in some baryons and mesons, such as $\Gamma $ = 600-1000 of f$_{0}$(600), $\Gamma $ = 360 of h$_{1}$(1170), $\Gamma $ = 200-600 of $\pi $(1300) and $\Gamma $ = 450 of N(2190). The very large full widths need an explanation.
With all of the above problems, a modification of the Quark Model is very difficult to imagine. On one hand, it needs to increase many high mass quarks to explain the high mass baryons and mesons; on the other hand, it needs to reduce the quark numbers to decrease the number of parameters. At the same time, it needs to deduce the intrinsic quantum numbers and the rest masses of the quarks, baryons and mesons. At first, it looks almost impossible.
These high mass baryons and new mesons, however, not only require a further development of the Quark Model, but also create the conditions for this development. On the basis of the experimental baryon and meson spectra, we have found some phenomenological formulae that can reduce the number of elementary quarks and increase the number of excited (from the vacuum) quarks that compose baryons and mesons, as well as deduce the rest masses and intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q) of the quarks, baryons and mesons.
How to Solve the Above Problems
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B1. Using only one unflavored (S = C = b = 0) elementary quark family ($\epsilon $) with three colors and two isospin states ($\epsilon _{u}$ wit I$_{z}$=$\frac{1}{2}$ and Q = $\frac{2}{3}$, $\epsilon _{d}$ with I$_{z}$=$\frac{-1}{2}$ and Q = $\frac{-1}{3}$) in the vacuum and a phenomenological mass formula (\[Rest Mass\]) as well as the symmetries of a regular rhombic dodecahedron (see Fig. 1), we can deduce an excited quark spectrum (m, I, S, C, b and Q), shown in Table 10 and Table 11. The rest masses of the excited quarks are deduced with the mass formula (\[Rest Mass\]). The quantum numbers are deduced with the symmetries of the regular rhombic dodecahedron \[(\[S-Number\]), (\[IsoSpin\]), (\[S+DS\]), (\[DaltaS\]), (\[Charmed\]) and (\[Battom\])\]. The electric charge Q of the excited quarks is determined by the elementary quark \[$\epsilon _{u}$ or $\epsilon
_{d}$\]. Q = $\frac{2}{3}$ for the excited states of the $\epsilon _{u}$; Q = $\frac{-1}{3}$ for the excited states of the $\epsilon _{d}$.
B2. Using the sum laws (\[Sum(SCbQ)\]), we can deduced the intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q) of all known baryons (qqq), from the quark spectrum. The deduced quantum numbers of the baryons match the experimental results. With the sum law (\[Baryon M\]), we can also deduce the rest masses of the baryons, except for charmed baryons. We can deduce the masses of the charmed baryons using a phenomenological binding energy formula (\[CB-Eb\]). The deduced rest masses of all known baryons (see Table 16 - Table 21) are about 98% consistent with experimental results [.]{}
B3. Using the sum laws and the intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q) of the quarks, we deduce the intrinsic quantum numbers of all discovered mesons (q$_{i}\overline{\text{q}_{j}}$). The deduced quantum numbers of the mesons are exactly the same as the experimental results. Using a phenomenological binding energy formula (\[M-Ebin\]), we deduce the rest masses of all discovered mesons (see Table 25-Table 31). The deduced masses of the mesons agree within a 2% error of the experimental results.
Experimental Evidence, Predictions and Crucial Test
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This paper deduces many new excited quarks shown in Table 11. Already experiments have discovered almost all of the new quarks inside the baryons or the mesons (see Table 16–Table 21 and Table 25–Table 31). At the same time, this paper predicts many new baryons ($\Lambda _{c}^{+}$(6599) and $\Lambda _{\text{b}}^{0}$(9959), ...) and new mesons (D(6231), B(9503), $\Upsilon $(17868), ...)[. ]{}From the large full widths of some mesons and baryons, it also predicts a fine structure phenomenon in particle physics. Several mesons or baryons (different constitutions of quarks) that have the same intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q), the same angular momentums and parities, but different rest masses form a meson (baryon) with large width. The experimental investigations of the fine structure (for example f$_{0}$(600) with $\Gamma $= 600-1000 [@Particle(04)]), provide a crucial test for our phenomenological formulae.
Now let us present the applicable phenomenological formulae.
Phenomenological Formulae
=========================
1\. We assume that there is only one unflavored elementary quark family ($\epsilon $) with three colors that have two isospin states ($\epsilon _{u}$ with I$_{Z}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$ and Q = $\frac{2}{3}$, $\epsilon _{d}$ with I$_{Z}$ = $\frac{-1}{2}$ and Q = -$\frac{1}{3}$) for each color in the vacuum. Thus there are six Fermi (s = $\frac{1}{2}$) elementary quarks in the vacuum (S = C = b = 0).
2\. As a colored elementary quark $\epsilon $ ($\epsilon _{u}$ or $\epsilon
_{d}$) is excited from the vacuum, its color, electric charge and spin remain unchanged, but it receives energy and intrinsic quantum numbers. In order to explain the experimental results related to quarks-baryons-mesons, we propose a phenomenological formula to determine the strong interaction excited energy of a colored (red, yellow or blue) elementary quark [0505184]{}, as follows: $$\text{E(}\vec{k}\text{,}\vec{n}\text{) = V}_{0}\text{ + }\alpha \text{[(n}_{1}\text{-}\xi \text{)}^{2}\text{+(n}_{2}\text{-}\eta \text{)}^{2}\text{+(n}_{3}\text{-}\zeta \text{)}^{2}] \label{E(n,k)}$$ where $\vec{k}$ = ($\xi $, $\eta $, $\zeta $) is a vector in a regular rhombic dodecahedron (see Fig. 1) (including its surfaces) in $\vec{k}$ -space. $V_{0}$ is the minimum energy that a elementary quark $\epsilon $ is excited from the vacuum. $\alpha $ is a constant. n$_{1}$, n$_{2}$ and n$_{3} $ are integers. This formula is the same for any colored elementary quark, so we do not mark the quark’s color.
\[Fig1\]
In order to satisfy the symmetries of the regular rhombic dodecahedron, we give a condition for the $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (n$_{1}$, n$_{2}$, n$_{3})$ values. If assuming n$_{1}$ = *l*$_{2}$ *+ l*$_{3}$, n$_{2}$ =* l*$_{3}$ *+ l*$_{1}$ and n$_{3}$ =* l*$_{1}$ *+ l*$_{2},$ we have $$\begin{tabular}{l}
\textit{l}$_{1}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$(-n$_{1}$ + n$_{2}$ + n$_{3}$), \\
\textit{l}$_{2}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$(+n$_{1}$ - n$_{2}$ + n$_{3}$), \\
\textit{l}$_{3}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$(+n$_{1}$ + n$_{2}$ - n$_{3}$).\end{tabular}
\label{l-n}$$ The condition is that only those values of $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (n$_{1}$, n$_{2}$, n$_{3}$) are allowed that make $\overrightarrow{l}$ = *(l*$_{1}$*, l*$_{2}$*, l*$_{3}$ ) an integer vector. For example, $\vec{n}$ cannot take the values $(0,0,1)$ or $\left( 1,1,-1\right) $, but can take $(0,0,2)$ and $(1,-1,2)$. This is a result of the symmetries of the regular rhombic dodecahedron. The low level allowed n = (n$_{1}$, n$_{2}$, n$_{3})$ values are shown in (\[Equ-N\]) of Appendix A.
3\. The energy (\[E(n,k)\]) of excited quarks satisfies the symmetries of the regular rhombic dodecahedron. From Fig. 1, we can see that there are four kinds of symmetry points ($\Gamma $, H, P and N) and six kinds of symmetry axes ($\Delta $, $\Lambda $, $\Sigma $, D, F and G) in the regular rhombic dodecahedron. The coordinates ($\xi $, $\eta $, $\varsigma $) of the symmetry points are as follows: $$\Gamma \text{ }\text{= (0, 0, 0), H = (0, 0, 1), P = (}\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{, }\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{, }\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{) and N }\text{= (}\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{, }\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{, 0). } \label{Sym-Point}$$The coordinates ($\xi $, $\eta $, $\varsigma $) of the symmetry axes are: $$\begin{tabular}{ll}
$\Delta \text{ }\text{= (0, 0, }\zeta \text{),\ 0 \TEXTsymbol{<}}\zeta \text{
\TEXTsymbol{<}1; }$ & $\Lambda \text{ = (}\xi \text{, }\xi \text{, }\xi
\text{), 0 \TEXTsymbol{<}}\xi \text{ \TEXTsymbol{<}}\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{;}$ \\
$\Sigma \text{{}}\text{= (}\xi \text{, }\xi \text{, 0), 0 \TEXTsymbol{<}}\xi
\text{ \TEXTsymbol{<}}\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{;}$ & $\text{D }\text{=
(}\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{, }\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{, }\xi
\text{), 0 \TEXTsymbol{<}}\xi \text{ \TEXTsymbol{<}}\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{;}$ \\
$\text{G}\text{= (}\xi \text{, 1-}\xi \text{, 0), }\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{ \TEXTsymbol{<}}\xi \text{ \TEXTsymbol{<}1;}$ & $\text{F = (}\xi \text{, }\xi \text{, 1-}\xi \text{), 0 \TEXTsymbol{<}}\xi \text{ \TEXTsymbol{<}}\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{.}$\end{tabular}
\label{Axes}$$Thus, the energy of the excited quarks has six kinds of symmetry axes (see Table A2). The energy with a $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (n$_{1}$, n$_{2}$, n$_{3}$) along a symmetry axis (from the lowest energy to the highest energy) forms an energy band. The energy bands on different symmetry axes have different symmetries with different energies and intrinsic quantum numbers (S, C, b and I) that mean different (excited) quarks. The minimum energy of the energy band is the rest mass of the excited quark. Each energy band with a rest mass (m) and the intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q) corresponds to a quark with the same rest mass and the same intrinsic quantum numbers. All quarks inside baryons and mesons are the excited states of the elementary $\epsilon $-quark.
4\. The strange number S of an excited quark that lies on an axis inside the regular rhombic dodecahedron is $$\text{S = R - 4.} \label{S-Number}$$ For the three axes (the P-N axis, the P-H axis and the M-N axis) on the surface of the regular rhombic dodecahedron, the strange numbers are as follows: $$\begin{tabular}{l}
the P-N axis parallels with the $\Gamma $-H axis, \ S$_{\text{P-N}}$ = S$_{\Gamma \text{-H}}$ = 0; \\
the P-H axis parallels with the $\Gamma $-P$^{^{\prime }}\text{(}\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{, }\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{, }\frac{-\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{)}$ axis, S$_{\text{P-H}}$ = S$_{\Gamma \text{-P}^{\prime }}$
= - 1; \\
the M-N axis parallels with the $\Gamma $-N$^{^{\prime }}$($\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{, }\frac{-\text{1}}{\text{2}}\text{, }$0$\text{)}$ axis, S$_{\text{M-N}}$ = S$_{\Gamma \text{-N}^{\prime }}$ = - 2.\end{tabular}
\label{S-S-Numb}$$ Since the $\Gamma $-P$^{^{\prime }}$($\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}$, $\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}$, $\frac{-\text{1}}{\text{2}}$) axis inside the regular rhombic dodecahedron, R = 3, is an equivalent axis (Table A2) of the $\Gamma $-P axis, S = -1 . The $\Gamma $-N$^{^{\prime }}$ axis inside the regular rhombic dodecahedron, R = 2, is an equivalent axis (Table A2) of the $\Gamma $-N axis, thus S = -2.
5\. For any valid value of the integers $\overrightarrow{\text{n}}$ ([Equ-N]{}) in Appendix A, substituting the ($\xi $, $\eta $, $\zeta $) coordinates (\[Axes\]) of an axis into formula (\[E(n,k)\]), we can get the energy bands that are shown in Table B1–Table B7 (see Appendix B).
From these tables, we can see that there are eightfold, sixfold, fourfold, threefold and twofold energy bands. A group of energy bands (number=deg) with the same energy and equivalent $\overrightarrow{\text{n}}$ values ([Equ-N]{}) are called the **degenerate energy bands**. For a group of degenerate energy bands (number = deg), its isospin I is determined by $$\text{deg = 2I + 1.} \label{IsoSpin}$$ The formal z-components of the isospin are as follows:
$$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
for I = $\frac{3}{2},$ & I$_{z}^{^{\prime }}$ = $\frac{3}{2}$, $\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{-1}{2}$, $\frac{-3}{2}$; \\ \hline
for I = 1, & I$_{z}^{^{\prime }}$ = 1, 0, -1; \\ \hline
for I = $\frac{1}{2}$, & I$_{z}^{^{\prime }}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{-1}{2}$; \\ \hline
for I = 0, & I$_{z}^{^{\prime }}$ = 0. \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{Formal-Iz}$$
If a group of g-fold energy bands with the same energy and g R - the rotary fold of the symmetry axis (see Table A3 in Appendix A) $$\text{g \ \TEXTsymbol{>} R,} \label{deg > R}$$ the g-fold bands will be divided into $\gamma $ sub-fold energy bands (each has R-bands) first (we call it the first division, K = 0; the energy and the strange numbers are not changed in the first division), $$\gamma \text{ = g/R.} \label{Subdeg}$$ If the sub-fold energy bands are degenerate, using (\[IsoSpin\]), we can find the isospin value for the sub-fold degenerate energy bands. Since each sub-degeneracy group has R-fold degenerate bands $$\text{I = (R-1)/2.} \label{(R-1)/2}$$ For sub-fold energy bands with non-equivalent n values, the sub-fold energy bands will be divided into sub-subgroups with equivalent (or single) $\overrightarrow{n}$ values (the second kind of division, K = 1) again (see Table A3). Then, using (\[IsoSpin\]), we can find the isospin values of the sub-subgroups.
6\. From (\[S-Number\]) and (\[IsoSpin\]), the single energy bands on the $\Gamma $-H axis (see Table B1) will have I = S = 0 and the single energy bands on the $\Gamma $-N axis (see Table B2) will have I = 0 and S = -2. Since there is not any quark that has I = 0 and S = 0 or S = -2 in the current Quark Model, we need a new formula to deduce the correct S values for the single bands.
For the single energy bands on the $\Gamma $-H and the $\Gamma $-N axes, the strange number $$\text{S = S}_{axis}\text{ + }\Delta \text{S} \label{S+DS}$$ $$\Delta \text{S = }\delta \text{(}\widetilde{n}\text{) + [1-2}\delta \text{(S}_{axis}\text{)]Sign(}\widetilde{n}\text{),\ \ } \label{DaltaS}$$ where $\delta $($\widetilde{n}$) and $\delta $(S$_{axis}$) are Dirac functions, and S$_{axis}$ is the strange number of the axis (see Table A3). For an energy band with $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (n$_{1}$, n$_{2}$, n$_{3})$, $\widetilde{n}$ is defined as $$\widetilde{n}\text{ }\equiv \frac{\text{n}_{1}\text{+n}_{2}\text{+n}_{3}}{\left\vert \text{n}_{1}\right\vert \text{+}\left\vert \text{n}_{2}\right\vert \text{+}\left\vert \text{n}_{3}\right\vert }\text{.}
\label{n/n}$$ $$\text{Sign(}\widetilde{n}\text{) = }\left[ \text{\begin{tabular}{l}
+1 for $\widetilde{n}$ \TEXTsymbol{>} 0 \\
0 \ \ for $\widetilde{n}$ = 0 \\
-1 \ for $\widetilde{n}$ \TEXTsymbol{<} 0\end{tabular}
}\right] \text{.} \label{Sin(N)}$$
$$\text{If }\widetilde{n}\text{ = 0 \ \ \ \ }\Delta \text{S = }\delta \text{(0) = +1.} \label{n=0-DaltaS=+1}$$
If $\qquad \widetilde{n}$ $=$ $\frac{0}{0},$
$$\Delta \text{S = - S}_{Axis}\text{.} \label{DaltaS=-Sax}$$
Thus, for $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (0, 0, 0), from (\[n/n\]) and ([DaltaS=-Sax]{}), we have $$\text{Sign(}\widetilde{n}\text{)}=\frac{\text{n}_{1}\text{+n}_{2}\text{+n}_{3}}{\left\vert \text{n}_{1}\right\vert \text{+}\left\vert \text{n}_{2}\right\vert \text{+}\left\vert \text{n}_{3}\right\vert }\text{ = }\frac{0}{0}\text{.}$$ $$\text{S =S}_{Axis}\text{+}\Delta \text{S = S}_{Axis}\text{- S}_{Axis}\text{
= 0.} \label{S=0 of n=0}$$
[l]{} Table 2. The S-Number of the Bands with $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (0, 0, 0)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\overrightarrow{n}$ Axis Energy Band $\text{S}_{Axis}$ $\Delta S $\Delta $E$^{\#}$
\text{S}$
---------------------- -------------- -------------------------------------------------------- ------------------- ----------- --- -------------------
(0, 0, 0) $\ \Delta $ E$_{\Gamma }$=0$\rightarrow $E$_{H}$=1 0 0 0 0
(0, 0, 0) $\ \Lambda $ E$_{\Gamma }$=0$\rightarrow $E$_{P}$=$\frac{3}{4}$ -1 +1 0 0
(0, 0, 0) $\ \Sigma $ E$_{\Gamma }$=0$\rightarrow $E$_{N}$=$\frac{1}{2}$ -2 +2 0 0
(0, 0, 0) D E$_{N}$=$\frac{1}{2}\rightarrow $E$_{P}$=$\frac{3}{4}$ 0 0 0 0
(0, 0, 0) F E$_{P}$=$\frac{3}{4}\rightarrow $E$_{H}$=1 -1 +1 0 0
(0, 0, 0) G E$_{N}$=$\frac{1}{2}\rightarrow $E$_{M}$=1 -2 +2 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
[\# Since S = C = b =0, from (\[Dalta-E\]), ]{}$\Delta $[E = 0]{}
7\. We believe that the $\Delta $S is the result of the fluctuation of strange numbers of excited energy bands. Some energy bands have the fluctuations of the strange numbers ($\Delta $S $\neq $ 0), while some energy bands do not have the fluctuation of strange numbers ($\Delta $S = 0). It is necessary to find the conditions that determine the fluctuation of the strange numbers.
For the R-degenerate bands of an axis with rotary fold R, $\Delta S$ = 0. Such as: the fourfold bands of the $\Delta $-axis, the threefold bands of the $\Lambda $-axis and the twofold degenerate bands of the D-axis, $\Sigma $-axis and G-axis. For a group of energy bands with fold = $\gamma $R ($\gamma $ is an integer number 2 or 3 or 4), after first division, there may be $\gamma $ (R-degenerate) energy bands that have $\Delta $S = 0. For a group of degenerate energy bands with the deg R, using (6), we can get S; with (8), we can get I. If it has the same S and I as a quark of the current Quark Model, $\Delta $S = 0. For example, for the single energy bands of the $\Lambda $-axis (or the F-axis), it has S = -1 and I = 0 that is the same as the s-quark has, $\Delta $S = 0. The results are shown in Table A4 of Appendix A.
Otherwise, $\Delta $S $\neq $ 0, for a group with the deg R that has S and I that no quark of the current Quark Model has. For the single bands of the $\Delta $-axis, $\Sigma $-axis, D-axis and G-axis, and the double degenerate bands of the F-axis, $\Delta $S $\neq $ 0. Detailed results are shown in Table A5.
8\. The strange number from (\[S+DS\]) is not exactly the same as the strange number from (\[S-Number\]). In order to compare them with the experimental results, we would like to give new names under certain circumstances. The new names will be the charmed number and the bottom number. If S = +1, we call it the charmed number C: $$\text{if }\Delta \text{S = +1}\rightarrow \text{S =S}_{Ax}\text{+}\Delta
\text{S = +1, }C\text{ }\equiv \text{ +1.} \label{Charmed}$$ If S = -1$,$ which originates from $\Delta S=+1$ on a single energy band, and there is an energy fluctuation,$\ $we call it the bottom number b:$\ \
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $$$\text{for single bands, if\ }\Delta \text{S = +1}\rightarrow \text{S = -1
and }\Delta \text{E}\neq \text{0, b }\equiv \text{ -1.} \label{Battom}$$ Similarly, we can obtain charmed strange quarks q$_{\Xi _{C}}$ and q$_{\Omega _{C}}$.
9\. The sixfold energy bands of the F-axis (R = 3) need two divisions. In the first division, the sixfold band divides into two ($\frac{6}{R}$=2) threefold bands; the energy and the strange number do not change (S = -1 steel). In the second division (K = 1), the threefold bands with non-equivalent n values divide into a twofold band and a $\sin $gle band. For the twofold energy band, if $$\text{\lbrack (for sixfold bands) }\Delta \text{S = +1 and \ E \TEXTsymbol{>}
m}_{u_{c}}\text{(1753 Mev)]}\rightarrow \text{q}_{_{\Xi _{C}}}\text{,}
\label{Kersa-C}$$ the twofold energy band represents a twofold family q$_{\Xi _{C}}$-quark with S = -1 and C = +1.
The sixfold energy bands of the G-axis (R = 2) need two divisions also. In the first division, the sixfold band divides into three ($\frac{6}{R}$=3) twofold bands. The energy and the strange number do not change (S = -2). In the second division (K = 1), the twofold band with non-equivalent $\overrightarrow{n}$ values divides into two single bands. For a single energy band, if $$\text{\lbrack (for sixfold bands) }\Delta \text{S = +1 and \ E \TEXTsymbol{>}
m}_{u_{c}}\text{(1753 Mev)]}\rightarrow \text{d}_{\Omega _{C}}\text{,}
\label{Omiga-C}$$ the single energy band represents a d$_{\Omega _{C}}$-quark with S = -2 and C = +1.
10\. The elementary quark $\epsilon _{u}$ (or $\epsilon _{d}$) determines the electric charge Q of an excited quark $\epsilon _{u}$ (or $\epsilon _{d}$). For an excited quark of $\epsilon _{u}$ (or $\epsilon _{d}$), Q = +$\frac{2}{3}$ (or -$\frac{1}{3}$). For a quark with isospin I , there are 2I +1 members . Since the $\epsilon _{u}$-quark has I$_{z}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$ 0 and the $\epsilon _{d}$-quark has I$_{z}$ = -$\frac{1}{2}$ 0, for an excited quark with I$_{z}^{^{\prime }}$ 0 from (\[Formal-Iz\]), it is an excited quark of $\epsilon
_{u}$, its electric charge Q$_{q}$ is $$\text{Q}_{q}\text{ = Q}_{\epsilon _{u}}\text{ = }\frac{2}{3}. \label{2/3}$$ For an excited quark with I$_{z}^{^{\prime }}$ 0 from ([Formal-Iz]{}), it is an excited quark of $\epsilon _{d}$, its electric charge Q$_{q}$ is
$$\text{Q}_{q}\text{ = \ Q}_{\epsilon _{d}}\text{ = \ - }\frac{1}{3}.
\label{-1/3}$$
For I$_{z}^{^{\prime }}$ = 0, if S + C + b 0, $$\text{Q}_{q}\text{ = Q}_{\epsilon _{u}}\text{ = }\frac{2}{3}\text{;}
\label{2/3ofIz=0}$$ if S + C + b 0, $$\text{Q}_{q}\text{ = Q}_{\epsilon _{d}}\text{ = -}\frac{1}{3}\text{.}
\label{-1/3of Iz=0}$$ There is not any quark with I$_{z}^{^{\prime }}$ = 0 and S + C + b = 0.
11. After getting S, C, b and Q$_{\text{q}_{z^{\prime }}}$ (B = $\frac{1}{3}$) of a quark, we can deduce a physical I$_{z}$ of the quark using the generalized Gell-Mann-Nishijima relationship [@GMN]:
$$\text{Q}_{\text{q}_{z^{\prime }}}\text{ = I}_{z}\text{ + }\frac{1}{2}\text{(B + S + C + b),} \label{GMN}$$
where B is the baryon number (B = $\frac{1}{3}$) and Q$_{\text{q}_{z^{\prime
}}}$ is the electric charge of the quark. For the d$_{S}$-quark, B = $\frac{1}{3}$, S = -1, C = b = 0 and Q = -$\frac{1}{3},$ from (\[GMN\]), I$_{Z}$ = 0; for the u$_{C}$-quark, B = $\frac{1}{3}$, C = 1, S = b = 0 and Q = +$\frac{2}{3},$ from (\[GMN\]), I$_{Z}$ = 0. The physical I$_{Z}$-values of all low energy quarks will be shown in Table 10.
12\. The rest masses m$^{\ast }$ of the excited quarks are the minimum energy of the energy band (\[E(n,k)\]), $$\text{m}^{\ast }\text{ = \{V}_{0}\text{+}\alpha \times \text{minimum[(n}_{1}\text{-}\xi \text{)}^{2}\text{+(n}_{2}\text{-}\eta \text{)}^{2}\text{+(n}_{3}\text{-}\zeta \text{)}^{2}\text{]+}\Delta \text{E\},} \label{Q-Mass}$$ where $\Delta $E is the fluctuate energy of the excited quark. The fluctuations will increase as the energies increase. In order to take this effect into account, we define a fluctuation order number J. J depends on the symmetry axis, the symmetry point, energy bands and $\Delta $S. If $\Delta $S = 0, J = 0. For the energy bands on the $\Lambda $-axis, $\Delta $S = 0, J = 0. For a symmetry axis, the same fold energy bands with the same $\Delta $S and the same intrinsic quantum numbers (S, C and b), the fluctuation numbers are positive order integers 1, 2, 3, ... from the lowest energy band to higher bands. We give the J values for all fluctuation energy bands sufficient to cover the experimental data in Table B1-Table B7. The fluctuation energy $\Delta $E can be found with a phenomenological formula as follows:
$$\begin{tabular}{l}
$\Delta $E = 100\{$\Theta $C[2(J$_{C}$- 3.5I) -S] + KS $\text{+ }$(S +b)[(1
+S$_{Ax}$)(J$_{S,b}$ +S$_{Ax}$)]$\Delta S$\} \\
\ \ \ \ \ J$_{C}$ = 1, 2, 3, ... \ J$_{S,b}$= $\Theta $(1- S$_{Ax})$+ (1, 2,
3,...) ($\Delta $E = 0, for J $\leq \Theta $(1-S$_{Ax}$)).\end{tabular}
\label{Dalta-E}$$
From Table A3, for the axes $\Delta ,$ $\Sigma $ and $\Lambda $, $\Theta $ =0; for the axes D, F and G, $\Theta $ = 1. S$_{Ax}$ is the strange number of the symmetry axis. J$_{C}$ is the order number of the charmed quarks from low energy to high energy in a symmetry axis (see Table B5, Table B6 and Table B7). J$_{S.b}$ is the fluctuation order number of the fluctuation energy bands with S $\neq $ 0 or b $\neq $ 0. As an example, we can deduce the $\Delta $E of the energy bands with $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (0, 0, 0) using (\[Dalta-E\]). From Table 2, for these energy bands, C = S = b = 0, we have $\Delta $E = 0.
We find the parameters V$_{0}$ and $\alpha $ now. According to the Quark Model [@Quark; @Model], a baryon is composed of three different colored quarks. In particular the proton and the neutron are given by $$\text{p = uud and \ n = udd,}$$ so that, if E$_{bind}$ represents the binding energy of a proton or a neutron, then $$\begin{tabular}{l}
M$_{P}$ = m$_{u}+$ m$_{u}+$ m$_{d}$ - $\left\vert \text{E}_{bind}\right\vert
,$ \\
M$_{n}$ = m$_{u}+$ m$_{d}+$ m$_{d}$ - $\left\vert \text{E}_{bind}\right\vert
$.\end{tabular}
\label{Mp, Mn}$$ If omitting electric masses, we have an approximation, $$\begin{tabular}{l}
M$_{P}\sim $M$_{n}$= 939 Mev, \\
m$_{u}=$ m$_{d}.$\end{tabular}
\label{939Mev}$$ Thus, from (\[Mp, Mn\]) and (\[939Mev\]), we have $$\text{m}_{u}\text{ = m}_{d}\text{ = }\frac{1}{3}\text{(939 +}\left\vert
\text{E}_{bind}\right\vert \text{) = 313 +}\frac{1}{3}\left\vert \text{E}_{bind}\right\vert \text{,} \label{313Mev}$$ where E$_{bind}$ is the total binding energy of the three quarks (colors) in a baryon. We use $\Delta $ = $\frac{1}{3}\left\vert \text{E}_{bind}\right\vert $ that is the phenomenological approximations of the color’s strong interaction energies. Since the three colors are the same for all baryons, $\Delta $ is an unknown positive constant for all baryons. It originates from the three colors of the three quark inside the baryons. Since high energy scattering experiments (an uncounted number) have not separated the quarks inside the baryons, it means that $\left\vert
E_{bind}\right\vert $ (3$\Delta $) is much larger than M$_{p}$, $$\Delta \text{ = }\frac{1}{3}\left\vert \text{E}_{bind}\right\vert \text{
\TEXTsymbol{>}\TEXTsymbol{>} M}_{p}\text{.} \label{Dalta}$$ The lowest mass of the quarks is the rest mass of the u-quark (or the d-quark) (\[313Mev\]). From (\[Q-Mass\]), (\[313Mev\]) and (\[Dalta\]), the lowest quark mass is $$\text{m}_{_{\text{Lowest}}}^{\ast }\text{ = V}_{0}\text{ = (313+}\Delta
\text{) Mev.} \label{V=313}$$ Fitting experimental results, we can get $$\alpha \text{ = 360 Mev.} \label{Alpha=360}$$ The rest mass (m$^{\ast }$) of a quark, from (\[Q-Mass\]), is $$\begin{tabular}{l}
$\text{m}^{\ast }\text{ = \{313+ 360 minimum[(n}_{1}\text{-}\xi \text{)}^{2}\text{+(n}_{2}\text{-}\eta \text{)}^{2}\text{+(n}_{3}\text{-}\zeta \text{)}^{2}\text{]+}\Delta \text{E+}\Delta \text{\} (Mev)}$ \\
\ \ \ \ = m + $\Delta $ \ (Mev),\end{tabular}
\label{Rest Mass}$$ where $\Delta $E is in (\[Dalta-E\]). $\Delta $ is an unknown large constant ($\Delta $ M$_{P}$). Since (-3$\Delta $) is the three colors interaction energy, from (\[313Mev\]) and ([Dalta]{}), the $\Delta $ part in (\[Rest Mass\]) of quark mass is from the color. This formula (\[Rest Mass\]) is the united rest mass formula for quarks.
In the next section, we will use the above phenomenological formulae to deduce the rest masses and the intrinsic quantum numbers (S, C, b, I and Q) of the quarks (a quark spectrum).
The Quark Spectrum
===============================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================================
Using the above formulae, we can deduce an excited (from the vacuum) quark spectrum. We will find the energy band excited states of the elementary $\epsilon $-quarks first.
The Energy Bands
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to show how to calculate the energy bands, we give the calculation of some low energy bands in the $\Delta $-axis as an example.
First we find the formulae for the E($\vec{k}$, $\vec{n}$) at the points $\Gamma $, H and $\Delta $ of the $\Delta $-axis (see Fig. 1). From ([E(n,k)]{}), (\[Sym-Point\]), (\[V=313\]) and (\[Alpha=360\]), we get: $$\text{E(}\vec{k}\text{,}\vec{n}\text{) = 313+}\Delta \text{+ }360\text{ E}_{\vec{k}}(\text{n}_{1},\text{n}_{2},\text{n}_{3})\text{;} \label{Epoint}$$ $$\text{E}_{\vec{k}}(\text{n}_{1},\text{n}_{2},\text{n}_{3})\text{ = [(n}_{1}\text{-}\xi \text{)}^{2}\text{+(n}_{2}\text{-}\eta \text{)}^{2}\text{+(n}_{3}\text{-}\zeta \text{)}^{2}\text{].}$$ $$\text{For }\Gamma \text{ = (0, 0, 0), E(}\vec{k}\text{,}\vec{n}\text{) = 313+}\Delta \text{+ 360E}_{\Gamma }\text{, \ \ E}_{\Gamma }\text{ = (n}_{1}^{2}\text{ + n}_{2}^{2}\text{ + n}_{3}^{2}\text{);} \label{Gama}$$ $$\text{for H = (0, 0, 1), E(}\vec{k}\text{,}\vec{n}\text{) = 313+}\Delta
\text{+ 360E}_{\text{H}}\text{, \ \ E}_{\text{H}}\text{ = [n}_{1}^{2}\text{
+ n}_{2}^{2}\text{ + (n}_{3}\text{-1)}^{2}\text{];} \label{H-E}$$ $$\text{for }\Delta \text{ = (0, 0, }\zeta \text{), E(}\vec{k}\text{,}\vec{n}\text{) = 313+}\Delta \text{+360E}_{\Delta },\text{ \ \ E}_{\Delta }\text{=
[n}_{1}^{2}\text{ + n}_{2}^{2}\text{ + (n}_{3}\text{-}\zeta \text{)}^{2}\text{].} \label{E-Dalta}$$
Then, using (\[Gama\])–(\[E-Dalta\]) and beginning from the lowest energy, we get:
A1. The lowest E($\vec{k}$, $\vec{n}$) is at ($\xi $, $\eta $, $\zeta $) = 0 (the $\Gamma $-point) and $\vec{n}$ = (0, 0, 0). From (\[Gama\]) and ([Epoint]{}) , we have $$\vec{n}\text{ = (0, 0, 0), E}_{\Gamma }\text{(0, 0, 0) = 0, E(}\overrightarrow{0}\text{,}\overrightarrow{0}\text{) = 313 + }\Delta \text{.}$$
A2. Starting from E$_{\Gamma }$= 0 \[E($\overrightarrow{0}$,$\overrightarrow{0}$) = 313 +$\Delta $ (Mev)\], from (\[V=313\]) and (\[Alpha=360\]), we find that there is one energy band (the lowest energy band) E$_{\Delta }$ = $\zeta ^{2}$ ($\zeta $ = 0$\rightarrow $1) along the $\Delta $-axis, with n$_{1}$ = n$_{2}$ = n$_{3}$ = 0 (see(\[E-Dalta\])) ended at the point E$_{H}$ = 673 +$\Delta $: $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{n}\text{ = (0, 0, 0) (single band), \ } \\
\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{\ = 0\ }\rightarrow \text{\ E}_{\Delta }\text{ = }\zeta ^{2}\text{ (}\zeta \text{ = 0}\rightarrow \text{1)}\rightarrow \text{E}_{\text{H}}\text{ =1,} \\
\text{E(}\Gamma \text{,}0\text{) = 313+}\Delta \rightarrow \text{E(}\Delta ,0\text{) = 313+}\Delta \text{+}\zeta ^{2}\rightarrow \text{E(H,}0\text{)= 673+}\Delta \text{.\ \ \ \ \ \ \ }\end{gathered}$$
A3. At the end point H, the energy E(H,0) = 673 +$\Delta $. When $n=(\pm
1,0,1)$, $(0,\pm 1,1)$, and (0,0,2), E(H,$\overrightarrow{n}$) = 673 +$\Delta $ also (see (\[H-E\])). Starting from E$_{H}$ = 673 +$\Delta $, along the $\Delta $-axis, we find there are three energy bands ending at the points E$_{\Gamma }=$313 +$\Delta $, $E_{\Gamma }=$ 1033 +$\Delta $ and $E_{\Gamma }=$ 1753 +$\Delta $, respectively: $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{n}\text{ = (0, 0, 0) (single band), } \\
\text{E}_{H}\text{ =1}\rightarrow \text{E}_{\Delta }\text{= }\zeta ^{2}\text{\ (\ }\zeta \text{=1}\rightarrow \text{0)}\rightarrow \text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{\ = 0,} \\
\text{E{\small (H, 0) }=673+}\Delta \rightarrow \text{E}(\Delta ,0)\text{
=313+}\Delta \text{+}\alpha \text{ }\zeta ^{2}\rightarrow \text{E{\small (}}\Gamma \text{, {\small 0) }= 313+}\Delta \text{\ ; }\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{n}\text{ = (0, 0, 2) (single band), \ \ } \\
\text{E}_{H}\text{ =1}\rightarrow \text{E}_{\Delta }\text{= (2-}\zeta \text{)}^{2}\text{\ (\ }\zeta \text{=1}\rightarrow \text{0)}\rightarrow \text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{\ = 4,} \\
\text{E{\small (H,002)}= 673+}\Delta \rightarrow \text{E}_{\Delta }\text{=
313+}\Delta \text{+}\alpha \text{(2-}\zeta \text{)}^{2}\rightarrow \text{E}{\small (\Gamma },{\small 002)}\text{ =1753+}\Delta \text{; }\end{gathered}$$ $$\begin{gathered}
\vec{n}\text{ = (}{\small \pm }\text{1, 0, 1) and (0,}\pm \text{1, 1)
(fourfold degeneracy), \ \ } \\
\text{E}_{H}\text{ =1}\rightarrow \text{E}_{\Delta }\text{= 313+}\Delta
+\alpha \text{[1+(1- }\zeta \text{)}^{2}\text{]\ (\ }\zeta \text{=1}\rightarrow \text{0)}\rightarrow \text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{\ = 2,} \\
\text{E(H;}{\small \pm }\text{{\small 1,0,1)} =673+}\Delta \rightarrow \text{E}_{\Delta }\text{=673+}\Delta \text{+}\alpha \text{(1-}\zeta \text{)}^{2}\rightarrow \text{E}{\small (\Gamma }\text{{\small ;}}{\small \pm 1}\text{{\small ,0,1)}=1033+}\Delta \text{,} \\
\text{E(H;{\small 0}}{\small ,\pm }\text{{\small 1,1}}{\small )}\text{ =673+}\Delta \rightarrow \text{E}_{\Delta }\text{=673+}\Delta \text{+}\alpha \text{(1-}\zeta \text{)}^{2}\rightarrow \text{E}{\small (\Gamma }\text{{\small ;0,}}{\small \pm }\text{{\small 1,1}}{\small )}\text{=1033+}\Delta \text{.}\end{gathered}$$ Continuing this process, we can find all low energy bands of the $\Delta $-axis. We show the energy bands in Table B1 of the Appendix B.
Similarly, we deduce all low energy bands on the $\Lambda $-axis, the $\Sigma $-axis, the D-axis, the F-axis and the G-axis. These low energy bands are sufficient to cover experimental data. We show these energy bands in Table B2–Table B7 of the Appendix B.
The Excited Quarks of the Elementary $\protect\epsilon $-Quarks
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### The Quarks on the $\Delta$-Axis (the $\Gamma$-H axis)****
Since the $\Delta $-axis is a fourfold rotatory axis (see Fig. 1), R = 4. From (\[S-Number\]), we get S = 0. Because the axis has $R=4$, we can use (\[deg > R\]) and (\[Subdeg\]) to determine that the energy bands with 8-fold degeneracy will be divided into two fourfold degenerate bands (K = 0 from Table A3).
1\. The Quarks of the Fourfold Degenerate Bands on the $\Delta $-Axis
For fourfold degenerate bands, using (\[IsoSpin\]), we get I = $\frac{3}{2}
$ and I$_{Z}^{^{\prime }}=\frac{\text{3}}{2}$, $\frac{\text{1}}{2}$, -$\frac{\text{1}}{2}$, -$\frac{\text{3}}{2}$, from (\[Formal-Iz\]). Thus each fourfold degenerate band represents a fourfold quark family, q$_{\Delta }$(=q$_{\Delta }^{\frac{3}{2}}$, q$_{\Delta }^{\frac{1}{2}}$, q$_{\Delta }^{\frac{-1}{2}}$, q$_{\Delta }^{\frac{-3}{2}}$), with $$\text{B = }\frac{\text{1}}{3}\text{, S = 0, I = }\frac{\text{3}}{2}\text{, I}_{z}^{^{\prime }}\text{ = }\frac{\text{3}}{2}\text{, }\frac{\text{1}}{2}\text{, -}\frac{\text{1}}{2}\text{, -}\frac{\text{3}}{2}\text{.}
\label{3/2-Quark}$$ Using Table B1, we can get E$_{\Gamma }$, E$_{\text{H}}$ and $\vec{n}$ values. When we put the values of E$_{\Gamma }$ and E$_{\text{H}}$ into the rest mass formula (\[Rest Mass\]), we can find the rest mass m$_{q_{\Delta
}}^{\ast }$. $\func{Si}$nce $\Theta $ = K = $\Delta $S = 0 {see Table A3 and A4}, from (\[Dalta-E\]), $\Delta $E =0. Thus we have \[q$_{\Delta }$ = (q$_{\Delta }^{\frac{3}{2}}$, q$_{\Delta }^{\frac{1}{2}}$, q$_{\Delta }^{\frac{-1}{2}}$, q$_{\Delta }^{\frac{-3}{2}}$)\]:
[l]{} Table 3. The q$_{\Delta }$(m$^{\ast }$)-quarks\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E$_{Point}$ $\text{(n}_{1}\text{n}_{2}\text{n}_{3}\text{, ... )}$ E($\overrightarrow{k,}\overrightarrow{n}$) I $\Delta $S J $\Delta E$ $q_{\Delta }$[(m]{}$^{\ast }$[(Mev))]{}
------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- --------------- ------------ --- ------------ -----------------------------------------------------------
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=1}$ $\text{(101,-101,011,0-11)}$ $\text{673}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ 0 0 0 $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(673+}\Delta \text{)}$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=2}$ $\text{(110,1-10,-110,-1-10,}$ $\text{1033} $\frac{3}{2}$ 0 0 0 $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(1033+}\Delta \text{{\small )}}$
$
$\text{10-1,-10-1,01-1,0-1-1)}$ $\text{1033}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ 0 0 0 $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(1033+}\Delta \text{{\small )}}$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=3}$ $\text{(112,1-12,-112,-1-12)}$ $\text{1393}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ 0 0 0 $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(1393+}\Delta \text{)}$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=4}$ $\text{(200,-200,020,0-20)}$ $\text{1753}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ 0 0 0 $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(1753+}\Delta \text{)}
$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=5}$ $\text{(121,1-21,-121,--1-21,}$ $\text{2113}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ 0 0 0 $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(2113+}\Delta \text{)}$
$\text{{\small \ }211,2-11,-211,-2-11)}$ $\text{2113}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ 0 0 0 $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(2113+}\Delta \text{)}$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=5}$ $\text{(202,-202,022,0-22)}$ $\text{2113}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ 0 0 0 $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(2113+}\Delta \text{)}$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=5}$ $\text{(013,0-13,103,-103)}$ $\text{2113}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ 0 0 0 $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(2113+}\Delta \text{)}$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=6}$ $\text{(12}\overline{\text{1}}\text{,1}\overline{\text{2}}\overline{\text{1}}\text{,}\overline{\text{1}}\text{21,}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{\text{2}}\overline{\text{1}},$ $\text{2473}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ 0 0 0 $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{({\small 2473}+}\Delta \text{)}$
[ 21]{}$\overline{\text{1}}$[,2]{}$\overline{\text{1}}\overline{\text{1}}$[,]{}$\overline{\text{2}}$[1]{}$\overline{\text{1}}$[,]{}$\overline{\text{2}}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{\text{1}}$[)]{} $\text{2473}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ 0 0 0 $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{({\small 2473}+}\Delta \text{)}$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=6}$ $\text{(11}\overline{\text{2}}\text{,1}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{\text{2}}\text{,}\overline{\text{1}}\text{1}\overline{\text{2}}\text{,}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{\text{2}}\text{)}$ $\text{2473}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ 0 0 0 $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{({\small 2473}+}\Delta \text{)}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2\. The Quarks of the Single Energy Bands on the $\Delta $-Axis
For the single bands on the $\Delta $-axis (see Table B1), R = 4, S$_{\Delta
}$ = 0 from (\[S-Number\]); deg = 1, I = 0 from (\[IsoSpin\]). For the single bands, using (\[S+DS\]) instead of (\[S-Number\]), we find that $\Delta $S = +1 at E$_{\Gamma }$ = 4, 16, 36, ... from (\[DaltaS\]) and $\Delta $S = -1 at E$_{\text{H}}$= 1, 9, 25, 49, ... from (\[DaltaS\]). For $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (0, 0, 0), from Table 2, S = C = b = 0; from ([Dalta-E]{}), $\Delta $E = 0. For other energy bands, $\Theta $ = K = b = 0 (see Table A3), from (\[Dalta-E\]), $\Delta $E = 100$\text{ }$S J$_{S}\Delta S$, J$_{S}$ = 1, 2, 3,.... Using (\[Charmed\]), we have:
[l]{} Table 4. The u$_{C}$(m$^{\ast }$)-quarks and the d$_{S}$(m$^{\ast }$)-quarks\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\text{E}_{Point}$ E($\overrightarrow{k}$,$\overrightarrow{n}$) $\text{n}_{1,}\text{n}_{2,}\text{n}_{3}$ $\Delta \text{S}$ J I S C $\Delta \text{E}$ $q_{\text{{\small Name}}}$[(m]{}$^{\ast }$[(Mev))]{}
-------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ------------------- --------------------------------- --------------- ---- --- ------------------- ------------------------------------------------------
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=0}$ 313 $\text{{\small 0,\ \ 0, \ 0}}$ 0 J$\text{ = 0}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ 0 0 0 $\text{u(313+}\Delta \text{)}$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=1}$ 673 $\text{{\small 0, \ 0, \ 2}}$ -1 J$_{\text{S,H}}\text{=1}$ 0 -1 0 100 $\text{d}_{S}\text{(773+}\Delta
\text{)}$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=4}$ 1753 $\text{{\small 0, \ 0, -2}}$ +1 J$_{\text{C,}\Gamma }\text{=1}$ 0 0 1 0 $\text{u}_{C}\text{(1753+}\Delta \text{)}$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=9}$ 3553 $\text{{\small 0, \ 0, \ 4}}$ -1 J$_{\text{S,H}}\text{=2}$ 0 -1 0 200 $\text{d}_{S}\text{(3753+}\Delta
\text{)}$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=16}$ 6073 $\text{{\small 0, \ 0, -4}}$ +1 J$_{\text{C,}\Gamma }\text{=2}$ 0 0 1 0 $\text{u}_{C}\text{(6073+}\Delta \text{)}$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=25}$ $\text{9313}$ $\text{{\small 0, \ 0, \ 6}}$ -1 J$_{\text{S,H}}\text{=3}$ 0 -1 0 300 $\text{d}_{S}\text{(9613+}\Delta \text{)}$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=36}$ $\text{13273}$ $\text{{\small 0, \ 0, -6}} +1 J$_{\text{C,}\Gamma }\text{=3}$ 0 0 1 0 $\text{u}_{C}\text{(13273+}\Delta \text{)}$
$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=49}$ $\text{17953}$ $\text{{\small 0, \ 0, \ 8}}$ -1 J$_{\text{S,H}}\text{=4}$ 0 -1 0 400 $\text{d}_{S}\text{(18353+}\Delta \text{)}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### The Quarks on the $\Sigma $-Axis ($\Gamma $-N)
The $\Sigma $-axis is a twofold rotatory axis, R = 2, from (\[S-Number\]) S = - 2 .
1\. The Quarks of the Twofold Degenerate Energy Bands on the $\Sigma $-axis ($\Gamma $-N)
For the twofold degenerate energy bands, each represents a quark family q$_{\Xi }$ (q$_{\Xi }^{\frac{1}{2}}$, q$_{\Xi }^{-\frac{1}{2}}$) with B = 1/3, S = -2, I = 1/2 from (\[IsoSpin\]), I$_{z}^{^{\prime }}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$, -$\frac{1}{2}$ from (\[Formal-Iz\]) and Q =$\frac{2}{3}$, $\frac{-1}{3}$ from (\[2/3\]) and (\[-1/3\])$.$ $\func{Si}$nce $\Theta $ = K = $\Delta
$S = 0 (see Table A3 and Table A4), from (\[Dalta-E\]), $\Delta $E =0. Similar to Table 3, we have \[$q_{\Xi }$ (q$_{\Xi }^{\frac{1}{2}}$, q$_{\Xi
}^{-\frac{1}{2}}$)\]: $\ $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5. The $\text{q}_{\Xi }\text{(m}^{\ast }\text{)-}$quarks on Twofold Energy Bands
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
E$\_[Point]{}$ & $\_[1]{}\_[2]{}\_[3]{}$ & $S\_$ & I &
E($$,$$) & $$S & J & $$E &
$\_\^$ \\ \hline
$E\_=2$ & $($ & -2 & $$ & $$
& 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$E\_[N]{}=$ & $$ & -2 & $$ & $$
& 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$E\_=4$ & $$ & -2 & $$ & $$ & 0
& 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
& $$ & -2 & $$ & $$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$E\_[N]{}=$ & $$ & -2 & $$ & $ $ & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & .... \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2\. The Quarks of the Fourfold Degenerate Energy Bands on the $\Sigma -$Axis
According to (\[deg > R\]) and (\[Subdeg\]), each fourfold degenerate energy band on the $\Sigma $-axis with R = 2 divides into two twofold degenerate bands. From Table 5, each of them represents a quark family q$_{\Xi }$ (q$_{\Xi }^{\frac{1}{2}}$, q$_{\Xi }^{-\frac{1}{2}}$) with B = 1/3, S = -2, I = 1/2, I$_{z}^{^{\prime }}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$, -$\frac{1}{2}$ and Q = $\frac{2}{3}$, $\frac{-1}{3}$. Thus we have \[since $\Theta $ = K = $\Delta $S = 0, from (\[Dalta-E\]), $\Delta $E =0\]:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6. The $\text{q}_{\Xi }\text{(m}^{\ast }\text{)-}$quarks on Fourfold Energy Bands
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
E$\_[Point]{}$ & $\_[1]{}\_[2]{}\_[3]{}$ & I & S
& $$S & J & $$E & $\_${\small (m}$\^${\small (Mev))} \\ \hline
$E\_[N]{}=$ & $()$ & $$ & -2 & 0
& 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\
\hline
$E\_=2$ & $()$ & $$ & -2 & 0
& 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\
\hline
$E\_[N]{}=$ & $()$ & $$ & -2 & 0
& 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... . \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3\. The Quarks of the Single Energy Bands on the $\Sigma $-axis ($\Gamma $-N)
For the single bands on the $\Sigma $-axis (see Table B2), R = 2, S$_{\Sigma
}$ = -2 from (\[S-Number\]); deg = 1, I = 0 from (\[IsoSpin\]). Using (\[S+DS\]) instead of (\[S-Number\]), we get $\Delta $S = +1 at E$_{N}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{9}{2}$, $\frac{25}{2}$, $\frac{49}{2}$, $\frac{81}{2}$, ... from (\[DaltaS\]); at E$_{\Gamma }$ = 2, 8, 18, 32, ... $\Delta $S = -1 from (\[DaltaS\]) . For $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (0, 0, 0), from Table 2, S = b = $\Theta $ = K = 0, $\Delta $E = 0 (\[Dalta-E\]). For other bands, since $\Theta $ = K = 0, from (\[Dalta-E\]), $\Delta $E = - 100(S+b)(J$_{S,b}$-2)$\Delta $S, J$_{S}$ = 3, 4, 5, ...; $\Delta $E = 0 J$_{S}$ 3. Using (\[Battom\]), similar to Table 4, we have:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 7. The d$_{\Omega }$(m$^{\ast }$)-quarks and d$_{S}$(m$^{\ast }$)-quarks
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
E$\_[Point]{}$ & $\_[1]{}\_[2]{}\_[3]{}$ & $$ &
S & b & $ $ & I & E($$,$$)
& $$ & $d${\small (m}$\^${\small (Mev))} \\ \hline
$\_$ & (0, 0, 0) & +2 & 0 & 0 & J$\_$ & $$ & 313 & \ \ 0 & d(313$$) \\
\hline
$\_[N]{}$ & $()$ & +1 & -1 & 0 & J$\_$ & 0 & $$ & \ \ 0 & $\_[S]{}$ \\ \hline
$\_$ & $()$ & -1 & -3 & 0 & J$\_$ & 0 & $$ & \ \ 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$\_[N]{}$ & $()$ & +1 & -1 & 0 & J$\_$ & 0 & $$ & \ \ 0 & $\_[S]{}$ \\ \hline
$\_$ & $()$ & -1 & -3 & 0 & J$\_$ & 0 & $$ & \ \ 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$\_[N]{}$ & $()$ & +1 & 0 & -1 &
J$\_$ & 0 & $$ & 100 & $\_[b]{}$ \\ \hline
$\_$ & $()$ & -1 & -3 & 0 & J$\_$ & 0 & $$ & -300 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$\_[N]{}$ & $()$ & +1 & 0 & -1 &
J$\_$ & 0 & $$ & 200 & $\_[b]{}$ \\ \hline
$\_$ & $$ & -1 & -3 & 0 & J$\_$ & 0 & $$ & -600 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$\_[N]{}$ & $()$ & +1 & 0 & -1 &
J$\_$ & 0 & $$ & 300 & $\_[b]{}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ $
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
### The Quarks on the $\Lambda $-Axis ($\Gamma $-P)
Since the $\Lambda $-axis is a threefold rotatory axis (see Fig. 1), R = 3, from (\[S-Number\]) we have S = -1. From Table B3, we see that there are two single energy bands with $\vec{n}$ = (0, 0, 0) and $\vec{n}$ = (2, 2, 2), and all other bands are either threefold degenerate energy bands (deg = 3) or sixfold degenerate bands (deg = 6). From (\[deg > R\]) and ([Subdeg]{}), the sixfold degenerate energy bands will divide into two threefold energy bands.
1\. The Quarks of the Threefold Degenerate Energy Bands on the $\Lambda $-Axis ($\Gamma $-P)
For the threefold degenerate energy bands, using (\[IsoSpin\]), ([Formal-Iz]{}), (\[2/3\]) and (\[-1/3\]), we have I = 1 and I$_{z}^{^{\prime }}$ = 1, 0, -1. Thus we get a three-member quark family q$_{\Sigma }$(q$_{\Sigma }^{1}$, q$_{\Sigma }^{0}$, q$_{\Sigma }^{-1}$) with B = 1/3, S = -1 and I = 1. $\func{Si}$nce $\Theta $ = K = $\Delta $S = 0, from (\[Dalta-E\]), $\Delta $E =0.$\ $Using Table B3, we have:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 8. The q$_{\Sigma }$(m$^{\ast }$)-quarks (S = S$_{Ax}$ + $\Delta $S = -1)
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
E$\_[Point]{}$ & ($\_[1]{}\_[2]{}\_[3]{}$, ...) & E($$,$$) & I & $$S & J & $$E
& $\_\^$ \\ \hline
$\_$ & $$ & {\small 583} & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$\_$ & $$ & $$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
& $$ & $$ & 1 & 0 & 0
& 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$\_$ & $$ & $$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$\_$ & $$ & $$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$\_$ & $$ & $$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$\_$ & $$ & $$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_ $ \\ \hline
$\_$ & $$ & $$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
& $$ & $$ & 1 & 0 & 0
& 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$\_$ & $$ & $$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$\_$ & $$ & $$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$$ & $$ & $ $ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$
\\ \hline
$\_$ & $$ & $$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
& $$ & $$ & 1 & 0
& 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
$\_$ & $$ & $$ & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $\_$ \\ \hline
... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & .... \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ $
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2\. The Single Energy Bands
For the single bands, S$_{Ax}$ = -1, I = 0 and $\Delta $E = 0. From Table 2, for $\overrightarrow{n}$= (0, 0, 0), $\Delta $S = -S$_{axis}\rightarrow $ S = 0. At E$_{\text{P}}$ = $\frac{27}{4},\overrightarrow{n}$= (2, 2, 2), S$_{Ax}$ = -1, I = 0 and $\Delta $S = $\Delta $E = 0:
[l]{} Table 9. The d$_{S}(m^{\ast })$-quarks on the Single Bands of the $\Lambda $-axis\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E$_{\text{Point}}$ $\text{n}_{1},\text{n}_{2},\text{n}_{3}$ E($\overrightarrow{k}$,$\overrightarrow{n}$) I S$_{\text{Axis}}$ $\Delta $S J S C b d[(m]{}$^{\ast }$[(Mev))]{}
--------------------------------- ------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------- --------------- ------------------- ------------ ----- ----- ----- ----- -----------------------------------
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 0 }$ $\text{{\small (0, 0, 0)}}$ 313 $\frac{1}{2}$ -1 1 0 0 0 0 $\text{d(313+}\Delta \text{)}$
$E_{\text{P}}=\frac{27}{4}$ $\text{{\small (2, 2, 2)}}$ $\text{{\small 2743}}$ 0 -1 0 0 -1 0 0 $\text{d}_{S}\text{(2743+}\Delta
\text{)}$
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuing the above procedure, we can deduce low energy excited quarks on the D-axis, the F-axis and the G-axis. Using Table B1-Table B7, we show the excited quarks of low energies that are sufficient to cover experimental data (see Appendix B).
The Quark Spectrum
---------------------------------
In this section, from the energy bands in Table B1-Table B7, using phenomenological formulae S = R - 4, deg = 2I + 1, S = S$_{Ax}$+$\Delta $S {$\Delta $S = $\delta $($\widetilde{n}$) + \[1-2$\delta $(S$_{axis}$)\]Sign($\widetilde{n}$)}, (\[2/3\]), (\[-1/3\]), (\[Charmed\]), (\[Battom\]), (\[Kersa-C\]) and (\[Omiga-C\]), we have deduced the strange numbers (S), the isospins (I), the electric charges (Q), the charmed numbers (C) and the bottom numbers (b) of the quarks. For each deduced quark there are always three different colored members. These three different colored quarks have exactly the same rest masses and intrinsic quantum numbers. We can omit the colors as we show the deduced intrinsic quantum numbers in Table 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10. The Quantum Numbers of the Quarks
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
q$\_\^[\_[Z]{}\^[\^]{}]{}$ & q$\_[N]{}\^$ & q$\_[N]{}\^$ & q$\_\^$ & q$\_\^$ & q$\_\^$ & q$\_\^$ & q$\_\^[1]{}$ & q$\_\^[0]{}$ & q$\_\^[-1]{}$ \\ \hline
S & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & -1 & -1 \\ \hline
C & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
b & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
I & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
I$\_[Z]{}\^[\^]{}$ & $$ & -$$ & $$ & $$ & -$$ & -$$ & 1 & 0 & -1 \\ \hline
$\_[q]{}$ & $$ & -$$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ \\ \hline
$\_\^[\_]{}$ & u$\_[N]{}\^$ & d$\_[N]{}\^$ & u$\_\^$ & u$\_\^$ & d$\_\^$ & d$\_\^$ & u$\_\^[1]{}$ & \ d$\_\^[0]{}$ & d$\_\^[0]{}$ \\ \hline
I$\_[Z]{}$ & $$ & -$$ & $$ & $$ & -$$ & -$$ & \ 1 & \ 0 & 0 \\ \hline
{*}**** & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** \\ \hline
q$\_\^[\_[Z]{}\^[\^]{}]{}$ & q$\_\^$ & q$\_\^$ & q$\_[S]{}\^[0]{}$ & q$\_\^[0]{}$ & q$\_[C]{}\^[0]{}$ & q$\_[b]{}\^[0]{}$ & q$\_[\_[C]{}]{}\^[0]{}$ & q$\_[\_[C]{}]{}\^$ & q$\_[\_[C]{}]{}\^$ \\ \hline
S & -2 & -2 & -1 & -3 & 0 & 0 & -2 & -1 & -1 \\ \hline
C & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
b & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
I & $$ & $$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $$ & $$ \\ \hline
I$\_[Z]{}\^$ & $$ & -$$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & $$ & -$$ \\ \hline
$\_[q]{}$ & $$ & -$$ & -$$ & -$$ & $$ & -$$ & -$$ & $$ & -$$ \\ \hline
$\_\^[\_[Z]{}]{}$ & u$\_\^$ & d$\_\^$ & d$\_[S]{}\^[0]{}$ & d$\_\^[1]{}$ & u$\_[C]{}\^[0]{}$ & d$\_[b]{}\^[0]{}$ & d$\_[\_[C]{}]{}\^[0]{}$ & u$\_[\_[C]{}]{}\^$ & d$\_[\_[C]{}]{}\^$ \\ \hline
I$\_[z]{}$ & $$ & $$ & 0 & 1 & $0$ & 0 & 0 & $$
& -$$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[The name of q]{}$_{\text{Name}}^{\text{I}_{z}^{^{\prime }}}$[is the name of the excited quark; I]{}$_{Z}^{^{\prime }}$[ is the formal z-component of the isospin of the q]{}$_{\text{Name}}^{\text{I}_{z}^{^{\prime }}}$[ (\[Formal-Iz\]). The I]{}$_{z}$[ of ]{}$\epsilon _{\text{Name}}^{\text{I}_{Z}}$[ is the physical z-component of the isospin of the excited quark ]{}$\epsilon _{\text{Name}}^{\text{I}_{Z}}$[ from I]{}$_{z}$[ = Q]{}$_{q}$[ -]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[(B+S+C+b). The Q]{}$_{q}$[ is the electric charge of the excited quark q]{}$_{\text{Name}}^{\text{I}_{Z}^{^{\prime }}}$[. ]{}
Using the phenomenological united rest mass formula (\[Rest Mass\]), we have deduced the rest masses of the quarks. We show the low rest masses quarks that are sufficient to cover experimental data in Table 11. Since the three different colored quarks with the same flavor have completely the same rest mass and quantum numbers, we can omit the colors in Table 11.
[|l|]{} Table 11. The Quark Spectrum\
The Elementary Quark $\epsilon $ \[$\epsilon _{u}$ and $\epsilon _{d}$\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\epsilon _{u}$: I =$\frac{1}{2}$, s =$\frac{1}{2}$ , S = C = b =0, I$_{z}$=$\frac{1}{2}$, m$_{\epsilon _{u}(0)}$ = 0 and one of 3 colors
$\epsilon _{d}$: I =$\frac{1}{2}$, s =$\frac{1}{2}$ , S = C = b =0, I$_{z}$=$\frac{-1}{2}$, m$_{\epsilon _{d}(0)}$ = 0 and one of 3 colors
\
The Excited Quarks q$_{\text{Name}}^{\Delta \text{S}}$((m+$\Delta $)(Mev)) of $\epsilon $\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Unflavored Quarks[ \[The Ground Quarks are]{}** u**$^{0}$**(313**$\text{+}\Delta $**)**[ and ]{}**d**$^{0}$**(313**$\text{+}\Delta $**)**[\]]{}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D-Axis: **u**$^{0}$**(313**$\text{+}\Delta $**),** [q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{0}$[(583]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{0}$[(853]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[)]{}$,$[2q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{0}$[(1213]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[)]{}$,$[2q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{0}$[(1303]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), ]{}
[2q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{0}$[(1573]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[)]{}$,$[3q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{0}$[(2023]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{0}$[(2293]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), 2q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{0}$[(2653]{}$\text{+}\Delta $).
F-Axis: **d**$^{0}$**(313**$\text{+}\Delta $**),** [q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{1}$[(583]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{1}$[(673]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[)]{}$,$[3q]{}$_{N}^{1}$[(1303]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[)]{}$,$[q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{1}$[(1393]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[)]{}$,$[ ]{}
[q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{1}$[(2023]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[).]{}
$\Delta $-Axis: **u**$^{0}$**(313**$\text{+}\Delta $**),** [q]{}$_{\Delta }^{0}$[(673]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[)]{}, [2q]{}$_{\Delta }^{0}$[(1033+]{}$\Delta $[), q]{}$_{\Delta }^{0}\text{(}$[1393]{}$\text{+}\Delta \text{)}$, [q]{}$_{\Delta }^{0}\text{(1753+}\Delta \text{)},$
$\ \ \ \ $ 4[q]{}$_{\Delta }^{0}\text{(2113+}\Delta
\text{)}$, $\text{{\small 3}}$[q]{}$_{\Delta }^{0}\text{(2473+}\Delta
\text{).}$
$\Lambda $ and F-Axes : **d**$^{0}$**(313**$\text{+}\Delta $**) (**$\text{d}_{S}^{1}\text{({\small 313}+}\Delta \text{)); }\Sigma $ and G-Axes **d**$^{0}$**(313**$\text{+}\Delta $**)**
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ ]{}2. Strange Quarks[ \[ The Ground Quark is ]{}**d**$_{S}^{1}$**(493**$\text{+}\Delta $**)**$_{\Sigma }$\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[G-Axis: ]{}$2$[d]{}$_{S}^{1}$[(493]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), d]{}$_{S}^{1}$[(773]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), d$_{S}^{1}$(1413$\text{+}\Delta $), d]{}$_{S}^{1}$[(1513]{}$\text{+}\Delta $), [d]{}$_{S}^{1}$[(2513]{}$\text{+}\Delta $).
$\Delta $-Axis: [d]{}$_{S}^{\text{-1}}$[(773]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), d]{}$_{S}^{\text{-1}}$[(3753]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), d]{}$_{S}^{\text{-1}}$[(9613]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), d]{}$_{S}^{\text{-1}}$[(18353]{}$\text{+}\Delta $).
F-Axis: [d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(493]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(773]{}$\text{+}\Delta $), [2d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(1203]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(1303]{}$\text{+}\Delta $), [2d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(1393]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[),]{}
[ ]{}2[d]{}$_{\text{S}}^{0}$[(1923]{}$\text{+}\Delta $), [4d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(2013]{}$\text{+}\Delta
$[), d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(2023]{}$\text{+}\Delta $), [d]{}$_{S}^{0} $[(2643]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[); ]{}
D-Axis: [d]{}$_{\text{S}}^{-1}$[(493]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), d]{}$_{\text{S}}^{-1}$[(1503]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), d]{}$_{\text{S}}^{-1}$[(1603]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), d]{}$_{S}^{-1}$(2333+$\Delta $).
$\Lambda $-Axis: $\text{d}_{S}^{0}\text{({\small 2743}+}\Delta \text{), }$[d]{}$_{\text{S}}^{0}$[(4633]{}+$\Delta $[)]{}; $\text{q}_{\Sigma }\text{({\small 583}+}\Delta \text{)}$[, 3]{}$\text{q}_{\Sigma
}\text{({\small 1033}+}\Delta \text{)}$[, ]{}$\text{2q}_{\Sigma }\text{({\small 1303}+}\Delta \text{),}$
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \text{ }$[,]{}$\text{q}_{\Sigma }\text{({\small 1753}+}\Delta \text{)}$[, ]{}$3\text{q}_{\Sigma }\text{({\small 2023}+}\Delta \text{), }$[5]{}$\text{q}_{\Sigma }\text{({\small 2473}+}\Delta \text{), 2q}_{\Sigma }\text{({\small 2743}+}\Delta \text{).}$
$\Sigma $-Axis: [ ]{}**d**$_{S}^{1}$**(493**$\text{+}\Delta $**)**$_{\Sigma }$, [d]{}$_{S}^{1}$(1933); 2[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}\text{({\small 853}+}\Delta \text{), }$[3q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1033]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1213]{}$\text{+}\Delta $),[ ]{}$\text{.}$
[2q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1573]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), ]{}$2$[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1753]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1933]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), 2q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(2293]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[).]{}
$G$-Axis: [q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(673]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(853]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[)]{}, [3q]{}$_{\Xi
}^{0} $[(1393]{}+$\Delta $[)]{}, [2q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1573]{}+$\Delta $[), ]{}2[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1733]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[)]{},
F-Axis: [q]{}$_{\Xi }^{-1}$[(1823]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), 2q]{}$_{\Xi }^{-1}$[(1913]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[).]{}$\ $G: 2[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{-1}$[(1913]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), ]{}$2$[q]{}$_{\Xi
}^{-1}$[(2113]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), ]{}
$\Sigma $-Axis: [d]{}$_{\Omega }^{-1}$[(1033]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[)]{}, $\text{d}_{\Omega }^{-1}\text{({\small 3193}+}\Delta \text{); G:
d}_{\Omega }^{-1}$[(1633]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[)]{}, $\text{d}_{\Omega }^{-1}$[(1813]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[)]{},
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ ]{}3. Charmed Quarks[ \[The Ground Quark is]{}** u**$_{C}^{1}$**(1753+**$\Delta $**)**$\text{]}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Delta $-Axis[: ]{}**u**$_{C}^{1}$**(1753+**$\Delta $)$\text{, u}_{\text{C}}^{1}\text{(6073+}\Delta \text{), u}_{C}^{1}\text{(13273+}\Delta \text{).}$
[D-Axis: ]{}$\text{u}_{\text{C}}^{1}\text{(2133+}\Delta \text{)},\text{u}_{\text{C}}^{1}\text{(2333+}\Delta \text{)},\text{u}_{\text{C}}^{1}\text{(2533+}\Delta \text{)},\text{u}_{\text{C}}^{1}\text{(}$[3543+]{}$\Delta
\text{).}$
[F-Axis: ]{}q$_{\Xi _{C}}^{1}\text{(1873+}\Delta \text{)},\text{ q}_{\Xi _{C}}^{1}\text{(2163+}\Delta \text{)},\text{ q}_{\Xi _{C}}^{1}\text{(2363+}\Delta \text{), }$q$_{\Xi _{C}}^{1}$[(3193+]{}$\Delta $[)]{}$.$
[G-Axis: ]{}$\text{d}_{\Omega _{C}}^{1}\text{(2133+}\Delta \text{), d}_{\Omega _{C}}^{1}\text{(2513+}\Delta \text{), d}_{\Omega _{C}}^{1}\text{(3{\small 253}+}\Delta \text{)}.$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
4. Bottom Quarks$\ $\[[The Ground Quark is ]{}**d**$_{b}^{1}$**(4913+**$\Delta $**)**$\text{]}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Sigma $-Axis: **d**$_{b}^{1}$**(4913+**$\Delta $**),** [d]{}$_{b}^{1}$[(9333]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), d]{}$_{b}^{1}$[(15193]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), d]{}$_{b}^{1}$[(22493]{}$\text{+}\Delta $[), ....]{}
\
In fact, there are three completely identical tables (as Table 11) with the red, the yellow and the blue colors respectively. Omitting the color, we use one of the three tables to represent all three tables.
For the four flavored quarks, there are five ground quarks \[u(313+$\Delta $), d(313+$\Delta $), d$_{S}$(493+$\Delta $), u$_{C}$(1753+$\Delta $) and d$_{b}$(4913+$\Delta $)\] in the quark spectrum. They correspond with the five quarks [@Quarks] of the current Quark Model: u $\leftrightarrow $ u(313+$\Delta $), d $\leftrightarrow $ d(313+$\Delta $), s $\leftrightarrow $ d$_{S} $(493+$\Delta $), c $\leftrightarrow $ u$_{C}$(1753+$\Delta $) and b $\leftrightarrow $ d$_{b}$(4913+$\Delta $). They are all the energy band excited states of the elementary quarks $\epsilon $. The quarks u(313+$\Delta $) and u$_{C}$(1753+$\Delta $) (with Q = +$\frac{2}{3}$) are the excited states of the elementary $\epsilon _{u}$-quark. The quarks d(313+$\Delta $), d$_{S}$(493+$\Delta $) and d$_{b}$(4913+$\Delta $) (with Q = -$\frac{1}{3}$) are the excited states of the elementary $\epsilon _{d}$-quark.
There are the values of the current quarks that can compare with the deduced values of the five ground quarks. The deduced intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q ) of the five ground quarks are exactly the same as the five current quarks (see Table 10 and [@Quarks]). Table 11$^{\ast }$ shows that $$\begin{aligned}
&&\text{ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ {\small Table 11* The Comparison of Deduce Ground
Quarks and Current Quarks}} \\
&&
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
& {\small u(m (Mev))} & {\small d(m (Mev))} & {\small u(m (Mev))} & {\small u(m (Mev))} & {\small u(m (Mev))} \\ \hline
{\small Current} & {\small u(1.5 to 4)} & {\small d(4 to 8)} & s{\small (80
to 130)} & {\small c(1250 to 1350)} & {\small b(4100 to 4900)} \\ \hline
{\small Deduced} & {\small u(313)} & {\small d(313)} & d$_{s}${\small (493)}
& {\small u}$_{c}${\small (1753)} & {\small d}$_{b}${\small (4913)} \\ \hline
$\Delta m$ & 310 & 307 & 388 & 493 & 487 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}$$ the deduced rest masses of the five ground quarks are roughly a constant (about 400 Mev) larger than the masses of the current quarks. These can be originated from different energy reference systems. If we use the same energy reference system, the deduced masses of ground quarks are roughly consistent with the masses of the corresponding current quarks. Of course the ultimate test is whether or not the baryons and mesons that are composed by the quarks are consistent with the experimental results.
Now we have deduced a quark (excited from the vacuum) spectrum. We have found the intrinsic quantum numbers (S, C, b and Q) and rest masses of the quarks. From these rest masses and the quantum numbers, we can deduce a baryon spectrum and a meson spectrum using sum laws and phenomenological binding energy formulae,
The Baryon Spectrum
===================
According to the Quark Model [@Quark; @Model], a baryon is composed of three quarks with different colors. For each flavor, the three different colored quarks have the same I, S, C, b, Q and rest mass. Thus, we can omit the color when we deduce the rest masses and intrinsic quantum numbers of the baryons. We must remember, however, that three colored quarks (red, yellow and blue) compose a colorless baryon. Since we have already found the quarks, we can use sum laws to find the intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q) of baryons (qqq) and the rest masses of all baryons, except those of the charmed baryons. We can deduce the rest masses of the charmed baryons with a phenomenological formula (\[CB-Eb\]). There are more than 80 quarks in Table 11. They can make many possible baryons, much more than the experimental baryons [@Baryon04]. Since the probabilities that three quarks make a baryon are different, the experimentally discovered baryons are the possible baryons with larger observable probabilities. The observable probability depends on the following factors: 1) the ground quarks have higher probabilities of occurrence than other quarks have, 2) the lower rest mass quarks have higher probabilities of occurrence, 3) the quarks with lower isospin have more possibilities of occurrence than the higher isospin quarks, 4) the quarks born on the symmetry axes with more symmetry operations have higher probabilities of occurrence. If we use P(q$_{name}$(m)) to represent the probability of a q$_{name}$(m) forming a baryon, we assume: $$\begin{tabular}{l}
P(u(313)) $\sim $ P(d(313))\TEXTsymbol{>}\TEXTsymbol{>} \\
P(d$_{S}$(493))\TEXTsymbol{>}P(u$_{C}$(1753))\TEXTsymbol{>}P(d$_{b}$(4913))\TEXTsymbol{>}\TEXTsymbol{>} \\
P({\small u}$_{C}${\small (m)})\TEXTsymbol{>}P(d$_{b}$(m))\TEXTsymbol{>} P(d$_{S}$(m))\TEXTsymbol{>} P(q$_{N}$(m))\TEXTsymbol{>} P(d$_{\Sigma }$(m))\TEXTsymbol{>} \\
P(q$_{\Delta }$(m))\TEXTsymbol{>} P(d$_{\Omega }$(m)) \TEXTsymbol{>} P(d$_{\Xi _{_{C}}}${\small (m)})\TEXTsymbol{>} P(d$_{\Omega _{_{C}}}${\small (m)})\TEXTsymbol{>} P(d$_{\Xi }$(m))\TEXTsymbol{>}.\end{tabular}
\label{P(Qk)}$$From (\[P(Qk)\]) we find that the possible baryons (with none or only one ground q(313)) have much lower observable probabilities than baryons with two ground quarks (or three ground q(313) quarks). Thus, we omit the baryons that have only one ground quark q(313) or do not have any ground quark q(313). We will show that the possible baryons with two ground quarks \[q$_{1} $(m)q(313)(q(313)\] can explain the experimental baryon spectrum.
The Intrinsic Quantum Numbers of the Baryons
-------------------------------------------------------
A1. The intrinsic quantum numbers of a baryon are the sums of the three constituent quarks (q$_{1}$(m) + q$_{2}$(313) + q$_{3}$(313)). We can find the strange number S$_{B}$, the charmed number C$_{\text{B}}$, the bottom number b$_{\text{B}}$ and the electric charge Q$_{\text{B}}$ of the baryons by $$\begin{tabular}{l}
$\text{S}_{\text{B}}\text{ }\text{= S}_{q_{1}}\text{+ S}_{q_{_{N}(313)}}\text{+ S}_{q_{_{N}(313)}}=\text{ S}_{q_{1(m)}}\text{,}$ \\
$\text{C}_{\text{B\ }}\text{ }\text{= C}_{q_{1}}\text{ + C}_{q_{_{N}(313)}}\text{ + C}_{q_{_{N}(313)}}\text{= C}_{q_{1}(m)}\text{,}$ \\
$\text{b}_{\text{B}}\text{=}\text{ b}_{q_{1}}\text{+ b}_{q_{_{N}(313)}}\text{+ b}_{q_{_{N}(313)}}\text{= b}_{q_{1(m)}}\text{,}$ \\
$\text{Q}_{\text{B}}\text{ = Q}_{q_{1}}\text{+ Q}_{q_{_{N}(313)}}\text{+ Q}_{_{q_{_{N}(313)}}}.$\end{tabular}
\label{Sum(SCbQ)}$$ Since the ground quark q(313) has S = C = b = 0 , the baryon \[q$_{1}$(m)+q$_{2}$(313)+q$_{3}$(313)\] has the same S, C and b as the q$_{1}$(m)-quark has.
A2. The Isospin I$_{\text{B}}$ of the baryon (q$_{1}$q$_{2}$q$_{3}$) is found by $$\overrightarrow{I_{B}}\text{ = }\overrightarrow{I_{q_{1}(m)}}\text{ + }\overrightarrow{I_{q_{2}}}\text{ + }\overrightarrow{I_{q_{3}}}\text{.}
\label{I of qqq}$$ Since I$_{q_{2}}$= I$_{q_{3}}$= I$_{q(313)}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$ and the top limit of the experimental isospin values of baryons is $\frac{3}{2}$, the isospins of the baryons (q$_{1}$q$_{2}$ q$_{3}$) are:
$$\
\begin{tabular}{l}
for I$_{q_{1}}$ = $\frac{3}{2}\rightarrow $I$_{B}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{3}{2}$; \\
for I$_{q_{1}}$ = 1 $\rightarrow $I$_{B}$ = 0, 1; \\
for I$_{q_{1}}$ = $\frac{1}{2}\rightarrow $I$_{B}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$, $\frac{3}{2}$; \\
for I$_{q_{1}}$ = 0 $\rightarrow $I$_{B}$ = 0, 1.\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \label{I of B}$$
After having the baryon isospin I$_{\text{B}}$, we can get the I$_{\text{B, z}}$ using the follow formula $$\begin{tabular}{ll}
for I$_{B}$ = $\frac{3}{2}$, & I$_{\text{B, z}}$ = $\ \frac{3}{2}$, $\frac{1}{2},$-$\frac{1}{2}$, -$\frac{3}{2};$ \\
for I$_{B}$ =\ 1$,$ & I$_{\text{B, z}}$ = \ 1, 0, -1; \\
for I$_{B}$ = $\frac{1}{2},$ & I$_{\text{B, z}}$ = $\frac{1}{2},$ -$\frac{1}{2}$; \\
for I$_{B}$ = 0$,$ & I$_{\text{B, z}}$ = 0.\end{tabular}
\ \ \text{. } \label{Iz,b}$$
Using R values (see Table A3) and equivalent $\overrightarrow{n}$ values (\[Equ-N\]), we can find the maximum isospin value of quarks for each symmetry point. The probability that a quark (q$_{1}$) with lower isospin forms a baryon \[q$_{1}$(m)q$_{2}$(313)q$_{3}$(313)\] with higher isospin is low. Thus, there is very low possibility that a baryon has a higher isospin than the maximum I of quarks have on the point. Since all symmetry axes at the point N are two fold, the maximum I of the baryon is $\frac{1}{2}$ at the N-point. We show the maximum I values of the quarks and baryons in Table A6.
A3. For the baryon \[q$_{1}$(m)q$_{2}$(313)q$_{3}$(313)\], we can deduce the isospin I$_{\text{B}}$ and I$_{\text{B,Z}}$using (\[I of B\]) and ([Iz,b]{}). For the q$_{1}$(m)-quark, I$_{\text{Z}}$ can be found in Table 10. The quark q$_{1}$(m) selects two ground quarks q$_{\text{2}}$ and q$_{\text{3}}$ from u(313)u(313), u(313)d(313) and d(313)d(313), using the follow formulae:
$$\text{I}_{\text{Z,B}}\text{ = I}_{\text{Z,q}_{1}\text{(m)}}\text{+ I}_{\text{Z},}\text{{\small q}}_{\text{2}}\text{ + I}_{\text{Z},}\text{{\small q}}_{\text{3}}\text{,} \label{Izb}$$
$$\text{Q}_{\text{B}}\text{ = Q}_{\text{q}_{1}}\text{ + Q}_{\text{q}_{2}}\text{
+ Q}_{\text{q}_{3}}\text{,} \label{QQQ}$$
to get the correct I$_{\text{Z,B}}$ and Q$_{\text{B}}$. We show selected results in Table 12:
:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 12. The Quark Constitutions of the Baryons
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
B$\_[aryon]{}\^[I\_[B]{}]{}$ & N$\_\^$ & N$\_[N]{}\^$ & $\_\^$ & $\_\^$ &
$\_\^$ & $\_\^$ & $\_\^[1]{}$ & $\_\^[0]{}$ & $\_\^[-1]{}$
\\ \hline
I$\_[B]{}$ & 1/2 & 1/2 & 3/2 & 3/2 & 3/2 & 3/2 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
q$\_\^[\_[\_[Z]{}]{}]{}$(u$\^[\_[\_[Z]{}]{}]{}$or d$\^[\_[\_[z]{}]{}]{} $) & u$\_[N]{}\^$ & d$\_[N]{}\^$ & u$\_\^$ & u$\_\^$ & d$\_\^$ &
\ d$\_\^$ & u$\_\^[1]{}$ & d$\_\^[0]{}$ & d$\_\^[0]{}$ \\ \hline
q$\_[2]{}\^[I\_[z]{}]{}$ & u$\^$ & u$\^$ & u$\^$
& u$\^$ & u$\^$ & d$\^$ & u$\^$ & u$\^$ & d$\^$ \\ \hline
q$\_[3]{}\^[Iz]{}$ & d$\^$ & d$\^$ & u$\^$ &
d$\^$ & d$\^$ & \ d$\^$ & d$\^$ & d$\^$ & d$\^$ \\ \hline
I$\_[Z,B]{}$=$$I$\_[z,q\_[i]{}]{}$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & $$ & \ 1 & 0 & -1 \\
\hline
Q$\_[B]{}$=$$Q$\_[q\_[i]{}]{}$ & 1 & 0 & 2 & 1 & 0 & -1 & \ 1 & 0 & -1 \\
\hline
S$\_$= S$\_[q\_[1]{}]{}$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ 0 & -1 & -1 & -1 \\
\hline
C$\_$= C$\_[q\_[1]{}]{}$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ 0 & \ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
b$\_$= b$\_[q\_[1]{}]{}$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \ 0 & \ 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
B$\_[aryon]{}\^[Q\_[B]{}]{}$ & N$\^[+]{}$ & N$\^[0]{}$ & $\^[++]{}$ & $\^[+]{}$ & $\^[0]{}$ & $ \^[-]{}$ & $ \^[+]{}$ & $ \^[0]{}$ & $\^[-]{}$ \\ \hline
{*}******** & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** & *** \\ \hline
B$\_[aryon]{}\^[I\_[z]{},B]{}$ & $\_\^$ & $\_\^$ & $\_[S]{}\^[0]{}$ & $\_[b]{}\^[0]{}$ & $\^[0]{}$ & $\_[C]{}\^$ & $\_[C]{}\^$ & $\_[C]{}\^[0]{}$ & $\_[C]{}\^[0]{}$ \\ \hline
I$\_[B]{}$ & $$ & $$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & $$ & $$ & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
q$\_[q\_[1]{}]{}\^[\_[\_[Z]{}]{}]{}$(u$\^[\_[\_[Z]{}]{}]{}$,d$\^[\_[\_[z]{}]{}]{}$) &
u$\_\^$ & d$\_\^$ & d$\_[S]{}\^[0]{}$ & d$\_[b]{}\^[0]{}$ & d$\_\^[1]{}$ & u$\_[\_[C]{}]{}\^$ & d$\_[\_[C]{}]{}\^$ & u$\_[C]{}\^[0]{}$ & d$\_[\_[C]{}]{}\^[0]{}$ \\ \hline
q$\_[2]{}\^[I\_[z]{}]{}$ & d$\^$ & d$\^$ & u$\^$
& u$\^$ & d$\^$ & u$\^$ & u$\^$ & u$\^$ & u$\^$ \\ \hline
q$\_[3]{}\^[Iz]{}$ & d$\^$ & d$\^$ & d$\^$
& d$\^$ & d$\^$ & d$\^$ & d$\^$ & d$\^$ & d$\^$ \\ \hline
I$\_[Z,B]{}$=$$I$\_[z,q\_[i]{}]{}$ & $$ & $$ & 0 & 0 & 0
& $$ & $$ & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
Q$\_[B]{}$=$$Q$\_[q\_[i]{}]{}$ & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 1 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\ \hline
S$\_$= S$\_[q\_[1]{}]{}$ & -2 & -2 & -1 & 0 & -3 & -1 & -1 & 0 & -2 \\
\hline
C$\_$= C$\_[q\_[1]{}]{}$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 1 & 1 & 1 \\ \hline
b$\_$= b$\_[q\_[1]{}]{}$ & 0 & 0 & 0 & -1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ \hline
B$\_[aryon]{}\^[Q\_[B]{}]{}$ & $\^[0]{}$ & $\^[-]{}$ & $\_[S]{}\^[0]{}$ & $\_[b]{}\^[0]{}$ & $ \^[\^[-1]{}]{}$ & $\_[c]{}\^[+]{}$ & $\_[c]{}\^[0]{}$ & $\_[C]{}\^[+]{}$ & $\_[C]{}\^[0]{}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ $
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 12 also shows the intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q) of the baryons. The baryons that we deduced from the phenomenological formulae have exactly the same intrinsic quantum numbers as the experimental results.
The Binding Energy of the Three Quarks Inside a Charmed Baryon
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since all quarks inside baryons are the excited states of the same elementary quarks $\epsilon $, the binding energies of the quarks inside the baryons are the strong interaction energy of the three colors. Because the three colors are exaetly the same for all baryons, the baryon binding energies are the same for all baryons. The baryons binding energy of all baryons is a roughly unknown constant (-3$\Delta $, $\Delta $ =$\frac{1}{3}\left\vert E_{B-B}\right\vert $ (\[Dalta\])). Thus, the rest mass (M) of a baryon will be $$\text{M = m}_{q_{1}}^{\ast }\text{ + m}_{q_{2}}^{\ast }\text{ + m}_{q_{3}}^{\ast }\text{- 3}\Delta \text{.}$$Because a quark has mass m$_{q}^{\ast }$ (from Table 11), $$\text{m}_{q}^{\ast }\text{=m}_{q}\text{+}\Delta \text{,}$$we have a baryon mass, $$\begin{tabular}{l}
$\text{M}_{B}\text{ }\text{=}\text{ m}_{q_{1}}^{\ast }\text{ + m}_{q_{2}}^{\ast }\text{ + m}_{q_{3}}^{\ast }\text{- 3}\Delta $ \\
$\ \ $\ = $\text{m}_{q_{1}}+\text{m}_{q_{2}}+\text{m}_{q_{3}},$\end{tabular}
\label{Baryon M}$$where m$_{q}$ = m$_{q}^{\ast }$ - $\Delta $. The above formula (\[Baryon M\]) means that the rest mass of a baryon equals the sum of the three quark rest masses (m). Since the binding energy (-3$\Delta $) is always cancelled by the three ($\Delta $) of the three quark masses, we can omit the $\Delta $ in the rest mass of the three quarks inside the baryon and omit the (-3$\Delta $) in the binding energy of the baryon when we count the rest masses of the baryons. In fact, the interaction energies of the colors are very complex; (-3$\Delta $) is only a phenomenological approximation of the binding energy.
The mass sum law (\[Baryon M\]) is valid for most baryons except the charmed baryons. For charmed baryons, however, we shall add a small amount of adjustment in energy, $\Delta $e, to the large unknown constant (3$\Delta
$): $$\Delta \text{e = 100C [2I - 1 - }\frac{\text{1}}{\text{2}}{\small \Theta }\text{(1+S}_{Ax}\text{)]\ \ (Mev),} \label{CB-Eb}$$ where C is the charmed number of the baryon, I is the isospin of the baryon and S$_{Ax}$ is the strange number of the axis of the charmed quark (q$_{1}$). The in-out number $\Theta $ is defined in (\[f(se)\]). From Table A3, $\Theta $ = 0 for the $\Delta $-axis, the $\Lambda $-axis and the $\Sigma $-axis, while $\Theta $ = 1 for the D-axis, the F-axis and the G-axes. From (\[Baryon M\]) and (\[CB-Eb\]), for charmed baryons, $$\text{M}_{B}\text{ }\ \text{= m}_{q_{1}}\text{+ m}_{q_{2}}\text{+ m}_{q_{3}}\text{+ }\Delta \text{e} \label{C-B-Mass}$$
From the quark spectrum (Table 11), using the sum laws (\[Sum(SCbQ)\]), (\[Baryon M\]) and (\[I of qqq\]) \[and the binding energy formula ([C-B-Mass]{}) for the charmed baryons only\], we can deduce the baryons.
Deduction of the Baryons
------------------------
We have already found the intrinsic quantum numbers of the baryons that are shown in Table 12. If we can deduce the rest masses of baryons, we will deduce the baryon spectrum. We give three types of examples to show how to deduce the baryons.
C1. The Deduction of Charmed Baryons on the $\Delta $-axis ($\Gamma $-H)
In this example, we will deduce the charmed baryons on the $\Delta $-axis, the $\Sigma $-axis and the $\Lambda $-axis. In fact, all charmed baryons are only on the $\Delta $-axis. There is not any charmed baryons on the other two axes.
For the $\Delta $-axis, S$_{\Delta }$ = 0 and $\Theta $ = 0 from Table 3; from (\[CB-Eb\]), $$\Delta \text{e =\ 100}\times \text{C(2I-1) \ (Mev)} \label{S-C-B}$$ From Table 4, we have d$_{S}$(m) and u$_{C}$(m). From (\[C-B-Mass\]) and (\[S-C-B\]), we have:
for the quark u$_{C}$(m)$\rightarrow $ $\left\{
\begin{tabular}{l}
u$\_[C]{}$(m)+u({\small 313})+d({\small 313})] = $\_[C]{}$(m+626+$$e) and \\
u$\_[C]{}$(m)+q$\_[N]{}$({\small 313})+q$\_[N]{}$({\small 313})] = $\_[c]{}$(m+626+$$e)\end{tabular}
\right\} $;
for the quark d$_{S}$(m)$\rightarrow $ $\left\{
\begin{tabular}{l}
d$\_[S]{}$(m)+u({\small 313})+ d({\small 313}) = $$(m+626) and \\
d$\_[S]{}$(m)+q$\_[N]{}$({\small 313})+ q$\_[N]{}$({\small 313}) = $$(m+626)\end{tabular}\ \ \right\} $.
Table 13 shows the $\Lambda _{c}$-baryons, the $\Sigma _{c}$-baryons, the $\Lambda $-baryons and the $\Sigma $-baryons:
[l]{} Table 13. The $\Lambda _{c}$-Baryons and the $\Sigma _{c}$-Baryons\
$\text{E}_{Point}$ $\text{q}_{\text{name}}\text{(m})$ [m]{}$_{q_{2}\text{+}q_{_{3}}}$ [ ]{}$\Delta $[e]{}$_{\Lambda }$ $\Lambda $(M[(Mev)]{}) [ ]{}$\Delta $[e]{} $\Sigma $(M[(Mev)]{})
-------------------------------- --------------------------------------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------------- --------------------------------------- --------------------- --------------------------------------
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=1}$ $\text{d}_{S}\text{(773)}$ [626]{} [0]{} $\Lambda \text{(1399)}$ [0]{} $\Sigma \text{(1399)}$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=4}$ $\text{u}_{C}\text{(1753)}$ [626]{} [-100]{} $\Lambda _{c}\text{(2279)}$ $\text{100}$ $\Sigma _{c}\text{({\small 2479})}$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=9}$ $\text{d}_{S}\text{(3753)}$ [626]{} [0]{} $\Lambda \text{(4379)}$ [0]{} $\Sigma \text{(4379)}$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=16}$ $\text{u}_{C}\text{(6073)}$ [626]{} [-100]{} $\Lambda _{c}\text{(6599)}$ [1]{}$\text{00}$ $\Sigma _{c}\text{({\small 6799})}$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=25}$ $\text{d}_{S}\text{(9613)}$ [626]{} [0]{} $\Lambda \text{(10239)}$ [0]{} $\Sigma \text{({\small 10239})}$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=36}$ $\text{u}_{C}\text{({\small 13273})}$ [626]{} [-100]{} $\Lambda _{c}\text{({\small 13799})}$ [1]{}$\text{00}$ $\Sigma _{c}\text{({\small 13999})}$
C2. Deduction of the Charmed Baryons on the D-axis, the F-axis and the G-axis
In this example, we will deduce low-rest-mass charmed baryons on the D-axis, F-axis and G-axis. From Table B5 (the D-axis), we obtain the charmed quarks u$_{C}$(2133), u$_{C}$(2333), u$_{C}$(2533) and u$_{C}$(3543). From Table B6 (the F-axis), we obtain the charmed strange quarks q$_{\Xi _{C}}$(1873), q$_{\Xi _{C}}$(2163), q$_{\Xi _{C}}$(2363) and q$_{\Xi _{C}}$(3163). From Table B7 (the G-axis), we obtain the charmed strange quarks q$_{\Omega
_{C}}$(2133) and q$_{\Omega _{C}}$(2513). Using the sum laws (\[Sum(SCbQ)\]) and the binding energies of the charmed baryons (\[C-B-Mass\]), we have:
[l]{} Table 14. The Charmed Baryons on the D, F and G Axis\
[|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|]{} Axes & S$_{AX}$ & $\Theta $ & C & I & Quark$_{1}$ & m$_{q_{2}}$+m$_{q_{3}}$ & $\Delta $e & Baryon\
D & 0 & 1 & 1 & 0 &
-----------------------
[u]{}$_{C}$[(2133)]{}
[u]{}$_{C}$[(2333)]{}
[u]{}$_{C}$[(2533)]{}
[u]{}$_{C}$[(3543)]{}
-----------------------
& 626 & -150 &
--------------------------
$\Lambda _{C}$[(2609)]{}
$\Lambda _{C}$[(2809)]{}
$\Lambda _{C}$[(3009)]{}
$\Lambda _{C}$[(4019)]{}
--------------------------
\
F & -1 & 1 & 1 & $\frac{1}{2}$ &
------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Xi _{C}}$[(1873)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Xi _{C}}$[(2163)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Xi _{C}}$[(2363)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Xi _{C}}$[(3193)]{}
------------------------------
& 626 & 0 &
----------------------
$\Xi _{C}$[(2499)]{}
$\Xi _{C}$[(2789)]{}
$\Xi _{C}$[(2989)]{}
$\Xi _{C}$[(3819)]{}
----------------------
\
G & -2 & 1 & 1 & 0 &
---------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Omega _{C}}$[(2133)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Omega _{C}}$[(2513)]{}
---------------------------------
& 626 & -50 &
-------------------------
$\Omega _{C}$[(2709)]{}
$\Omega _{C}$[(3089)]{}
-------------------------
\
C3. Deduction of the Uncharmed Baryons (C = 0)
For uncharmed baryons, Table 12 has already given the intrinsic quantum numbers. Since C = 0$\rightarrow \Delta $e =0, from (\[Baryon M\]), the rest masses of the baryons M$_{\text{B}}$= m$_{q_{1}}$+ m$_{q_{2}}$+ m$_{q_{3}}$.
Example 1. We deduce the baryons on the fourfold energy bands of the $\Delta
$-axis. For the fourfold energy bands, from Table B1, C = 0; thus, $\Delta $e = 0 from (\[CB-Eb\]). With (\[I of B\]), we can get two kinds of baryons (the N-baryons with I = $\frac{1}{2}$ and the $\Delta $-baryons with I = $\frac{3}{2}$). From Table 3, we have q$_{\Delta }$(m) (q$_{1}$ of q$_{1} $q$_{2}$q$_{3}$). Using Table 12, we get q$_{2}$ and q$_{3}$. From ([Baryon M]{}), we get the baryon mass M = m$_{\text{q}_{\Delta }}$+ [m]{}$_{q_{2}}$+$\ $m$_{q_{_{3}}}$ = m$_{\text{q}_{\Delta }}$+626(Mev) $\rightarrow \Delta $(M=m$_{\text{q}_{\Delta }}$+ 626) and N(M=m$_{\text{q}_{\Delta }}$+ 626):
[l]{} Table 15 A. The $\Delta $-Baryons and the N-Baryons on the $\Delta $-axis\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E$_{Point}$ E($\overrightarrow{k,}\overrightarrow{n}$) I$_{q_{1}}$ $q_{\text{Name}}$(m) [m]{}$_{q_{2}+q_{_{3}}}$ I$_{\Delta }$ $\Delta I$_{\text{N}}$ $\text{N(M) }$
\text{(M) }$
------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- --------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- --------------- ------------------------ ---------------- ------------------
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=1}$ $\text{673}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(673)}$ 626 $\frac{3}{2}$ $\Delta \text{(1299)}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\text{N(1299)}$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=2}$ $\text{1033}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(1033{\small )}}$ 626 $\frac{3}{2}$ $\Delta \text{(1659)}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\text{N(1659)}$
$\text{1033}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(1033{\small )}}$ 626 $\frac{3}{2}$ $\Delta \text{(1659)}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\text{N(1659)}$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=3}$ $\text{1393}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(1393)}$ 626 $\frac{3}{2}$ $\Delta \text{(2019)}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\text{N(2019)}$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=4}$ $\text{1753}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(1753)}$ 626 $\frac{3}{2}$ $\Delta \text{(2379)}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\text{N(2379)}$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=5}$ $\text{2113}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(2113)}$ 626 $\frac{3}{2}$ $\Delta \text{(2739)}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\text{N(2739)}$
$\text{2113}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(2113)}$ 626 $\frac{3}{2}$ $\Delta \text{(2739)}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\text{N(2739)}$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=5}$ $\text{2113}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(2113)}$ 626 $\frac{3}{2}$ $\Delta \text{(2739)}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\text{N(2739)}$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{=5}$ $\text{2113}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{(2113)}$ 626 $\frac{3}{2}$ $\Delta \text{(2739)}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\text{N(2739)}$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=6}$ $\text{2473}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{({\small 2473})}$ 626 $\frac{3}{2}$ $\Delta \text{(3099)}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\text{N(3099)}$
$\text{2473}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{({\small 2473}+}\Delta \text{)}$ 626 $\frac{3}{2}$ $\Delta \text{(3099)}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\text{N(3099)}$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=6}$ $\text{2473}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\text{q}_{\Delta }\text{({\small 2473}+}\Delta \text{)}$ 626 $\frac{3}{2}$ $\Delta \text{(3099)}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\text{N(3099)}$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 2. We deduce the N(M)-baryons and the $\Delta $(M)-baryons on the D-axis. From Table B5, we get the q$_{N}$(m)-quarks[.]{} As with example 1, q$_{N}$(m)$\rightarrow $ N(M=m$_{\text{q}_{\Delta }}$+626) and $\Delta $(M=m$_{\text{q}_{\Delta }}$+ 626) at point p; from Table A6, q$_{N}$(m)$\rightarrow $N(M=m$_{\text{q}_{\Delta }}$+626) at point N:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 15B. The N(m)-baryons and the $\Delta $(M)-baryons on the D-axis
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
$\_[Start]{}$ & {\small E} & \ {\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (m)} & {\small m}$\_[q\_[2]{}+q\_[\_[3]{}]{}]{}$ & I$\_$ & $$ & I$\_$ & $$ \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 583} & {\small \
\ q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (583)} & 626 & $$ & N(1209) & $$
& $ $ \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 853} & {\small \
\ q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (853)} & 626 & $$ & N(1479) & & \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 1213} & 2{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (1213)} & 626 & $$ & N(1839) & & \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 1303} & 2{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (1303)} & 626 & $$ & N(1929) & $$ & 2$$ \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 1573} & 2{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (1573)} & 626 & $$ & N(2199) & & \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 2023} & {\small \ \ q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (2023)} & 626 & $$ & N(2649) & $$ & $ $ \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 2023} & 2{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (2023)} & 626 & $$ & N(2649) & $$ & 2$$ \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 2293} & {\small \ \ q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (2293)} & 626 & $$ & N(2919) & & \\
\hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 2653} & 2{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (2653)} & 626 & $$ & N(3279) & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\ $
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have already deduced low mass charmed baryons in Table 13 and Table 14. Using sum laws, we deduced some uncharmed baryons in Table 15A and Table 15b. Continuing the above procedure, we can deduce a baryon spectrum that is shown in Table 16-Table 21.
Comparing with the Experimental Results of Baryons
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Using Table 16 – Table 21, we can compare the deduced baryon spectrum with the experimental results [@Baryon04]. In this comparison, we do not take into account the angular momenta of the experimental results. We assume that the small differences of the masses in the same group of baryons with the same quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q) are from their different angular momenta. If we ignore this effect, their masses would be essentially the same. Since all baryons in the group have the same intrinsic quantum numbers with the same name, we use the baryon name to represent the intrinsic quantum numbers, as shown in the second column of Table 16. If the name is the same between the deduced baryon and the experimental baryon, this means that the intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q) are exactly the same. We use the baryons with the average rest mass of the group of baryons (see Table C1) to represent the group of the baryons. The mass units of quarks and baryons as well as the widths are “Mev” :
[l]{} Table 16. The Ground Baryons.\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deduced Quantum No. Experiment $\frac{\Delta \text{M}}{\text{M}}\%$ Lifetime
--------------------------------- ------------------------------------- -------------------------- -------------------------------------- ---------------------------
Name([M]{}) S, C, b, I, Q Name([M]{})
p(939) 0, 0, 0, $\frac{1}{2}$[, ]{}1 p(938) 0.11 10$^{29}years$
n(939) 0, 0, 0, $\frac{1}{2}$[, ]{}0 n(940) 0.11 885.7 s
$\Lambda ^{0}$(1119) -1, 0, 0, 0, 0 $\Lambda ^{0}(1116)$ 0.27 2.6$\times $ 10$^{-10}$s
$\Sigma ^{+}$(1209) -1, 0, 0, 1, 1 $\Sigma ^{+}(1189)$ 1.7 .80$\times $ 10$^{-10}$s
$\Sigma ^{0}$(1209) -1, 0, 0, 1, 0 $\Sigma ^{0}(1193)$ 1.4 7.4$\times $ 10$^{-20}$s
$\Sigma ^{-}$(1209) -1, 0, 0, 1, -1 $\Sigma ^{-}(1197)$ 1.0 1.5$\times $10$^{-10}$s
$\Xi ^{0}$(1299) -2, 0, 0, $\frac{1}{2}$, 0 $\Xi ^{0}(1315)$ 1.2 2.9$\times $10$^{-10}$s
$\Xi ^{-}$(1299) -2, 0, 0, $\frac{1}{2}$, -1 $\Xi ^{-}(1321)$ 1.7 1.6$\times $10$^{-10}$s
$\Omega ^{-}$(1659) -3, 0, 0. 0, -1 $\Omega ^{-}(1672)$ 0.78 .82$\times $10$^{-10}$s
$\Lambda _{c}^{+}$(2279) 0, 1, 0, 0, 1 $\Lambda 0.26 200$\times $10$^{-15}$s
_{c}^{+}(2285)$
$\Xi _{c}^{+}$(2499) -1, 1, 0, $\frac{1}{2}$, 1 $\Xi 1.4 442$\times $10$^{-15}$
_{c}^{+}(2466)$
$\Xi _{c}^{0}$(2499) -1, 1, 0, $\frac{1}{2}$, 0 $\Xi 1.2. 112$\times $10$^{-15}$s
_{c}^{0}(2472)$
$\Omega _{C}^{0}$(2709) 0, 0, -1, 0, 0 $\Omega _{c}^{0}(2698)$ 0.41 69$\times $10$^{-15}s$
$\Lambda _{b}^{0}\text{(5539)}$ 0, 0, -1, 0, 0 $\Lambda 1.5 1.2310$^{-12}s$
_{b}^{0}(5624)$
$\Sigma _{C}^{++}$(2479) -1, 1, 0, 1, 2 $\Sigma 1.1 $\Gamma $=2.2 Mev
_{C}^{++}(2453)$
$\Sigma _{C}^{+}$(2479) -1, 1, 0, 1, 1 $\Sigma _{C}^{++}(2451)$ 1.2 $\Gamma $4.6 Mev
$\Sigma _{C}^{0}$(2479) -1, 1, 0, 1, 0 $\Sigma 1.2 $\Gamma $=2.1 Mev
_{C}^{++}(2452)$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most important baryons are shown in Table 16. These baryons have relatively long lifetimes. They are the most important experimental results of the baryons. Their deduced intrinsic quantum numbers are the same as the experimental results. The deduced mass values are over 98% consistent with the experimental values.
Two kinds of the strange baryons $\Lambda $ and $\Sigma $ are compared in Table 17. Their deduced intrinsic quantum numbers are the same as the experimental results. The deduced masses of the baryons $\Lambda $ and $\Sigma $ are about 98% consistent with the experimental results.
[l]{} Table 17. Two Kinds of Strange Baryons $\Lambda $ and $\Sigma $ ($S=-1$)\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deduced Experiment, $\Gamma $ $\frac{\Delta \text{M}}{\text{M}}\%$ Deduced Experiment, $\Gamma $ $\frac{\Delta \text{M}}{\text{M}}\%$
-------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------
$\Lambda $(1119) $\Lambda $(1116) 0.36 $\Sigma $(1209) $\Sigma $(1193) 1.4
$\Lambda $(1399) $\Lambda $(1405),50 0.43 $\Sigma $(1399) $\Sigma $(1385),37 1.0
$\Lambda $($\overline{\text{1659}}$) $\Lambda $($\overline{\text{1620}}$),$\overline{\text{65}}$ 2.4 $\Sigma $($\overline{\text{1727}}$) $\Sigma $($\overline{\text{1714}}$),$\overline{\text{93}}$ 0.76
$\Lambda $($\overline{\text{1889}}$) $\Lambda $($\overline{\text{1830}}$),$\overline{\text{145}}$ 3.2 $\Sigma $($\overline{\text{1929}}$) $\Sigma 0.05
$($\overline{\text{1928}}$),$\overline{\text{170}}$
$\Lambda $($\overline{\text{2079}}$) $\Lambda $($\overline{\text{2105}}$),$\overline{\text{200}}$ 1.24 $\Sigma $($\overline{\text{2019}}$) $\Sigma $($\overline{\text{2045}}$),$\overline{\text{220}}$ 1.3
$\Lambda $($\overline{\text{2339}}$) $\mathbf{\Lambda (}\overline{\text{2338}}$**),** $\overline{\text{159}}$ 0.04 $\Sigma $($\overline{\text{2249}}$) $\Sigma $(2250),100 0.05
$\Lambda $($\overline{\text{2615}}$) $\Lambda $(2585)$^{\ast }$,300 1.2 $\Sigma $($\overline{\text{2492}}$) $\Sigma $(2455)$^{\ast }$,140 1.1
$\Lambda $(3099) Prediction $\Sigma $($\overline{\text{2644}}$) $\Sigma $(2620)$^{\ast }$,200 0.84
$\Lambda $(3369) Prediction $\Sigma $(3099) $\Sigma $(3085)$^{\ast 0.45
} $, ?
$\Sigma $(3369) Prediction
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
[ Evidences of existence for these baryons are only fair; they are not listed]{}\
[in the Baryon Summary Table [@Baryon04].]{}
Table 18 compares the deduced results with the experimental results of the unflavored baryons $N$ and $\Delta $:
[l]{} Table 18. The Unflavored Baryons $N$ and $\Delta $ ($S$= $C$=$b$ = 0)\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Deduced Experiment, $\Gamma $ $\frac{\Delta \text{M}}{\text{M}}$% Deduced Experiment, $\Gamma $ $\frac{\Delta \text{M}}{\text{M}}$%
----------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------
N(939) N(939) 0.0
N($\overline{\text{1254}}$) Covered by $\Delta $(1232) $\Delta $(1254) $\Delta $(1232),120 1.8
N(1479) N($\overline{\text{1498}}$),$\overline{\text{207}}$ 1.3
N($\overline{\text{1650}}$) N($\overline{\text{1689}}$),$\overline{\text{130}}$ 2.3 $\Delta $($\overline{\text{1659}}$) $\Delta $($\overline{\text{1640}}$),$\overline{\text{267}}$ 1.2
N($\overline{\text{1929}}$) N($\overline{\text{1912}}$),440 0.31 $\Delta $($\overline{\text{1955}}$) $\Delta $($\overline{\text{1923}}$),$\overline{\text{264}}$ 1.7
N($\overline{\text{2199}}$) N($\overline{\text{2220}}$),$\overline{\text{\textit{417}}}$ 0.95
N(2379) Covered by $\Delta $(2420) $\Delta $(2379) $\Delta $(2420),400 1.7
N($\overline{\text{2649}}$) N(2600),650 1.9
N(2739) N(2700)$^{\ast }$,600 1.5 $\Delta $($\overline{\text{2694}}$) $\Delta $(2750)$^{\ast }$,400 2.0
N(2919) Prediction $\Delta $(3099) $\Delta $($\overline{\text{2975}}
$)$^{\ast }$,$\overline{\text{750}}$
N(3099) Prediction $\Delta $(3369) Prediction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
[\*]{}[Evidences are fair, they are not listed in the Baryon Summary Table ]{}[@Baryon04].
The deduced masses of the baryons $N$ and $\Delta $ are 98% consistent with the experimental results. We do not find the deduced N(1209) and N(1299) in the experiment results. We believe that they are covered up by the experimental baryon $\Delta (1232)$ because of the following reasons: (1) they are unflavored baryons with the same S, C and b; (2) the width (120 Mev) of $\Delta (1232)$ is very large, and the baryons $N(1209)$ and $N(1299) $ both fall within the width region of $\Delta (1232)$; (3) the average mass (1255 Mev) of $N(1209)$ and $N(1299)$ is essentially the same as the mass (1232 Mev) of $\Delta (1232)$ $(\Gamma $ = 120 Mev).
The deduced intrinsic quantum numbers of the baryons $\Xi $ and $\Omega $ are the same as the experimental results (see Table 19). The deduced masses of the baryons $\Xi $ and $\Omega $ are more than 98% compatible with experimental results.
$\begin{tabular}{l}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Table 19. The Baryons $$ and the
Baryons $$ \\
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l||l|l|l|}
\hline
Deduced & Experiment, $$ & $%$ &
Deduced & Experiment, $$ & $%$ \\
\hline
$$(1299) & $$(1318) & 1.4 & $$(1659) & $$(1672) &
\textbf{0.7} \\ \hline
$$(1479) & $$(1530), 9.9 & 3.3 & $$(2259) & $$(2252),
55 & 0.4 \\ \hline
$$(1659) & $$(1690), \TEXTsymbol{<}30 & 1.8 & $$(2439) & $()\^,$ & 0.5 \\ \hline
$$(1839) & $$(1823), 24 & 1.1 & $$(2979) & Prediction & \\
\hline
$$(2019) & $$($$)$\^[\#]{}$,$$ & 1.6
& $$(3819) & Prediction & \\ \hline
$$(2199) & $$($$)$\^[\$]{}$,33 & 0.64 & & & \\
\hline
$$($$) & $$(2370)$\^$,80 & 0.04 & $()\^$ & =$${\small [}$${\small (2380)}$\^${\small +}$${\small (2474)}$\^${\small ]} & \\ \hline
$$($$) & $$(2500)$\^$,150 & 2.0 & $$($$)$\^[\#]{}$ & =$${\small [}$${\small (1950)+}$${\small (2025)]} & \\ \hline
$$(2759) & Prediction & & $$($$)$\^[\$]{}$ & =$${\small [}$${\small (}$${\small )}$\^${\small +}$${\small (}$${\small )}$\^${\small ]} &
\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\\
{\small *Evidences of existence for these baryons are only fair: they are
not listed } \\
\ {\small in the Baryon Summary Table \cite{Baryon04}.}\end{tabular}
\ \ $[.]{}$\ \ \ $
We compare the charmed $\Lambda _{c}^{+}$-baryon, $\mathbf{\Omega }_{C}$-baryon and $\Lambda _{b}^{0}$-baryon in Table 20. Their deduced intrinsic quantum numbers are the same as the experimental results. The experimental masses of the charmed baryons ($\Lambda _{c}^{+}$ and $\mathbf{\Omega }_{C}$) and bottom baryons ($\Lambda _{b}^{0}$) coincide more than 98% with the deduced results.
[l]{} Table 20. The $\Lambda _{c}^{+}$-Baryons, the $\Lambda _{b\text{
}}^{0}$-Baryons and the $\mathbf{\Omega }_{C}$-Baryons\
[|l|l|l||l|l|l|]{} Deduced & Experiment & $\frac{\Delta \text{M}}{\text{M}}\%$ & Deduced & Experiment & $\frac{\Delta \text{M}}{\text{M}}\%$\
$\Lambda _{c}^{+}$**(2279)** & $\ \Lambda _{c}^{+}$**(2285)** & 0.2 & $\Lambda _{b}^{0}$(5539) & $\Lambda _{b}^{0}$(5624) & 1.5\
$\Lambda _{C}^{+}$**(2609)** &
-------------------------------------------------------
$\Lambda _{C}^{+}$(2594)
$\Lambda _{C}^{+}$(2627)
$\Lambda _{c}^{+}$($\overline{\text{\textbf{2611}}}$)
-------------------------------------------------------
& 0.46 & $\Lambda _{b}^{0}$(9959) & Prediction &\
$\Lambda _{C}^{+}$**(2809)** &
-----------------------------------------------------------------
$\Lambda _{C}^{+}$(2765)$^{\ast }$
$\Lambda _{C}^{+}$(2881)$^{\ast }$
$\Lambda _{c}^{+}$($\overline{\text{\textbf{2823}}}$)$^{\ast }$
-----------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.85. & & &\
$\Lambda _{C}^{+}$**(3009)** & Prediction & & $\mathbf{\Omega }_{C}$**(2709)** & $\mathbf{\Omega }_{C}$**(2698)** & 0.44\
$\Lambda _{C}^{+}$**(4019)** & Prediction & & $\Omega _{C}$**(3089)** & Prediction &\
\
[Evidences of existence for these baryons are only fair;]{}\
[they are not list in the Baryon Summary Table [@Baryon04].]{}
Finally we compare the deduced results with the experimental results for the charmed strange baryons $\Xi _{c}$ and $\Sigma _{c}$ in Table 21. Their intrinsic quantum numbers all match exactly and their masses also agree well (more than 98%).
[l]{} Table 21. Charmed Strange Baryon $\Xi _{c}$ and $\Sigma _{c}$\
[|l|l|l||l|l|l|]{} Deduced & Experiment & $\frac{\Delta \text{M}}{\text{M}}\%$ & Deduced & Experiment & $\frac{\Delta \text{M}}{\text{M}}\%$\
$\Xi _{c}$(**2499**) &
---------------------------------------------------
$\Xi _{C}$(2469)
$\Xi _{C}$(2576)
$\Xi _{c}$($\overline{\text{\textbf{2523}}}$**)**
---------------------------------------------------
& 1.0. & $\mathbf{\ \Sigma }_{c}$**(2479)** &
-------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Sigma _{c}$(2452)$\mathbf{\ }$
$\Sigma _{c}$(2518)
$\mathbf{\Sigma }_{c}$**(**$\overline{\text{\textbf{2485}}}$**)**
-------------------------------------------------------------------
& 0.24\
$\Xi _{C}$**(2789)** &
-----------------------------------------------
$\Xi _{C}$(2645)
$\Xi _{C}$(2790)
$\Xi _{C}$(2815)
$\Xi _{c}$($\overline{\text{\textbf{2750}}}$)
-----------------------------------------------
& **1.4** & $\mathbf{\Sigma }_{c}\text{(\textbf{6799})}$ & Prediction &\
$\Xi _{C}$**(2989)** & $\Pr $ediction & & & &\
$\Xi _{C}$**(3819)** & Prediction & & & &\
\
[Evidences of existence for these baryons are only fair; they are not listed]{}\
[ in the Baryon Summary Table [@Baryon04].]{}
In summary, the phenomenological formulae explain all baryon experimental intrinsic quantum numbers (100%) and the rest masses (about 98%). We explain virtually all experimentally-confirmed baryons in this paper.
The Meson Spectrum
======================================================
According to the Quark Model [@Quark; @Model], a meson is made of a quark$\ $q$_{i}$ with one of the three colors and an antiquark $\overline{q_{j}}$ with the anticolor of the quark q$_{i}$. Thus, all mesons are colorless particles. Because the mesons are colorless and the intrinsic quantum numbers of the quarks are independent from the quarks’ colors, we can omit the colors when we deduce the intrinsic quantum numbers of mesons from the quarks. Since we have already found the quark spectrum (Table 10 and Table 11), using sum laws, we can find the intrinsic quantum numbers (S, C, b, I and Q) of the mesons (q$_{i}\overline{\text{q}_{j}}$): $$\begin{tabular}{l}
S$_{\text{M}}$= S$_{\text{q}_{i}}$+ S$_{\overline{q_{j}}}$, \\
C$_{\text{M}}$= C$_{\text{q}_{i}}$+ C$_{\overline{q_{j}}}$, \\
b$_{\text{M}}$= b$_{\text{q}_{i}}$+ b$_{\overline{q_{j}}}$, \\
Q$_{\text{M}}$= Q$_{\text{q}_{i}}$+ Q$_{\overline{q_{j}}}$, \\
$\overrightarrow{I}_{\text{M}}$= $\overrightarrow{I}_{\text{q}_{i}}$+ $\overrightarrow{I}_{\overline{q_{j}}}$.\end{tabular}
\label{Meson-Sum}$$ We cannot, however, find the rest masses of mesons using a sum law because of their binding energies.
The Phenomenological Binding Energy Formula of Mesons
-----------------------------------------------------
There is not a theoretical formula for the binding energies; thus, we propose a phenomenological formula. Because all quarks inside mesons are the excited states of the elementary $\epsilon $-quarks, the binding energies are roughly a constant (-$2\Delta $ - 337 Mev). Quarks and antiquarks all have large rest masses. Although mesons are composed with large rest mass quarks and antiquarks, the mesons themselves do not have large masses. Thus, we use the (-2$\Delta $) to cancel the large part (2$\Delta $) of the quark and antiquark masses. If the difference between the quark mass (m$_{i}$) and the antiquark mass (m$_{j}$) in the quark pair (q$_{i}\overline{q_{j}}$) is larger, the binding energy is smaller (100$\frac{\Delta \text{m}}{\text{m}_{g}}$). If \[($\Delta $S)$_{i}$-($\Delta $S)$_{j}$\] is larger, the binding energy will be smaller \[DS =$\left\vert \text{(}\Delta \text{S)}_{i}\text{- (}\Delta \text{S)}_{j}\right\vert $\]. The pairs (q$_{i}\overline{q_{i}}$) have larger binding energies than the pairs (q$_{i}\overline{q_{j}},i\neq j$), as shown in the following phenomenological formula for meson (q$_{i}\overline{q_{j}}$):
$$\text{E}_{B}\text{(q}_{i}\overline{q_{j}}\text{) = -2}\Delta \text{ -337
+100[}\frac{\Delta \text{m}}{\text{m}_{g}}\text{ +DS - }\widetilde{m}\text{
+ }\gamma (i,j)\text{ -0.78}\Delta \text{IS}_{i}\text{S}_{j}\text{ +(5.35}\Delta \text{I-2)I}_{i}\text{I}_{j}\text{]} \label{M-Ebin}$$
where $\Delta $ = $\frac{1}{3}\left\vert \text{E}_{bind}\right\vert $ ([Dalta]{}) is $\frac{1}{3}$binding energy of a baryon (an unknown huge constant, $\Delta $ m$_{\text{P}}$= 938 Mev); $\Delta $m = $\left\vert \text{m}_{i}\text{-m}_{j}\right\vert $, DS =$\left\vert \text{(}\Delta \text{S)}_{i}\text{- (}\Delta \text{S)}_{j}\right\vert $ and $\Delta $I = $\left\vert \text{I}_{i\text{ }}\text{-I}_{j}\right\vert $. m$_{g}$ = 939 (Mev) unless $$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
m$_{i}$(or m$_{j}$) equals & m$_{C}\geqslant $ 6073 & m$_{b}\geqslant $ 9333
& m$_{S}\geqslant $ 9613 \\ \hline
$\ \ \ \text{m}_{g}${\small \ will equal to} & 1753(Table 4) & 4913 (Table7)
& 3753(Table 4). \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{m(g)}$$
$\ \widetilde{m}$ = $\frac{m_{i}\times m_{j}}{\text{m}_{g_{i}}\times \text{m}_{g_{j}}}$ m$_{g_{i}}$ = m$_{g_{j}}^{\text{ \ }}$ = 939 (Mev) unless $$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ m$_{i}$(or m$_{j}$) & m$_{q_{_{N}}}$=313 & m$_{d_{s}}$=493 & m$_{u_{c}}\succeq $1753 & m$_{d_{S}}$\TEXTsymbol{>} 3753, & m$_{d_{b}}\succeq $
4913 \\ \hline
\ m$_{g_{j}}$ (or m$_{g_{j}}^{\text{ \ }})$ & 313 & 493 & 1753 & 3753, &
4913. \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{M(gi)}$$ If q$_{i\text{ }}$and q$_{j}$ are both ground quarks, $\gamma $(i, j) = 0. If q$_{i\text{ }}$and q$_{j}$ are not both ground quarks, for q$_{i\text{
}}$= q$_{j}$, $\gamma $(i, j) = -$1$; for q$_{i\text{ }}\neq $ q$_{j}$,$\
\gamma $(i, j) = +1. S$_{i}$ (or S$_{j}$) is the strange number of the quark q$_{i}$ (or q$_{j}$). I$_{i}$ (or I$_{j}$) is the isospin of the quark q$_{i} $ (or q$_{j}$).
We now have the sum laws (\[Meson-Sum\]) and binding energy formulae ([M-Ebin]{}). Using these formulae, we can deduce mesons from the quark spectrum in Table 10 and Table 11.
How to Deduce Mesons from Quarks Using these Formulae
-----------------------------------------------------
Three types of examples show how to deduce mesons using these formulae. We will also deduce some important mesons at the same time.
B1. The Mesons of the Ground Quarks and the Ground Antiquarks
We deduce the mesons that are composed of the five ground quarks ( u$^{0}$(313), d$^{0}$(313), d$_{S}^{1}$(493), u$_{C}^{1}$(1753) and d$_{b}^{1}$(4913)) and their antiquarks to show how to use the phenomenological formulae (\[M-Ebin\]) to deduce the rest masses of the mesons from the quark spectrum. For the ground quarks, $\gamma $(i, j) = 0, $\widetilde{m}$ = 1 from (\[M(gi)\]) and $\Delta $IS$_{i}$S$_{j}$ = $\Delta $I(I$_{i}$I$_{j})$ = 0; the formula (\[M-Ebin\]) is simplified to
$$\text{{\Huge \ }E}_{B}\text{(q}_{i}\overline{q_{j}}\text{)= -2}\Delta \text{
- 437 + 100(}\frac{\Delta \text{m}}{\text{939}}\text{ + DS - 2I}_{i}\text{I}_{j}\text{).} \label{GEbin}$$
Using (\[GEbin\]) we deduced the masses of the important mesons as shown in Table 22:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \text{Table 22.\ \ The Ground Mesons of the Ground
Quarks}$
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
$\_[i]{}\^[S]{}\_[i]{} $ & $$ & D{\small S} & $\_[i]{}\_[j]{}$ & {\small E}$\_[bind]{}$ &
{\small Deduced} & {\small Experiment} \\ \hline
$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$ & {\small 0} & $0$ & $$ & {\small - 487-}$2$ & $${\small (139)} & $${\small (138)} \\ \hline
$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$ & {\small 19} & {\small 1} & 0 & {\small - 318-}$2$ & {\small K(488)} & {\small K(494)} \\ \hline
$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & 0 & {\small - 437-}$2$ & $${\small (549)} & $${\small (548)} \\ \hline
$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$ & {\small 153} & {\small 1} & 0 & {\small - 184-}$2$ & {\small D(1882)} & {\small D(1869)} \\ \hline
$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$ & {\small 134} & {\small 0} & 0 & {\small - 303-}$2$ & {\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (1943)} & {\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (1969)}
\\ \hline
$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & 0 & {\small -437-}$2$ & {\small J/}$${\small (3069)} & {\small J/}$${\small (3097)} \\ \hline
$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$ & {\small 490} & {\small 1} & 0 & \ {\small 153-}$2$ & {\small B(5379)} & {\small B(5279)} \\ \hline
$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}$ & {\small 471} & $0$ & 0 & \ {\small 34-}$2$
& {\small B}$\_[S]{}${\small (5440)} & {\small B}$\_[S]{}${\small (5370)} \\ \hline
$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$ & {\small 337} & {\small 0} & 0 & {\small -100-}$2$ & {\small B}$\_[C]{}${\small (6566)} & {\small B}$\_[C]{}${\small (6400)}
\\ \hline
$\_[b]{}\^[1]{}$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & 0 & {\small -\ 437-}$2$ & $${\small (9389)} & $${\small (9460)} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ $
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Table 22, we can see that the terms $\Delta \ $of the quark andantiquark masses are always cancelled by term ($-2\Delta $) of the binding energy. Thus we will omit the term $\Delta \ $in the quark masses and the term $-2\Delta \ $in the binding energy from now on.
B2. The Important Mesons of the Quark Pairs (q$_{i}$ = q$_{j}$)
For quark pairs, $\Delta $m = DS = $\Delta $I = 0, $\gamma $(i, j) = -1, from (\[M-Ebin\]), omitting -2$\Delta $, we have $$\text{E}_{B}\text{(q}_{i}\overline{q_{j}}\text{) = - 437 -100(}\widetilde{m}\text{ \ + 2I}_{i}\text{I}_{j}\text{)}. \label{Ebin(Pair)}$$ Using (\[Ebin(Pair)\]) and the sum laws (\[Meson-Sum\]), we deduced the mesons that are shown in Table 23 from the quarks in Table 11:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $[Table 23. The Important Mesons of q(m)]{}$\overline{\text{q(m)}}$[ ]{}
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ \ q$\_[i]{}\^[s]{}$(m)$$ & \ \ \ \
-100$$ & -200$\_[i]{}\_[j]{}$ & E$\_[bind]{}$ & Deduced
\\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}$(1933)$$
& -424$$ & 0 & - 861 & $ $(3005) \\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^$(773)$$ & -68$$ & 0
& -505 & $$(1041) \\ \hline
$\_[S]{}\^$(3753)$$ & -1597$$
& 0 & -2034 & $$(5472) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1203})$$
& -164$$ & 0 & -601 & $$(1805) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1303})$$
& -193$$ & 0 & -630 & $$(1976) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[0]{}${\small (1393)}$$ & -220$$ & 0 & -657 & $$(2129)
\\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (2013})$$
& -460$$ & 0 & -897 & $$(3129) \\ \hline
$\_[S]{}$(2743)$$ & -853$$ & 0 & -1290 & $$(4196)
\\ \hline
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1413)}$$ & -226$$ & 0 & -663 & $$(2163)
\\ \hline
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1513)}$$ & -260$$ & 0 & -697 & $$(2329)
\\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[-1]{}${\small (1503)}$$ & -256$$ & 0 & -693 & $$(2313) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[-1]{}${\small (1603)}$$ & -291$$ & 0 & -728 & $$(2478) \\ \hline
q$\_\^[0]{}$(583)$$ & -39$$ &
-200 & -676 & $$(490) \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_\^[1,0]{}${\small (583)} $$ & -39$$ & -50 & -526 & $$(640) \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (673)} $$ & -51$$ & -50
& -538 & $$(808) \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (853)} $$ & -83$$ & -50
& -570 & $$(1136) \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1213)} $$ & -167$$
& -50 & -654 & $$(1772) \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_\^[1,0]{}${\small (1303)} $$ & -193$$ & -50 & -680 & $$(1926) \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (1393)} $$ & -220$$
& -50 & -707 & $$(2079) \\ \hline
q$\_\^[0]{}$(1573)$$ & -281$$
& -50 & -768 & $$(2378) \\ \hline
q$\_\^[1,0]{}$(2023)$$ & -464$$
& -50 & -951 & $$(3095) \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(6073)$$ & -1200$$ & 0 & -1637 & $$(10509) \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2133)$$ & -148$$ & 0 & -585 & $$(3681) \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2333)$$ & -177$$ & 0 & -614 & $$(4052) \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2533)$$ & -209$$ & 0 & -646 & $$(4420) \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(3543)$$ & -408$$ & 0 & -845 & $$(6241) \\ \hline
d$\_[b]{}\^[1]{}$(9333)$$
& -361$$ & 0 & -798 & $$(17868) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B3. The Mesons of the Unpaired Quarks \[q$_{i}\neq $ q$_{j}$\]
For mesons (q$_{i}\neq $ q$_{j}$), $\gamma $(i, j) = 1, from (\[M-Ebin\]), omitting $-2\Delta ,$we have
$$\text{E}_{B}\text{(q}_{i}\overline{q_{j}}\text{) =\ -237+100[}\frac{\Delta
\text{m}}{\text{m}_{g}}\text{ +DS -}\widetilde{m}\text{ -0.78}\Delta \text{IS}_{i}\text{S}_{j}\text{ +(5.35}\Delta \text{I-2)I}_{i}\text{I}_{j}\text{].}
\label{Un-P}$$ Using the formula (\[Un-P\]) and the sum laws (\[Meson-Sum\]), we deduce the mesons shown in Table 24A, Table 24B and Table 24C:
For mesons $\pi $(M) with S = C = b = 0 and I = 1, (\[Un-P\]) can be simplified to
E$_{B}$(q$_{i}\overline{q_{j}}$) = -237+100\[$\frac{\Delta \text{m}}{\text{m}_{g}}$ +DS -$\widetilde{m}$ -0.78S$_{i}$S$_{j}$ +3.35I$_{i}$I$_{j}$\]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\text{\ \ Table 24-A.\ }$The Light Unflavored Mesons (S = C = b = 0 and I = 1)
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ \ q$\_[i]{}$({\small m}$\_[i]{}$)$$ & $$ & DS & 100$$ & S$\_[i]{}$S$\_[j]{}$ & I$\_[i]{}$I$\_[j]{}$ & {\small E}$\_[bind]{}$ & {\small Deduced} \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(583)$$ & 9.6 & 1 & 62.1 & 1 & 0 & -268 & $$(808) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(583)$$ & 9.6 & 0 & 62.1 & 1 & 0 & -368 & $$(708) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(583)$$ & 9.6 & 1 & 62.1 & 1 & 0 & -268 & $$(808) \\ \hline
\ q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$({\small 313})$$ & 38.3 & 0 &
71.7 & 0 & $$ & -19 & $$($967$) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(1033)$$ & 57.0 & 1 & 110.0 & 1 & 0 & -268 & $$(1258) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(1033)$$ & 57.0 & 0 & 110.0 & 1 & 0 & -368 & $$(1158) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(1033)$$ & 57.0 & 1 & 110.0 & 1 & 0 & -268 & $$(1258) \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$({\small 313})$$ & 76.7 & 0 &
110.0 & 0 & $$ & -19 & $($1327$)$ \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(1303)$$ & 86.3 & 1 & 138.8 & 1 & 0 & -268 & $$(1528) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(1303)$$ & 86.3 & 0 & 138.8 & 1 & 0 & -368 & $$(1428) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(1303)$$ & 86.3 & 1 & 138.8 & 1 & 0 & -268 & $$(1528) \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$({\small 313)}$$ {\small \ } &
115.0 & 0 & 148.3 & 0 & $$ & -19 & $($1687{\small )} \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(1753)$$ & 134.2 & 1 & 186.7 & 1 & 0 & -268 & $$(1978) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(1753)$$ & 134.2 & 0 & 186.7 & 1 & 0 & -168 & $$(1878) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(1753)$$ & 134.2 & 1 & 186.7 & 1 & 0 & -268 & $$(1978) \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$({\small 313)}$$ & 153.4 & 0 &
186.7 & 0 & $$ & -19 & $($2077{\small )} \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(2023)$$ & 163 & 1 & 215.4 & 1 & 0 & -268 & $$(2248) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(2023)$$ & 163 & 0 & 215.4 & 1 & 0 & -368 & $$(2148) \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}$(2023)$$ & 163 & 1 & 215.4 & 1 & 0 & -268 & $$(2248) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}\ $
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For $\Delta $IS$_{i}$S$_{j}$ = $\Delta $I$\times $I$_{i}$I$_{j}$=0, E$_{B}$(q$_{i}\overline{q_{j}}$) = - 237+100\[$\frac{\Delta \text{m}}{\text{m}_{g}}$ +DS -$\widetilde{m}$ -2I$_{i}$I$_{j}$\]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \text{Table 24-B.\ }$[The Mesons of the Unpaired Quarks (]{}$\Delta $IS$_{i}$S$_{j}$ = $\Delta $I$\times $I$_{i}$I$_{j}$=0 )
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
$ ${\small \ q(m}$\_[i]{}${\small )}$$ & {\small 100}$$ & {\small DS}
& $\_[i]{}\_[j]{}$ & {\small -100 }$$ & {\small E}$\_[bind]{}$ & {\small Deduced} \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (313) }$$ & {\small 29\ }$${\small (}$)$ & {\small 0} & $$ & {\small 62}$$ & {\small -320} & $(${\small 576)} \\
\hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ & {\small 29\ }$$ & {\small 1} & $$ & {\small 62}$$ & {\small -220} & $${\small (676)} \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ & {\small 38\ .3}$$ & {\small 1} & $$ & {\small 71.7}$$ & {\small -220} & $${\small (766)} \\
\hline
{\small q}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ & {\small 30}$$ & {\small 2} & {\small 0} & {\small 82.3}$$ & {\small - 90} & $${\small (1177)} \\
\hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ & {\small 105.4\ }$$ & {\small 0} & $$ & {\small 138.8}$ $ & {\small -320} & $${\small (1296)} \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ & {\small 105.4\ }$$ & {\small 1} & $$ & {\small 138.8}$ $ & {\small -220} & $${\small (1396)} \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ & {\small 108.6}$$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 161.1}$$ & {\small -290} & $${\small (1716)} \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ & {\small 118.2}$$ & {\small 2} & {\small 0} & {\small 170.7}$ $ & {\small -90} & $${\small (2006)}
\\ \hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (493)}$$ & {\small 347.2}$ $ & {\small 2} & {\small 0} & {\small 399.7}$$ & {\small -90} & $${\small (4156)} \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ & {\small 49\ }$$ & {\small 1} & {\small 0} & {\small 82.3}$$ & {\small - 170} & {\small K(916)} \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ & {\small 49\ }$$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 82.3}$$ & {\small -270} & {\small K(816)} \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ & {\small 94.8\ }$$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 128.1}$$ & {\small -270} & {\small K(1246)} \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ & {\small 105.4}$$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 138.8}$$ & {\small -270} & {\small K(1346)} \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ & {\small 115\ }$$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 148.3}$$ & {\small -270} & {\small K(1436)} \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ & {\small 126.7}$$ & {\small 1} & {\small 0} & {\small 160}$$ & {\small -170} & {\small K(1646)} \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ & {\small 172.5}$$ & {\small 1} & {\small 0} & {\small 205.9}$$ & {\small -170} & {\small K(2076)} \\ \hline
{\small u}$\_[C]{}${\small (6073)}$$ & {\small 328,6}$ $ & {\small 1} & {\small 0} & {\small 346.4}$$ & {\small -155} & {\small D(6231)} \\ \hline
{\small u}$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1753)}$$ & {\small 104.4}$$ & {\small 2} & {\small 0} & {\small 82.3}$$ & {\small -15} & {\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (2511)} \\
\hline
{\small u}$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1753)}$$ & {\small 104.4}$$
& {\small 1} & {\small 0} & {\small 82.3}$$ & {\small -115} & {\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (2411)} \\ \hline
{\small u}$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1753)}$$ & {\small 104.4}$$
& {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 82.3}$$ & {\small -215} & {\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (2311)} \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ & {\small 183.6}$$ & {\small 1} & {\small 0} & {\small 190}$$ & {\small -143} & {\small B(9503)} \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[-1]{}${\small (493)}$$ & {\small 243}$$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 256.1}$$ & {\small -250} & $${\small (9856)} \\
\hline
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ & {\small 243}$$ & {\small 2} & {\small 0} & {\small 256.1}$$ & {\small -50} & $${\small (10056)} \\
\hline
{\small d}$\_\^[-1]{}${\small (773)}$$ & {\small 235.5}$$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 210.9}$ $ & {\small -212} & $${\small (10174)} \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1203)}$$ & {\small 224}$$ & {\small 1} & {\small 0} & {\small 328.2}$$ & {\small -241} & $${\small (10575)}
\\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (1413)}$$ & {\small 218.5}$$ & {\small 2} & {\small 0} & {\small 385}$ $ & {\small -204} & $${\small (10822)} \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (1513)}$$ & {\small 215.8}$$ & {\small 2} & {\small 0} & {\small 412.7}$ $ & {\small -234} & $${\small (10892)} \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1923)}$$ & {\small 204.9}$$ & {\small 1} & {\small 0} & {\small 524.5}$ $ & {\small -456} & $${\small (11080)} \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (1933)}$$ & {\small 204.6}$$ & {\small 2} & {\small 0} & {\small 527.3}$ $ & {\small -360} & $${\small (11186)} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ $
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For S$_{i}$S$_{j}$ = I$_{i}$I$_{j}$ = 0, E$_{B}$(q$_{i}\overline{q_{j}}$) = -237+100\[$\frac{\Delta \text{m}}{\text{m}_{g}}$ +DS -$\widetilde{m}$ \].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \text{\ Table 24-C.\ }$The Mesons with S$_{i}$S$_{j}$ =I$_{i}$I$_{j}$ = 0
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ \ q$\_[i]{}$({\small m}$\_[i]{}$)$$ & $$ & DS & 100$$ & {\small E}$\_[bind]{}$ &
{\small Deduced} \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(1753)$$ & {\small 40.5}
& 0 & {\small 121.7} & -318 & $$(3568) \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(1753)$$ & {\small 61.8}
& 0 & {\small 133.1} & -308 & $$(3778) \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(1753)$$ & 83.1 & 0 &
144.5 & -298 & $$(3988) \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$({\small 313)}$$ & 193.8
& 1 & 121.7 & -65 & D(2381) \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$({\small 313)}$$ & 215.1
& 1 & 133.1 & -55 & D(2591) \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$({\small 313)}$$ & 236.4
& 1 & 144.5 & -45 & D(2801) \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2133)$$ & 174.7 & 0
& 121.7 & -184 & D$\_[S]{}$(2442) \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2333)$$ & 196.0 & 0
& 133.1 & -174 & D$\_[S]{}$(2652) \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2533)$$ & 217.3 & 0
& 144.5 & -164 & D$\_[S]{}$(2862) \\ \hline
$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$ &
461.1 & 1 & 62.1 & +262$\^$ & B(5758) \\ \hline
$\_[N]{}\^[1]{}$ &
461.1 & 0 & 62.1 & +162$\^$ & B(5658) \\ \hline
$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$ &
432.4 & 1 & 90.8 & +205$\^$ & B(5971) \\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}$ & 440.9 & 2
& 82.3 & +322$\^$ & B$\_[S]{}$(6008) \\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[0]{}$ & 440.9 & 1
& 82.3 & +222$\^$ & B$\_[S]{}$(5908) \\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}$ & 440.9 & 0
& 82.3 & +122$\^$ & B$\_[S]{}$(5808) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ $
$\ \ ^{\ast }$[ ]{}$\text{E}_{B}\text{(q}_{i}\overline{q_{j}}\text{) =
-2}\Delta \text{ -337+..., }\Delta >>$[ 337+.... Thus ]{}$\text{E}_{B}\text{(q}_{i}\overline{q_{j}}\text{) \TEXTsymbol{<} 0.}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As in Table 22, Table 23 and Table 24, using the sum laws (\[Meson-Sum\]) and the binding energy formula (\[M-Ebin\]), we deduced a meson spectrum from the quark spectrum (Table 10 and Table 11). Table 25-Table 31 will show the results. At the same time, we will compare the deduced result with the experimental results using Table 25-Table 31 also in the following section.
Comparing with the Experimental Results of Mesons
-----------------------------------------------------
Using Table 25-Table 31, we compare the deduced meson spectrum with the experimental results [@Meson04]. In the comparison, we do not take into account the angular momenta of the experimental results. We assume that the small differences of the masses in the same group of mesons with the same intrinsic quantum numbers are from their different angular momenta. If we ignore this effect, their masses would be essentially the same. In this comparison, we use the meson name to represent the intrinsic quantum numbers. If the names of the deduced meson and the experimental meson are the same, this means that the intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q) are exactly the same. Since the unflavored mesons with the same intrinsic quantum numbers but different angular momenta and parities have different names, in order to compare the rest masses, we omit the differences of the angular momenta and parities; we use meson $\eta $ to represent the mesons with S = C = b = 0, I = Q = 0 ($\eta $, $\varpi $, $\phi $, h and f) (see Table C5 and Table 27) and we use meson $\pi $ to represent the mesons with S = C = b = 0, I = 1, Q = 1, 0, -1 ($\pi $, $\rho $, a and b) (see Table C6 and Table 28). Table 25-Table 31 show that the deduced intrinsic quantum umbers (I, S, C, b and Q) exactly match with the experimental results.
Sometimes there are multiple possible mesons with the same intrinsic quantum numbers and the same (or nearly same) rest masses, we will choose the meson with the highest probability using (\[P(Qk)\]). If there are several possible mesons that have essentially the same probability, it is believed that they form (superposition) one meson with the average mass of all the mesons (see Table C3-Table C7).
Using Table 25-Table 31, we compare the deduced mesons with the experimental results. These tables show that although the names are not the same, the intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C,b and Q) are the same for both deduced meson and experimental meson. We do not repeat this conclusion for each table. Their mass units are the same-“Mev”.
We compare the heavy unflavored mesons in Table 25:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ \text{Table 25. }$The Heavy Unflavored Mesons with S=C=b=I=0
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}$(9613)$$ & Deduced & Expert., $$ (Mev)
& {\small R=}$%$ \\ \hline
d$\_[b]{}$(4913)$$ & $$(9389) & $$(9460), 53 kev & 0.75 \\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}$(9613)$$ & $$($$) & $$($$), \ \ ? & 0.18
\\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}$(9613)$$ & $$(10056)
& $$(10023), 43 kev & 0.13 \\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}$(9613)$$ & $$($$) & $($), \ \ ? & 0.75
\\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}$(6073)$$ & $$(10509) & $$(10355), 26 kev & 1.5 \\ \hline
2d$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}$(9613)$$\ & $$($$) & $$(10580), 20 & 0.66 \\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}$(9613)$$\ & $$($$) & $$(10865), 110 & 0.73 \\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}$(9613)$$ & $$(11079) & $$(11020), 79 & 0.54 \\ \hline
$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}$ & $$(11151) & Prediction & \\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}$(9613)$$\ & $$(12261) & Prediction & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ \ $
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Table 25 shows that the masses of the deduced mesons are more than 98.5% consistent with the experimental results.]{}
We compare the intermediate mass mesons in Table 26:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ \ \ \ $Table 26. The Intermediate Mass Mesons (S=C=b=I=0)
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ \ q$\_[i]{}$(m)$$ & Deduced & Exper., $$
{\small (Mev)} & {\small R=}$%$ \\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}$(1933)$$ & $$(3005)
& $\_[C]{}$(2980), 17 & 0.84 \\ \hline
$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$ & J/$$(3069) & J/$$(3097), 91 kev & 0.91 \\ \hline
$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$ & $$(3567) & $$($$), $$ &
2.09 \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2133)$$ & $$(3681)
& $$(3686), 281 kev & 0.14 \\ \hline
$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$ & $$(3778) & $$(3770), 23.6 & 0.21 \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2333)$$ & $$(4052)
& $$(4040), 52 & 0.11 \\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}$(3753)$$ & $$(4156)
& $$(4160), 78 & 0.10 \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2533)$$ & $$(4420) & $$(4415), 43 & 0.30 \\ \hline
$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$ & $$(4959) & Prediction & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ $
----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Table 26 shows that the masses of the deduced mesons are about 98% consistent with the experimental results.]{}
We compare the light unflavored mesons with I = 0 in Table 27:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 27. The Light Unflavored Mesons (S=C=b=0) I = 0
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ \ \ {\small q}$\_[i]{}${\small (m}$\_[i]{}${\small )}$$ & Deduced & Exper., $$ (Mev) & {\small R=}$%$ \\ \hline
$ \_[S]{}\^[1]{}$ & $${\small (549)} & $${\small (547), \ 1.18 Kev} & {\small 0.4} \\
\hline
\ {\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (313)}$$
& $$($$) & $${\small (600)}$,$
{\small 800} & \ / \\ \hline
\ {\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (313)}$$
& $${\small (}$${\small )} & $$(782), 8.49 & {\small 1.15} \\ \hline
\ {\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ & $$(976) & $(),$ & {\small 0.93} \\ \hline
\ {\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[-]{}${\small (773)}$$ & $${\small (1041)} & $$(1020), {\small 4.26} & 2.1 \\ \hline
\ {\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (313)}$ $ & $$($$) & {\small h}$\_[1]{}${\small (1170), 360}
& {\small 0.26} \\ \hline
\ {\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (313)}$ $ & $$(1296) & $$($$),$$
& {\small 0.94} \\ \hline
\ {\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (313)}$ $ & $${\small (1396 )} & $$($$){\small ,}$$ & {\small 0.50} \\ \hline
\ {\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (313)}$ $ & $${\small (}$${\small )} & $$($$), $$ & 1.53 \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$\end{tabular}
& $$($$) & $$($${\small ),}$$ & {\small 0.18} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$\end{tabular}
& $(${\small )} & $${\small (}$${\small ),}$$ & {\small 1.53} \\
\hline
\ {\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (313)}$ $ & $(${\small 2016}$)$ & $()${\small , }$$ & 0.25 \\ \hline
\ \ 4{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (313)}$$ & $()$ & $()\^$, $$ & 0.66 \\ \hline
\ {\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (313)}$ $ & $(${\small 2216}$)$ & $()\^$, $$ & 0.09 \\ \hline
\ {\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ & $$(2316) & $$($$)$\^$, $$ & 0.09 \\ \hline
\ {\small d}$\_\^[-1]{}${\small (1603)}$$ & $()$ & f$\_[0]{}$(2465)$\^$, 255 & 1.5 \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (313)}$$
& $$(2646) & Prediction & \\ \hline
\ {\small q}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ & $${\small (3046)} & Prediction & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Table 27 shows that the masses of the deduced mesons are about 98% consistent with the experimental results.]{}
We compare the light unflavored mesons with I = 1 in Table 28:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \text{Table 28. }$The Light Unflavored Mesons (S=C=b=0) I = 1
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
q$\_[N]{}$(313)$$ & E$\_[bind]{}$ & Phenomen. & Exper., $$ (Mev) & R=$%$ \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$(313)$$ & -487 & $$(139) & $$(138) & 0.72 \\ \hline
d$\_\^[1,0]{}$(493)$$ & $$ & $$($$) & $($776), 150 & 0.0 \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$(313)$$ & -19 & $ $(967) & a$\_[0]{}$(985), 75 & 1.8 \\ \hline
d$\_\^[1,0]{}$(493)$$ & $$ & $$($$) & $$($$),$$ & 0.24 \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$(313)$$ & -19 & $$(1327) & $$($$), $$ & 0.30 \\
\hline
d$\_\^[1,0]{}$(493)$$ & $$ & $$($$) & $$($$),$$ & 1.8 \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$(313)$$\ & -19 & $( $1687) & $$(1669), $$ & 1.1 \\ \hline
d$\_\^[1,0]{}$(493)$$ & $$ & $$($$) & $$(1812),207 & 0.77 \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$(313)$$ & -19 & $($) & $$($$), $$ & 0.40 \\ \hline
d$\_\^[1,0]{}$(493)$$ & -268 & $$($$) & $$($$)$\^,$ $$ & 0.09 \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$(313)$$ & -19 & $($2407) & $$($$)$\^$, $$
& 1.8 \\ \hline
d$\_\^[1,0]{}$(493)$$ & $$ & $$(2666) & Prediction & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ $
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Table 28 shows that the masses of the deduced mesons are more than 98% consistent with the experimental results]{}.
We compare the mesons B and B$_{S}$ in Table 29:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $Table 29. The Mesons B(M) and B$_{S}$(M)
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ \ d$\_[b]{}$(m)$$\ &
Deduced & Exper., (Mev) & {\small R=}$%$ \\
\hline
q$\_\^[0]{}$(313)$$\ & B(5378)
& B($$)$\^[\#]{}$ & 1.4 \\ \hline
$\_[N]{}\^[1,0]{}$ &
B(5708) & B$\_[j]{}\^$(5732) & 0.42 \\ \hline
$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$ &
B(5971) & Prediction & \\ \hline
q$\_\^[0]{}$(313)$$ & B(9503)
& Prediction & \\ \hline
$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}$ & B$\_[S]{}$(5440) & B$\_[S]{}$(5370) & 1.3 \\ \hline
q$\_[b]{}\^[1]{}$(4913)$$\ & B$\_[S]{}$(5908) & B$\_[SJ]{}\^$(5850) & 1.0 \\ \hline
$\_[S]{}$ & B$\_[S]{}$(9579) & Prediction & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ $
$\ \ \ $[B(]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 5302}}}$[)]{}$^{\#}$[=]{}$\frac{1}{2}$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Table 29 shows that the masses of the deduced mesons are about 98% consistent with the experimental results.]{}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ \ \ \ \ $Table 30. The D-mesons and the D$_{S}$-Mesons
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ u$\_[C]{}$(m)$$\ & Deduced &
Exper.,(Mev) & R=$%$ \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}$(1753)$$ & D(1882) & D($$) & 2.9 \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2133)$$ & D(2381)
& D($$) & 2.4 \\ \hline
$\_\^[1]{}$ & D(2591) & D(2640)$\^$ & 1.9 \\ \hline
$\_\^[1]{}$ & D(2801) & Prediction & \\ \hline
$\_\^[1]{}$ & D(6231) & Prediction & \\ \hline
{*}*************** & ******* & ******** & *** \\ \hline
$\_\^[1]{}$(1753)$$ & D$\_[S]{}$(1943) & D$\_[S]{}\^$(1968) & 1.3 \\ \hline
$\_\^[1]{}$(1753)$$
& D$\_[S]{}$($$) & D$\_[S]{}$($$) &
0.90 \\ \hline
$\_\^[1]{}$ & D$\_[S]{}$(2311) & D$\_[S\_[j]{}]{}$(2317) & 0.04 \\ \hline
$\_\^[1]{}$ & D$\_[S]{}$($$) & D$\_[S\_[j]{}]{}$(2460) & 0.20 \\
\hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2333)$$ & D$\_[S]{}$($$) & D$\_[S\_[j]{}]{}$($$) & 0.23 \\
\hline
$\_\^[1]{}$ & D$\_[S]{}$($$) & Prediction & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ $
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 31. The Strange Mesons (S = $\pm $1)
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ q$\_$(313)$ $ & Deduced &
Exper., $$ (Mev) & R=$%$ \\ \hline
q$\_$(313)$$ & K(488) &
K(494) & 1.2 \\ \hline
q$\_$(313)$$ & K($$) & K(892), 50 & 1.3 \\ \hline
q$\_$(313)$$ & K($$) & K(1273), 90 & 0.47 \\ \hline
q$\_$(313)$$ & K($$) & K($$)$,$ & 1.6 \\ \hline
q$\_$(313)$$ & K($$) & K($$)$\^[\#]{}$, \ $$ & 0.50 \\ \hline
q$\_$(313)$$ & K($$) & K($$), $$ & 0.28 \\ \hline
q$\_$(313)$$ & K(1966) & K($$)$\^[\#]{}$, $$ &
0.20 \\ \hline
q$\_$(313)$$ & K(2056) & K$\_[4]{}\^$(2045), 198 & 1.0 \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$(2013)$$ & K(2316) & K($$)$\^[\#]{}$, $$ & 0.04 \\ \hline
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ & K(2786) & Prediction & ? \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ \ $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Table 30 and Table 31 show that the deduced intrinsic quantum numbers of the D-mesons, the D]{}$_{S}$[-mesons and the K-mesons are the same as the experimental results. They also show that the deduced rest masses of the D-mesons, the D]{}$_{S}$[-mesons and the K-mesons agree (about 98%) with the experimental results.]{}
In summary, the phenomenological formulae explain all meson experimental intrinsic quantum numbers (100%) and the rest masses (about 98%). We explain virtually all experimentally confirmed mesons in this paper and all deduced low-mass mesons have already been discovered by experiments.
Evidence for the Deduced Quarks
===================================================
According to the Quark Model [@Quark; @Model], we cannot see an individual quark. We can only infer the existence of quarks from the existence of baryons and mesons, which are made up of the quarks. Thus, if we find the mesons that are made of certain quarks, it means that we also find the quarks. For example, from meson J/$\Psi $(3097) = \[u$_{C}^{1}$(1753)$\overline{\text{u}_{C}^{1}\text{(1753)}}$\], we discovered the u$_{C}^{1}$(1753)-quark. Similarly the experimental baryon spectrum [@Baryon04] and the meson spectrum [@Meson04] have already provided evidence of almostall of the quarks in Table 11. As examples, for the three three-brother-quarks \[d$_{S}^{\text{-1}}$(773), d$_{S}^{\text{-1}}$(3753) and d$_{S}^{\text{-1}}$(9613)\], \[u(313), u$_{C}^{\text{1}}$(1753) and u$_{C}^{\text{1}}$(6073)\] and \[u$_{C}^{1}$(2133), u$_{C}^{1}$(2333) and u$_{C}^{1}$(2533)\] and a four-brother-quark \[d(313), d$_{S}^{\text{1}}$(493), d$_{S}^{\text{1}}$(1933) and d$_{b}^{\text{1}}$(4913)\], they all have strong experimental evidence.
The Three Brother Quarks d$_{S}^{-1}$(773), d$_{S}^{-1}$(3753) and d$_{S}^{-1}$(9613)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three brother quarks, d$_{S}^{-1}$(773)$,$ d$_{S}^{-1}$(3753) and d$_{S}^{-1}$(9613). They are born on the single energy bands of the $\Delta $-axis at the symmetry point H from $\Delta $S = -1 (see Table 4). From Table 13, Table 25 and Table 26, we have:
A1. The d$_{S}^{-1}$(773)-quark (see Table 4)
The d$_{S}^{-1}$(773)-quark has Q = -$\frac{1}{3}$, n =(0, 0, 2). Table 32 shows its evidence:
[l]{} Table 32. Evidence of the $\text{d}_{S}^{-1}\text{(773)-quark}$\
[|l|l|l|l|]{} where & The Quark Constitutions of the Hadrons & Exper. & $\frac{\Delta M}{M}\%$\
Table 17 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\text{d}_{S}^{\text{-1}}\text{(773)u(313)d(313) = }\Lambda $(1399)
$\text{d}_{S}^{\text{-1}}\text{(773)u(313)u(313) = }\Sigma ^{+}$(1399)
$\text{d}_{S}^{\text{-1}}\text{(773)u(313)d(313) = }\Sigma ^{0}$(1399)
$\text{d}_{S}^{\text{-1}}\text{(773)d(313)d(313) = }\Sigma ^{-}$(1399)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\text{ }$ &
---------------------
$\Lambda $(1405)
$\Sigma ^{+}$(1383)
$\Sigma ^{0}$(1384)
$\Sigma ^{-}$(1387)
---------------------
&
--------
$0.35$
$1.13$
1.0
0.87
--------
\
Table 27 & $\ \text{d}_{S}^{\text{-1}}\text{(773)}\overline{\text{d}_{S}^{\text{-1}}\text{(773)}}\text{ = }\eta $[(1041)]{} & $\ \ \phi $[(1020)]{} & 2.1\
Table 31 & $\ \text{q}_{N}\text{(313)}\overline{\text{d}_{S}^{\text{-1}}\text{(773)}}\text{ =}$[K(883)]{} & K(892) & 1.3\
Table 24B & d$_{\text{S}}$(493)$\overline{\text{d}_{S}^{\text{-1}}\text{(773)}}$ = $\eta $(1177) & h$_{1}$[(1170)]{} & 0.1\
Table 24B & u$_{C}$(1753)$\overline{\text{d}_{S}^{\text{-1}}\text{(773)}}$ = D$_{S}$(2511) & D$_{S_{1}}$(2536) & 1.0\
There is enough evidence to show that the d$_{S}^{-1}$(773)-quark really does exist.
A2. The d$_{S}^{-1}$(3753)-quark (Table 4 and Table 26)
The d$_{S}^{-1}$(3753)-quark has Q = -$\frac{1}{3}$, n =(0, 0, 4). Table 33 show its evidence:
[l]{} Table 33 Evidence of the d$_{S}^{-1}$(3753)$\text{-quark (see
Table 26)}$\
[ q]{}$_{i}$[(m)]{}$\overline{q_{i}\text{(m)}}$ $DS$ $\frac{100\Delta \text{m}}{939}$ [-100]{}$\widetilde{m}$ [E]{}$_{bind} $ [Theory]{} [Exper.]{} $\frac{\Delta M}{M}\%$
----------------------------------------------------------------- ------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------- ----------------- ------------------- -------------- ------------------------
[d]{}$_{S}^{-1}$[(3753)]{}$\overline{d_{S}^{1}(493)_{\Sigma }}$ [2]{} [347]{} [-400]{} [-90]{} $\eta $[(4156)]{} $\psi (4160$ .093
A3. The d$_{S}^{-1}$(9613)-quark (Table 4 and Table 25)
The d$_{S}^{-1}$(9613)-quark has Q = -$\frac{1}{3}$, n =(0, 0, 6). Table 34 show its evidence:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ \ \ \ \ \ \text{\ }$Table 34. Evidence of the [d]{}$_{S}^{-1}$[(9613)]{}$\text{-quark (see Table 25)}$
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (9613)}$$ & {\small E}$\_[bind]{}$ & {\small Theory} & {\small Exper., }$$ (Mev) & R.=$%$ \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (9613)}$$ &
{\small -250} & $${\small (}$${\small )}
& $${\small (}$${\small ), \ \ ?} & 0.17
\\ \hline
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (9613)}$$ &
{\small -50} & $${\small (10056)} & $${\small (10023), 0.044}
& 0.13 \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (9613)}$$ &
{\small - 212} & $${\small (}$${\small )} & $(${\small ), \ \ ?} & 0.76 \\
\hline
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (9613)}$${\small \ } & {\small - 247} & $$ & $ ${\small (10580), 14} & 0.66 \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (9613)}$${\small \ } & {\small - 347} & $${\small (}$${\small )} & $${\small (10860), 110} & 0.14 \\ \hline
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (9613)}$$ &
{\small -455} & $${\small (11079)} & $${\small (11020), 79} &
0.61 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ $
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the three brother quarks \[d$_{S}^{-1}$(773), d$_{S}^{-1}$(3753) and d$_{S}^{-1}$(9613)\] really do exist.
The Three Brother Quarks u$_{C}^{1}$(2133), u$_{C}^{1}$(2333) and u$_{C}^{1}$(2533)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three brother quarks u$_{C}^{1}$(2133), u$_{C}^{1}$(2333) and u$_{C}^{1}$(2533) with I = 0 and Q = $\frac{2}{3}$ on the D-axis. They are born from $\Delta $S = +1 on the twofold bands with two inequivalent n-values of the D-axis (see Table B5). From Table 14, Table 20, Table 26 and Table 30, we can find:
B1. The u$_{C}^{1}$(2133)-quark (see Table B5, Table 26 and Table C7)
The u$_{C}$(2133)-quark has Q = $\frac{2}{3}$. Table 35 shows its evidence:
:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 35. The Evidence of the u(313)-Quark
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ Deduced Baryon or Mesons & experiment & $%$ \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2133)u(313)d(313)= $\_[C]{}\^[+]{}$(2609) & $\_[C]{}\^[+]{}$($$) & 0.08 \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2133)$$ = $$(3681)
& $$(3686), & 0.14 \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}$(313)$$= D(2381) & D($$), $ $ & 2.42 \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2133)$$ = D$\_[S]{}$(2442) & D$\_[S\_[j]{}]{}$(2460) & 1.90 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ $
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B2. The u$_{C}$(2333)-quark (Table B5 and Table 26)
The u$_{C}$(2333)-quark has Q = $\frac{2}{3}$. Table 36 shows its evidence:
:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 36. The Evidence of the u(313)-Quark
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ \ Deduced Baryons or Mesons & Experiments & $%$ \\
\hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2333)u(313)d(313)= $\_[C]{}\^[+]{}$(2809) & $\_[C]{}\^[+]{}$($$) & 0.50 \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2333)$$ = $$(4052)
& $$(4040)) & 0.30 \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}$(313)$$= D(2591) & D(2640)$\^$ $ $ & 1.90 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ $
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B3. The u$_{C}^{1}$(2533)-quark (Table B5 and Table 26)
The u$_{C}^{1}$(2533)-quark has Q = $\frac{2}{3}$. Table 37 shows its evidence:
:
--------------------------------------------------------
Table 37. The Evidence of the u(313)-Quark
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
Deduced Baryon or Mesons & \ \ \ Experiments & $%$ \\
\hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(2533)$$ = $$(4420)
& \ $$(4415), $$ = \ 43 & 0.11 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ $
--------------------------------------------------------
Table 35-Table 37 show that the three brother quarks u$_{C}$(2133), u$_{C}$(2333) and u$_{\text{C}}$(2533) do exist.
The Three Brother Quarks u(313), u$_{C}^{1}$(1753) and u$_{C}^{1} $(6073)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are three brother quarks u(313), u$_{C}^{1}$(1753) and u$_{C}^{1}$(6073) also. They are born at the $\Gamma $-point of the single energy bands of the $\Delta $-axis (table 4). With Table 16, Table 22, Table 25and Table 26, we get:
C1. The u(313)-quark (Table 4)
The u(313)-quark has Q = $\frac{2}{3}$, $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (0, 0, 0). Table 38 shows its evidence:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 38. The Evidence of the u(313)-Quark
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
Deduced Baryon or Mesons & Experiments \\ \hline
u(313)u(313)d(313)=p(939) & \ P(938), $$= 2.1$$10$\^$years \\ \hline
u(313)$$=$\^[0]{}$(139) & \ $\^[0]{}$(135), $$= (8.4 $$ 0.6) $$ 10$\^[-17]{}$ s \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}$(313)$$= $$\begin{tabular}{l}
$\^[0]{}$(139) \\
$\^[-]{}$(139)\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\^[0]{}$(135), $$= (8.4 $$ 0.6) $$ 10$\^[-17]{}$ s \\
$\^[-]{}$(140), $$= (2.6033 $$ 0.0005) $$ 10$\^[-8]{}$ s\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
$$= K$\^[+]{}$(488) & \ \ K$\^[+]{}$(494), (1.2384 $$ 0.0024) $$\ 10$\^[-8]{}$ s \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ ]{}
C2. The u$_{C}^{1}$(1753)-quark (Table 4)
The u$_{C}^{1}$(1753)-quark has Q = $\frac{2}{3}$, $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (0, 0, -2). Table 39 shows its evidence:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 39. The Evidence of the u$_{C}^{1}$(1753)-Quark
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
Deduced Baryon or Mesons & Experiments \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(1753)u(313)d(313)= $\_[C]{}\^[+]{}$(2279) & $\_[C]{}\^[+]{}$(2285), $$= (200 $$ 6) $$ 10$\^[-15]{}$ s \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(1753)$$ = $$(3069)
& J/$$(3097), $$ = \ 91 $$ 3.2 kev \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}$(313)$$= D(1882) & D(1869), $ $= (1040 $$ 7) $$ 10$\^[-15]{}$ s \\ \hline
u$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}$(1753)$$= D$\_[S]{}$(1943)
& D$\_[S]{}$(1968), $$= (490 $$ 9) $$ 10$\^[-15]{}$ s \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ $
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C3. The u$_{C}^{1}$(6073)-quark (see Table4 and Table 25)
The u$_{C}^{1}$(6073)-quark has Q = $\frac{2}{3}$, $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (0, 0, -4). Table 40 shows its evidence:
[l]{} Table 40. The Evidence of the u(6073)-quark\
[q(m)]{}$\overline{q(m)}$ -100$\widetilde{m}$ $\text{I}_{i}\text{I}_{j}$ [Deduced]{} [Exper., ]{}$\Gamma $ (kev)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- ------- -------------------- -----------------------------
u$_{C}^{1}$[(6073)]{}$\overline{\text{u}_{C}^{1}\text{{\small (6073)}}}$ -1200$\leftarrow \frac{6073\times 6073}{1753\times 1753}$ 0 -1637 $\psi $[(10509)]{} $\Upsilon $[(10355), 26]{}
Table 40 shows very strong evidence of the u$_{C}^{1}$(6073)-quark: 1) $\psi
$(10509) and $\Upsilon $(10355) have exactly the same intrinsic quantum numbers ( I = S = C = b = Q = 0), 2) they have essentially the same rest masses, and 3) the width $\Gamma $ = 26 kev of $\Upsilon $(10355) the width $\Gamma $ = 87 kev of J/$\psi $(3067). It is well known that the discovery of J/$\psi $(3067) is also the discovery of the u$_{C}^{1}$(1753)-quark. Thus, the discovery of $\Upsilon $(10355) \[$\psi $(10509)\] is also the discovery of the u$_{C}^{1}$(6073)-quark.
Table 38-Table 40 shows that the three brother quarks really do exist.
The Four Brother Quarks d(313), d$_{S}^{1}$(493), d$_{S}^{1}$(1933) and d$_{b}^{1}$(4913)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Table 7, we see the following four brother quarks: at E$_{\Gamma }$= 0, $\overrightarrow{n}=$(0,0,0), d(313); at E$_{N}$=1/2, $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (1,1,0), d$_{S}^{1}$(493); at E$_{N}$=9/2, $\overrightarrow{n}$=(2,2,0), d$_{S}^{1}$(1933); and at E$_{N}$=25/2, $\overrightarrow{n}$=(3,3,0), d$_{b}^{1}$(4913). They are born on the single energy bands of the $\Sigma $-axis. The four brothers have the same electric charge (Q = -1/3) and the same generalized strange number (S$_{G}$ = S + C + b = -1). Using Table 7, Table 22, Table 26, Table 28 and Table 30, we find:
D1. The d(313)-Quark (Table 7)
The d(313)-Quark has Q = -$\frac{1}{3}$, $\overrightarrow{\text{n}}$= (0, 0, 0). Table 41 show its evidence:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 41. The Evidence of the d(313)-Quark
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
d(313)u(313)d(313)=$n$(939) & \ n(940), $$=(885.7$$\ 0.8)s \\ \hline
d(313)$$=$\^[0]{}$(139) & \ $ \^[0]{}$(135), $$=(2.6033 $$\ \ \ 0.0005)$$\ \ 10$\^[-8]{}$s \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}$(313)$$= $$
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\^[+]{}$(139) \\
$\^[0]{}$(139)\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\^[+]{}$(139), $$=(2.6033 $$\ \ \ 0.0005)$$\ \ 10$\^[-8]{}$s
\\
$\^[0]{}$(135), $$= (8.4 $$ 0.6) $$ 10$\^[-17]{}$ s\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}$(493)$$= K$\^[0]{}$(488) & \ K$\^[0]{}$(494), $ $= (1.2384 $$ 0.0024) $$ 10$\^[-8]{}$ s \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ $
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D2. The d$_{S}^{1}$(493)-quark (Table 7)
The d$_{S}^{1}$(493)-Quark has Q = -$\frac{1}{3}$, $\overrightarrow{\text{n}}=$(1, 1, 0). Table 42 shows its evidence:
[l]{} Table 42. Evidence of the d$_{S}^{1}$(493)-quark\
d$_{S}^{1}$(493)u(313)d(313)=$\Lambda $(1119) $\Lambda $(1116), $\tau $=(2.632$\pm $ 0.020)$\times $ 10$^{-10}$s
------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------
d$_{S}^{1}$(493)$\overline{\text{d}_{S}^{1}\text{(493)}}$=$\eta $(549) $\eta $(548), $\Gamma $=(1.29 $\pm $ 0.11) kev
q$_{N}$(313)$\overline{\text{d}_{S}^{1}\text{(493)}}$= K(488) K(494), $\Gamma =$ (1.2384 $\pm $ 0.0024) $\times $ 10$^{-8}$s
D3. The d$_{S}^{1}$(1933)-quark (Table 7)
The d$_{S}^{1}$(1933)-quark has Q = -$\frac{1}{3}$, $\overrightarrow{n}=$(2, 2, 0). Table 43 shows its evidence:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 43. The Evidence of the d$_{S}$(1933)-Quarks
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
d$\_[S]{}$(1933)u(313)d(313)=$$(2559) & $$(2585), $$=?; \\
\hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}$(1933)$$= $$(3005) &
$\_[C]{}$(2980), $$=17.3 Mev \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}$(313)$$=K(2076) & K$\_[4]{}\^$(2045), $$ = 198 $$ 30 Mev \\ \hline
d$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}$(493)$$=$$(2127) & f$\_[2]{}$(2150), $$= 167$30$ Me \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ $
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D4. The d$_{b}^{1}$(4913)-quark (Table 7)
The d$_{b}^{1}$(4913)-quark has Q = -$\frac{1}{3}$, $\overrightarrow{n}=$(3, 3, 0). Table 44 shows its evidence:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 44. The Evidence of the[ ]{}d$_{S}^{1}$(4913)-$\text{quark}$
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
d$\_[b]{}\^[1]{}$(4913)u(313)d(313)=$\_[b]{}$(5539) & $\_[b]{}$(5624), $$=(1.229$$.080)$$10$\^[-12]{}$s; \\ \hline
d$\_[b]{}\^[1]{}$(4913)$$=$$(1S)(9389) & $$(1S)(9460), $$=(53.0 $$1.5) kev \\ \hline
q$\_[N]{}$(313)d$\_[b]{}\^[1]{}$(4913)= B(5378) & B(5279), $$=(1.671$$.018)$$10$\^[-12]{}$s; \\ \hline
d$\_[b]{}\^[1]{}$(493)$$= B$\_[S]{}$(5344) & B$\_[S]{}$(5370), $$= (1.461 $$\ 0.057) $$10$\^[-12]{}$s] \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\ $
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Table 41-Table 44, we can see that the four brother quarks \[d(313), d$_{S}^{1}$(493), d$_{S}^{1}$(1933) and d$_{b}^{1}$(4913)\] really do exist.
Please pay attention to $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (n$_{1}$, n$_{2}$, n$_{3}$)values of the brothers of the three families: for the first one, n =(0, 0, 2), n =(0, 0, 4), n =(0, 0, 6); for the second one, $\overrightarrow{\text{n}}$= (0, 0, 0), $\overrightarrow{\text{n}}$= (1, 1, 0), $\overrightarrow{\text{n}}$= (2, 2, 0), $\overrightarrow{\text{n}}$= (3, 3, 0); for the third one $\overrightarrow{\text{n}}$ =(0, 0, 0), $\overrightarrow{\text{n}}$ =(0, 0, -2), $\overrightarrow{\text{n}}$ =(0, 0, -4). These values are very interesting. They might be hitting a law or a solution of an equation. Since each $\overrightarrow{\text{n}}$ represents a discovered quark, they might be implicating a physical law or a fundamental physical equation.
As with Table 32-Table 44, we can show that most of the deduced quarks in Table 11 have already been discovered by experiments.
Experiments Have Already Discovered Most of the Deduced Quarks in Table 11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Using the phenomenological formulae, this paper deduces an excited quark spectrum, shown in Table 10 and Table 11. Experiments have already discovered most of these quarks inside baryons and mesons. The q$_{N}$(m)-quarks are inside the N-baryons (Table 18), the light unflavored mesons with I = 0 (Table 27) and the strange K(M)-mesons (Table 31). The q$_{\Delta }$(m)-quarks are inside the $\Delta $-baryons (Table 18) and the light unflavored mesons with I = 1 (Table 28). The d$_{S}$(m)-quarks are inside the $\Lambda $-baryons (Table 17), the light unflavored mesons with I = 0 (Table 27) and I = 1 (Table 28), the strange K-mesons (Table 31) and the heavy unflavored mesons (Table 25). The q$_{\Sigma }$(m)-quarks are inside the $\Sigma $-baryons (Table 17) and the light unflavored mesons with I = 1 (Table 28). The u$_{C}$(m)-quarks are inside the $\Lambda _{C}^{+}$-baryons (Table 14 and Table 20), the D-mesons (Table 30) and the intermediate mass $\psi $-mesons (Table 26). The d$_{b}$(m)-quarks are inside the $\Lambda
_{b}^{0}$-baryon (Table 20), the B(M)-mesons (Table 29) and the $\Upsilon $-meson (Table 25). The q$_{\Xi _{C}}$(m)-quarks are inside the $\Xi _{C}$-baryons (Table 21). The $\Omega _{C}$(2133)-quark is inside the $\Omega
_{C} $(2907)-baryon (Table B7, Table 14 and Table 20). The u$_{C}$(6023)-quark (Table 4) is inside the meson $\Upsilon $(10355) (Table 25).
These experimental results are enough to support the deduced quark spectrum and the phenomenological formulae.
It is very important to pay attention to the $\Upsilon $(3S)-meson (mass m = 10.3052 $\pm $ 0.00004 Gev, full width $\Gamma $ = 26.3 $\pm $ 3.5 kev). $\Upsilon $(3S) has more than three times larger mass than J/$\psi $(1S) (m = 3096.87 $\pm $ 0.04 Mev) and more than three times longer lifetime than J/$\psi $(1S) (full width $\Gamma $ = 87 $\pm $ 5kev). It is well known that the discovery of J/$\psi $(1S) is also the discovery of charmed quark c (u$_{c}$(1753)). Similarly the discovery of $\Upsilon $(3S) will be the discovery of a very important new quark—the u$_{C}$(6073)-quark.
Predictions
===========
New Quarks, Baryons and Mesons
------------------------------
This paper predicts many quarks, baryons and mesons with high rest masses. Since these particles have high rest masses, they are difficult to discover. The following quarks, baryons and mesons in Table 45 have a possibility of being discovered in the not too distant future:
[l]{} Table 45. The Important Predictive Quarks, Baryons and Mesons\
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[n]{}$_{1}$[,n]{}$_{2}$[,n]{}$_{3}$ [Quark]{} [Baryon]{} [q(m)]{}$\overline{\text{q(m)}}$ [q]{}$_{N}$[(313)]{}$\overline{\text{q}}$ [d]{}$_{S}(493)\overline{\text{q}}
$
----------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- ---------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------
[E]{}$_{\text{P}}$[=]{}$\frac{\text{27}}{\text{4}}$ [(2, 2, 2)]{} $\text{d}_{S}^{0}\text{({\small 2743})}$ $\Lambda $[(3369)]{} $\eta $[(4196)]{} [K(2786)]{} $\eta $[(3047)]{}
$\text{E}_{H}\text{= }$[9]{} [(0, 0, 4)]{} $\text{d}_{S}^{\text{-1}}\text{({\small 3753})}$ $\Lambda $[(4379)]{} $\eta $[(5472)]{} [K(3896)]{} $\eta $[(4156)]{}$^{\ast }$
$\text{E}_{H}\text{= }$[25]{} [(0, 0, 6)]{} $\text{d}_{S}^{-1}\text{({\small 9613})}$ $\Lambda $[(10239)]{} $\eta $[(18133)]{} [K(9781)]{} $\eta $[(10056)]{}$^{\ast }$
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=}$[16]{} [(0, 0,]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 4}}}$[)]{} [u]{}$_{C}^{1}$[(6073)]{} $\Lambda $\psi $[(10509)]{}$^{\ast }$ [D(6231)]{} [D]{}$_{S}$[(6312)]{}
_{C} $[(6599)]{}
[E]{}$_{N}$[=]{}$\frac{\text{49}}{\text{2}}$ [(4, 4, 0)]{} [d]{}$_{b}^{1}$[(9333)]{} $\Lambda _{b}$[(9959)]{} $\Upsilon $[(17868)]{} [B(9503)]{} [B]{}$_{S}$[(9579)]{}
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Some mesons have been discovered: u]{}$_{C}$[(6073)]{}$\overline{\text{{\small u}}_{C}\text{{\small (6073)}}}$[=]{}$\psi $[(10509)]{}$^{\ast }$$;$
$\text{d}_{S}\text{(9613)}\overline{\text{d}_{S}\text{(493)}}$[=]{}$\eta $[(10056)]{}$^{\ast }$[and ]{}$\text{d}_{S}^{\text{-1}}$[(3753)]{}$\overline{\text{d}_{S}\text{{\small (493)}}}$[=]{}$\eta $[(4156)]{}$^{\ast }$[.]{}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The $\Lambda _{C}$(6599)-baryon, the D(6231)-meson, the K(2786)-meson and the $\Lambda _{b}$(9959)-baryon have a better chance of being discovered. In order to confirm the u$_{C}$(6073)-quark, we need to find the $\Lambda _{C}$(6599)-baryon first.
The “fine structure” of Particle Physics
----------------------------------------
The large full widths of some mesons and baryons might indicate a “fine structure” of particle physics. There are several mesons (baryons) that have the same intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q), angular momentums and parities but different rest masses. They are different mesons (baryons). Since there are only five quarks in current Quark Model, physicists think that there is only one meson (baryon) with large full width. For example, f$_{0}$(600) might be q$_{N}$(313)$\overline{\text{q}_{N}\text{{\small (583)}}}$ + q$_{N}$(583)$\overline{\text{q}_{N}\text{{\small (583)}}}$ + q$_{\Sigma }$(583)$\overline{\text{{\small q}}_{\Sigma }\text{{\small (583)}}}$ + q$_{\Delta }$(673)$\overline{\text{{\small d}}_{\Delta }\text{{\small (673)}}}$ + q$_{\Xi }$(673)$\overline{\text{{\small d}}_{\Xi }\text{{\small (673)}}}$, (see Table C5), shown in Table 46 .
[l]{} Table 46. The Fine Structureof f$_{0}$(600) [@Meson04]\
[|l|l|l|l|]{}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
q$_{N}$(313)$\overline{\text{q}_{N}\text{{\small (583)}}}$
q$_{N}$(583)$\overline{\text{q}_{N}\text{{\small (583)}}}$
q$_{\Sigma }$(583)$\overline{\text{{\small q}}_{\Sigma }\text{{\small (583)}}}$
q$_{\Delta }$(673)$\overline{\text{{\small d}}_{\Delta }\text{{\small (673)}}}$
q$_{\Xi }$(673)$\overline{\text{{\small d}}_{\Xi }\text{{\small (673)}}}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
------
-320
-528
-676
-938
-538
------
&
-------------------------------------------
$\eta $(576)
$\eta $(638)
$\eta $(676)
$\eta $(408)
$\eta \left( \text{{\small 808}}\right) $
-------------------------------------------
&
---------------------
f$_{0}$(600)
$\Gamma $= 600-1000
---------------------
\
Thus, we propose that experimental physicists separate both the mesons and the baryons with large widths using experiments. First, we shall separate the f$_{0}$(600)-meson (with $\Gamma $= 600-1000 Mev). The experimental investigation of the predicted “fine structure” for both mesons and baryons with large widths provides a crucial test for our phenomenological formulae.
Discussion
=============================================
1\. These phenomenological formulae not only decrease the number of elementary quarks, but also increase the number of excited quarks that compose new baryons and mesons. The decrease in the number of elementary quarks will decrease the number of parameters and may simplify the calculations. The increase in the number of excited quarks provides the explanation for many newly discovered high-mass baryons and mesons.
2\. Since individual free quarks cannot be found, we cannot directly measure the binding energies of the baryons and mesons. Although we cannot measure these binding energies, they do exist. The fact that physicists have not found individual free quarks shows that the binding energies of the baryons and the mesons are huge. The binding energies (-3$\Delta $) (\[Baryon M\]) of the baryons \[or mesons (-$2\Delta $) (\[M-Ebin\])\] are always canceled by the corresponding parts (3$\Delta $) of three quarks \[or two quarks (2$\Delta )$\] (see Table 11). Thus, we can omit the binding energies \[baryons (-3$\Delta $) and mesons (-$2\Delta $)\] and the corresponding part ($\Delta $) (see Table 11) of the rest masses of the quarks when we calculate the rest masses of the baryons and the mesons. The effect looks as if there is not binding energy in baryons and mesons.
3\. The phenomenological formulae only apply to strong interaction static properties of quarks, baryons and mesons. They do not apply to electromagnetic and weak interactions. They cannot work for strong interaction scattering processes.
4\. These formulae do not break any principles of the Quark Model, such as SU(n) symmetries, the sum laws, the“qqq” baryon model and the $``$q$\overline{q}"$ meson model. In fact, they preserve and improve these principles. They show that all quarks are the excited state of the same elementary quark $\epsilon $ to provide a physical foundation of SU(n) symmetries. They deduce many new quarks to substantiate the“qqq” baryon model and the “q$\overline{\text{q}}$” meson model. They deduce the rest masses and the intrinsic quantum numbers of quarks, baryons and mesons to consolidate the Quark Model. They infer the large binding energies to strengthen the foundation of the confinement of the quarks.
Conclusions
============================================
1\. There is only one unflavored elementary quark family $\epsilon $ with three colors that have two isospin states ($\epsilon _{u}$ with I$_{Z}$ = $\frac{1}{2}$ and Q = +$\frac{2}{3}$, $\epsilon _{d}$ with I$_{Z}$ = $\frac{-1}{2}$ and Q = -$\frac{1}{3}$) for each color. Thus there are six Fermi (s = $\frac{1}{2}$) elementary quarks with S = C = b = 0 in the vacuum.
2\. When an elementary quark ($\epsilon $) with one color (red, yellow or blue) and a charge Q (= $\frac{2}{3}$ or -$\frac{1}{3}$) is excited from the vacuum, its color and electric charge will remain unchanged. At the same time, it may go into an energy band of (\[E(n,k)\]) to get the rest mass and intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, and b) and become an excited quark.
3\. Using the phenomenological formulae, we deduced an excited quark spectrum of the $\epsilon $-quarks (see Table 10 and Table 11) from the elementary $\epsilon $-quarks. Experiments have already provided evidence for almost all of the deduced quarks inside the baryons (see Table 16-Table 21) and mesons (see Table 25-Table 31). All quarks inside the baryons [@Baryon04] and the mesons [@Meson04] are the excited states of the elementary $\epsilon
$-quarks.
4\. The five quarks of the current Quark Model correspond to the five deduced ground quarks \[ u$\leftrightarrow $u(313), d$\leftrightarrow $d(313), s$\leftrightarrow $d$_{s}$(493), c$\leftrightarrow $u$_{c}$(1653) and b$\leftrightarrow $d$_{b}$(4913)\] (see Table 11). The current Quark Model uses only the five independent “elementary” quarks to explain the baryons and mesons, there is no excited quark spectrum and no phenomenological formulae in the model. Thus, the current Quark Model is the five ground quark approximation of the new Quark Model with the phenomenological formulae.
5\. With the phenomenological formulae, we deduce the rest masses and the intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q) of the quarks, baryons and mesons. These deduced intrinsic quantum numbers match exactly with the experimental results. The deduced rest masses are consistent with experimental results at a 98% level of confidence. Without the phenomenological formulae, the current Quark Model cannot deduce the rest masses of the quarks, baryons and mesons. With the formulae, the Quark Model is much more powerful.
6\. This paper has deduced the intrinsic quantum numbers of the quarks using the following formulae: a). the strange numbers are from S = R - 4 ([S-Number]{})**;** b). the isospins are from deg = 2I + 1 (\[IsoSpin\]); c). the charmed numbers are from (\[Charmed\]); d). the bottom numbers are from (\[Battom\]); e). the electric charges are from the elementary quarks (\[2/3\]) and (\[-1/3\]). From the deduced intrinsic quantum numbers of the quarks, using the sum laws, this paper has deduced the intrinsic quantum numbers of the baryons and mesons.
7\. Using the phenomenological mass formula (\[Rest Mass\]), this paper has deduced the rest masses of the quarks (see Table 11). From these deduced rest masses of the quarks, using the sum laws and the phenomenological binding energy formula (\[CB-Eb\]) and (\[M-Ebin\]), this paper has deduced the baryon mass spectrum (see Table 16-Table 21) and the meson mass spectrum (see Table 25-Table 31) respectively. The deduced rest masses of the baryons and mesons are consistent with the experimental results (with a 98% level of confidence).
8\. The SU(3) (based on u(313), d(313) and d$_{S}$(493)), SU(4), SU(5), ... SU(n), ... are natural extensions of the SU(2) (based on $\epsilon _{u}$ and $\epsilon _{d}$). These phenomenological formulae provide a physical foundation for SU(3)... ,SU(n), ....
9\. For baryons, the binding energy is roughly a constant (\[CB-Eb\]). For mesons, the binding energy is roughly a constant (\[M-Ebin\]) too. These binding energies are the phenomenological approximations of the color’s strong interaction energies. Although we do not know their exact values, we believe that the binding energies of the baryons and mesons are very large. These large binding energies provide a possible foundation for the confinement of the quarks inside the hadrons.
10\. The experimental investigation of the fine structure for both the mesons and baryons with large widths (for example f$_{0}$(600) with $\Gamma $ = 600-1000 [@Meson04]), provides a crucial test for our phenomenological formulae.
**Acknowledgments**
I sincerely thank Professor Robert L. Anderson for his valuable advice. I acknowledge** **my indebtedness to Professor D. P. Landau for his help also. I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. Xin Yu for checking the calculations. I sincerely thank Professor Yong-Shi Wu for his important advice and help. I thank Professor Wei-Kun Ge for his support and help. I sincerely thank Professor Kang-Jie Shi for his advice. There are many friends who have already given advice and help to me; although I cannot mention all of their names here, I really thank them very much.
[99]{} M. Gell-Mann, Phys. Lett. **8,** 214 (1964); G. Zweig, CERN Preprint CERN-Th-401, CERN-Th-412 (1964); Particle Data Group, Phys. Lett. **B592**, 154 (2004)
Particle Data Group, Phys. Lett. **B592**, 38-78 (2004).
H. Arthur, Rev. Mod. Phys., **38**, 977 (1964).
Particle Data Group, Phys. Rew. **D66**, 01001-120 (2002).
Particle Data Group, Phys. Lett. **B592**, 61 (2004).
The Oecd Frum, *Particle Physics (Head of Publications Service, OECD) 55 (1995).*
M. K. Gaillard, P. D. Grannis, and F. J Sciulli, Rev. Mod. Phys., **71** No. 2 Centenary (1999) S96.
Jiao Lin Xu, hep-ph/0505184.
M. Gell-Mann, Nuovo Cim. Suppl. 2, **4,** 848 (1956); K. Nishijima, Prog. Theor. Phys. **13** 285 (1955).
Particle Data Group, Phys. Lett. **B592**, 37 (2004).
Particle Data Group, Phys. Lett. **B592**, 66–78 (2004).
Particle Data Group, Phys. Lett. **B592**, 38–65 (2004).
[Appendix A. The Regular Rhombic Dodecahedron and ]{}$\overrightarrow{n}
$[ Values ]{}
There are many symmetry points ($\Gamma $, H, P, N, M, ...) and symmetry axes ($\Delta $, $\Lambda $, $\Sigma $, D, F, G, ...) in the regular rhombic dodecahedron (see Fig. 1).
We give a definition of the equivalent symmetry points: taking $\overrightarrow{n}$ (n$_{1}$, n$_{2}$, n$_{3}$) = 0 in (\[E(n,k)\]), if for different points $\overrightarrow{k}$ = ($\xi $, $\eta $, $\varsigma $), we can get the same E($\vec{k}$,$\vec{n}$) value. We call these points the equivalent points. Table A1 shows the equivalent points of the regular rhombic dodecahedron:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table A1. The Equivalent Points
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|}
\hline
Sym. Point ($$, $$, $$) & The Equivalent Points ($$, $$, $$) \\ \hline
$$ & $$ \\ \hline
P = ($$, $$, $$) & ($$, $ $, $$) \\ \hline
H = (0, 0, 1) & (0, 0, $$1), (0, $$1, 0), ($$1, 0, 0) \\ \hline
N = ($$, $$, 0) & ($$, $$, 0), ($$, 0, $$), (0, $$, $ $) \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, we can give the definition of the equivalent symmetry axes. Table A2 shows the equivalent axes inside the regular rhombic dodecahedron:
$\begin{tabular}{l}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Table A2. \ The\ Equivalent Symmetry Axes \\
:$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symmetry Axis Equivalent Symmetry Axes
------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Gamma \text{(000)-H(001)}$ $\Gamma \text{-(0,}\pm \text{1,0), }\Gamma
\text{-M(}\pm \text{1,0,0), }\Gamma \text{-H'(}0\text{,0,-1)}$
$\Gamma \text{(000)-P(}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}\text{)}$ $\Gamma
\text{-P'(}\pm \frac{1}{2},\pm \frac{1}{2},\pm \frac{1}{2}\text{)}$
$\Gamma \text{(000)-N(}\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{2}0\text{)}$ $\Gamma \text{-N'(}\pm \frac{1}{2},\pm \frac{1}{2},0\text{), }\Gamma \text{-N'(}\pm \frac{1}{2},0,\pm \frac{1}{2}\text{), }\Gamma \text{-N'(}0,\pm \frac{1}{2},\pm \frac{1}{2}\text{)}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\end{tabular}
$
In order to distinguish the axes inside the regular rhombic dodecahedron from the axes on its surfaces, we define an in-out number $\Theta $ (for $\Theta $ = 0, the axis is inside; for $\Theta $=1, the axis is on the surface):
$$\Theta \text{ = }\overrightarrow{\text{k}_{Start}}\bullet \overrightarrow{\text{k}_{End}}\text{ = 2(}\xi _{Start}\times \xi _{End}\text{+}\eta
_{Start}\times \eta _{End}\text{+}\varsigma _{Start}\times \varsigma _{End}\text{).} \label{f(se)}$$
For the axes inside it, $\Theta $ =0; for the axes on its surfaces, $\theta $ = 1. Table A3 shows the in-out number $\Theta $, the symmetry rotary fold R, the strange number S, the symmetry operation P of the symmetry axes and the first (second) division K$_{fir}$= 0 (K$_{Sec}$=1):
[l]{} Table A3. The $\Theta $[, R, S and Symmetry Operation(p) Values]{}\
[Axis]{} [Start Point]{} [End Point]{} $\Theta $ [R]{} [S]{} [P]{} K$_{first}$ K$_{Secend}$
--------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------- ----------- ------- -------- ------- ------------- --------------
$\Delta $[(]{}$\Gamma $[-H)]{} [(0, 0, 0)]{} [(0, 0, 1)]{} [0]{} [4]{} [0]{} [8]{} 0 /
$\Lambda $[(]{}$\Gamma $[-P)]{} [(0, 0, 0)]{} [(]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[,]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[,]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[)]{} [0]{} [3]{} [-1]{} [6]{} 0 /
$\Sigma $[(]{}$\Gamma $[-N)]{} [(0, 0, 0)]{} [(]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[,]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[,0)]{} [0]{} [2]{} [-2]{} [4]{} 0 /
[D(P-N)]{} [(]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[,]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[,]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[)]{} [(]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[,]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[,0)]{} [1]{} [2]{} [0]{} [4]{} 0 /
[F(P-H)]{} [(]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[,]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[,]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[)]{} [(0, 0, 1)]{} [1]{} [3]{} [-1]{} [6]{} 0 1$^{\#}$
[G(M-N)]{} [(1, 0, 0)]{} [(]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[,]{}$\frac{1}{2}$[,0)]{} [1]{} [2]{} [-2]{} [4]{} 0 1$^{\#}$
\
$^{\ \#}$[K=1 corresponds to the second divisions in sixfold bands.]{}
From (\[E(n,k)\]) we can also give a definition of the equivalent $\overrightarrow{n}$: for $\xi $ = $\eta $ = $\varsigma $ = 0, all $\overrightarrow{n}$ values that yield a same E($\overrightarrow{n}$,0) value are equivalent n-values. We show the low level equivalent $\overrightarrow{n}
$-values that satisfy conditions (\[l-n\]) in the following list ([Equ-N]{}) (note $\overline{\text{n}_{i}}$ = - n$_{i}$): $$\begin{tabular}{|l|}
\hline
{\small E(}$\overrightarrow{n}${\small ,0) = 0\ : (0, 0, 0)} \\ \hline
{\small E(}$\overrightarrow{n}${\small ,0) = 2\ :}$\ ${\small (101, }$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small 01, 011, 0}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}
${\small 1, 110, 1}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small 0, }$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small 10, }$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small 0, 10}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small , }$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small 0}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small , 01}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small , 0}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small )} \\ \hline
{\small E(}$\overrightarrow{n}${\small ,0) = 4\ :\ \ (002, 200}, {\small 200}$\text{, }\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}\text{{\small 00}, }${\small 0}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small 0, 00}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small )} \\ \hline
{\small E(}$\overrightarrow{n}${\small ,0) = 6:}
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 112, 211, 121, }$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small 21,}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small 12, 2}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small 1},
{\small 1}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small 2, 21}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small ,12}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small ,}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small 11, 1}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small 1, 11}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}$,{\small \ } \\
$\overline{\text{{\small 11}}}${\small 2, }$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small 2}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$,{\small \ 2}$\overline{\text{{\small 11}}}${\small , }$\overline{\text{{\small 21}}}${\small 1}, $\overline{\text{{\small 12}}}${\small 1, 1}$\overline{\text{{\small 12}}}${\small , 1}$\overline{\text{{\small 21}}}${\small ,}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}${\small 1}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small ,}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}$1$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$,{\small \ }$\overline{\text{{\small 211}}}${\small , }$\overline{\text{{\small 121}}},${\small \ }$\overline{\text{{\small 112}}},$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E(}$\overrightarrow{n}${\small ,0) = 8:}$\ ${\small (220, 2}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small 0, }$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small 20, }$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small 0, 202, 20}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small , }$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small 02, }$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small 0}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small , 022, 02}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small ,
0}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small 2, 0}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}${\small )} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{Equ-N}$$
[l]{} Table A4. The Energy Bands with $\Delta $S = 0\
Axis $\Delta $ $\Sigma $ $\Lambda $ $\Lambda $ D F G
------------ --------------- ------------ --------------- ------------ ---------------- --------- ------------
R 4 2 3 3 2 3 2
S$_{Ax}$ 0 -2 -1 -1 0 -1 -2
deg 4 2 3 1 2 1 2
$\Delta S$ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
q$_{Name}$ q$_{\Delta }$ q$_{\Xi }$ q$_{\Sigma }$ d$_{S}$ q$_{\text{N}}$ d$_{S}$ q$_{\Xi }$
[l]{} Table A5. The Energy Bands with the Fluctuation $\Delta $S$\neq $0\
Axis $\Delta $ $\Delta $ $\Sigma $ $\Sigma $ $\Sigma $ D D F F F G G
------------ ----------- ----------- ----------------- -------------- --------------- --------- --------- --------- ---------------- ------------ ------------------- ---------------
R 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2
S$_{Ax}$ 0 0 -2 -2 -2 0 0 -1 -1 -1 -2 -2
deg 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 1
$\Delta S$ 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1 1 1 -1 1 -1
S 0 -1 -1 0 -3 0 -1 0 -1 -2 -2 -3
C 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0
b 0 0 0 -1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
quark u$_{C}$ d$_{S}$ d$_{S}^{\ast }$ d$_{b}^{\#}$ d$_{\Omega }$ u$_{C}$ d$_{S}$ q$_{N}$ q$_{\Xi _{C}}$ q$_{\Xi }$ d$_{\Omega _{C}}$ d$_{\Omega }$
\
$\ \ \ ^{\ast }$If $\Delta $E = 0, the quark is d$_{S}$; $^{\#}$If $\Delta $E $\neq $ 0, the quark is d$_{b}$.
[l]{} A6 The Possible Maximum Isospin of baryons at symmetry points\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Symmetry Axis $\Delta $ $\Delta $ $\Sigma $ $\Sigma $ $\Lambda $ $\Lambda $ D D F F G G
-------------------------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ------------ ------------ --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
Symmetry Point $\Gamma $ H $\Gamma $ N $\Gamma $ P P N P H M N
Symmetry rotatory R 4 4 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2
Maximum Equ-n Value 8 8 4 4 6 6 2 2 2 2 2 2
Maximum I of Quarks $\frac{3}{2}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ 1 1 $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2} $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$
$
Possibility Large I$_{Baryon}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2} $\frac{1}{2}$ 1 1 $\frac{3}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\frac{3}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$ $\frac{1}{2}$
$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Appendix B. Energy Bands and Corresponding Quarks]{}
From Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4, omitting $\Delta $ part mass of quarks, we have the quarks (q$_{\Delta }^{0}$, d$_{S}^{\text{-1}}$ and u$_{C}^{1}$) shown in Table B1 (note $\overline{\text{n}_{i}}$ = - n$_{i}$):
Table B1. The Energy Bands and the Quarks of the $\Delta $-Axis (S = 0)
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
$\_[Start]{}$ & {\small E(}$${\small ,}$${\small )} &
{\small \ \ d} & $$S & J & $\_[1]{}\_[2]{}\_[3]{}${\small , }$$ J & {\small S} & {\small C} & $$E &
{\small \ }q(m{\small \ }$\_$) \\ \hline
$\_$ & {\small 313} & {\small \ \ 1} & 0 & 0 &
{\small (000): } $\_$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0}
& {\small 0} & {\small \ \ u(313)} \\ \hline
$\_[H]{}$ & {\small 673} & {\small \ \ 4} & 0 & 0 & $$ &
{\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small \ \ q}$\_${\small (673)} \\ \hline
$\_[H]{}$ & {\small 673} & {\small \ \ 1} & -1 & 1 & {\small (002); }$$ $\_$ & {\small -1} &
{\small 0} & {\small 100} & {\small \ \ d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (773)} \\ \hline
$\_$ & {\small 1033} & {\small \ \ 4} & 0 & 0 & $$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0} &
{\small 0} & {\small \ \ q}$\_${\small (1033)} \\ \hline
$\_$ & {\small 1033} & {\small \ \ 4} & 0 & 0 & $$
& {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small \ \ q}$\_${\small (1033)} \\ \hline
$\_[H]{}$ & {\small 1393} & {\small \ \ 4} & 0 & 0 & $$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 0}
& {\small \ \ q}$\_${\small (1393)} \\ \hline
$\_$ & {\small 1753} & {\small \ \ 4} & 0 & 0 & $$
& {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small \ \ q}$\_${\small (1753)} \\ \hline
$\_$ & {\small 1753} & {\small \ \ 1} & 1 & 1 &
{\small (00}$${\small ); }$\_ $ & {\small 0} & {\small 1} & {\small 0} & {\small \ \ u}$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1753)} \\ \hline
$\_[H]{}$ & {\small 2113} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 4} \\
{\small 4}\end{tabular}
& 0 & 0 & $
[l]{}\
$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 0} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_${\small (2113)} \\
{\small q}$\_${\small (2113)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
$\_[H]{}$ & {\small 2113} & {\small \ \ 4} & 0 & 0 & {\small (202,}$${\small 02,022,0}$${\small 2)}
& {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small \ q}$\_${\small (2113)} \\ \hline
$\_[H]{}$ & {\small 2113} & {\small \ \ 4} & 0 & 0 & {\small (013,0}$${\small 3,103,}$${\small 03)}
& {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small \ q}$\_${\small (2113)} \\ \hline
$\_$ & {\small 2473} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 4} \\
{\small 4}\end{tabular}
& 0 & 0 & $
[l]{}\
$ & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 0} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_${\small (2473)} \\
{\small q}$\_${\small (2473)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
$\_$ & {\small 2473} & {\small \ 4} & 0 & 0 &
{\small (11}$${\small ,1}$${\small ,}$${\small 1}$${\small ,}$${\small )} & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small 0} & {\small \ q}$\_${\small (2473)} \\ \hline
$\_[H]{}$ & {\small 3553} & {\small \ \ 1} & -1 & 2 & {\small (004); }$$ $\_$ & {\small -1} &
{\small 0} & {\small 200} & {\small \ d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (3753)} \\ \hline
$\_$ & {\small 6073} & {\small \ \ 1} & 1 & 2 &
{\small (00}$${\small ); } $\_$ & {\small 0} & {\small 1} & {\small 0} & {\small \ u}$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}${\small (6073)} \\ \hline
$\_[H]{}$ & {\small 9313} & {\small \ \ 1} & -1 & 3 & {\small (}$$ $\_$ & {\small -1} & {\small 0} & {\small 300} & {\small \ d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (9613)} \\ \hline
$\_$ & {\small 13273} & {\small \ \ 1} & 1 & 3 &
{\small (00}$${\small ); } $\_$ & {\small 0} & {\small 1} & {\small 0} & {\small \ \ u}$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}${\small (13273)} \\ \hline
$\_[H]{}$ & {\small 17953} & {\small \ \ 1} & -1 & 4 &
{\small (}$ \_$ & {\small -1} &
{\small 0} & {\small 400} & {\small \ d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (18353)} \\ \hline
... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & ... & .... \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ $
E$_{\text{Start}}$ = \[(n$_{1}$-$\xi $)$^{2}$+(n$_{2}$-$\eta $)$^{2}$+(n$_{3}$-$\zeta $)$^{2}$\], [E(]{}$\vec{k}$[,]{}$\vec{n}$[)]{} is the starting and minimum energy of the energy band; $\overline{\text{n}_{i}}$ = -n$_{i}$; $\overline{\text{n}_{1}\text{n}_{2}\text{n}_{3}}$ = -n$_{1}$, -n$_{2}$, -n$_{3}$ \[see Eq. (\[Equ-N\])\].
From Table 2, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7, omitting $\Delta $ part mass of quarks, we have the quarks (q$_{\Xi }^{0}$, d$_{S}^{1}$ , d$_{b}^{1}$ and [d]{}$_{\Omega }^{-1}$) shown in Table B2 (note $\overline{\text{n}_{i}}
$ = - n$_{i}$):
Table B2. The Energy Bands and the Quarks of the $\Sigma $-Axis (S = -2)
[|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|]{} $\text{E}_{\text{Start}}$ & [E(]{}$\vec{k}$[,]{}$\vec{n}$[)]{} & [ d]{} & $\Delta $[S]{} & J & $\text{(n}_{1}\text{n}_{2}\text{n}_{3}$); J & [S]{} & [b]{} & $\Delta $E & q(m[ ]{}$_{\text{{\small (Mev)}}}$)\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 0}$ & [313]{} & [ 1]{} & -2 & 0 & $\text{(000); }$[ ]{}$\text{J}_{\Gamma }$[=0]{} & [0]{} & [0]{} & [ 0]{} & [ d(313)]{}\
$\text{E}_{N}\text{=1/2}$ & [493]{} & [ 2]{} & 1 & 1 & ($\text{110}$[); ]{}$\text{J}_{\text{N}}$[=1;]{} & [-1]{} & [0]{} & [ 0]{} & [ d]{}$_{S}^{1}$[(493)]{}\
$\text{E}_{N}\text{=3/2}$ & [853]{} &
-------
[2]{}
[2]{}
-------
& 0 & 0 & $\begin{tabular}{l}
($$) \\
($$)\end{tabular}\ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ & [-2]{} & [0]{} & [ 0]{} &
-----------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(853)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(853)]{}
-----------------------------
\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 2}$ & [1033]{} & [ 2]{} & 0 & 0 & [(]{}$\text{1}\overline{\text{1}}\text{0,}\overline{\text{1}}\text{10)}$ & [-2]{} & [0]{} & [ 0]{} & [ q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}
$[(1033)]{}\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 2}$ & [1033]{} &
-------
[2]{}
[2]{}
-------
& 0 & 0 &
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(]{}$\overline{\text{1}}$[01,]{}$\overline{\text{1}}$[0]{}$\overline{\text{1}}$[)]{}
[(0]{}$\overline{\text{1}}$[1,0]{}$\overline{\text{1}}\overline{\text{1}}$[)]{}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
& [-2]{} & [0]{} & [ 0]{} &
------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1033)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1033)]{}
------------------------------
\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 2}$ & [1033]{} & [ 2]{} & -1 & 1 & [(]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 11}}}$[0); ]{}$\text{J}_{\Gamma }$=1 & [-3]{} & [0]{} & [ 0]{} & [ d]{}$_{\Omega
}^{-1}$[(1033)]{}\
$\text{E}_{N}\text{=5/2}$ & [1213]{} & [ 2]{} & 0 & 0 & $\text{(200,020)}$ & [-2]{} & [0]{} & [ 0]{} & [ q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1213)]{}\
$\text{E}_{N}\text{=7/2}$ & [1573]{} &
-------
[2]{}
[2]{}
-------
&
-------
[0]{}
[0]{}
-------
& 0 &
------------------------------------------------
[(121,12]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[)]{}
[(211,21]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[)]{}
------------------------------------------------
& [-2]{} & [0]{} & [ 0]{} &
------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1573)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1573)]{}
------------------------------
\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 4}$ & [1753]{} & [ 2]{} & 0 & 0 & $\text{(002,00}\overline{\text{2}}\text{)}$ & [-2]{} & [0]{} & [ 0]{} & [ q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1753)]{}\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 4}$ & [1753]{} & [ 2]{} & 0 & 0 & $\text{(}\overline{\text{2}}\text{00,0}\overline{\text{2}}\text{0)}$ & [-2]{} & [0]{} & [ 0]{} & [ q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1753)]{}\
$\text{E}_{N}\text{=9/2}$ & [1933]{} & [ 2]{} & 0 & 0 & $\text{(112,11}\overline{\text{2}}\text{)}$ & [-2]{} & [0]{} & [ 0]{} & [ q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(1933)]{}\
$\text{E}_{N}\text{=9/2}$ & [1933]{} & [ 1]{} & 1 & 2 & [(220); ]{}$\text{J}_{\text{N}}$=2 & [-1]{} & [0]{} & [ 0]{} & [ d]{}$_{S}^{1}$[(1933)]{}\
$\text{E}_{N}\text{=}\frac{\text{11}}{2}$ & [2293]{} & [1]{} & 0 & 0 &
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[21,]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[2]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[,]{}
[2]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[1,2]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 11}}})$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
& [-2]{} & [0]{} & [ 0]{} &
------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(2293)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{0}$[(2293)]{}
------------------------------
\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 8}$ & [3193]{} & [ 1]{} & -1 & 2 & [(]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 22}}}$[0); ]{}$\text{J}_{\Gamma }$[=2; ]{} & [-3]{} & [0]{} & [ 0]{} & [ d]{}$_{\Omega }^{-1}$[(3193)]{}\
$\text{E}_{N}\text{=25/2}$ & [4813]{} & [ 1]{} & 1 & 3 & [(330); ]{}$\text{J}_{\text{N}}$[=3;]{} & [0]{} & [-1]{} & [100]{} & [ d]{}$_{b}^{1}$[(4913)]{}\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 18}$ & [6793]{} & [ 1]{} & -1 & 3 & [(]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 33}}}$[0); ]{}$\text{J}_{\Gamma }$[=3;]{} & [-3]{} & [0]{} & [-300]{} & [ d]{}$_{\Omega }^{-1}$[(6493)]{}\
$\text{E}_{N}\text{=49/2}$ & [9133]{} & [ 1]{} & 1 & 4 & [(440); ]{}$\text{J}_{\text{N}}$[=4;]{} & [0]{} & [-1]{} & [200]{} & [ d]{}$_{b}^{1}$[(9333)]{}\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 32}$ & [11833]{} & [ 1]{} & -1 & 4 & [(]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 44}}}$[0); ]{}$\text{J}_{\Gamma }$[=4;]{} & [-3]{} & [0]{} & [-600]{} & [ d]{}$_{\Omega }^{-1}$[(11233)]{}\
$\text{E}_{N}\text{=81/2}$ & [14893]{} & [ 1]{} & 1 & 5 & [(550); ]{}$\text{J}_{\text{N}}$[=5; ]{} & [0]{} & [-1]{} & [300]{} & [ d]{}$_{b}^{1}$[(15193)]{}\
& [...]{} & [...]{} & ... & ... & [...]{} & ... & ... & ... & ....\
E$_{\text{Start}}$ = \[(n$_{1}$-$\xi $)$^{2}$+(n$_{2}$-$\eta $)$^{2}$+(n$_{3}$-$\zeta $)$^{2}$\], [E(]{}$\vec{k}$[,]{}$\vec{n}$[)]{} is the starting and minimum energy of the energy band; $\overline{\text{n}_{i}}$ = -n; $\overline{\text{n}_{1}\text{n}_{2}\text{n}_{3}}$ = -n$_{1}$, -n$_{2}$, -n$_{3}$ \[see Eq. (\[Equ-N\])\].
From Table 2, Table 8 and Table 9, omitting $\Delta $ part mass of quarks, we have the quarks (q$_{\Sigma }^{0}$ and d$_{S}^{0}$) shown in Table B3 (note $\overline{\text{n}_{i}}$ = - n$_{i}$);
Table B3. The Energy Bands and the Quarks of the $\Lambda $-Axis (S = -1)
[|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|]{} $\text{E}_{\text{Start}}$ & [E(]{}$\vec{k}$[,]{}$\vec{n}$[)]{} & d & $\Delta $S & J & $\text{ (n}_{1}\text{n}_{2}\text{n}_{3}\text{,
...)}$ & S & q(m[ ]{}$_{\text{{\small (Mev)}}}$)\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{=0}$ & [313]{} & [ 1]{} & -1 & 0 & $\
\text{(000) }$ & [ 0]{} & [ d(313)]{}\
$\text{E}_{\text{P}}\text{=3/4 \ }$ & [583]{} & [ 3]{} & 0 & 0 & $\ \text{(101,011,110)}$ & [-1]{} & [ q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(583)]{}\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 2 \ \ }$ & [1033]{} &
-------
[3]{}
[3]{}
-------
& 0 & 0 & $\text{\begin{tabular}{l}
$\text{(1}\overline{\text{1}}\text{0,}\overline{\text{1}}\text{10,01}\overline{\text{1}}$) \\
($\text{0}\overline{\text{1}}\text{1,10}\overline{\text{1}}\text{,}\overline{\text{1}}\text{01)}$\end{tabular}
}$ & [-1]{} &
---------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(1033)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(1033)]{}
---------------------------------
\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 2 \ \ }$ & [1033]{} & [ 3]{} & 0 & 0 & $\ \text{(}\overline{\text{1}}\text{0}\overline{\text{1}}\text{,0}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{\text{1}}\text{,}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{\text{1}}\text{0)}$ & [-1]{} & [ q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(1033)]{}\
$\text{E}_{\text{P}}\text{=11/4}$ & [1303]{} & [ 3]{} & 0 & 0 & $\ \text{(020,002,200)}$ & [-1]{} & [ q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(1303)]{}\
$\text{E}_{\text{P}}\text{=11/4}$ & [1303]{} & [ 3]{} & 0 & 0 & $\ \text{(121,211,112)}$ & [-1]{} & [ q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(1303)]{}\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 4 \ \ }$ & [1753]{} & [ 3]{} & 0 & 0 & [(0]{}$\overline{2}$[0,]{}$\overline{2}$[00,00]{}$\overline{2}$[)]{} & [-1]{} & [ q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(1753)]{}\
$\text{E}_{\text{P}}\text{=19/4}$ & [2023]{} &
-------
[3]{}
[3]{}
-------
& 0 & 0 & $\text{\begin{tabular}{l}
$\text{(1}\overline{\text{1}}\text{2,}\overline{\text{1}}\text{12,21}\overline{\text{1}}$) \\
($\text{2}\overline{\text{1}}\text{1,12}\overline{\text{1}}\text{,}\overline{\text{1}}\text{21)}$\end{tabular}
}$ & [-1]{} &
---------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(2023)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(2023)]{}
---------------------------------
\
$\text{E}_{\text{P}}\text{=19/4}$ & [2023]{} & [3]{} & 0 & 0 & $\ \text{(202,022,220)}$ & [-1]{} & [ q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(2023)]{}\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 6 \ \ }$ & [2473]{} &
-------
[3]{}
[3]{}
-------
& 0 & 0 & $\text{\begin{tabular}{l}
$\text{(}\overline{2}\text{11,2}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{\text{1}}\text{,}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{\text{1}}\text{2}$) \\
($\text{11}\overline{2}\text{,}\overline{\text{1}}\text{2}\overline{\text{1}}\text{,1}\overline{2}\text{1)}$\end{tabular}
}$ & [-1]{} &
---------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(2473)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(2473)]{}
---------------------------------
\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 6 \ \ }$ & [2473]{} &
-------
[3]{}
[3]{}
-------
& 0 & 0 & $\text{\begin{tabular}{l}
$\text{(}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{2}\text{1,1}\overline{2}\overline{\text{1}}\text{,}\overline{\text{1}}\text{1}\overline{2}$) \\
$\text{ (1}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{2}\text{,}\overline{2}\text{1}\overline{\text{1}}\text{,}\overline{2}\overline{\text{1}}\text{1)}$\end{tabular}
}$ & [-1]{} &
---------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(2473)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(2473)]{}
---------------------------------
\
$\text{E}_{\Gamma }\text{= 6 \ \ }$ & [2473]{} & [ 3]{} & 0 & 0 & $\text{(}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{2}\overline{\text{1}}\text{,}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{2}\text{,}\overline{2}\overline{\text{1}}\overline{\text{1}}\text{)}$ & [-1]{} & [ q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(2473)]{}\
$\text{E}_{\text{P}}\text{=27/4}$ & [2743]{} &
-------
[3]{}
[3]{}
-------
& 0 & 0 &
-------------------
[(013,031,310)]{}
[(130,301,103)]{}
-------------------
& [-1]{} &
---------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(2743)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Sigma }^{0}$[(2743)]{}
---------------------------------
\
& [2743]{} & [ 1]{} & 0 & 0 & $\text{(222)}$ & [-1]{} & [ d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(2743)]{}\
For the D-, F- and G-axes on the surfaces of the regular rhombic dodecahedron (see Fig. 1), the energy bands with the same energy might not have all equivalent $\overrightarrow{n}$ values. Using (\[deg > R\]), ([Subdeg]{}) and (\[IsoSpin\]) \[the first division, K = 0\], we can get isospin and other intrinsic quantum numbers.
For sixfold energy bands of the F-axis and the G-axis, we need **a second division, K = 1**. Using (\[Kersa-C\]) and (\[Omiga-C\]), we can obtain the q$_{\Xi _{C}}$-quark and the q$_{\Omega _{C}}$-quark, shown in Table B6 and Table B7.
There are three energy bands ($\overrightarrow{n}$ = (000), $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (100) and $\overrightarrow{n}$ = (200)) that have already been recognized on the three axes $\Gamma $-H, $\Gamma $-P and $\Gamma $-N. The bands on the surfaces of the regular rhombic dodecahedron are the same quarks as those inside:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table B4. The Special Energy bands
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
$ $ & {\small Bands (Inside dodecahedron)} & \ \ \ \ \
\ {\small Bands (on Surface )} & {\small Quark} \\ \hline
\ {\small (000)} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small E}$\_${\small (0)}$${\small E}$\_[N]{}${\small (}$${\small )} \\
{\small E}$\_${\small (0)}$${\small E}$\_[p]{}${\small (}$${\small )} \\
{\small E}$\_${\small (0)}$${\small E}$\_[H]{}${\small (1)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small E}$\_[N]{}${\small (}$${\small )}$${\small E}$\_[p]{}${\small (}$${\small )} \\
{\small E}$\_[p]{}${\small (}$${\small )}$${\small E}$\_[H]{}${\small (1)} \\
{\small E}$\_[N]{}${\small (}$${\small )}$${\small E}$\_[M]{}${\small (1)}\end{tabular}
& {\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (313)} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (110)} \\
{\small (1}$${\small 0)}\end{tabular}
& \ \ \ {\small E}$\_[N]{}${\small (}$${\small )}$${\small E}$\_${\small (2)} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small E}$\_[N]{}${\small (}$${\small )}$${\small E}$\_[p]{}${\small (}$${\small )} \\
{\small E}$\_[p]{}${\small (}$${\small )$\rightarrow $E}$\_[H]{}${\small (3)} \\
{\small E}$\_[N]{}${\small (}$${\small )$\rightarrow $E}$\_[M]{}${\small (1)} \\
{\small E}$\_[M]{}${\small (1)}$${\small E}$\_[N]{}${\small (}$$)\end{tabular}
& {\small d}$\_[S]{}${\small (493)} \\ \hline
{\small (200)} & \ \ {\small E}$\_[H]{}${\small (1)}$${\small E}$\_${\small (2)} & \ \ {\small E}$\_[M]{}${\small (1)}$${\small E}$\_[N]{}${\small (}$${\small ),} & {\small d}$\_[S]{}${\small (773)} \\ \hline
\ {\small (002)} & & {\small \ \ E}$\_[H]{}${\small (1)}$${\small E}$\_[p]{}${\small (}$${\small )}$${\small E}$\_[N]{}${\small (}$${\small )} & {\small d}$\_[S]{}${\small (773)} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ $
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ \ $
For each symmetry axis, from (\[Dalta-E\]), we can get simple binding energy formulae:
$$\begin{tabular}{l}
For the D-axis, $\Theta $ = 1, CI = CS = K = b = S$_{Ax}$ = 0, from(\ref{Dalta-E}): \\
twofold,
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\Delta $E =100(2CJ$_{C}\text{+ }$SJ$_{S}\Delta $S$)$\ \ \ J$_{C}$ = 1, 2,
3, ... ,\ J$_{S,2}$= 2, 3, .... ; \\
$\Delta $E = 0, J$_{S,2}$= 1;\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\end{tabular}
\\
fourfold, C = $\Delta $S = 0, $\Delta $E = 0.\end{tabular}
\label{D-E}$$
$$\begin{tabular}{l}
$\text{For the F-Axis, }\Theta \text{ }\text{= 1, b = 0, S}_{Ax}\text{= -1, }
$from(\ref{Dalta-E}), we have: \ \ \ \\
threefold, K = C = (1+S$_{Ax}$) = 0, $\Delta $E = 0; \\
sixfold, \ \ \ K=1, $\Delta \text{E }\text{= 100[C(2J}_{C}\text{-I)-CS+S],\
\ J}_{C}\text{ = 1, 2, 3, ...;\ }$\end{tabular}
\label{F-DE}$$
$\ $
$$\begin{tabular}{l}
For the G-Axis, $\Theta $ = 1,\ b = 0, S$_{A}$ = -2. From (\ref{Dalta-E}),
we have: \\
twofold C =K = 0, $\Delta $E = (-S)(J$_{S,2}$-2)$\Delta $S \ \ J$_{S,2}$ =
4, 5 6, ....; $\Delta $E = 0$\text{ \ J}_{S,2}$, $\leq $ 3 ; \\
fourfold C= K =$\Delta $S = 0, \ $\Delta $E = 0; \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
\\
sixfold K = 1, $\left\{
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\Delta \text{E = 100\{C(2J}_{C}\text{-S)+S -S(J}_{S,6}\text{-2)}\Delta
\text{S\} J}_{C}\text{=1, 2, ...; \ }$ \\
$\text{J}_{S,6}\text{= 4, 5, ... .\ \ }\Delta \text{E = 0, J}_{S,6}$
\TEXTsymbol{<}$\text{ 4.}$\end{tabular}
\ \right\} $\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \text{\ \ } \label{E(G-6)}$$
For the D-axis, from Table 2, (\[E(n,k)\]), (\[Equ-N\]), (\[DaltaS\]), (\[Charmed\]), (\[D-E\]), (\[Rest Mass\]) and Table B4, omitting $\Delta $ part energy of quarks, we have:
Table B5. The Energy Bands and the Quarks of the D-Axis (S = 0)
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
$\_[Start]{}$ & {\small E} & (n$\_[1]{}$n$\_[2]{}$n$\_[3]{}${\small ),...} & $$S & J & {\small S} & {\small C} & $$E & q(m{\small \ }$\_$) \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 493} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (000)} \\
({\small 110)}\end{tabular}
{\small \ } &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small -1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
J$\_[S,2]{}$=1\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small -1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
0\end{tabular}
& {\small \ \ \ 0} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small u(313)} \\
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (493)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 583} & \ {\small (101, 011)} & {\small \ \ 0} & \ \ 0 & {\small \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ 0} &
{\small \ \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (583)} \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 853} & \ {\small (10}$${\small , 01}$${\small )} &
{\small \ \ 0} & \ \ 0 & {\small \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ \ 0}
& {\small \ \ q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (853)} \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 1213} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (1}$${\small 0, }$${\small 10)} \\
{\small (020, 200)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
& {\small \ \ \ 0} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (1213)} \\
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (1213)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 1303} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (}$${\small 01, 0}$${\small 1,} \\
{\small (211, 121)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
& {\small \ \ \ 0} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (1303)} \\
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (1303)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 1303} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (002)} \\
{\small (112)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -1} \\
{\small -1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
J$\_[S,2]{}$={\small 2} \\
J$\_[S,2]{}$={\small 3}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -1} \\
{\small -1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 200} \\
{\small 300}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (1503)} \\
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (1603)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 1573} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (12}$${\small , 21}$${\small )} \\
{\small (}$${\small 0}$${\small , 0}$)$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
& {\small \ \ \ 0} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (1573)} \\
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (1573)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ =}$$ & {\small 1933} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (220,} \\
$${\small 0)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -1} \\
{\small 1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
J$\_[S,2]{}$=4 \\
J$\_$= 1\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -1} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 400} \\
{\small 200}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[-1]{}${\small (2333)} \\
{\small u}$\_[C]{}${\small (2133)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ = }$$ & {\small 1933} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (11}$${\small )} \\
{\small (00}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 1} \\
{\small 1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
J$\_$=2 \\
J$\_$=3\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 1} \\
{\small 1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 400} \\
{\small 600}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small u}$\_[C]{}${\small (2333)} \\
{\small u}$\_[C]{}${\small (2533)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ =}$$ & {\small 2023} & \
{\small (}$${\small 21,2}$${\small 1)} & {\small \ \
0} & \ \ 0 & {\small \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ \ 0} & {\small \
\ q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (2023)} \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ =}$$ & {\small 2023} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (}$${\small 12,1}$${\small 2)} \\
{\small (202,022)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
& {\small \ \ \ 0} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (2023)} \\
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (2023)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ =}$$ & {\small 2293} & {\small \ \ (2}$${\small ,}$${\small 2}$${\small )} & {\small \ \ 0} & \ \ 0 & {\small \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ 0} &
{\small \ \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (2293)} \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ =}$$ & {\small 2653} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (310, 130)} \\
{\small (}$${\small 00, 0}$${\small 0)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
& {\small \ \ \ 0} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (2653)} \\
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (2653)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small \ =}$$ & {\small 2743} & {\small \ \ (222)} & {\small \ \ \ \ 1} & J$\_$=4 & {\small \ \ 0} &
{\small \ \ 1} & {\small \ 800} & {\small \ \ u}$\_[C]{}${\small (3543)} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}\ \ \ \ \ \ $
$\ $E$_{\text{Start}}$ = \[(n$_{1}$-$\xi $)$^{2}$+(n$_{2}$-$\eta $)$^{2}$+(n$_{3}$-$\zeta $)$^{2}$\], [E]{} is the starting and minimum energy of the energy band; $\overline{\text{n}_{i}}$ = -n; $\overline{\text{n}_{1}\text{n}_{2}\text{n}_{3}}$ = -n$_{1}$, -n$_{2}$, -n$_{3}$ \[see Eq. (\[l-n\])\].
For the F-axis, from Table 2, (\[E(n,k)\]), (\[Equ-N\]), (\[DaltaS\]), (\[Kersa-C\]), (\[F-DE\]), (\[Rest Mass\]) and Table B4, omitting $\Delta $ part energy of quarks, we have:
Table B6. The Energy Bands and the Quarks of the F-Axis (S = -1)
[|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|]{} $\text{E}_{Start}$ & [E]{} & $\ \text{E-Band }$ & $\Delta S$ & J & [S]{} & [C]{} & $\ \ \Delta $E & q(m[ ]{}$_{\text{{\small (Mev)}}}$)\
$_{\text{P}}$[=]{}$\frac{3}{4}$ & [583]{} &
---------------
[(000)]{}
[(011,101)]{}
---------------
&
-------
[1]{}
[1]{}
-------
&
-------
[0]{}
[1]{}
-------
&
-------
[0]{}
[0]{}
-------
&
-------
[0]{}
[0]{}
-------
&
-------
[0]{}
[0]{}
-------
&
---------------------------------
[d(313)]{}
[q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{1}$[(583)]{}
---------------------------------
\
$_{\text{P}}$[=]{}$\frac{3}{4}$ & [583]{} & [(110)]{} & [ 0]{} & 0 & [ -1]{} & [ 0]{} & [0]{} & [ d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(493)]{}\
$_{\text{H}}$[= 1]{} & [673]{} &
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(002)]{}
[(]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[01,0]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[1)]{}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
-------
[0]{}
[1]{}
-------
&
-------
[0]{}
2
-------
&
--------
[-1]{}
[ 0]{}
--------
&
-------
[0]{}
[0]{}
-------
& [ 0]{} &
---------------------------------
[d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(773)]{}
[q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{1}$[(673)]{}
---------------------------------
\
$_{\text{P}}$[=]{}$\frac{11}{2}$ & [1303]{} &
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(112)]{}
[(1]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[0,]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[10)]{}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
-------
[0]{}
[1]{}
-------
&
-------
[0]{}
[3]{}
-------
&
--------
[-1]{}
[ 0]{}
--------
&
-------
[0]{}
[0]{}
-------
& [ 0]{} &
----------------------------------
[d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(1303)]{}
[q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{1}$[(1303)]{}
----------------------------------
\
$_{\text{P}}$[=]{}$\frac{11}{2}$ & [1303]{} &
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(01]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[,10]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[)]{}
[(020)]{}
[(200)]{}
[(121,211)]{}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
-------
[1]{}
[0]{}
[0]{}
[1]{}
-------
&
-------
[4]{}
0
0
[5]{}
-------
&
--------
[ 0]{}
[-1]{}
[-1]{}
[ 0]{}
--------
&
-------
[0]{}
[0]{}
[0]{}
[0]{}
-------
&
----------
[ 0]{}
[-100]{}
[-100]{}
[ 0]{}
----------
&
----------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{1}$[(1303)]{}
[d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(1203)]{}
[d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(1203)]{}
[q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{1}$[(1303)]{}
----------------------------------
\
$_{\text{H}}$[= 3]{} & [1393]{} &
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[0)]{}
[(]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[12,1]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[2)]{}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
-------
[0]{}
[1]{}
-------
&
-------
[0]{}
[6]{}
-------
&
--------
[-1]{}
[ 0]{}
--------
&
-------
[0]{}
[0]{}
-------
& [0]{} &
----------------------------------
[d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(1393)]{}
[q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{1}$[(1393)]{}
----------------------------------
\
$_{\text{H}}$[= 3]{} & [1393]{} & [(]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[2)]{} & [ 0]{} & 0 & [ -1]{} & [ 0]{} & [ 0]{} & [ d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(1393)]{}\
$_{\text{P}}$[=]{}$\frac{19}{4}$ & [2023]{} &
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(0]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 11}}}$[,]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[0]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}})$
[(]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[21)]{}
[(2]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[1)]{}
[(202, 022)]{}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
--------
[-1]{}
[0]{}
[0]{}
[1]{}
--------
&
---------------------
J$_{\text{S,6}}$= 1
0
0
J$_{C}$=1
---------------------
&
--------
[-2]{}
[-1]{}
[-1]{}
[-1]{}
--------
&
-------
[0]{}
[0]{}
[0]{}
[1]{}
-------
&
----------
[-200]{}
[-100]{}
[-100]{}
[-150]{}
----------
&
-------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{-1}$[(1823)]{}
[d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(1923)]{}
[d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(1923)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Xi _{C}}$[(1873)]{}
-------------------------------
\
$_{\text{P}}$[=]{}$\frac{19}{4}$ & [2023]{} &
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(220)]{}
[(21]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[,12]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[)]{}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
-------
[0]{}
[1]{}
-------
&
-------
[0]{}
[7]{}
-------
&
--------
[-1]{}
[0]{}
--------
&
-------
[0]{}
[0]{}
-------
& [ 0]{} &
----------------------------------
[d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(2023)]{}
[q]{}$_{\text{N}}^{1}$[(2023)]{}
----------------------------------
\
$_{\text{H}}$[= 5]{} & [2113]{} &
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(0]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}$[0,]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}$[00)]{}
[(]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}$[11)]{}
[(1]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}$[1)]{}
[(013,103)]{}
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
--------
[-1]{}
[0]{}
[0]{}
[1]{}
--------
&
---------------------
J$_{\text{S,6}}$= 2
0
0
J$_{C}$=2
---------------------
&
--------
[-2]{}
[-1]{}
[-1]{}
[-1]{}
--------
&
-------
[0]{}
[0]{}
[0]{}
[1]{}
-------
&
----------
[-200]{}
[-100]{}
[-100]{}
[ 50]{}
----------
&
-------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{-1}$[(1913)]{}
[d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(2013)]{}
[d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(2013)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Xi _{C}}$[(2163)]{}
-------------------------------
\
$_{\text{H}}$[= 5]{} & [2113]{} &
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 21}}}$[1, ]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 12}}}$[1)]{}
[(0]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}$[2)]{}
[(]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 2}}}$[02)]{}
[(0]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[3,]{}$\overline{1}$[03)]{}
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
--------
[-1]{}
[0]{}
[0]{}
[1]{}
--------
&
---------------------
J$_{\text{S,6}}$= 3
0
0
J$_{C}$=3
---------------------
&
--------
[-2]{}
[-1]{}
[-1]{}
[-1]{}
--------
&
-------
[0]{}
[0]{}
[0]{}
[1]{}
-------
&
----------
[-200]{}
[-100]{}
[-100]{}
[ 250]{}
----------
&
-------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Xi }^{-1}$[(1913)]{}
[d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(2013)]{}
[d]{}$_{S}^{0}$[(2013)]{}
[q]{}$_{\Xi _{C}}$[(2363)]{}
-------------------------------
\
$_{\text{P}}$[=]{}$\frac{27}{4}$ & [2743]{} &
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[(2]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 11}}}$,$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[2]{}$\overline{\text{{\small 1}}}$[)]{}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
-------
[1]{}
-------
& J$_{C}$=4 &
--------
[-1]{}
--------
&
-------
[1]{}
-------
&
---------
[450]{}
---------
&
------------------------------
[q]{}$_{\Xi _{C}}$[(3193)]{}
------------------------------
\
E$_{\text{Start}}$ = \[(n$_{1}$-$\xi $)$^{2}$+(n$_{2}$-$\eta $)$^{2}$+(n$_{3}$-$\zeta $)$^{2}$\], [E]{} is the starting and minimum energy of the energy band; $\overline{\text{n}_{i}}$ = -n; $\overline{\text{n}_{1}\text{n}_{2}\text{n}_{3}}$ = -n$_{1}$, -n$_{2}$, -n$_{3}$ \[see Eq. (\[l-n\])\].
For the G-axis, from Table 2, (\[E(n,k)\]), (\[Equ-N\]), (\[DaltaS\]), (\[Omiga-C\]),(\[E(G-6)\]) and (\[Rest Mass\]), omitting $\Delta $ part energy of quarks, we have: $\ $
Table B7. The Energy Bands and the Quarks of the G-Axis (S = -2)
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
$\_[Start]{}$ & {\small E} & $\_[1]{}\_[2]{}\_[3]{}$ & $$S & \ J & \ \ {\small S} & \ {\small C} & $$E & q(m{\small \ }$\_$) \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small =}$$ & {\small 493} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (000)} \\
({\small 110)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
J$\_[S,2]{}$={\small 1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small -1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
& {\small \ }
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d(313)} \\
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}${\small (493)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small = 1} & {\small 673} & \ {\small (101, 10}$${\small )} & {\small \ \ 0} & \ \ 0 & {\small \ \ -2} & {\small \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (673)} \\
\hline
{\small E}$\_${\small = 1} & {\small 673} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 1}$${\small 0)} \\
{\small (200)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 1} \\
{\small 1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
J$\_[S,2]{}$=2 \\
J$\_[S,2]{}$=3\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -1} \\
{\small -1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small \ \ 0} \\
{\small 100}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}${\small (493)} \\
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}${\small (773)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small =}$$ & {\small 853} & \ {\small (011, 01}$${\small )} & {\small \ \ 0} & \ \ 0 & {\small \ \ -2}
& {\small \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ \ \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (853)} \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small =}$$ & {\small 1213} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (020) } \\
($${\small 10)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 1} \\
{\small 1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
J$\_[S,2]{}$=4 \\
J$\_[S,2]{}$=5\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -1} \\
{\small -1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -200} \\
{\small -300}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1413)} \\
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1513)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small = 3} & {\small 1393} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
({\small 0}$${\small 1, 0}$)$ \\
({\small 211, 21}$)$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -2} \\
{\small -2}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
& {\small \ \ }
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1393)} \\
{\small q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1393)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small = 3} & {\small 1393} & {\small \ \ (2}$${\small 1, 2}$)$ & {\small \ \ 0} & \ 0 & {\small \ \ -2} & {\small \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ \ \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1393)} \\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small =}$$ & {\small 1573} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (}$${\small 01,}$)$ \\
{\small (121, 12}$)$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -2} \\
{\small -2}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
& {\small \ \ }
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1573)} \\
{\small q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1573)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small =}$$ & {\small 1933} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (112, 11}$)$ \\
{\small (002,\ 00}$)$ \\
{\small (220)} \\
{\small (}$${\small 0)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0} \\
{\small 1} \\
{\small -1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0} \\
J$\_[C]{}$=1 \\
J$\_[S,6]{}$=1\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -2} \\
{\small -2} \\
{\small -2} \\
{\small -3}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0} \\
{\small 1} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -200} \\
{\small -200} \\
{\small \ 200} \\
{\small -300}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1733)} \\
{\small q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1733)} \\
{\small d}$\_[\_[C]{}]{}${\small (2133)} \\
{\small d}$\_${\small (1633)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small = 5} & {\small 2113} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (202, 20}$${\small )} \\
{\small (1}$${\small 2, 1}$${\small )} \\
{\small (310) } \\
{\small (0}$${\small 0)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0} \\
{\small 1} \\
{\small -1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0} \\
J$\_[C]{}$=2 \\
J$\_[S,6]{}$=2\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -2} \\
{\small -2} \\
{\small -2} \\
{\small -3}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0} \\
{\small 1} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -200} \\
{\small -200} \\
{\small \ 400} \\
{\small -300}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1913)} \\
{\small q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1913)} \\
{\small q}$\_[\_[C]{}]{}${\small (2513)} \\
{\small q}$\_${\small (1813)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small = 5} & {\small 2113} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (301,30}$${\small )} \\
{\small (1}$${\small 1,1}$)$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -2} \\
{\small -2}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
& {\small \ \ }
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (2113)} \\
{\small q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (2113)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small = 5} & {\small 2113} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small (3}$${\small 0)} \\
{\small (2}$${\small 0)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 1} \\
{\small 1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
J$\_[S,2]{}$=6 \\
J$\_[S,2]{}$=7\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -1} \\
{\small -1}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 0} \\
{\small 0}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small 400} \\
{\small 500}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}${\small (2513)} \\
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}${\small (2613)}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
{\small E}$\_${\small =}$$ & {\small 2293} & \ {\small (}$${\small 21,}$${\small 2}$)$ & {\small \ \ 0} & \ 0 & {\small \ \ -2} & {\small \ \ 0} & {\small \ \ \ \ 0} &
{\small \ \ q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (2293)} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ $
E$_{\text{Start}}$ = \[(n$_{1}$-$\xi $)$^{2}$+(n$_{2}$-$\eta $)$^{2}$+(n$_{3}$-$\zeta $)$^{2}$\], [E]{} is the starting and minimum energy of the energy band; $\overline{\text{n}_{i}}$ = -n; $\overline{\text{n}_{1}\text{n}_{2}\text{n}_{3}}$ = -n$_{1}$, -n$_{2}$, -n$_{3}$ \[see Eq. (\[l-n\])\].
[Appendix C. Omitting Angular Momenta, Dividing Groups and Obtaining a Representative Particle of the Group ]{}
We show how to omit angular momenta and parities of the baryons or mesons and how to divide experimental baryons and mesons into groups using some examples in Table C1– C7. There might be many members in each group for experimental and deduced results. For a group with many members, we find a representative particle. The representative particle has the same intrinsic quantum numbers (I, S, C, b and Q) with the same name and the average rest mass of the members in the group. In Table C1, we show the representative particles of the deduced and experimental results. Similarly, we can get all representative baryons and mesons shown in Table C2 - Table C7.
The unflavored mesons with the same intrinsic quantum numbers but different angular momenta or parities have different names. In order to compare their rest masses, omitting the differences of the angular momenta and parities, we use meson $\eta $ to represent the mesons with S = C = b = 0, I = Q = 0 ($\eta $, $\varpi $, $\phi $, h and f) (see Table C5) and we use meson $\pi $ to represent the mesons with S = C = b = 0, I = 1, Q = 1, 0, -1 ($\pi $, $\rho $, a and b) (see Table C6).
For example, the number ($\overline{\text{1498}}$) inside N($\overline{\text{1498}}$) is the rest mass of the baryon N($\overline{\text{1498}}$). The top line of the number ($\overline{\text{1498}}$) means that the number down the line is the average rest mass of the group. $\Gamma $ is the full width of the baryon (or meson) in unit Mev, $\overline{\Gamma }$ means the average of the member full widths ($\Gamma s$) in the group.
[l]{} Table C1. The Unflavored Baryons $N$ and $\Delta $ ($S$= $C$=$b$ = 0)\
[|l|l||l|l|]{} Deduced & Experiment & Deduced & Experiment\
----------------------
[2]{}$N(1209)$
2$N(1299)$
N($\overline{1254}$)
----------------------
& & $\begin{array}{c}
2\Delta (1209) \\
2\Delta (1299) \\
\Delta \mathbf{(}\overline{\mathbf{1254}}\mathbf{)}\end{array}
$ & $\ \Delta (1232),120$\
**N(1479)** &
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
$N(1440),350$
$N(1520),120$
$N(1535),150$
$\mathbf{N(}\overline{\mathbf{1498}}\mathbf{),}\overline{\mathbf{207}}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
& &\
-------------------------------------------------
$N(1659)$
$N(1659)$
$\mathbf{N(}\overline{\mathbf{1650}}\mathbf{)}$
-------------------------------------------------
&
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$N(1650),150$
$N(1675),150$
$N(1680),130$
$N(1700),100$
$N(1710),100$
$N(1720),150$
$\mathbf{N(}\overline{\mathbf{1689}}\mathbf{),}\overline{\mathbf{130}}\mathbf{)}$
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
----------------------------------------------------------------
$\Delta (1659)$
$\Delta (1659)$
$\mathbf{\Delta }\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathbf{1659}}\mathbf{)}$
----------------------------------------------------------------
&
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Delta (1600),350$
$\Delta (1620),150$
$\Delta (1700),300$
$\mathbf{\Delta (}\overline{\mathbf{1640}}\mathbf{),}\overline{\mathbf{267}}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
-------------------------------------------------
2$N(1839)$
5$N(1929)$
2$N(2019)$
$\mathbf{N(}\overline{\mathbf{1929}}\mathbf{)}$
-------------------------------------------------
&
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
$N(1900)^{\ast }$, 500
$N(1990)^{\ast }$, 500
$N(2000)^{\ast }$, 400
$N(2080)^{\ast }$, 400
$N(2090)^{\ast }$, 400
$\mathbf{N(}\overline{\mathbf{1912}}\mathbf{)}^{\ast }$, $\overline{440}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
----------------------------------------------------------------
2$\Delta (1929)$
3$\Delta $[(1929)]{}
2$\Delta $[(2019)]{}
$\mathbf{\Delta }\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathbf{1955}}\mathbf{)}$
----------------------------------------------------------------
&
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Delta (1905),350$
$\Delta (1910),250$
$\Delta (1920),200$
$\Delta (1930),350$
$\Delta (1950),300$
$\mathbf{\Delta (}\overline{\mathbf{1923}}\mathbf{),}\overline{\mathbf{264}}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
-------------------------------------------------
$N(2199)$
$N(2199)$
$\mathbf{N(}\overline{\mathbf{2199}}\mathbf{)}$
-------------------------------------------------
&
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
$N(2190),450$
$N(2220),400$
$N(2250),400$
$\mathbf{N(}\overline{\mathbf{2220}}\mathbf{),}\overline{\mathbf{417}}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
& $\ \ \ \Delta (2379)$ & $\ \Delta (2420),400$\
**3N(2649)** & **N(2600), 650** &
-------------------------------------------------------
$4\Delta (2649)$
**4**$\Delta (2739)$
$\mathbf{\Delta (}\overline{\mathbf{2694}}\mathbf{)}$
-------------------------------------------------------
& $\mathbf{\Delta (2750)}^{\ast },$400\
**4N(2739)** & **N(2700)**$^{\ast }$,**600** & &\
1N(2919) & Prediction & 3$\mathbf{\Delta (3099)}$ &
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\mathbf{\Delta (2950)}^{\ast },$500
$\mathbf{\Delta (3000)}^{\ast },$1000
$\mathbf{\Delta (}\overline{\mathbf{2975}}\mathbf{)}^{\ast },$ $\overline{750}$
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
[l]{} Table C2. The Strange Baryons $\Lambda $ and $\Sigma $ (S = -1, C = b = 0)\
[|l|l||l|l|]{} Deduced & Experiment, $\Gamma $ & Deduced & Experiment, $\Gamma $\
$\ \ \mathbf{\Lambda (1119)}$ & $\ \mathbf{\Lambda (1116)}$ & $\ \ \mathbf{\Sigma (1209)}$ & $\ \mathbf{\Sigma (1193)}$\
$\Lambda (1399)$ & $\ \Lambda (1406),50\ \ \ $ & $\ \ \Sigma (\mathbf{1399})\mathbf{\ \ \ \ \ \ }$ & $\ \ \mathbf{\Sigma (1385),37}$\
--------------------------------------------------------
$\Lambda (1659)$
$\Lambda (1659$
$\Lambda (1659)$
$\mathbf{\Lambda (}\overline{\mathbf{1659}}\mathbf{)}$
--------------------------------------------------------
&
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Lambda (1520),16$
$\Lambda (1600),150$
$\Lambda (1670),35$
$\Lambda (1690),60$
$\mathbf{\Lambda (}\overline{\mathbf{1620}}\mathbf{),}\overline{\mathbf{65}}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
----------------------------------------------------------------
$\Sigma (1659)$
$\Sigma (1659)$
$\Sigma (1659)$
2$\Sigma $[(1829)]{}
$\mathbf{\Sigma }\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathbf{1727}}\mathbf{)}$
----------------------------------------------------------------
&
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Sigma (1660),100$
$\Sigma (1670),60$
$\Sigma (1750),90$
$\Sigma (1775),120$
$\mathbf{\Sigma (}\overline{\mathbf{1714}}\mathbf{),}\overline{\mathbf{93}}$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
--------------------------------------------------------
$\Lambda (1829)$
$\Lambda (1829)$
$\Lambda (1929)$
$\Lambda (1929)$
$\Lambda (1929)$
$\mathbf{\Lambda (}\overline{\mathbf{1889}}\mathbf{)}$
--------------------------------------------------------
&
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Lambda (1800),300$
$\Lambda (1810),150$
$\Lambda (1820),$ $80$
$\Lambda (1830),$ $95$
$\Lambda (1890),100$
$\mathbf{\Lambda (}\overline{\mathbf{1830}}\mathbf{),}\overline{\mathbf{145}}
$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
----------------------------------------------------------------
$\Sigma (1929)$
$\Sigma (1929)$
$\Sigma (1929)$
$\mathbf{\Sigma }\mathbf{(}\overline{\mathbf{1929}}\mathbf{)}$
----------------------------------------------------------------
&
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Sigma (1915),120$
$\Sigma (1940),220$
$\mathbf{\Sigma (}\overline{\mathbf{1928}}\mathbf{),}\overline{\mathbf{170}}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
--------------------------------------------------------
2$\Lambda $(2019)
$\Lambda $(2039)
$\Lambda $(2129)
$\Lambda $(2139)
$\Lambda $(2229)
$\mathbf{\Lambda (}\overline{\mathbf{2095}}\mathbf{)}$
--------------------------------------------------------
&
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Lambda (2100),200$
$\Lambda (2110),200$
$\mathbf{\Lambda (}\overline{\mathbf{2105}}\mathbf{),}\overline{\mathbf{200}}
$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
&
-----------------------------------------------
$\Sigma $(2019)
$\Sigma $(2019)
$\Sigma $(2129)
$\Sigma $**(**$\overline{\mathbf{2056}}$**)**
-----------------------------------------------
$\ $ &
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Sigma (2000)^{\ast },200$
$\Sigma (2030),180$
$\Sigma (2070)^{\ast },300$
$\Sigma (2080)^{\ast },200$
$\mathbf{\Sigma (}\overline{\mathbf{2045}}\mathbf{),}\overline{\mathbf{220}}$
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\
$\ \Lambda (2379)$ & $\ \ \ \Lambda (2350),150$ & $\ \ \ \Sigma $(2229) & $\
\Sigma (2250),100$\
$\begin{tabular}{l}
2$(2549)$ \\
$(2559)$ \\
4$(2639)$ \\
4$(2649)$ \\
$$\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ $ & $\ \ \ \mathbf{\Lambda (2585)}^{\ast },225$ &
--------------------------
$\mathbf{\Sigma (2379)}$
2$\Sigma $(2549)
$\Sigma $(2492)
--------------------------
& $\ \Sigma (2455)^{\ast },140$\
[5]{}$\Lambda \text{({\small 3099})}$ & Prediction &
-------------------------------------------------------
4$\Sigma $(2639)
4$\Sigma $(2649)
$\mathbf{\Sigma (}\overline{\mathbf{2644}}\mathbf{)}$
-------------------------------------------------------
& $\ \Sigma $(2620)$^{\ast },200$\
$\ \Lambda $[(3369)]{} & Prediction & 5$\mathbf{\Sigma (3099)}$ &
-------------------------------------------------------------------
$\Sigma (3000)^{\ast }$, ?
$\Sigma (3170)^{\ast }$, ?
$\mathbf{\Sigma (}\overline{\mathbf{3085}}\mathbf{)}^{\ast }$, ?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ \ \ \ \ \text{Table C3. }$The Heavy Unflavored Mesons with S=C=b=Q=I=0
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ \ {\small d}$\_[S]{}${\small (9613)}$$ & \ {\small E}$\_[bind]{}$ & \ Deduced & {\small Exper., }$$ (Mev) & $%$ \\ \hline
\ \ {\small q}$\_[b]{}\^[1]{}${\small (4913)}$$ & \ \
{\small - 576} & $ ${\small (9389)} & $ ${\small (9460), 53 kev} & 0.75 \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^${\small (9613)}$$
\\
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^${\small (9613)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -250} \\
{\small -150}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$${\small (9856)} \\
$${\small (9956)} \\
$${\small (}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$${\small (9860)} \\
$${\small (9893)} \\
$${\small (9913)} \\
$${\small (}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
& 0.17 \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^${\small (9613)}$$
\\
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^${\small (9613)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -50} \\
{\small -50}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$${\small (10056)} \\
$${\small (10056)}\end{tabular}
& $ ${\small (10023), 43 kev} & 0.13 \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^${\small (9613)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^${\small (9613)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^${\small (9613)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small - 212} \\
-112 \\
{\small -12}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$${\small (10174)} \\
$${\small (10274)} \\
$${\small (10374)} \\
$${\small (}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$${\small (10232)} \\
$${\small (10255)} \\
$${\small (10269)} \\
$${\small (}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
& 0.21 \\ \hline
\ \ \ {\small u}$\_[C]{}${\small (6073)}$$ & \ {\small -1637} & $ ${\small (10509)} & $${\small (10355), 26 kev} & 1.5 \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
2{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^${\small (9613)}$\_[F]{}${\small \ } \\
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^${\small (9613)}$$
\\
{\small \ d}$\_\^[-1]{}${\small (1503)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
-241 \\
-271 \\
-431\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
2$${\small (10575)} \\
$${\small (10645)} \\
$${\small (10685)} \\
$$\end{tabular}
& $ ${\small (10580), 20} & 0.38 \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
2{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^${\small (9613)}$$
\\
{\small d}$\_\^[-1]{}${\small (1603)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (1413)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (1513)}$$\end{tabular}
{\small \ } &
\begin{tabular}{l}
-296 \\
-461 \\
-204 \\
-234\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
2$${\small (10708)} \\
$${\small (10755)} \\
$${\small (10822)} \\
$${\small (10892)} \\
$${\small (}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
& $ ${\small (10865), 110} & 0.73 \\ \hline
\ \ {\small d}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1923)}$$ & \ \ -457 & $ ${\small (11080)}
& $ ${\small (11020), 79} & 0.54 \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
4{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (2013)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (2023)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (1933)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
-483 \\
-487 \\
-360\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
4$${\small (11143)} \\
$${\small (11149)} \\
$${\small (11186)} \\
$${\small (}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
& \ \ \ Prediction & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
$
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table C4. The Strange Mesons (S = $\pm $1, C = b = 0)
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ \ \ {\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$ $ & \ \ E$\_[Bind]{}$ & \ \ {\small Deduced} & \ \ {\small Exper.} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small - 170} \\
{\small - 270} \\
{\small - 170}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small K(916)} \\
{\small K(816)} \\
{\small K(916)} \\
{\small K}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
& \ \ {\small K}$\^${\small (892), 50} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
2{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
-270 \\
-270 \\
-170\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
2K(1246) \\
K(1346) \\
K$()$\end{tabular}
& \ \ {\small K(1273), 90 } \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
-270 \\
-270\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
K(1436) \\
K(1436) \\
K($$)\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
K$\_[1]{}$(1402),174 \\
K$\^$(1414),232 \\
K$\_[0]{}\^$(1412),294 \\
K$\_[2]{}\^$(1429),100 \\
$,$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ \\
2{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (1303)}$$ \\
3{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1303)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
-170 \\
-170 \\
-190 \\
-190\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
K(1556) \\
K(1656) \\
2K(1606) \\
3K(1606) \\
K($$)\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
K$\_[2]{}$(1580)$\^[\#]{}$, 110 \\
K(1616)$\^[\#]{}$, 16 \\
K$\_[1]{}$(1650)$\^[\#]{}$, 150 \\
K($$)$\^[\#]{}$, \ $$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1393)}$$ \\
3{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1303)}$$ \\
\textbf{q}$\_$\textbf{(313)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (1573)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1393)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (1573)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
-190 \\
-90 \\
-170 \\
-290 \\
-90 \\
-190\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
K{\small (1696)} \\
K(1706) \\
K(1746) \\
K(1776) \\
K(1796) \\
K(1876) \\
K($$)\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
K$\^$(1717), 322 \\
K$\_[2]{}$(1773), 186 \\
K$\_[3]{}\^$(1776), 159 \\
K$\_[2]{}$(1816), 276 \\
K($$), $$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$\end{tabular}
& \ \ -270 & \ \ K(1966) &
\begin{tabular}{l}
K$\_[0]{}\^$(1950)$\^[\#]{}$, 201 \\
K$\_[2]{}\^$(1973)$\^[\#]{}$, 373 \\
K($$)$\^[\#]{}$, $$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
4{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_${\small (313)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
-270 \\
-270 \\
-170\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
\textbf{4K(2056)} \\
K(2066) \\
K(2076) \\
K($$)\end{tabular}
& \ {\small K}$\_[4]{}\^${\small (2045), 198} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ \ $
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table C5. The Light Unflavored Mesons (S = C = b = 0) I = 0
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ \ \ {\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (313)}$$ & {\small E}$\_[bind]{}$ & Deduced & {\small Experiment, }$$ & $%$
\\ \hline
$ \_[S]{}$ & \ {\small -437} & $ ${\small (549)} & $ ${\small (548), 1.29} &
{\small 0.4} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (313)}$$
\\
{\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (583)}$$
\\
q$\_$(583)$$ \\
q$\_$(673)$$ \\
q$\_$(673)$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -320} \\
{\small -528} \\
{\small -676} \\
{\small -938} \\
{\small -538}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$${\small (576)} \\
$${\small (640)} \\
$${\small (490)} \\
$${\small (408)} \\
$( ) $ \\
$( ) $\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$${\small (400-1200)} \\
$${\small =600-1000}\end{tabular}
& \ / \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (313)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (313)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (673)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (313)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -220} \\
{\small -220} \\
{\small -538} \\
{\small -320}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$${\small (676)} \\
$${\small (766)} \\
$( ) $ \\
$${\small (846)} \\
$${\small (}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
& $ $(783), 8.49 & {\small 1.15} \\ \hline
\ {\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ & \ \ {\small -290} & $ ${\small (976)} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\^${\small (958), 0.202} \\
{\small f}$\_[0]{}${\small (980), 70.} \\
$(),$\end{tabular}
& 0.93 \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^${\small (773)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[0]{}${\small (773)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[-]{}${\small (773)}$$\end{tabular}
& \ {\small -505} & $ ${\small (1041)} & $ (1020),${\small 4.26.} & 2.1 \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
2{\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (313)}$$\end{tabular}
\ &
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small - 90} \\
{\small -190} \\
{\small -320}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$$(1176) \\
$(1077)$ \\
2$$(1206) \\
$()$\end{tabular}
& \ {\small h}$\_[1]{}${\small (1170), 360} & {\small 0.26} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
\textbf{q}$\_[N]{}$\textbf{(313)}$$
\\
{\small q}$\_${\small (1033)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
\textbf{-320} \\
{\small -758}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$$\textbf{(1296 )} \\
$${\small (1308)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small f}$\_[2]{}${\small (1275), 185} \\
{\small f}$\_[1]{}${\small (1282), 24} \\
$$(1294),{\small 55} \\
$(),$\end{tabular}
& {\small 0.94} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (313)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (313)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -220} \\
{\small -220}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$${\small (1396 )} \\
$${\small (1396 )}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small f}$\_[0]{}${\small (1350), 350} \\
$${\small (1410), 51} \\
$${\small (1425), 215} \\
{\small f}$\_[1]{}${\small (1426), 55} \\
$()${\small , }$$\end{tabular}
& {\small 0.50} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ \ $
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table C5 (Continuation). The Light Unflavored Mesons I = 0
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
\ {\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (313)}$$ & \ \ {\small E}$\_[bind]{}$ & \ \ {\small Deduced} & \ \ {\small Experiment} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (313)}$$ \\
{\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (313)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -220} \\
{\small -320}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$${\small (1486)} \\
$${\small (1566)} \\
$${\small (}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$$(1476), 87 \\
f$\_[0]{}$(1507),{\small \ 109} \\
f$\_[2]{}\^$(1525), {\small 73} \\
$$($$), $$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
{\small 2d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -190} \\
{\small -190} \\
{\small -290} \\
{\small -290}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$$(1606) \\
2$$(1696) \\
$$(1616) \\
$$(1716) \\
$()$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\_[2]{}${\small (1617), 181} \\
$${\small (1670), 315} \\
$\_[3]{}${\small (1667), 168} \\
$${\small (1680), 150} \\
{\small f}$\_[0]{}${\small (1714), 140} \\
$(${\small ),}$$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
4d$\_\^[0]{}$(1203)$$ \\
d$\_\^[1]{}$(493)$$ \\
4d$\_\^[0]{}$(1303)$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
-601 \\
-90 \\
-680\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
4$(1806)$ \\
$(1906)$ \\
4$(1926)$ \\
$()$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\_[3]{}${\small (1854), 87} \\
{\small f}$\_[2]{}${\small (1945), 163} \\
$${\small (}$${\small ), }$ $\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
\textbf{q}$\_[N]{}$\textbf{(313)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -90} \\
{\small -320}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$$(2006) \\
$$\textbf{(2016)}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
f$\_[2]{}$(2011), 202 \\
f$\_[4]{}$(2034), 222 \\
$()$, $$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (1393)}$$ \\
\textbf{4q}$\_[N]{}$\textbf{(313)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_[S]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1413)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -707} \\
-{\small 220} \\
-663\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$$(2079) \\
\textbf{4}$$\textbf{(2116)} \\
$$(2163)\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
f$\_[0]{}$(2103)$\^[\#]{}$,206 \\
f$\_[2]{}$(2156)$\^[\#]{}$,167 \\
$()\^[\#]{}$, $$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
q$\_[N]{}$(313)$$ \\
\textbf{4d}$\_\^[1]{}$\textbf{(493)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -320} \\
\textbf{-190} \\
-190\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$$(2286) \\
\textbf{4}$$\textbf{(2316)} \\
$$(2326)\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
f$\_[2]{}$(2297), 149 \\
f$\_[2]{}$(2339), 319 \\
$$($$), $$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (1573)}$$
\\
{\small d}$\_\^[-1]{}${\small (1603)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
-768 \\
--728\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$$(2378) \\
$$(2478) \\
$$($$)\end{tabular}
& \ f$\_[6]{}$(2465)$\^[\#]{}$, 255 . \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ $
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\text{\ Table C6.\ }$The Light Unflavored Mesons (S=C=b=0) with I = 1
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
{\small \ \ \ q}$\_[i]{}${\small (m}$\_[i]{}${\small )}$$ &
\ {\small E}$\_[bind]{}$ & {\small Phenomen.} & {\small Experiment, }$ $
\\ \hline
\ \ {\small q}$\_[N]{}${\small (313)}$$ & {\small \ \ -487}
& $ ${\small (139)} & {\small \ }$ ${\small (138)} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[-1]{}${\small (493)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -267} \\
{\small -367} \\
{\small -267} \\
$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$${\small (808)} \\
$${\small (708)} \\
$${\small (808)} \\
$${\small (}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
& {\small \ }$ (${\small 776), 150} \\ \hline
{\small \ q}$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}${\small (313)}$$ &
{\small \ \ \ -19} & {\small \ }$ ${\small (}$${\small )}
& {\small \ \ a}$\_[0]{}${\small (985), 75} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[-1]{}${\small (493)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -268} \\
{\small -368} \\
{\small -268}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$${\small (1258)} \\
$${\small (1158)} \\
$${\small (1258)} \\
$${\small (}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
& {\small \ }
\begin{tabular}{l}
$b\_[1]{}(${\small 1230), 142} \\
$a\_[1]{}(${\small 1230), 425} \\
$$($$),$$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
2q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$({\small 313})$ $\end{tabular}
& \ -19 & $ ()$ &
\begin{tabular}{l}
$$(1300), 400 \\
$a\_[2]{}(${\small 1318), \ }107 \\
$\_[1]{}$({\small 1376}), 300 \\
$$($$), $$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
\textbf{d}$\_\^[1]{}$\textbf{(493)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[-1]{}${\small (493)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
-268 \\
-368 \\
-268\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$$(1528) \\
$$(1428) \\
$$(1528) \\
$$($$)\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$$(1465), $$=400 \\
a$\_[0]{}$(1474),$$=265 \\
$(${\small ), }$$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$({\small 313)}$$\end{tabular}
{\small \ } & \ -19 & $ (${\small )} &
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\_[1]{}$(1596), 312 \\
$\_[2]{}$(1672), 259 \\
$\_[3]{}$(1689), 161 \\
$$(1720), 250 \\
$(),$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small q}$\_${\small (1213)} $$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[0]{}${\small (493)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
-654 \\
-368\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$$(1772) \\
$$(1878) \\
$$($$)\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$$\textbf{(1812), 207} \\
$$(1900)$\^$, 29\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
{\small d}$\_\^[-1]{}${\small (493)}$$ \\
q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$({\small 313)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
-268 \\
-268 \\
-19\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$$(1978) \\
$$(1978) \\
$$(2047) \\
$(${\small )}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\_[3]{}$(1990)$\^$,188 \\
\textbf{a}$\_[4]{}$\textbf{(2010), 353}\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
3{\small d}$\_\^[1]{}${\small (493)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
-268\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$(${\small )}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\_[3]{}(2250${\small )}$\^${\small , }$200$\end{tabular}
\\ \hline
4q$\_[N]{}\^[0]{}$({\small 313)}$$ & \ -19 & $ $(2407) & \ a$\_[6]{}$(2450), 400 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ \ $
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
$\ \ \text{Table C7.\ \ }$The Charmed Strange Mesons (S = $\pm $1, C = b = 0)
$\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|l|l|}
\hline
{\small \ }$ \_\^[1]{}${\small (m)}$${\small \ } & {\small \ \ \ E}$\_[bind]{}$ &
{\small \ Deduced} & {\small Experiment} & $%$ \\ \hline
$ \_\^[1]{}${\small (1753)}$${\small \ } & \ {\small -303} & {\small \ \ D}$\_[S]{}${\small (1943)} & {\small \ \ D}$\_[S]{}\^${\small (1968)} &
{\small 1.3} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\_\^[1]{}${\small (1753)}$$ \\
$\_\^[1]{}${\small (1753)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -203} \\
{\small -103}\end{tabular}
& {\small \ }
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (2043)} \\
{\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (2143)} \\
{\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
& {\small \ \ D}$\_[S]{}${\small (}$2112${\small )} & {\small 0.90} \\ \hline
{\small \ \ u}$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1753)}$$ & {\small \ \ -215} & {\small \ \ D}$\_[S]{}${\small (2311)} & {\small \ \ D}$\_[S\_[j]{}]{}${\small (2317)} & {\small 0.04} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small u}$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1753)}$$ \\
$\_\^[1]{}$ \\
{\small u}$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}${\small (1753)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -115} \\
{\small -184} \\
{\small -15}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (2411)} \\
{\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (2442)} \\
{\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (2511)} \\
{\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
& {\small \ \ D}$\_[S\_[j]{}]{}${\small (2460)} & {\small 0.20} \\ \hline
\begin{tabular}{l}
$\_\^[1]{}$ \\
{\small u}$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}${\small (2333)}$$\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small -84} \\
{\small -174}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (2542)} \\
{\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (2652)} \\
{\small D}$\_[S]{}${\small (}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
&
\begin{tabular}{l}
{\small D}$\_[S\_[1]{}]{}${\small (2535)} \\
{\small D}$\_[S\_[j]{}]{}${\small (2573)} \\
{\small D}$\_[S\_[j]{}]{}${\small (}$${\small )}\end{tabular}
& {\small 1.70} \\ \hline
\ {\small u}$\_[C]{}\^[1]{}${\small (2533)}$$ & {\small \ \ - 164} & {\small \ \ D}$\_[S]{}${\small (2862)}
& {\small \ \ Prediction} & \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\ \ \ \ \ $
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
author:
- 'Jon Feldman and S. Muthukrishnan'
bibliography:
- 'sponsored\_search.bib'
title: Algorithmic Methods for Sponsored Search Advertising
---
Introduction
============
Targeted advertisements on search queries is an increasingly important advertising medium, attracting large numbers of advertisers and users. When a user poses a query, the search engine returns search results together with advertisements that are placed into positions, usually arranged linearly down the page, top to bottom. On most major search engines, the assignment of ads to positions is determined by an auction among all advertisers who placed a bid on a keyword that matches the query. The user might click on one or more of the ads, in which case (in the pay-per-click model) the advertiser receiving the click pays the search engine a price determined by the auction.
In the past few years, the sponsored search model has been highly successful commercially, and the research community is attempting to understand the underlying dynamics, explain the behavior of the market and improve the auction algorithms. This survey will provide an overview of the algorithmic issues in sponsored search.
The basic view we emphasize is the role of the [*three parties*]{}.
- The first party is the [*advertisers*]{} who have multiple objectives in seeking to place advertisements. Some advertisers want to develop their brand, some seek to make sales, and yet others advertise for defensive purposes on specific keywords central to their business. Some have budget constraints, while others are willing to spend as much as it takes to achieve their goal. Some seek to obtain many clicks and eyeballs, yet others attempt to optimize their return on investment. So, in general, advertisers are of varied types.
- The second party is the [*auctioneer*]{}, in this case, the search engine. The search engines have to balance many needs. They must maintain useful search results and have advertisements enhance, rather than interfere with, the search experience. They need to make sure the advertisers get their needs fulfilled, and at the same time ensure that the market the advertisers participate in is efficient and conducive to business.
- The third party is perhaps the most important in the game: these are [*search users*]{}. Users come to search engines for information and pointers. In addition, they also come to discover shopping opportunities, good deals, and new products. There are millions of users with different goals and behavior patterns with respect to advertisements.
These three parties induce a fairly sophisticated dynamics. While economic and game theory provide a well-developed framework for understanding the auction game between the advertisers and the auctioneer, the community has had to generalize such methods and apply them carefully to understand the currently popular Internet auctions. Likewise, while there has been recent work on understanding models of user behavior for posing search queries and their click behavior for search responses, little is known about user behavior on advertisements, and crucially, these affect the value of the slots and thus the very goods that are sold in auction.
In this survey, we will show examples of research themes in algorithmic, optimization and game-theoretic issues in sponsored search. In particular, we present three examples each emphasizing the perspective of one of the three different parties involved in sponsored search: the advertisers (who act as the bidders), the search engine (who acts as the auctioneer), and the search engine user (who determines the commodity). More specifically,
- We present results for how an advertiser should choose their bids given the currently used auction mechanism and implicit user behavior models. This result appears as [@FMPS]. It shows that a very simple bidding strategy is very effective for the advertiser.
- We study a new mechanism for the auctioneer to allocate advertisements to slots in order to optimize efficiency, and analyze the game-theoretic aspects of this mechanism. This result appears in [@FMNP]. It shows that a simple price-setting mechanism is suitable for determining the outcome of several auctions simultaneously for the auctioneer.
- We present a novel Markovian model of user behavior when shown advertisements, and for this model, develop mechanisms and game theory. This result appears in [@AFMP08]. It shows that under a model of user behavior more general than the one that is implicit in existing auctions, entirely different allocation and pricing will be optimal. Hence, user models have significant impact.
The results above are joint work with Gagan Aggarwal, Evdokia Nikolova, Martin Pál and Cliff Stein, and represent work done at Google Research.
In the rest of the document, we will first describe the foundations behind the existing auctions. Then we will describe the three results above. After that, we will be able to point to open issues and provide concluding remarks more generally on Internet advertising and auctions.
Existing Auctions {#sec:existing}
=================
![Screen shot of a user query with the search results on the left, and the ads on the right.[]{data-label="fig:scr"}](scr){width="4.5in"}
The basic auction behind sponsored search occurs when a user submits a query to the search engine. The screen shot in Figure \[fig:scr\] shows an example user query “soda” and search results page returned from the search engine. This page includes web search results on the left, and independently, a set of three text ads on the right, arranged linearly top to bottom, clearly marked “Sponsored links.” Each advertiser $i$ has previously submitted a bid $b_i$ stating their value for a click, tying their bid to a specific [*keyword*]{}. The auction is held in real-time among advertisers whose keywords match that user’s query. The result of the auction is the list of advertisements on the right. So, after selecting the set of eligible (matching) ads, running the auction involves the search engine determining (a) the ordering of bidders and (b) pricing.
- [**Ordering:**]{} The most natural ordering is to sort by decreasing bid, but that does not take into account the quality of ads and their suitability to users. Thus, it is common practice to place the bidders in descending order of $b_i {\alpha}_i$, where ${\alpha}_i$ is what is called the [*click-through-rate*]{} (ctr) of advertiser $i$, i.e., the probability that a user will click on the ad, given that the user looks at it. (The ctr is usually measured by the search engine.) This is the ordering currently in use by search engines like Yahoo! and Google.
- [**Pricing:**]{} The natural method is to make bidders pay what they bid, but that leads to well-known race conditions [@EOS]. Instead, the most common method is to use a “generalized second price” (GSP) auction. Say the positions are numbered $1, 2,...$ starting at the top and going down, and the bidder at position $i$ has bid $b_i$. In GSP, the price for a click for the advertiser in position $i$ is determined by the advertisement below it and is given by $b_{i+1} {\alpha}_{i+1}/{\alpha}_i$, which is the minimum they would have needed to bid to attain their position.
The first academic treatments of the sponsored search auction were naturally from the perspective of auction and game theory. Fixing this ordering of the bidders, authors in [@EOS; @Varian; @AGM] focused on understanding the implications of different pricing schemes, assuming strategic behavior on the part of the advertisers. The setting of the game that is modeled in this work is as follows: each advertiser has a [*private value*]{} $v_i$ for a click from this user, and wants to set a bid that maximizes her [*utility*]{} $u_i$. The natural economic utility model in this context would be profit: i.e., $$u_i = (v_i - p_i) c_i,$$ where $p_i$ is the price per click, and $c_i$ is the probability of a click occurring. Of course $c_i$ is determined by the [*user*]{}, and may depend on any number of factors. One common model is to assume that the click probability is [*separable*]{} [@AGM]: if ad $i$ is placed into position $j$, then $c_i = {\alpha}_i
{\beta}_j$ where ${\alpha}_i$ is the ad-specific “click-through rate” and ${\beta}_j$ is a position-specific visibility factor. (We will later explore other utility models in Sections \[sec:uniform\] and \[sec:scheduling\] when we incorporate budgets, as well as non-separable user models in Section \[sec:markov\].)
Natural questions in this context include asking whether there is a [*pure-strategy Nash equilibrium*]{} of this game, and analyzing the economic efficiency and revenue of such equilibria. By [*economic efficiency*]{} we mean the total advertiser value generated by the assignment. This is also commonly referred to as the [*social welfare*]{}. In the context of sponsored search, the efficiency is the sum of the individual advertisers’ values; i.e., $\sum_i c_i v_i$, where $c_i$ is the probability that $i$ will receive a click under this assignment and $v_i$ is $i$’s private value for a click. By a [*pure-strategy Nash equilibrium*]{} we mean a set of bids such that no single bidder can change her bid and increase her utility.
Among the most desirable properties of a mechanism is to be [*truthful*]{}, which is also referred to as being [*incentive compatible*]{}. This property says that each bidder’s best strategy, regardless of the actions of other bidders, is simply to report her true value; i.e., submit $v_i$ as her bid. Truthfulness immediately implies the existence of a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium (where every bidder reports $v_i$). Furthermore, it is simple to compute economic efficiency, since the assignment (and thus the efficiency) is simply a function of the values $v_i$. Unfortunately, it turns out that the GSP auction is [*not*]{} truthful. However, there is a pricing scheme that is truthful, which is based on an application of the famous Vickrey-Clarke-Groves (VCG) mechanism [@V; @C; @G]. Furthermore, the GSP auction, while not truthful, still has a well-understood pure-strategy Nash equilibrium:
\[thm:classic\] Suppose we have a set of bidders participating in a particular sponsored search auction. Assume each bidder has a private value and a profit-maximizing utility function. Suppose further that the click probabilities are separable. Then, the GSP auction is not truthful, but it does have a pure-strategy Nash equilibrium whose outcome (in terms of assignment and prices) is equivalent to an application of the truthful VCG auction.
For a more detailed discussion of this line of research, we refer the reader to [@nisan_chapter]. Authors in [@AGM] also show that under a more general click probability model, there is a pricing method that is truthful. (This pricing method reduces to the VCG pricing method when the click-through rates are separable.) Furthermore, they show that in this more general setting the GSP has a Nash equilibrium that has the same outcome as their mechanism.
Practical Aspects
-----------------
The results described above regard GSP as an isolated auction, abstracting away the context of the larger system of which it is a part. While this is useful from a modeling perspective, there are many other elements that make sponsored search a more complex environment. Here we list some of those complicating factors, and mention examples of work done to address them.
- [**Multiple queries, multiple keywords.**]{} Each sponsored auction is conducted for a particular search engine user with a potentially unique query. There are perhaps millions of such queries every day. Advertisers must submit bids on [*keywords*]{}, and cannot adjust those bids on a per-query basis. The degree to which the keyword matches a particular query determines not only whether the advertiser will participate in the auction (and also who her competitors will be), but also can factor into the click-through rate ${\alpha}_i$ that is used for ranking. Theorem \[thm:classic\] only applies to the case where the same auction—with the same set of advertisers, and the same click-through rates—is repeated, and the bids qualify only for that set of auctions. A lot of the work mentioned below takes on this complication in various ways; we give two such examples in Sections \[sec:uniform\] and \[sec:scheduling\].
- [**Budgets.**]{} In the private-value model each advertiser has a value $v_i$ per click, but is willing to spend an arbitrary amount to maximize her profit. In reality, many advertisers have operating budgets or spending targets, and simply want to maximize their value given the constraints of that budget. This budget can be reported to the search engine, who can then employ techniques to use the budget efficiently. Analysis of incentives becomes more difficult in the presence of budgets. This has been addressed in e.g., [@BCIMS; @MS; @MNS; @MSVV; @MNS; @AMT; @mps; @RW; @FMPS; @AFMP08], and we discuss two examples in much more detail in Sections \[sec:uniform\] and \[sec:scheduling\].
- [**Reserve prices.**]{} The major search engines enforce [*reserve prices*]{}, dictating the minimum price that an advertiser can pay for a click. Sometimes these reserve prices will even be specific to a particular bidder. Reserve prices are useful for controlling quality on the search results page, and also have implications for revenue. The effect of reserve prices on the game theory of sponsored search is discussed in detail in [@EFMM08].
- [**Interdependent click probabilities.**]{} The “separable” assumption implies that an advertiser’s click probability depends only on the properties and position of her own ad. This ignores the other ads on the search results page, which certainly affect the user experience, and therefore the click probability of this advertiser. We discuss this further in Section \[sec:markov\].
- [**Branding.**]{} The private click-value model assumes that a click is what the advertiser is ultimately interested in. However a [*branding*]{} advertiser could be interested in her ad appearing in a high position, but not really care whether or not it gets a click (other than due to the fact that they only pay if it does). (Indeed, a recent empirical study by the Interactive Advertising Bureau and Nielsen//NetRatings concluded that higher ad positions in paid search have a significant brand awareness effect [@iabstudy].) Thus we might be interested in an auction where an advertiser can express the lowest position she is willing to tolerate for her ad. This is the approach taken in [@afm], where Theorem \[thm:classic\] is generalized to this setting.
- [**Conversions.**]{} The private click-value model also assumes that each click is worth the same to an advertiser, which is not always the case in practice. Indeed many advertisers track whether or not a click leads to a [*conversion*]{}, which is some sort of event on the linked page (e.g., a sale, a sign-up, etc.) Given this data, the advertiser can learn which keywords lead to conversions and therefore which clicks are worth more to them.
- [**Estimating various parameters.**]{} Most work in the context of the game theory of sponsored search has assumed that the parameters like click-through rate and position visibility are known. However, estimating these parameters is a difficult task (e.g., [@IJMT; @RDR]). Indeed, there is an inherent tradeoff between learning these parameters and applying them; one cannot learn that an ad has a bad ctr unless it is exposed to the user, but then it was a bad idea to show it in the first place. This “exploration/exploitation” tradeoff turns out to be related to the “multi-armed bandit” problem (see e.g. [@GP; @WVLL; @EMM02]).
- [**Incomplete Knowledge.**]{} Both the advertisers and the search engine have incomplete knowledge of the “inventory” available to them, since they do not know which queries will arrive. In addition the bidders do not know the other bids or click-through rates. This makes the advertiser’s optimization problem much more difficult (see e.g., [@Lahaie; @BCEIJM; @CDEGHKMS; @FMPS; @VR; @LQ; @ZL07; @SL; @RW]). From the search engine’s point of view, we can model incomplete knowledge of the future as an [*online algorithm*]{}; see e.g. [@MSVV; @RW; @mps; @WVLL; @MNS; @MS; @AG; @GP; @GM07; @GM08].
The Advertiser’s Point of View: Budget Optimization {#sec:uniform}
===================================================
The perspective in this section is the advertisers. The challenge from an advertiser’s point of view is to understand and interact with the auction mechanism. The advertiser determines a set of keywords of their interest[^1] and then must create ads, set the bids for each keyword, and provide a total (often daily) budget.
While the effect of an ad campaign in any medium is a sophisticated phenomenon that is difficult to quantify, one commonly accepted (and easily quantified) notion in search-based advertising on the Internet is to [*maximize the number of clicks*]{}. The Internet search companies are supportive towards advertisers and provide statistics about the history of click volumes and prediction about the future performance of various keywords. Still, this is a sophisticated problem for the following reasons (among others):
- Individual keywords have significantly different characteristics from each other; e.g., while “fishing” is a broad keyword that matches many user queries and has many competing advertisers, “humane fishing bait” is a niche keyword that matches only a few queries, but might have less competition.
- There are complex [*interactions*]{} between keywords because a user query may match two or more keywords, since the advertiser is trying to cover all the possible keywords in some domain. In effect the advertiser ends up competing with herself.
As a result, the advertisers face a challenging optimization problem. The focus of the work in [@FMPS] is to solve this optimization problem.
[[**Problem Formulation.**]{}]{} We present a short discussion and formulation of the optimization problem faced by advertisers; a more detailed description is in Section \[sec:model\].
A given advertiser sees the state of the auctions for search-based advertising as follows. There is a set ${K}$ of keywords of interest; in practice, even small advertisers typically have a large set ${K}$. There is a set ${Q}$ of queries posed by the users. For each query $q \in Q$, there are functions giving the ${{\rm clicks}}_q(b)$ and ${{\rm cost}}_q(b)$ that result from bidding a particular amount $b$ in the auction for that query, which we will see a more formal model of in the next section. There is a bipartite graph ${G}$ on the two vertex sets representing ${K}$ and ${Q}$. For any query $q \in {Q}$, the neighbors of $q$ in ${K}$ are the keywords that are said to “match” the query $q$.[^2]
The [*budget optimization problem*]{} is as follows. Given graph ${G}$ together with the functions ${{\rm clicks}}_q(\cdot)$ and ${{\rm cost}}_q(\cdot)$ on the queries, as well as a budget ${U}$, determine the bids $b_k$ for each keyword $k \in {K}$ such that $\sum_q {{\rm clicks}}_q(b_q)$ is maximized subject to $\sum_q {{\rm cost}}_q(b_q) \leq {U}$, where the “effective bid” $b_q$ on a query is some function of the keyword bids in the neighborhood of $q$.
While we can cast this problem as a traditional optimization problem, there are different challenges in practice depending on the advertiser’s access to the query and graph information, and indeed the reliability of this information (e.g., it could be based on unstable historical data). Thus it is important to find solutions to this problem that not only get many clicks, but are also simple, robust and less reliant on the information. The notion of a “uniform” strategy is defined in [@FMPS] which is essentially a strategy that bids uniformly on all keywords. Since this type of strategy obviates the need to know anything about the particulars of the graph, and effectively aggregates the click and cost functions on the queries, it is quite robust, and thus desirable in practice. What is surprising is that uniform strategy actually performs well, which is proved in [@FMPS].
[[**Main Results and Technical Overview.**]{}]{} Some positive and negative results are given in [@FMPS] for the budget optimization problem:
- Nearly all formulations of the problem are NP-Hard. In cases slightly more general than the formulation above, where the clicks have weights, the problem is inapproximable better than a factor of $1 - \frac 1 e$, unless P=NP.
- There is a $(1-1/e)$-approximation algorithm for the budget optimization problem. The strategy found by the algorithm is a [*two-bid uniform strategy*]{}, which means that it randomizes between bidding some value $b_1$ on all keywords, and bidding some other value $b_2$ on all keywords until the budget is exhausted[^3]. This approximation ratio is tight for uniform strategies. There is also a $(1/2)$-approximation algorithm that offers a [*single-bid uniform strategy*]{}, only using one value $b_1$. (This is tight for single-bid uniform strategies.) These strategies can be computed in time nearly linear in $|Q|+|K|$, the input size.
Uniform strategies may appear to be naive in first consideration because the keywords vary significantly in their click and cost functions, and there may be complex interaction between them when multiple keywords are relevant to a query. After all, the optimum can configure arbitrary bids on each of the keywords. Even for the simple case when the graph is a [*matching*]{}, the optimal algorithm involves placing different bids on different keywords via a knapsack-like packing (Section \[sec:model\]). So, it might be surprising that a simple two-bid uniform strategy is $63\%$ or more effective compared to the optimum. In fact, our proof is stronger, showing that this strategy is $63\%$ effective against a strictly more powerful adversary who can bid independently on the [*individual queries*]{}, i.e., not be constrained by the interaction imposed by the graph ${G}$.
We will also look at the simulations conducted in [@FMPS] using real auction data from Google. The results of these simulations suggest that uniform bidding strategies could be useful in practice. However, important questions remain about (among other things) alternate bidding goals, on-line or stochastic bidding models [@mps], and game-theoretic concerns [@BCIMS], which we briefly discuss in Section \[sec:conc\].
Modeling a Keyword Auction {#sec:model}
--------------------------
We begin by considering the case of a [*single*]{} keyword that matches a [*single*]{} user query. In this section we define the notion of a “query landscape” that describes the relationship between the advertiser’s bid and what will happen on this query as a result of this bid [@autobidder]. This definition will be central to the discussion as we continue to more general cases.
The search results page for a query contains ${p}$ possible positions in which our ad can appear. We denote the highest (most favorable) position by $1$ and lowest by ${p}$. Assuming a separable user model, associated with each position $i$ is a value ${{\beta}}[i]$ that denotes the click probability if the ad appears in position $i$.[^4] We assume throughout this section that that ${{\beta}}[i] \leq {{\beta}}[j]$ if $j<i$, that is, higher positions receive at least as many clicks as lower positions.
In order to place an ad on this page, we must enter the [*GSP auction*]{} that is carried out among all advertisers that have submitted a bid on a keyword that matches the user’s query. We will refer to such an auction as a [*query auction*]{}, to emphasize that there is an auction for each query rather than for each keyword. In GSP, the advertisers are ranked in decreasing order of bid, and each advertiser is assigned a price equal to the amount bid by the advertiser below them in the ranking. Let $({{\rm b}}[1], \dots, {{\rm b}}[{p}])$ denote the bids of the top ${p}$ advertisers in this query auction. For notational convenience, we assume that ${{\rm b}}[0] = \infty$ and ${{\rm b}}[{{p}}] = {{\beta}}[{p}] =0$. Since the auction is a generalized second price auction, higher bids win higher positions; i.e. $b[i] \geq b[{i+1}]$. Suppose that we bid ${{\rm b}}$ on some keyword that matches the user’s query, then our position is defined by the largest ${{\rm b}}[i]$ that is at most ${{\rm b}}$, that is, $$\label{eq:posdef}
{{\rm pos}}({{\rm b}}) = {\arg \max}_i({{\rm b}}[i]: {{\rm b}}[i] \leq {{\rm b}}) .$$ Since we only pay if the user clicks (and that happens with probability ${{\beta}}[i]$), our expected [*cost*]{} for winning position $i$ would be ${{\rm cost}}[i] = {{\beta}}[i] \cdot {{\rm b}}[i], \mbox{ where } i = {{\rm pos}}({{\rm b}}) .$ We use ${{\rm cost}}_q(b)$ and ${{\rm clicks}}_q(b)$ to denote the expected cost and clicks that result from having a bid $b$ that qualifies for a query auction $q$, and thus $${{\rm cost}}_q(b) = {{\beta}}[i] \cdot {{\rm b}}[i] \;\;\; \mbox{ where } i = {{\rm pos}}({{\rm b}})
,
\label{eq:cost1}$$ $${{\rm clicks}}_q(b) = {{\beta}}[i]\;\;\; \mbox{ where } i = {{\rm pos}}({{\rm b}}) .
\label{eq:click1}$$
When the context is clear, we drop the subscript $q$. The following observations about cost and clicks follow immediately from the definitions and equations , and . We use ${{\mathbb R}}_+$ to denote the nonnegative reals.
\[observations\] For $b \in {{\mathbb R}}_+$,
1. The tuple (${{\rm cost}}_q(b),{{\rm clicks}}_q(b)$) can only take on one of a finite set of values ${V}_q = \{ ({{\rm cost}}[1], {{\beta}}[1]), \dots, ({{\rm cost}}[{p}],
{{\beta}}[{p}]) \}$.
2. Both ${{\rm cost}}_q(b)$ and ${{\rm clicks}}_q(b)$ are non-decreasing functions of $b$.
3. Cost-per-click (cpc) ${{\rm cost}}_q(b) / {{\rm clicks}}_q(b)$ is non-decreasing in $b$, and is always at most the bid; i.e., ${{\rm cost}}_q(b) / {{\rm clicks}}_q(b) \leq b$.
\[obs:simple\]
[[[****]{}]{}]{}[Query Landscapes]{} We can summarize the data contained in the functions ${{\rm cost}}(b)$ and ${{\rm clicks}}(b)$ as a collection of points in a plot of cost vs. clicks, which we refer to as a [*landscape*]{}. For example, for a query with four slots, a landscape might look like Table \[table:landscape-ex\].
bid range cost per click cost clicks
----------------------- ---------------- -------- --------
\[\$2.60, $\infty$) \$2.60 \$1.30 .5
\[\$2.00, \$2.60) \$2.00 \$0.90 .45
\[\$1.60, \$2.00) \$1.60 \$0.40 .25
\[\$0.50, \$1.60) \$0.50 \$0.10 .2
\[\$0, \$0.50) \$0 \$0 0
: A [*landscape*]{} for a query[]{data-label="table:landscape-ex"}
It is convenient to represent this data graphically as in Figure \[fig:landscape1\] (ignore the dashed line for now). Here we graph clicks as a function of cost. Observe that in this graph, the cpc $({{\rm cost}}(b) / {{\rm clicks}}(b))$ of each point is the reciprocal of the slope of the line from the origin to the point. Since ${{\rm cost}}(b)$, ${{\rm clicks}}(b)$ and ${{\rm cost}}(b) / {{\rm clicks}}(b)$ are non-decreasing, the slope of the line from the origin to successive points on the plot decreases. This condition is slightly weaker than concavity.
![A bid landscape.[]{data-label="fig:landscape1"}](bidland){height="2.0in"}
Suppose we would like to solve the budget optimization problem for a single query landscape.[^5] As we increase our bid from zero, our cost increases and our expected number of clicks increases, and so we simply submit the highest bid such that we remain within our budget.
One problem we see right away is that since there are only a finite set of points in this landscape, we may not be able to target arbitrary budgets efficiently. Suppose in the example from Table \[table:landscape-ex\] and Figure \[fig:landscape1\] that we had a budget of $\$1.00$. Bidding between $\$2.00$ and $\$2.60$ uses only $\$0.90$, and so we are under-spending. Bidding more than $\$2.60$ is not an option, since we would then incur a cost of $\$1.30$ and overspend our budget.
[[[****]{}]{}]{}[Randomized strategies]{} To rectify this problem and better utilize our available budget, we allow [*randomized bidding strategies.*]{} Let ${{\cal B}}$ be a distribution on bids ${{\rm b}}\in {{\mathbb R}}_+$. Now we define ${{\rm cost}}({{\cal B}}) = E_{{{\rm b}}\sim {{\cal B}}} [{{\rm cost}}({{\rm b}})]$ and ${{\rm clicks}}({{\cal B}}) =
E_{{{\rm b}}\sim {{\cal B}}} [{{\rm clicks}}({{\rm b}})]$. Graphically, the possible values of $({{\rm cost}}({{\cal B}}), {{\rm clicks}}({{\cal B}}))$ lie in the convex hull of the landscape points. This is represented in Figure \[fig:landscape1\] by the dashed line.
To find a bid distribution ${{\cal B}}$ that maximizes clicks subject to a budget, we simply draw a vertical line on the plot where the cost is equal to the budget, and find the highest point on this line in the convex hull. This point will always be the convex combination of at most [*two*]{} original landscape points which themselves lie [*on*]{} the convex hull. Thus, given the point on the convex hull, it is easy to compute a distribution on two bids which led to this point. Summarizing,
[[@FMPS]]{} \[lem:convex\] If an advertiser is bidding on one query, subject to a budget ${U}$, then the optimal strategy is to pick a convex combination of (at most) two bids which are at the endpoints of the line on the convex hull at the highest point for cost ${U}$.
There is one subtlety in this formulation. Given any bidding strategy, randomized or otherwise, the resulting cost is itself a random variable representing the expected cost. Thus if our budget constraint is a hard budget, we have to deal with the difficulties that arise if our strategy would be over budget. Therefore, we think of our budget constraint as [*soft*]{}, that is, we only require that our expected cost be less than the budget. In practice, the budget is often an average daily budget, and thus we don’t worry if we exceed it one day, as long as we are meeting the budget in expectation. Further, either the advertiser or the search engine (possibly both), monitor the cost incurred over the day; hence, the advertiser’s bid can be changed to zero for part of the day, so that the budget is not overspent.[^6] Thus in the remainder of this section, we will formulate a budget constraint that only needs to be respected in expectation.
[[[****]{}]{}]{}[Multiple Queries: a Knapsack Problem]{} \[sec:knapsack\] As a warm-up, we will consider next the case when we have a set of queries, each with its own landscape. We want to bid on each query independently subject to our budget: the resulting optimization problem is a small generalization of the [*fractional knapsack*]{} problem, and was solved in [@autobidder].
The first step of the algorithm is to take the convex hull of each landscape, as in Figure \[fig:landscape1\], and remove any landscape points not on the convex hull. Each piecewise linear section of the curve represents the incremental number of clicks and cost incurred by moving one’s bid from one particular value to another. We regard these “pieces” as [*items*]{} in an instance of fractional knapsack with [*value*]{} equal to the incremental number of clicks and [*size*]{} equal to the incremental cost. More precisely, for each piece connecting two consecutive bids $b'$ and $b''$ on the convex hull, we create a knapsack item with value $[{{\rm clicks}}(b'') - {{\rm clicks}}(b')]$ and size $[{{\rm cost}}(b'') - {{\rm cost}}(b')]$. We then emulate the greedy algorithm for knapsack, sorting by value/size (cost-per-click), and choosing greedily until the budget is exhausted.
In this reduction to knapsack we have ignored the fact that some of the pieces come from the same landscape and cannot be treated independently. However, since each curve is concave, the pieces that come from a particular query curve are in increasing order of cost-per-click; thus from each landscape we have chosen for our “knapsack” a set of pieces that form a prefix of the curve.
### Keyword Interaction
In reality, search advertisers can bid on a large set of keywords, each of them qualifying for a different (possibly overlapping) set of queries, but most search engines do not allow an advertiser to appear twice in the same search results page.[^7] Thus, if an advertiser has a bid on two different keywords that match the same query, this conflict must be resolved somehow. For example, if an advertiser has a bid out on the keywords “shoes” and “high-heel,” then if a user issues the query “high-heel shoes,” it will match on two different keywords. The search engine specifies, in advance, a rule for resolution based on the query the keyword and the bid. A natural rule is to take the keyword with the highest bid, which we adopt here, but our results apply to other resolution rules. We model the keyword interaction problem using an undirected bipartite graph ${G}=
({K}\cup {Q}, {E})$ where ${K}$ is a set of keywords and ${Q}$ is a set of queries. Each $q \in {Q}$ has an associated landscape, as defined by ${{\rm cost}}_q({{\rm b}})$ and ${{\rm clicks}}_q({{\rm b}})$. An edge $(k,q) \in {E}$ means that keyword $k$ matches query $q$.
The advertiser can control their individual [*keyword bid vector*]{} ${{\bf a}}\in {{\mathbb R}}_+^{|K|}$ specifying a bid ${{\bf a}}_k$ for each keyword $k \in {K}$. (For now, we do not consider randomized bids, but we will introduce that shortly.) Given a particular bid vector ${{\bf a}}$ on the keywords, we use the resolution rule of taking the maximum to define the “effective bid” on query $q$ as $${{\rm b}}_q({{\bf a}}) = \max_{k: (k,q) \in {E}} {{\bf a}}_k.$$ By submitting a bid vector ${{\bf a}}$, the advertiser receives some number of clicks and pays some cost on each keyword. We use the term [*spend*]{} to denote the total cost; similarly, we use the term [*traffic*]{} to denote the total number of clicks: $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm spend}}({{\bf a}}) \!=\! \sum_{q \in Q} {{\rm cost}}_q({{\rm b}}_q({{\bf a}}));~~~
{{\rm traffic}}({{\bf a}}) \!=\! \sum_{q \in Q} {{\rm clicks}}_q({{\rm b}}_q({{\bf a}}))\end{aligned}$$
We also allow randomized strategies, where an advertiser gives a distribution ${{\cal A}}$ over bid vectors ${{\bf a}}\in {{\mathbb R}}_+^{|K|}$. The resulting spend and traffic are given by $$\begin{aligned}
{{\rm spend}}({{\cal A}}) \!=\! E_{{{\bf a}}\sim {{\cal A}}} [{{\rm spend}}({{\bf a}})];~~~{{\rm traffic}}({{\cal A}}) \!=\! E_{{{\bf a}}\sim {{\cal A}}} [{{\rm traffic}}({{\bf a}})]\end{aligned}$$ We can now state the problem in its full generality:
\
[**Input:**]{} a budget ${U}$, a keyword-query graph ${G}= ({K}\cup {Q}, {E})$, and landscapes $({{\rm cost}}_q(\cdot),{{\rm clicks}}_q(\cdot))$ for each $q \in {Q}$.\
[**Find:**]{} a distribution ${{\cal A}}$ over bid vectors ${{\bf a}}\in {{\mathbb R}}_+^{|K|}$ such that ${{\rm spend}}({{\cal A}}) \leq {U}$ and ${{\rm traffic}}({{\cal A}})$ is maximized.
We conclude this section with a small example to illustrate some feature of the budget optimization problem. Suppose you have two keywords $K = { \{ {u, v} \} }$ and two queries $Q={ \{ {x,y} \} }$ and edges $E= { \{ {(u,x), (u,y),
(v,y)} \} }.$ Suppose query $x$ has one position with ctr ${{\beta}}^x[1] = 1.0$, and there is one bid $b^x_1 = \$1$. Query $y$ has two positions with ctrs ${{\beta}}^y[1] = {{\beta}}^y[2] = 1.0$, and bids $b^y_1 = \${\epsilon}$ and $b^y_2 = \$1$ To get any clicks from $x$, an advertiser must bid at least $\$1$ on $u$. However, because of the structure of the graph, if the advertiser sets $b_{u}$ to \$1, then his effective bid is $\$1$ on both $x$ [*and*]{} $y$. Thus he must trade-off between getting the clicks from $x$ and getting the bargain of a click for $\${\epsilon}$ that would be possible otherwise.
Uniform Bidding Strategies
--------------------------
As shown in [@FMPS], solving the [[Budget Optimization]{} ]{}problem in its full generality is difficult. In addition, it may be difficult to reason about strategies that involve arbitrary distributions over arbitrary bid vectors. Advertisers generally prefer strategies that are easy to understand, evaluate and use within their larger goals. With this motivation, we look at restricted classes of strategies that we can easily compute, explain and analyze.
We define a [*uniform bidding strategy*]{} to be a distribution ${{\cal A}}$ over bid vectors ${{\bf a}}\in {{\mathbb R}}_+^{|K|}$ where each bid vector in the distribution is of the form $(b, b, \dots, b)$ for some real-valued bid $b$. In other words, each vector in the distribution bids the same value on every keyword.
Uniform strategies have several advantages. First, they do not depend on the edges of the interaction graph, since all effective bids on queries are the same. Thus, they are effective in the face of limited or noisy information about the keyword interaction graph. Second, uniform strategies are also independent of the priority rule being used. Third, any algorithm that gives an approximation guarantee will then be valid for [*any*]{} interaction graph over those keywords and queries.
Define a [*two-bid strategy*]{} to be a uniform strategy which puts non-zero weight on at most two bid vectors. Given the landscapes for all the queries, we can compute the best uniform strategy in linear time; the proof also directly implies that there is always an optimal two-bid strategy:
[[@FMPS]]{} \[lemma:ag\] Given an instance of [[Budget Optimization]{} ]{}in which there are a total of ${N}$ points in all the landscapes, we can find the best uniform strategy in $O({N}\log {N})$ time. Furthermore, this strategy will always be a two-bid strategy.
The authors in [@FMPS] also consider [*single-bid*]{} strategies, which are uniform strategies that put non-zero weight on at most one [*non-zero*]{} vector, i.e. advertiser randomizes between bidding a certain amount $b^*$ on all keywords, and not bidding at all. A single-bid strategy is even easier to implement in practice than a two-bid strategy. For example, the search engines often allow advertisers to set a maximum daily budget. In this case, the advertiser would simply bid $b^*$ until her budget runs out, and the ad serving system would remove her from all subsequent auctions until the end of the day. One could also use an “ad scheduling” tool offered by some search companies[^8] to implement this strategy. The best single-bid strategy can also be computed easily from the aggregate landscape. The optimal strategy for a budget $U$ will either be the point $x$ s.t. ${{\rm cost}}(x)$ is as large as possible without exceeding $U$, or a convex combination of zero and the point $y$, where ${{\rm cost}}(y)$ is as small as possible while larger than $U$.
[[**Approximation Guarantees of Uniform Strategies.**]{}]{} \[sec:approx\] In fact, not only are uniform strategies easy to optimize over, they are also guaranteed to have good performance compared to the optimal solution. In the case of single-bid strategies, we have the following:
\[thm:2approx\] [[@FMPS]]{} There always exists a uniform single-bid strategy that is ${{\frac 1 2}}$-optimal. Furthermore, for any ${\epsilon}> 0$ there exists an instance for which all single-bid strategies are at most $({{\frac 1 2}}+ {\epsilon})$-optimal.
For general uniform strategies—where a two-bid strategy is always optimal—[@FMPS] proves a tighter approximation ratio:
\[thm:eapprox\] [[@FMPS]]{} There always exists a uniform bidding strategy that is $(1-\frac 1
e)$-optimal. Furthermore, for any $\epsilon>0$, there exists an instance for which all uniform strategies are at most $(1-\frac 1 e + \epsilon)$-optimal.
Thus if given full information about the landscapes, a bidder has an efficient strategy to get a large fraction of the available clicks at her budget. But perhaps more importantly, these theorems show that the simple uniform bidding heuristic can perform well.
Experimental Results
--------------------
The authors in [@FMPS] ran simulations using the data available at Google which we briefly summarize here. They took a large advertising campaign, and, using the set of keywords in the campaign, computed three different curves (see Figure \[fig:real\]) for three different bidding strategies. The x-axis is the budget (units removed), and the y-axis is the number of clicks obtained (again without units) by the optimal bid(s) under each respective strategy. “Query bidding” represents the (unachievable) upper bound ${\Omega}$, bidding on each query independently. The “uniform bidding” curves represent the results of applying the algorithm: “deterministic” uses a single bid level, while “randomized” uses a distribution. For reference, we include the lower bound of a $(e-1)/e$ fraction of the top curve.
![An example with real data.[]{data-label="fig:real"}](real-sanitized){height="2.35in"}
The data clearly demonstrate that the best single uniform bid obtains almost all the possible clicks in practice. Of course in a more realistic environment without full knowledge, it is not always possible to find the best such bid, so further investigation is required to make this approach useful. However, just knowing that there is such a bid available should make the on-line versions of the problem simpler.
Extensions {#sec:conc}
----------
The algorithmic result presented here gives an intriguing heuristic in practice: bid a single value $b$ on all keywords; at the end of the day, if the budget is under-spent, adjust $b$ to be higher; if budget is overspent, adjust $b$ to be lower; else, maintain $b$. If the scenario does not change from day to day, this simple strategy will have the same theoretical properties as the one-bid strategy, and in practice, is likely to be much better. Of course the scenario does change, however, and so coming up with a “stochastic” bidding strategy remains an important open direction, explored somewhat by [@mps; @RW].
Another interesting generalization is to consider weights on the clicks, which is a way to model [*conversions*]{}. (A conversion corresponds to an action on the part of the user who clicked through to the advertiser site; e.g., a sale or an account sign-up.) Finally, we have looked at this system as a black box returning clicks as a function of bid, whereas in reality it is a complex repeated game involving multiple advertisers. In [@BCIMS], it was shown that when a set of advertisers use a strategy similar to the one suggested in [@FMPS], under a slightly modified first-price auction, the prices approach a well-understood market equilibrium.
The Search Engine’s Point of View: Offline Slot Scheduling {#sec:scheduling}
==========================================================
In the previous section we saw that when we take the GSP auction as given, and view the world through the lens of the bidder, the practical problem becomes more complex than what the individual auction was designed for. But we could take the question back to the search engine and ask if there is a more general mechanism that regards the entire day’s worth of queries as part of a single overall game. This question is addressed in [@FMNP], where the [*Offline Ad Slot Scheduling*]{} problem is defined: given a set of bidders with bids (per click) and budgets (per day), and a set of slots over the entire day where we know the expected number of clicks in each slot, find a schedule that places bidders into slots. The schedule must not place a bidder into two different slots at the same time. In addition, we must find a price for each bidder that does not exceed the bidder’s budget constraint, nor their per-click bid. (See below for a formal statement of the problem.)
A good algorithm for this problem will have high revenue. Also, we would like the algorithm to be [*truthful*]{}; i.e., each bidder will be incented to report her true bid and budget. In order to prove something like this, we need a [*utility function*]{} for the bidder that captures the degree to which she is happy with her allocation. Natural models in this context (with clicks, bids and budgets) are—where she wishes to maximize her number of clicks subject to her personal bid and budget constraints, or [*profit-maximization*]{}—where she wishes to maximize her profit (clicks $\times$ profit per click). The work in [@FMNP] is focused on click-maximization.[^9]
We present the efficient mechanism of [@FMNP] for [*Offline Ad Slot Scheduling*]{}, which is truthful under click-maximization. Also, the revenue-optimal mechanism for [*Offline Ad Slot Scheduling*]{} is not truthful, but has a Nash equilibrium (under the same utility model) whose outcome is equivalent to the [@FMNP] mechanism; this result is strong evidence that the mechanism has desirable revenue properties.
[[**Problem Definition.**]{}]{} The [*Offline Ad Slot Scheduling*]{} problem [@FMNP] is defined as follows. We have $n > 1$ bidders interested in clicks. Each bidder $i$ has a budget $B_i$ and a maximum cost-per-click (max-cpc) $m_i$. Given a number of clicks $c_i$, and a price per click $p$, the utility $u_i$ of bidder $i$ is $c_i$ if both the true max-cpc and the true budget are satisfied, and $-\infty$ otherwise. In other words, $u_i = c_i$ if $p \leq m_i$ and $c_i p \leq B_i$; and $u_i = -\infty$ otherwise. We have $n'$ advertising slots where slot $i$ receives $D_i$ clicks during the time interval $[0,1]$. We assume ${D}_1 > \dots >
{D}_{n'}$.
In a [*schedule*]{}, each bidder is assigned to a set of (slot, time interval) pairs $(j, [\sigma, \tau) )$, where $j \leq n'$ and $0 \leq
\sigma < \tau \leq 1$. A [*feasible schedule*]{} is one where no more than one bidder is assigned to a slot at any given time, and no bidder is assigned to more than one slot at any given time. (In other words, the intervals for a particular slot do not overlap, and the intervals for a particular bidder do not overlap.) A feasible schedule can be applied as follows: when a user query comes at some time $\sigma \in [0,1]$, the schedule for that time instant is used to populate the ad slots. If we assume that clicks come at a constant rate throughout the interval $[0,1]$, the number of clicks a bidder is expected to receive from a schedule is the sum of $(\tau - \sigma)
D_j$ over all pairs $(j, [\sigma, \tau) )$ in her schedule.[^10]
A [*mechanism*]{} for [*Offline Ad Slot Scheduling*]{} takes as input a declared budget $B_i$ and declared max-cpc (the “bid”) $b_i$, and returns a feasible schedule, as well as a price per click $p_i \leq
b_i$ for each bidder. The schedule gives some number $c_i$ of clicks to each bidder $i$ that must respect the budget at the given price; i.e., we have $p_i c_i \leq B_i$. The [*revenue*]{} of a mechanism is $\sum_i p_i c_i$. A mechanism is [*truthful*]{} if it is a weakly dominant strategy to declare one’s true budget and max-cpc; i.e., for any bidder $i$, given any set of bids and budgets declared by the other bidders, declaring her true budget $B_i$ and max-cpc $m_i$ maximizes $u_i$. In this setting, a (pure strategy) Nash equilibrium is a set of declared bids and budgets such that no bidder wants to change her declaration of bid or budget, given that all other declarations stay fixed. An [*$\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium*]{} is a set of bids and budgets where no bidder can increase her $u_i$ by more than $\epsilon$ by changing her bid or budget.
Throughout the presentation we assume some arbitrary lexicographic ordering on the bidders, that does not necessarily match the subscripts. When we compare two bids $b_i$ and $b_{i'}$ we say that $b_i {\succ}b_{i'}$ iff either $b_i > b_{i'}$, or $b_i = b_{i'}$ but $i$ occurs first lexicographically.
We comment that for this problem one is tempted to apply a [*Fisher Market*]{} model: here $m$ divisible goods are available to $n$ buyers with money $B_i$, and $u_{ij}(x)$ denotes $i$’s utility of receiving $x$ amount of good $j$. It is known [@AD; @EG; @DPS] that under certain conditions a vector of prices for goods exists (and can be found efficiently [@DPSV]) such that the [*market clears*]{}, in that there is no surplus of goods, and all the money is spent. The natural way to apply a Fisher model to a slot auction is to regard the slots as commodities and have the utilities be in proportion to the number of clicks. However this becomes problematic because there does not seem to be a way to encode the scheduling constraints in the Fisher model; this constraint could make an apparently “market-clearing” equilibrium infeasible.
Special Case: One Slot {#sec:oneslot}
----------------------
In this section we consider the case $k=1$, where there is only one advertising slot, with some number ${D}:= {D}_1$ of clicks. A truthful mechanism for this case is derived by first considering the two extreme cases of infinite bids and infinite budgets.
Suppose all budgets $B_i = \infty$. Then, our input amounts to bids $b_1 {\succ}b_2 {\succ}\dots {\succ}b_n$. The obvious mechanism is simply to give all the clicks to the highest bidder. We charge bidder 1 her full price $p_1 = b_1$. A simple argument shows that reporting the truth is a weakly dominant strategy for this mechanism. Clearly all bidders will report $b_i \leq {m}_i$, since the price is set to $b_i$ if they win. The losing bidders cannot gain from decreasing $b_i$. The winning bidder can lower her price by lowering $b_i$, but this will not gain her any more clicks, since she is already getting all $D$ of them.
Now suppose all bids $b_i = \infty$; our input is just a set of budgets $B_1, \dots, B_n$, and we need to allocate $D$ clicks, with no ceiling on the per-click price. Here we apply a simple rule known as [*proportional sharing*]{} (see [@Kelly; @JT][^11]): Let ${\cal B} =
\sum_i B_i$. Now to each bidder $i$, allocate $({B_i}/{{\cal B}}) D$ clicks. Set all prices the same: $p_i = p = {\cal B}/D$. The mechanism guarantees that each bidder exactly spends her budget, thus no bidder will report $B'_i > B_i$. Now suppose some bidder reports $B_i' = B_i - \Delta$, for $\Delta >0$. Then this bidder is allocated $D({B_i - \Delta})/({{\cal B} - \Delta})$ clicks, which is less than $D ({B_i}/{{\cal B}})$, since $n>1$ and all $B_i > 0$.
[[**Greedy First-Price Mechanism.**]{}]{} A natural mechanism for the general single-slot case is to solve the associated “fractional knapsack” problem, and charge bidders their bid; i.e., starting with the highest bidder, greedily add bidders to the allocation, charging them their bid, until all the clicks are allocated. We refer to this as the [*greedy first-price*]{} (GFP) mechanism. Though natural (and revenue-maximizing as a function of bids) this is easily seen to be not truthful:
[@FMNP] \[ex:greedy-untruthful\] Suppose there are two bidders and $D = 120$ clicks. Bidder 1 has ($m_1 = \$2$, $B_1 = \$100$) and bidder 2 has ($m_2 = \$1$, $B_2 = \$50$). In the GFP mechanism, if both bidders tell the truth, then bidder 1 gets 50 clicks for $\$2$ each, and 50 of the remaining 70 clicks go to bidder 2 for $\$1$ each. However, if bidder 1 instead declares $b_1 = \$1 + \epsilon$, then she gets (roughly) 100 clicks, and bidder 2 is left with (roughly) 20 clicks.
The problem here is that the high bidders can get away with bidding lower, thus getting a lower price. The difference between this and the unlimited-budget case above is that a lower price now results in more clicks. It turns out that in equilibrium, this mechanism will result in an allocation where a prefix of the top bidders are allocated, but their prices equalize to (roughly) the lowest bid in the prefix (as in the example above).
[[**The Price-Setting Mechanism.**]{}]{} An equilibrium allocation of GFP can be computed directly via the following mechanism, which [@FMNP] refers to as the [*price-setting (PS) mechanism*]{}. Essentially this is a descending price mechanism: the price stops descending when the bidders willing to pay at that price have enough budget to purchase all the clicks. We have to be careful at the moment a bidder is added to the pool of the willing bidders; if this new bidder has a large enough budget, then suddenly the willing bidders have [*more*]{} than enough budget to pay for all of the clicks. To compensate, the mechanism decreases this “threshold” bidder’s effective budget until the clicks are paid for exactly.
[Price-Setting (PS) Mechanism (Single Slot) [@FMNP]]{} $\bullet$ Assume wlog that $b_1 {\succ}b_2 {\succ}\dots {\succ}b_n \geq 0$.\
$\bullet$ Let $k$ be the first bidder such that $b_{k+1} \leq \sum_{i=1}^k B_i / D$. Compute price $p = \min \{ \sum_{i=1}^k B_i / D, b_k \}$.\
$\bullet$ Allocate $B_i / p$ clicks to each $i \leq k-1$. Allocate $\hat{B}_k / p$ clicks to bidder $k$, where $\hat{B}_k = p D - \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} B_i$.\
[@FMNP] \[ex:psm1\] Suppose there are three bidders with $b_1 = \$2$, $b_2 = \$1$, $b_3 =
\$0.25$ and $B_1 = \$100$, $B_2 = \$50$, $B_3 = \$80$, and $D = 300$ clicks. Running the PS mechanism, we get $k = 2$ since $B_1/D = 1/3 < b_2 = \$1$, but $(B_1 + B_2)
/ D = \$0.50 \geq b_3 = \$0.25$. The price is set to $\min \{ \$0.50,
\$1 \} = \$0.50$, and bidders 1 and 2 get 200 and 100 clicks at that price, respectively. There is no threshold bidder.
[@FMNP] \[ex:psm2\] Suppose now bidder 2 changes her bid to $b_2 = \$0.40$ (everything else remains the same as Example \[ex:psm1\]). We still get $k = 2$ since $B_1/D = 1/3 < b_2 = \$0.40$. But now the price is set to $\min \{ \$0.50, \$0.40 \} = \$0.40$, and bidders 1 and 2 get 250 and 50 clicks at that price, respectively. Note that bidder 2 is now a threshold bidder, does not use her entire budget, and gets fewer clicks.
\[thm:truth\_single\] [[@FMNP]]{} The price-setting mechanism (single slot) is truthful.
[[**Price-Setting Mechanism Computes Nash Equilibrium of GFP.**]{}]{} Consider the greedy first-price auction in which the highest bidder receives ${B_1}/{b_1}$ clicks, the second ${B_2}/{b_2}$ clicks and so on, until the supply of $D$ clicks is exhausted. It is immediate that truthfully reporting budgets is a dominant strategy in this mechanism, since when a bidder is considered, her reported budget is exhausted as much as possible, at a fixed price. However, reporting $b_i = m_i$ is [*not*]{} a dominant strategy. Nevertheless, it turns out that GFP has an equilibrium whose outcome is (roughly) the same as the PS mechanism. One cannot show that there is a plain Nash equilibrium because of the way ties are resolved lexicographically, so [@FMNP] proves instead that the bidders reach an $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium:
\[thm:nash\_single\] Suppose the PS mechanism is run on the truthful input, resulting in price $p$ and clicks $c_1, \dots, c_n$ for each bidder. Then, for any $\epsilon>0$ there is a pure-strategy $\epsilon$-Nash equilibrium of the GFP mechanism where each bidder receives $c_i \pm
\epsilon$ clicks.
Multiple Slots {#sec:multislot}
--------------
Generalizing to multiple slots makes the scheduling constraint nontrivial. Now instead of splitting a pool of $D$ clicks arbitrarily, we need to assign clicks that correspond to a feasible schedule of bidders to slots. The conditions under which this is possible add a complexity that needs to be incorporated into the mechanism.
As in the single-slot case it will be instructive to consider first the cases of infinite bids or budgets. Suppose all $B_i = \infty$. In this case, the input consists of bids only $b_1 {\succ}b_2 {\succ}\dots {\succ}b_n$. Naturally, what we do here is rank by bid, and allocate the slots to the bidders in that order. Since each budget is infinite, we can always set the prices $p_i$ equal to the bids $b_i$. By the same logic as in the single-slot case, this is easily seen to be truthful. In the other case, when $b_i = \infty$, there is a lot more work to do.
Without loss of generality, we may assume the number of slots equals the number of bids (i.e., $n' = n$); if this is not the case, then we add dummy bidders with $B_i = b_i = 0$, or dummy slots with $D_i = 0$, as appropriate. We keep this assumption for the remainder of the section.
[[**Assigning Slots Using a Classical Scheduling Algorithm.**]{}]{} First we give an important lemma that characterizes the conditions under which a set of bidders can be allocated to a set of slots, which turns out to be just a restatement of a classical result [@HLS] from scheduling theory.
\[lemma:condition\] [[@HLS; @FMNP]]{} Suppose we would like to assign an arbitrary set $\{1, \dots, k\}$ of bidders to a set of slots $\{1, \dots, k\}$ with $D_1 > \dots >
D_k$. Then, a click allocation $c_1 \geq ...\geq c_k$ is feasible iff $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:condition}
c_1 + \dots + c_\ell \leq D_1 + \dots + D_\ell \quad\textrm{ for all } \ell=1,...,k.\end{aligned}$$
In scheduling theory, we say a [*job*]{} with [*service requirement*]{} $x$ is a task that needs $x / s$ units of time to complete on a [*machine*]{} with [*speed*]{} $s$. The question of whether there is a feasible allocation is equivalent to the following scheduling problem: Given $k$ jobs with service requirements $x_i = c_i$, and $k$ machines with speeds $s_i = D_i$, is there a schedule of jobs to machines (with preemption allowed) that completes in one unit of time?
As shown in [@HLS; @GS], the optimal schedule for this problem (a.k.a. $Q \: | \: \textit{pmtn} \: | \: C_{\max}$) can be found efficiently by the [*level algorithm*]{}, and the schedule completes in time $\max_{\ell \leq k}
\{{\sum_{i=1}^\ell x_i}/{\sum_{i=1}^\ell s_i}\}$. Thus, the conditions of the lemma are exactly the conditions under which the schedule completes in one unit of time.
[[**A Multiple-Slot Budgets-Only Mechanism.**]{}]{} The mechanism in [@FMNP] is roughly a descending-price mechanism where we decrease the price until a prefix of budgets fits tightly into a prefix of positions at that price, whereupon we allocate that prefix, and continue to decrease the price for the remaining bidders. More formally, it can be written as follows:
[Price-Setting Mechanism (Multiple Slots, Budgets Only) [@FMNP]]{} $\bullet$ If all $D_i = 0$, assign bidders to slots arbitrarily and exit.\
$\bullet$ Sort the bidders by budget and assume wlog that $B_1 \geq B_2 \geq ... \geq B_n$.\
$\bullet$ Define $r_\ell = {\sum_{i=1}^{\ell} B_i}/{\sum_{i=1}^\ell D_i}$. Set price $p = \max_\ell r_\ell$.\
$\bullet$ Let $\ell^*$ be the largest $\ell$ such that $r_\ell = p$. Allocate slots $\{1, \dots \ell^*\}$ to bidders $\{1, \dots, \ell^*\}$ at price $p$, using all of their budgets; i.e., $c_i = B_i / p$.\
$\bullet$ Repeat the steps above on the remaining bidders and slots until all slots are allocated.\
Note that the allocation step is always possible since for all $\ell \leq \ell^*$, we have $p \geq r_\ell = {\sum_{i=1}^{\ell}
B_i}/{\sum_{i=1}^\ell D_i}$, which rewritten is $\sum_{i=1}^\ell c_i
\leq \sum_{i=1}^\ell D_i$, and so we can apply Lemma \[lemma:condition\]. An example run of the price-setting mechanism is shown in Figure \[ex:1\].
![ An example of the PS mechanism (multiple slots, budgets only). The first application of Find-Price-Block computes $r_1 = B_1 / D_1 = 80/100$, $r_2 = (B_1 + B_2) / (D_1 + D_2) = 150 / 150$, $r_3 = (B_1 + B_2 + B_3) / (D_1 + D_2 + D_3) = 170 / 175$, $r_4 = (B_1 + B_2 + B_3 + B_4) / (D_1 + D_2 + D_3 + D_4) = 171 / 175$. Since $r_2$ is largest, the top two slots make up the first price block with a price $p_1 = r_2 = \$1$; bidder 1 gets $80$ clicks and bidder 2 gets $70$ clicks, using the schedule as shown. In the second price block, we get $B_3 / D_3 = 20/25$ and $(B_3 +
B_4) / (D_3 + D_4) = 21/25$. Thus $p_2$ is set to $21/25 =
\$0.84$, bidder $3$ gets $500 / 21$ clicks and bidder $4$ gets $25/21$ clicks, using the schedule as shown. []{data-label="ex:1"}](example1){width="4.5in"}
\[thm:monotonicity\] [[@FMNP]]{} The price-setting mechanism (multi-slot, budgets only) is truthful.
[[**The Price-Setting Mechanism (General Case).**]{}]{} The generalization of the multiple-slot PS mechanism to use both bids and budgets combines the ideas from the bids-and-budgets version of the single slot mechanism with the budgets-only version of the multiple-slot mechanism. As our price descends, we maintain a set of “active” bidders with bids at or above this price, as in the single-slot mechanism. These active bidders are kept ranked by [*budget*]{}, and when the price reaches the point where a prefix of bidders fits into a prefix of slots (as in the budgets-only mechanism) we allocate them and repeat. As in the single-slot case, we must be careful when a bidder enters the active set and suddenly causes an over-fit; in this case we again reduce the budget of this “threshold” bidder until it fits. For details on this mechanism and a proof that it is also truthful, we refer the reader to the paper [@FMNP].
[[**Greedy First-Price Mechanism for Multiple Slots.**]{}]{} In the multiple-slot case, as in the single-slot case, there is a natural [*greedy first-price*]{} (GFP) mechanism when the bidding language includes both bids and budgets: Order the bidders by bid $b_1 {\succ}b_2 {\succ}\dots {\succ}b_n$. Starting from the highest bidder, for each bidder $i$ compute the maximum possible number of clicks $c_i$ that one could allocate to bidder $i$ at price $b_i$, given the budget constraint $B_i$ and the commitments to previous bidders $c_1, \dots, c_{i-1}$. This reduces to the “fractional knapsack” problem in the single-slot case, and so one would hope that it maximizes revenue for the given bids and budgets, as in the single-slot case. This is not immediately clear, but does turn out to be true (see [@FMNP] for details). As in the single-slot case, the GFP mechanism is not a truthful mechanism. However, [@FMNP] give a generalization of Theorem \[thm:nash\_single\] showing that the multiple-slot GFP mechanism does have a pure-strategy equilibrium, and that equilibrium has prices and allocation equivalent to the multiple-slot price setting mechanism.
Extensions {#sec:conclusions}
----------
There are several natural generalizations of the [*Online Ad Slot Scheduling*]{} problem where it would be interesting to extend or apply the results of [@FMNP]:
- [*Click-through rates.*]{} To incorporate ad-specific click-through rates ${\alpha}_i$ into this model, we would say that a bidder $i$ assigned to slot $j$ for a time period of length $\tau - \sigma$ would receive $(\tau - \sigma) {\alpha}_i D_j$ clicks. All the results of [@FMNP] can be generalized to this setting by simply scaling the bids using $b'_i = b_i {\alpha}_i$. However, now the mechanism does not necessarily prefer more [*efficient*]{} solutions; i.e., ones that generate more overall clicks. It would be interesting to analyze a possible tradeoff between efficiency and revenue in this setting.
- [*Multiple Keywords.*]{} To model multiple keywords in this model, we could say that each query $q$ had its own set of click totals $D_{q,
1} \dots D_{q, n}$, and each bidder is interested in a subset of queries. The greedy first-price mechanism is easily generalized to this case: maximally allocate clicks to bidders in order of their bid $b_i$ (at price $b_i$) while respecting the budgets, the query preferences, and the click commitments to previous bidders. It would not be surprising if there was an equilibrium of this extension of the greedy mechanism that could be computed directly with a generalization of the PS mechanism.
- [*Online queries, uncertain supply.*]{} In sponsored search, allocations must be made online in response to user queries, and some of the previous literature has focused on this aspect of the problem (e.g., [@MSVV; @MNS]). Perhaps the ideas from [@FMNP] could be used to help make online allocation decisions using (unreliable) estimates of the supply, a setting considered in [@MNS], with game-theoretic considerations.
The User’s Point of View: a Markov Model for Clicks {#sec:markov}
===================================================
In the GSP auction, by fixing the sort order, we leave out an important third party in sponsored search; i.e., the [*search engine user*]{}. Unfortunately, there is very little guidance on this in the literature, even though the user’s behavior is the essential ingredient that defines [*the commodity*]{} the advertisers are bidding on, and its value. In [@AFMP08] a different framework is suggested for principled understanding of sponsored search auctions:
- Define a suitable probabilistic model for search engine user behavior upon being presented the ads.
- Once this model is fixed, ask the traditional mechanism design questions of how do assign the ads to slots, and how to price them.
- Analyze the given mechanism from the perspective of the bidders (e.g., strategies) and the search engine (e.g., user satisfaction, efficiency and revenue).
There are certain well-accepted observations about the user’s interaction with the sponsored search ads that should inform the model:
- The higher the ad is on the page, the more clicks it gets.
- The “better” the ad is, the more clicks it gets, where the “goodness” of an ad is related to the inherent quality of the ad, and how well it matches the user’s query.
These properties govern not only how the auction is run but also how advertisers think about their bidding strategy (they prefer to appear higher and get more clicks). Thus it is important for an auction to have what we call [*intuitive bidding*]{}: a higher bid translates to a higher position and more clicks.
In [@AFMP08], a natural Markov model is proposed for user clicks, taking the above observations into account. An algorithm is given to determine an optimal assignment of ads to positions in terms of economic efficiency. Together with VCG pricing, this gives a truthful auction. They further show that the optimal assignment under this model has certain monotonicity properties that allow for intuitive bidding. In what follows, we will describe these contributions in more detail.
[[**Modeling the Search Engine User.**]{}]{} Previous work on sponsored search has (implicitly) modeled the user using two types of parameters: ad-specific click-through rates ${{\alpha}}_i$ and position-specific visibility factors ${\beta}_j$. There are some intuitive user behavior models that express overall click-through probabilities in terms of these parameters. One possibility is “for each position $j$ [*independently*]{}, the user looks at the ad $i$ in that position with probability ${\beta}_j$ then clicks on the ad with probability ${{\alpha}}_i$.” Alternatively: “The user picks a [*single*]{} position according to the distribution implied by the ${\beta}_j$’s, and then clicks on the ad $i$ in that position with probability ${{\alpha}}_i$.” Under both these models, it follows that the probability of an ad $i$ in position $j$ receiving a click is equal to ${{\alpha}}_i {\beta}_j$, which is the so-called [*separability*]{} assumption (see [@AGM] or the discussion in Section \[sec:existing\]). From separability it follows that GSP ordering of ads will be suitable, because GSP ordering maximizes the total advertiser value on the page.
In both these models there is no reason [*a priori*]{} that the position factors ${\beta}_j$ should be decreasing; this is simply imposed because it makes sense, and it is verifiable empirically. Also, both suggested models assume that the probability of an ad getting clicked is independent of [*other ads*]{} that appear with it on the page, an assumption made without much justification. It is hard to imagine that seeing an ad, perhaps followed by a click, has no effect on the subsequent behavior of the user.
In designing a user model, we would like to have the monotonicity of the positions arise naturally. Also, each ad should have parameters dictating their effect on the user both in terms of clicking on that ad, as well as looking at other ads. In [@AFMP08], a model is proposed of a user who starts to scan the list of ads from the top, and makes decisions (about whether to click, continue scanning, or give up altogether) based on what he sees. More specifically, the user is modeled as the following Markov process: “Begin scanning the ads from the top down. When position $j$ is reached, click on the ad $i$ with probability ${{\alpha}}_i$. Continue scanning with probability $q_i$.” In this model, if we try to write the click probability of an ad $i$ in position $j$ as ${{\alpha}}_i {\beta}_j$, we get that ${\beta}_j = \Pi_{i' \in A}
q_{i'}$, where $A$ is the set of ads placed above[^12] position $j$. Thus the “position factor” in the click probability decreases with position, and does so naturally from the model. Also note that we do not have separability anymore, since ${\beta}_j$ depends on which ads are above position $j$. Consequently, it can be shown that GSP assignment of ads is no longer the most efficient.
[[**Auction with Markovian users.**]{}]{} Given this new user model, we can now ask what the best assignment is of ads to slots. In [@AFMP08], the most efficient assignment is studied; i.e., the one that maximizes total advertiser value derived from user clicks. It turns out that the structure of this assignment is different than that of GSP, and indeed is more sophisticated than any simple ranking. The presence of the $q_i$’s requires a delicate tradeoff between the click probability of an ad and its effect on the slots below it. In [@AFMP08], certain structural properties of the optimal assignment are identified and used to find such an optimal assignment efficiently, not only in polynomial time, but in near-linear time. Given this algorithm, a natural candidate for pricing is VCG [@V; @C; @G], which is clearly truthful in this setting, at least under a profit-maximizing utility.
[[**Intuitive Bidding.**]{}]{} One of the reasons why GSP is successful is perhaps because bidding strategy is intuitive: Under GSP ranking, if an advertiser bids more, they get to a higher position, and consequently, if they bid more, their click probability increases. Now that we have defined a more sophisticated assignment function, even though VCG pricing is truthful, the auction still may not have these intuitive properties. The main technical result in [@AFMP08] is to show that in the Markov user model, if a mechanism uses the most efficient assignment, indeed position and click probabilities are monotonic in an ad’s bid (with all other bids fixed), thus preserving this important property. While not surprising, position-monotonicity turns out to be rather involved to prove, requiring some delicate combinatorial arguments, and insights into the optimal substructure of bidder assignments.
In summary, sponsored search auctions are a three party process which can be studied by modeling the behavior of users first and then designing suitable mechanisms to affect the game theory between the advertiser and the search engine. The work of [@AFMP08] sheds some light on the intricate connection between the user models and the mechanisms; for example, the sort order of GSP that is currently popular (sort by $b_i{{\alpha}}_i$) is not optimal under the Markov user model.
A Simple Markov User Click Model {#sec:markovmodel}
--------------------------------
We consider a sponsored search auction with $n$ bidders ${{\cal B}}=
\{1, \dots, n\}$ and $k$ positions. We will also refer to “ad $i$,” meaning the advertisement submitted by bidder $i$. Each bidder $i \in
{{\cal B}}$ has two parameters, ${{\alpha}}_i$ and $q_i$. The click-through-rate ${{\alpha}}_i$ is the probability that a user will click on ad $i$, given that they [*look*]{} at it. The continuation probability $q_i$ is the probability that a user will look at the next ad in a list, given that they look at ad $i$.
Each bidder submits a bid $b_i$ to the auction, representing the amount that they value a click. The quantity ${{\alpha}}_i b_i$ then represents the value of an “impression,” i.e., how much they value a user looking at their ad. This is commonly referred to as their “ecpm.”[^13] Throughout, we will use the notation ${e}_i = {{\alpha}}_i
b_i$ for convenience.
Given an assignment $(x_1, \dots, x_k)$ of bidders to the $k$ positions, the user looks at the first ad $x_1$, clicks on it with probability ${{\alpha}}_{x_1}$, and then continues looking with probability $q_{x_1}$.[^14] This is repeated with the second bidder, etc., until the last ad is reached, or some continuation test has failed. Thus the overall expected value of the assignment to the bidders is $${e}_{x_1} + q_{x_1} ({e}_{x_2} + q_{x_2}({e}_{x_3} + q_{x_3}(\dots q_{x_{n'-1}}({e}_{x_n})))).$$
Now that we have defined the user model, and characterized the value of an assignment in that model, we can now define a new auction mechanism: First, the search engine computes an assignment of ads to positions that maximizes the overall expected value. Given this assignment, prices can then be computed using VCG [@V; @C; @G]; for each assigned bidder we compute the change in others’ value if that bidder were to disappear. This assures truthful reporting of bids under a profit-maximizing utility function.
Properties of Optimal Assignments for Markovian Users {#sec:props}
-----------------------------------------------------
Since the optimal assignment used by the mechanism is no longer simple ranking by ecpm, it is essential to understand the structure of this assignment. This understanding will allow us to compute the assignment more efficiently, and prove some important game-theoretic properties of the mechanism.
It turns out that the quantity ${e}_i / (1-q_i)$, which we will refer to as the “adjusted ecpm (a-ecpm),” plays a central role in this model. Intuitively, this quantity is the impression value adjusted by the negative effect this ad has on the ads below it. We use ${a}_i =
{e}_i / (1-q_i)$ for convenience. The following theorem tells us how to assign a set of $k$ selected ads to the $k$ positions:
[[@AFMP08]]{} In the most efficient assignment, the ads that are placed are sorted in decreasing order of adjusted ecpm $
{a}_i = {e}_i / (1 - q_i)
$. \[thm:rank\]
While this theorem tells us how to sort the ads selected, it does not tell us [*which*]{} $k$ ads to select. One is tempted to say that choosing the top $k$ ads by a-ecpm would do the trick; however the following example proves otherwise:
[@AFMP08] \[mex:1\] Suppose we have three bidders and two slots, and the bidders have the following parameters:
Bidder ${e}_i$ $q_i$ ${a}_i = {e}_i / (1-q_i)$
-------- --------- ------- ---------------------------
1 \$1 .75 4
2 \$2 .2 2.5
3 \$0.85 .8 4.25
Let’s consider some possible assignments and their efficiency. If we use simple ranking by ecpm ${e}_i$, we get the assignment $(2,1)$, which has efficiency $\$2 + .2 (\$1) = \$2.20$. If we use simple ranking by a-ecpm $a_i$ we get the assignment $(3,1)$ with efficiency $\$0.85 + .8 (\$1) =
\$1.65$. It turns out that the optimal assignment is $(1,2)$ with efficiency $\$1 + .75 (\$2) = \$2.50$. The assigned bidders are ordered by a-ecpm in the assignment, but are not the top 2 bidders by a-ecpm.
Now suppose we have the same set of bidders, but now we have three slots. The optimal assignment in this case is $(3,1,2)$; note how bidder 3 goes from being unassigned to being assigned the first position.
In classical sponsored search with simple ranking, a bidder $j$ can dominate another bidder $i$ by having higher ecpm; i.e., bidder $j$ will always appear whenever $i$ does, and in a higher position. Example \[mex:1\] above shows that having a higher ecpm (or a-ecpm) does not allow a bidder to dominate another bidder in our new model. However, we show that if she has higher ecpm [*and*]{} a-ecpm, then this does suffice. This is not only interesting in its own right, it is essential for proving deeper structural properties.
[[@AFMP08]]{} \[lemma:sub\] For all bidders $i$ in an optimal assignment, if some bidder $j$ is not in the assignment, and ${a}_j \geq {a}_i$ and ${e}_j
\geq {e}_i$, then we may substitute $j$ for $i$, and the assignment is no worse.
The following theorem shows some subset structure between optimal assignments to different numbers of slots. This theorem is used to prove position monotonicity, and is an essential ingredient of the more efficient algorithm for finding the optimal assignment. Let ${\mathrm{OPT}}(C,j)$ denote the set of all optimal solutions for filling $j$ positions with bidders from the set $C$.
\[thm:subsets\] [[@AFMP08]]{} Let $j \in \{1, \dots, k\}$ be some number of positions, and let $C$ be an arbitrary set of bidders. Then, for all $S \in {\mathrm{OPT}}(C,j-1)$, there is some $S' \in {\mathrm{OPT}}(C,j)$ where $S' \supset S$.
Finally, we state a main technical theorem of [@AFMP08], which shows that bidding is intuitive under a mechanism that maximizes value in the Markovian model.
\[thm:monotonic\] [[@AFMP08]]{} With all other bids fixed, the probability of receiving a click in the optimal solution is non-decreasing in one’s bid. In addition, the position of a particular bidder in the optimal solution is monotonic that bidder’s bid.
This theorem, whose proof relies on all the previous results in this section, implies that from the perspective of a bidder participating in the auction, all the complexities of the underlying assignment still do not interfere with the intuitive nature of bidding; if you bid more, you still get more clicks, and get to a higher position.
Computing the Optimal Assignment
--------------------------------
A simple algorithm for computing the optimal assignment proceeds as follows. First, sort the ads in decreasing order of a-ecpm in time $O(n \log n)$. Then, let $F(i,j)$ be the efficiency obtained (given that you reach slot $j$) by filling slots $(j, \dots, k)$ with bidders from the set $\{i, \dots, n\}$. We get the following recurrence: $$F(i,j) = \max (F(i+1, j+1) q_i + {e}_i, F(i+1, j)).$$ Solving this recurrence for $F(1,1)$ yields the optimal assignment, and can be done in $O(nk)$ time. Using the properties about optimal assignments proved in the previous section, this can be improved to
[[@AFMP08]]{} Consider the auction with $n$ Markovian bidders and $k$ slots. There is an optimal assignment which can be determined in $O(n\log n + k^2 \log^2 n)$ time.
Open Issues
===========
We emphasize three open directions, besides the various game-theoretic and algorithmic open problems already proposed so far.
- [*Estimating Parameters.*]{} In order to run the basic auction and its extensions, the search companies need to estimate a number of parameters: ctr, position-specific factors, minimum bidder-specific reserve prices, etc. In addition, for operational reasons, search engines have to provide traffic estimates to potential advertisers, that is, for each keyword, they need to show landscape functions such as the ones in Section 3. An open research problem is, given a log of search and ad traffic over a significant period of time, design and validate efficient learning methods for estimating these parameters, and perhaps, even identify the models that fit the variation of these parameters over time. This is a significant research challenge since these parameters have intricate dependencies, and in addition, there is a long tail effect in the logs, that is, there is a significant amount of rare queries and keywords, as well as rare clicks for particular keywords.
- [*Grand Simulation.*]{} In order for the academic world to develop intuition into the world of sponsored search auctions and the associated dynamics, we need a grand simulation platform that can generate search traffic, ad inventories, ad clicks, and market specifics at the “Internet scale” that search engines face. Such a platform will help us understand the many tradeoffs: increasing keywords vs increasing budget for a campaign, making better bids vs choosing different search engines, choosing to bid for impressions vs clicks vs action, etc. Some auction programs are currently available[^15], but a systematic, large scale effort by academia will have tremendous impact for research.
- [*Grand Models.*]{} In general, we need more detailed models for the behavior of users, advertisers as well as the impact of the search engine design on them. We described a highly preliminary effort here in which the users were Markovian, but more powerful models will also be of great interest. For example, a small extension is to make the continuation probability $q_i$ a function of location as well, which makes the optimization problem more difficult. One can also generalize the Markov model to handle arbitrary configurations of ads on a web page (not necessarily the linear order in current search results page), or to allow various other user states (such as navigating a [*landing*]{} page, that is the page that is the target of an ad). Finally, since page layout can be performed dynamically, we could ask what would happen if the layout of a web page were a part of the model, which would combine both users as well as the search engine into a model. In general, there may be grand, unified models that capture the relationship between all the three parties in sponsored search.
Concluding Remarks
==================
We have discussed algorithmic and game-theoretic issues in auctions for sponsored search.
Auctions are used for other products in Internet advertising, for example Google’s [*AdSense*]{}, where an Internet publisher (like an online newspaper) can sign up with an ad network (in this case Google) to place ads on their site. Here, an additional aspect of the problem from the auctioneer’s perspective is how to [*target*]{} ads, that is, how to choose the keywords from the surrounding context, to run auctions like the ones we discussed thus far. This also introduces the fourth player in the game, i.e., the [*publisher*]{}, and consequently, the game theory is more intricate and largely unexplored.
Internet ads like sponsored search or AdSense may combine different types of ads, i.e., text, image or video ads. Each has its own specifications in terms of dimensions, user engagement and effectiveness. How to combine them into a unified auction is an interesting challenge.
Beyond Internet ads, the Internet medium is also used for enabling ads in traditional media including TV, Radio, Print etc. In such cases, the auction problems may take on a richer combinatorial component, and also, a component based on ability to reserve ad slots ahead of time. The resulting algorithmic and game-theoretic problems are largely unexplored in the research community.
Acknowledgements
================
We gratefully thank numerous engineers and researchers at Google.
[^1]: The choice of keywords is related to the domain-knowledge of the advertiser, user behavior and strategic considerations. Internet search companies provide the advertisers with summaries of the query traffic which is useful for them to optimize their keyword choices interactively. We do not directly address the choice of keywords in this section, which is addressed elsewhere [@RW].
[^2]: The particulars of the matching rule are determined by the Internet search company; here we treat the function as arbitrary.
[^3]: This type of strategy can also be interpreted as bidding one value (on all keywords) for part of the day, and a different value for the rest of the day.
[^4]: We leave out the ad-specific factor ${\alpha}_i$ from this section for clarity, but all the results in [@FMPS] generalize to this case as well.
[^5]: Of course it is a bit unrealistic to imagine that an advertiser would have to worry about a budget if only one user query was being considered; however one could imagine multiple instances of the same query and the problem scales.
[^6]: See <https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=22183>, for example.
[^7]: See <https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=14179>, for example.
[^8]: See <https://adwords.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=33227>, for example.
[^9]: This choice is in part motivated by the presence of budgets, which have a natural interpretation in this application: if an overall advertising campaign allocates a fixed portion of its budget to online media, then the agent responsible for that budget is incented to spend the entire budget to maximize exposure. In contrast, under the profit-maximizing utility, a weak motivation for budgets is a limit on liquidity. Also, this choice of utility function is out of analytical necessity: Borgs et al. [@BCIMS] show that under some reasonable assumptions, truthful mechanisms are impossible under a profit-maximizing utility.
[^10]: All the results of [@FMNP] generalize to the setting where each bidder $i$ has a bidder-specific factor ${\alpha}_i$ in the click-through rate and thus receives $(\tau -
\sigma) {\alpha}_i D_j$ clicks (see Section \[sec:conclusions\]). We leave this out for clarity.
[^11]: Nguyen and Tardos [@NT] give a generalization of [@JT] to general polyhedral constraints, and also discuss the application to sponsored search. Both their bidding language and utility function differ from [@FMNP], but it would be interesting to see if there are any connections between their approach and [@FMNP].
[^12]: Throughout the section, we will often refer to a position or an ad being “higher” or “above” another position or ad; this means that it is earlier on the list, and is looked at first by the user.
[^13]: The acronym ecpm stands for “expected cost per thousand” impressions, where M is the roman numeral for one thousand. We will drop the factor of one thousand and refer to ${{\alpha}}_i
b_i$ as the “ecpm.”
[^14]: The click event and the continuation event could in principle have some correlation, and the results mentioned here will still hold.
[^15]: For example, see <http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~jkg/jAuctions.html>
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
[Groups with bounded centralizer chains and the Borovik–Khukhro conjecture]{}
A.A.Buturlakin$^,$$^,$, D.O.Revin$^,$, A.V.Vasil$'$ev$^,$
**Abstract**
Let $G$ be a locally finite group and $F(G)$ the Hirsch–Plotkin radical of $G$. Denote by $S$ the full inverse image of the generalized Fitting subgroup of $G/F(G)$ in $G$. Assume that there is a number $k$ such that the length of every chain of nested centralizers in $G$ does not exceed $k$. The Borovik–Khukhro conjecture states, in particular, that under this assumption the quotient $G/S$ contains an abelian subgroup of index bounded in terms of $k$. We disprove this statement and prove some its weaker analog.
**Keywords:** locally finite groups, centralizer lattice, $c$-dimension, $k$-tuple Dickson’s conjecture
**Introduction**
Following [@MS], the maximal length of chains of nested centralizers of a group $G$ is called the *$c$-dimension* of $G$ (the same number is also known as the length of the centralizer lattice of $G$, see, e.g., [@Schmidt]). Here we consider groups of finite $c$-dimension. The class of such groups is quite wide: it includes, for example, abelian groups, linear groups, torsion-free hyperbolic groups, and hence free groups. It is closed under taking subgroups, finite direct products, and extensions by finite groups; however, the $c$-dimension of a homomorphic image of a group from this class can be infinite. Obviously, each group of finite $c$-dimension satisfies the minimal condition on centralizers, therefore, it is a so-called *$\mathfrak M_C$-group*.
The minimal condition on centralizers is a useful notion in the class of locally finite groups. Indeed, locally finite $\mathfrak M_C$-groups satisfy an analog of the Sylow theorem [@Bryant Teorem B]. Periodic locally soluble $\mathfrak M_C$-groups satisfy an analog of the Hall theorem on $\pi$-subgroups [@BH Theorem 1.6], moreover, these groups are soluble and nilpotent-by-abelian-by-finite [@BH Theorems 2.1 and 2.2]. When we restrict ourselves to the class of locally finite groups of finite $c$-dimension, it is natural to ask if some strengthening of mentioned results can be proved. For example, whether the derived length of a locally soluble groups from this class is bounded in terms of $c$-dimension? Another natural question is whether such a group contains a nilpotent-by-abelian subgroup of index bounded in the same terms. The first question was answered in the affirmative [@Khukhro Theorem 1]. The answer to the second question is “no” [@Khukhro Example 1], but a weaker statement holds: if $G$ is a periodic locally soluble group of $c$-dimension $k$, then the quotient group of $G$ by the second Hirsch–Plotkin radical $F_2(G)$ contains an abelian subgroup of $k$-bounded index.
In the same paper [@Khukhro] E.I.Khukhro posed the following conjecture which he attributed to A.V.Borovik.
**The Borovik–Khukhro conjecture**.
*Let $G$ be a locally finite group of finite $c$-dimension $k$. Let $S$ be the full inverse image of $F^*(G/F(G))$ in $G$. Then*
$(1)$ the number of nonabelian simple composition factors of $G$ is finite and $k$-bounded;
$(2)$ $G/S$ has an abelian subgroup of finite $k$-bounded index.
Recall that the Hirsch–Plotkin radical $F(G)$ is the maximal normal locally nilpotent subgroup. The $i$-th Hirsch–Plotkin radical $F_i(G)$ is defined inductively: $F_1(G)=F(G)$ and $F_i(G)$ is the full inverse image of $F(G/F_{i-1}(G))$ in $G$. The layer $E(G)$ of $G$ is the subgroup generated by all components of $G$, that is its subnormal quasisimple subgroups. The generalized Fitting subgroup $F^*(G)$ is the product of $F(G)$ and $E(G)$.
While the part $(1)$ of the conjecture is known to be true [@13ButVas], the second one turns out to be false.
\[t:ConjIsFalse\] The statement $(2)$ of the Borovik–Khukhro conjecture does not hold.
It is clear that a counterexample proving Theorem \[t:ConjIsFalse\] should be an infinite series of locally finite groups $G$ of uniformly bounded $c$-dimensions with unbounded minimal indices of abelian subgroups in the quotients $G/S$. In fact, we construct an infinite number of counterexamples as follows. For each positive integer $n$, we define an infinite series $\mathscr{G}_n$ of finite groups $G_{n,r}$ where $r$ runs over an infinite set of primes. The $c$-dimensions of groups in $\mathscr{G}_n$ are bounded in terms of $n$ only. The quotient of $G=G_{n,r}$ by the corresponding subgroup $S$ (that is by the full inverse image of generalized Fitting subgroup of $G_{n,r}/F(G_{n,r})$) is isomorphic to the symplectic group $Sp_{2n}(r)$. This contradicts the statement $(2)$ of the Borovik–Khukhro conjecture, because the minimum of indices of proper subgroups of $G/S=Sp_{2n}(r)$ grows as $r$ increases.
It is worth noting that our construction depends on some deep number-theoretical results. It requires some results on Dickson’s conjecture and Schinzel’s hypothesis H on prime values of finite sets of linear forms and irreducible integer-valued polynomials obtained in [@AST]. We are thankful to participants of the forum on mathoverflow.net, especially to T. Tao, and to J. Maynard for the information on various results on these conjectures and related seive methods. There is more detailed discussion on this topic after the proof of Theorem \[t:ConjIsFalse\] in Section 2.
Though the second part of the Borovik–Khukhro conjecture is false, some its weaker analog holds at least in the case of finite groups.
\[t:3Fitting\] Let $G$ be a finite group of finite $c$-dimension $k$. Put $\overline G=G/F_3(G)$. The group $\overline G/E(\overline G)$ contains an abelian subgroup of $k$-bounded index.
The proof of Theorem \[t:3Fitting\] relies on [@Khukhro Theorem 1] and ideas from [@13ButVas]. The difference from the proof in [@13ButVas] is that we bound not just the number of nonabelian composition factors, but the common “size” of them.
Theorem \[t:3Fitting\] implies that, for a finite group $G$, the quotient of $G/F_3(G)$ by the generalized Fitting subgroup contains an abelian subgroup of index bounded in term of $c$-dimension, while it was conjectured that $F(G)$ instead of $F_3(G)$ is enough. So the natural question is whether one can replace $F_3(G)$ with $F_2(G)$. Furthermore, Theorem \[t:3Fitting\] regards only finite groups. Hence it would be interesting to obtain some positive statement for locally finite groups. Since every iterated Hirsch–Plotkin radical is contained in a locally soluble radical, the following seems to be the “weakest” analog of the conjecture: Is it true that the quotient group of $G/R$ by the generalized Fitting subgroup contains an abelian subgroup whose index is bounded in terms of $k$ (here $G$ is locally finite of $c$-dimension $k$ and $R$ is a (locally) soluble radical of $G$)? The affirmative answer to this question for finite groups follows from Theorem \[t:3Fitting\] (see Corollary \[t:solubleRadical\] in Section 3).
Section 1 contains preliminary results on group centralizers and some information on simple groups. In Section 2, we give a counterexample to the Borovik–Khukhro conjecture and discuss for which $c$-dimensions such counterexamples exist. Theorem \[t:3Fitting\] is proved in Section 3.
We thank E.I. Khukhro for drawing our attention to the subject.
[ **. Preliminaries**]{}
The following lemma lists some well-known properties of centralizers.
\[l:PropertyOfCentralizers\] Let $G$ be a group and $X$, $Y$ be subsets in $G$. Then
- $C_G(X)=\bigcap\limits_{x\in X}C_G(x)$;
- $C_G(X)=C_G(\langle X\rangle)$;
- $C_G(X)\leqslant C_G(Y)$ if and only if $C_G(C_G(X))\geqslant C_G(C_G(Y))$; furthermore, $C_G(X)=C_G(Y)$ if and only if $C_G(C_G(X))=C_G(C_G(Y))$.
Let $G$ be a group and $V$ a normal abelian subgroup of $G$. Let $\overline{\phantom{g}}:G\rightarrow G/V$ be the natural homomorphism. The action of $G$ on $V$ by conjugation induces the action of $G/V$ on $V$. In the following lemma the centralizer $C_V(\overline Y)$ for $Y\leqslant G$ is defined with respect to this action, and therefore coincides with $C_V(Y)$.
\[l:c-dimensionOfSemidirectProduct\] Let $G$ be a group and $V$ a normal abelian subgroup of $G$. Suppose that the length of every chain of nested subgroups in $G/V$ is at most $l$. Then the $c$-dimension of $G$ is at most $2l$. If $V$ is central, then $c$-dimension of $G$ is at most $l$.
Suppose that the $c$-dimension of $G$ is equal to $k$. Let[^1] $$\label{e0}
Y_0>\dots> Y_k$$ be a chain of subgroups of $G$ such that $$\label{e1}
C_G(Y_0)<\dots< C_G(Y_k).$$
As above $\overline{\phantom{g}}:G\rightarrow G/V$ is the natural homomorphism. In view of (\[e0\]) and (\[e1\]), we have the following chains of inclusions:
$$\label{e1.5}
\overline Y_0 \geqslant\dots\geqslant \overline Y_k ,$$
$$\label{e2}
C_V(Y_0)\leqslant\dots\leqslant C_V(Y_k),$$
$$\label{e3}
\overline {C_G(Y_0)} \leqslant\dots\leqslant \overline {C_G(Y_k)},$$
$$\label{e4}
C_V(\overline Y_0)\leqslant\dots\leqslant C_V(\overline Y_k).$$
Since $C_G(Y_i)/C_V(Y_i)\cong \overline{C_G(Y_i)}$ and $C_G(Y_{i-1})< G_G(Y_{i})$ for every $i$, at least one of the inclusions $$C_V(\overline Y_{i-1})=C_V(Y_{i-1})\leqslant C_V(Y_{i})= C_V(\overline Y_{i}) \text{ and
} \overline{C_G(Y_{i-1})} \leqslant \overline{C_G(Y_{i})}$$ is strict. Moreover, if $C_V(\overline Y_{i-1})< C_V(\overline Y_{i})$, then $\overline Y_{i-1} > \overline Y_{i}$. Thus, $k$ does not exceed the sum of the numbers of strict inclusions in the chains (\[e1.5\]) and (\[e3\]) of subgroups of $G/V$. Hence $k\leqslant 2l$. Finally, if $V$ is cental then all inclusions in $(4)$ are equalities, and all inclusions in $(5)$ are strict.
We want to point out that the bound for $c$-dimension obtained in Lemma \[l:c-dimensionOfSemidirectProduct\] for the general case is sharp. Let $H$ be a finite group and $$1=H_0<H_1<\dots<H_l=H$$ be its longest chain of nested subgroups. Fix some prime $p$. Denote by $V_i$ for $i=0,\dots, l$ the permutation module of $H$ over the field of order $p$ given by the action of $H$ on the right cosets by $H_i$ via right multiplications. Put $$V=V_0\oplus V_1\oplus\dots\oplus V_l.$$ Denote by $G$ the natural semidirect product $VH$. We calim that the $c$-dimension of $G$ is equal to $2l$.
Let $e_i$ be a vector of $V_i$ such that $C_H(e_i)=H_i$. Let $W_i$ be the subspace of $V$ spanned by $e_i,e_{i+1},\dots, e_l$. It is easy to see that $C_G(W_i)=VH_i$. Also the centralizer of $VH_i$ contains $W_i$ and does not contain $e_{i-1}$. Therefore we have $$C_G(W_l)>C_G(W_{l-1})>\dots>C_G(W_0)=C_G(V)$$$$=C_G(VH_0)>C_G(VH_1)>\dots>C_G(VH_l)=Z(G).$$ The length of this chain is exactly $2l$, i.e. maximum possible in terms of the lemma.
The following lemma is crucial to the proof of Theorem \[t:3Fitting\].
\[LemmaKhukhro\][[@Khukhro Lemma 3]]{} If an elementary abelian $p$-group $E$ of order $p^n$ acts faithfully on a finite nilpotent $p'$-group $Q$, then there exists a series of subgroups $$E=E_0>E_1>E_2>\dots>E_n=1$$ such that $$C_Q(E_0)<C_Q(E_1)<\dots<C_Q(E_n).$$
\[l:CentralProduct\] The $c$-dimension of a central product of finite groups $H$ and $K$ is at least the sum of their $c$-dimensions.
Let $G$ be a central product $H\circ K$. Let $$H_0<H_1<\dots<H_m \quad\text{ and }\quad K_0<K_1<\dots<K_l$$ be series of subgroups of $H$ and $K$ such that the series of their centralizers are strict and have maximal lengths. We may assume that both $H$ and $K$ are subgroups of $G$, and, therefore, all their subgroups are also subgroups of $G$. We have $C_G(H_i)=C_H(H_i)\circ K$ and $C_G(HK_i)=Z(H)\circ C_K(K_i)$. Hence the subgroups $H_i$ and $HK_i$ provide a series of subgroups with centralizer chain of desired length.
The $c$-dimension of $H\circ K$ can be larger than the sum of $c$-dimensions of $H$ and $K$. Indeed, let $H$ be the group $SL_2(3)$. Then $H$ is a semidirect product of the quaternion group of order $8$ and the cyclic group of order $3$ which permutes subgroups of order $4$. It is not hard to see that the $c$-dimension of $H$ is $2$. Denote by $Q$ the Sylow $2$-subgroup of $H$. If $Q$ is generated by two elements $a$ and $b$, then the commutator $[a,b]$ is the generator of the center of $Q$ and, therefore, of $H$. Let $K$ be a group isomorphic to $H$ and $c$ and $d$ be the images of $a$ and $b$ under this isomorphism.
Put $G=(H\times K)/\langle [a,b][c,d]\rangle$ and denote by $\overline{\phantom{g}}$ the canonical homomorphism from $H\times K$ onto $G$. By definition, $G$ is a central product of $H$ and $K$. Consider the following series of centralizers:$$\label{e:Remark}G>C_G(\bar a)\geqslant C_G(\bar a\bar c)\geqslant C_G(\bar a,\bar c)>C_G(\bar H,\bar c)>Z(G).$$
We have $\bar b\bar d\in C_G(\bar a\bar c)\setminus C_G(\bar a,\bar c)$. Indeed, $\bar a^{\bar b\bar d}=\bar a^{-1}$ and $[\bar a\bar c,\bar b\bar d]=[\bar a,\bar b][\bar c,\bar d]=1$. Therefore the third inclusion in (\[e:Remark\]) is strict.
Let us show that no element of order $3$ centralizes $\bar a\bar c$. Let $\bar g$ be an element of $G$ of order $3$. Without loss of generality, we may assume that $\bar g$ does not normalize any subgroup of order $4$ in $H$. Moreover, we may assume that $\bar a^{\bar g}=\bar b$. Suppose that $(\bar a\bar c)^{\bar g}=\bar a\bar c$. Hence $(\bar b\bar a^{-1})(\bar c^{\bar g}\bar c^{-1})=1$, but $ba^{-1}$ is an element of order $4$ in $H$ and its product with any $2$-element $k$ of $K$ is again an element of order $4$. Therefore $\bar b\bar a^{-1}\bar k$ is never equal to $1$. Hence $\bar g$ does not centralize $\bar a\bar c$.
Thus all inclusions in (\[e:Remark\]) are strict and the $c$-dimension of $H\circ K$ is at least $5$ (direct calculations show that it is exactly $5$).
For a finite group $G$, we define a non-negative integer $\lambda(G)$ as follows. First, let $G$ be a nonabelian simple group. If $G$ is a group of Lie type, then $\lambda(G)$ is the minimum of Lie ranks of groups of Lie type isomorphic to $G$ (the Lie rank is the rank of the corresponding $(B,N)$-pair [@Asch page 249]). If $G$ is an alternating group, then let $\lambda(G)$ be the degree of $G$ (except for the groups $A_5$, $A_6$ and $A_8$ which are isomorphic to groups of Lie type and, therefore, already have assigned values of $\lambda(G)$). Put $\lambda(G)=1$ for the sporadic groups. Now if $G$ is an arbitrary finite group, then $\lambda(G)$ is the sum of $\lambda(S)$ where $S$ runs over the nonabelian composition factors of $G$.
Recall that the $p$-rank of a group $G$ for a given prime $p$ is the largest rank of elementary abelian $p$-subgroups of $G$.
\[l:ElemAbelian\] Let $r\in\{2,3,5\}$. There exist a constant $c>0$ such that the $r$-rank of any nonabelian finite simple group $G$ whose order is divisible by $r$ is at least $c\lambda(G)$.
For the sporadic groups, there is nothing to prove. In the case of alternating groups, this fact is obvious. In the case of groups of Lie type, it follows, for example, from [@83GorLyo Part I, 10-6].
\[l:NumberOfPrimeDivisors\] Let $G$ be a finite simple group of Lie type. The number of distinct prime divisors of the order of $G$ is at least $\lambda(G)$.
Lemma follows from formulas for orders of groups of Lie type [@Asch Table 16.1] and the well-known Zsigmondy theorem [@Zs].
Denote by $\mu(G)$ the degree of the minimal faithful permutation representation of a finite group $G$.
\[DegBySolRad\][[@Holt Theorem 2]]{} Let $G$ be a finite group. Let $\mathfrak{L}$ be a class of finite groups closed under taking subgroups, homomorphic images and extensions. Let $N$ be the $\mathfrak{L}$-radical of $G$, that is the maximal normal $\mathfrak{L}$-subgroup of $G$. Then $\mu(G)\geqslant\mu(G/N)$.
\[DirProdSimple\][[@Praeger Theorem 3.1]]{} Let $S_1$, $S_2$, $\dots$, $S_r$ be simple groups. Then $\mu(S_1\times S_2\times\dots\times S_r)=\mu(S_1)+\mu(S_2)+\dots+\mu(S_r)$.
\[l:MinPermPres\] If $S$ is a finite nonabelian simple group, then $\mu(S)\geqslant \lambda(S)$.
For alternating and sporadic groups, the assertion is obvious. If $S$ is a group of Lie type having a faithful permutation representation of degree $n$, then the number of prime divisors of $|S|$ is less than $n$ and, by Lemma \[l:NumberOfPrimeDivisors\], is not less than $\lambda(S)$.
Note that Lemma \[l:MinPermPres\] can also be deduced from the information on the values of $\mu(S)$ for finite simple groups $S$ of Lie type which are all known (the complete list of these numbers can be found, for example, in [@GMPS Table 4]).
\[CompFactorSn\] If $G$ is a subgroup of the symmetric group $\operatorname{Sym}_n$, then ${\lambda(G)<5n/4}$.
Proceed by induction on $|G|$. If the soluble radical $R$ of $G$ is non-trivial, then Lemma \[DegBySolRad\] implies that $G/R$ is also a subgroup of $\operatorname{Sym}_n$ and the inequality follows by induction.
Let $R$ be trivial. If the socle $\operatorname{Soc}(G)$ of $G$ is the direct product of nonabelian simple groups $S_1$, $S_2$, $\dots$, $S_l$, then $G$ is a subgroup of the semidirect product of ${\operatorname{Aut}}(S_1)\times {\operatorname{Aut}}(S_2)\times\dots\times {\operatorname{Aut}}(S_l)$ and some subgroup of $\operatorname{Sym}_l$. Lemmas \[DirProdSimple\] and \[l:MinPermPres\] imply that $\lambda(\operatorname{Soc}(G))\leqslant n$. Since $\mu(S)\geqslant 5$ for every finite simple group $S$, it follows from Lemma \[DirProdSimple\] that $l\leqslant n/5$. By the Schreier conjecture, the natural homomorphism from $G/\operatorname{Soc}(G)$ to $\operatorname{Sym}_l$ has soluble kernel. By inductive hypothesis $\lambda(G/\operatorname{Soc}(G))\leqslant 5l/4\leqslant n/4$. Finally, we have $$\lambda(G)=\lambda(\operatorname{Soc}(G))+\lambda(G/\operatorname{Soc}(G))\leqslant n+n/4=5n/4.$$
\[l:NumberOfCompFactors\][[@13ButVas Proposition 2.1]]{} If $G$ is a finite group of $c$-dimension $k$, then the number of nonabelian composition factors of $G$ is less than $5k$.
The following lemma is a direct consequence of [@Khukhro Theorem 1].
\[l:KhukhroTh\] If a periodic locally soluble group $G$ has finite $c$-dimension $k$, then the quotient $G/F_2(G)$ has an abelian subgroup of finite $k$-bounded index. In particular, the order of $G/F_3(G)$ is $k$-bounded.
[ **. Counterexamlpes to the Borovik–Khukhro conjecture**]{}
Denote by $\Omega(n)$ the number of prime divisors of a positive integer $n$ counting multiplicities, i.e. if $n=p_1^{\alpha_1}\cdots p_m^{\alpha_m}$ for primes $p_1,\dots,p_m$, then $$\Omega(n)={\alpha_1}+\cdots +{\alpha_m}.$$
For positive integers $n$ and $M$, we set $$\pi_{n,M}=\{r\mid r \text{ is an odd prime and } \Omega(r^n-1)\leqslant M\}.$$ It is clear that the following inclusions hold for every $n$: $$\label{e5}
\pi_{n,1}\subseteq\pi_{n,2}\subseteq\pi_{n,3}\subseteq\dots.$$ A crucial ingredient in constructing our counterexamples is the following number-theoretical statement.
\[p:NumberTheory\] [[@AST Theorem C]]{} For every positive integer $n$, there exists a positive integer $M$ such that $\pi_{n,M}$ is infinite.
Given $n$, put $$M_n=\min\{M\mid \pi_{n,M}\text{ is infinite}\}\,\,\,\,\text{ and }\,\,\,\, \pi_n=\pi_{n,M_n}.$$ Thus $\pi_n$ is the first infinite set in the chain (\[e5\]).
Fix a positive integer $n$ and an odd prime $r$. Denote by $$R_{n,r} \text{ an extra special group of order } r^{2n+1} \text{ and of exponent } r.$$ It is known that $\operatorname{Aut}(R_{n,r})$ is split over $\operatorname{Inn}(R_{n,r})$ [@Griess p. 404] and the image in $\operatorname{Out}(R_{n,r})$ of the centralizer in $\operatorname{Aut}(R_{n,r})$ of $Z(R_{n,r})$ is isomorphic to the symplectic group $Sp_{2n}(r)$ [@Asch ex. 8.5, p. 116]. Hence $\operatorname{Aut}(R_{n,r})$ contains a subgroup $$A_{n,r}\cong Sp_{2n}(r)$$ which centralizes $Z(R_{n,r})$. We can form the natural semidirect product $$X_{n,r}=R_{n,r}A_{n,r}.$$
Take a prime $p$ with $p\equiv 1\pmod r$. It is known [@KL p. 151] that $R_{n,r}$ has a faithful irreducible representation of degree $r^n$ over the field $\mathbb{F}_p$ of order $p$. Moreover, this representation extends to a faithful representation of $X_{n,r}$ [@AlF (3A) and (3B)]. Denote by $$V_{n,r}\text{ a faithful irreducible } \mathbb{F}_pX_{n,r}\text{-module of dimension } r^n$$ corresponding to this representaion and form the natural semidirect product $$G_{n,r}=V_{n,r}X_{n,r}.$$
The following statement lists some basic properties of $G_{n,r}$ which can be easily deduced from the definition of this group.
\[p:ConstructionOfCounterexample\]
- $F(G_{n,r})=V_{n,r}$;
- $F^*(G_{n,r}/V_{n,r})=F(G_{n,r}/V_{n,r})=R_{n,r}$;
- $G_{n,r}/R_{n,r}\cong A_{n,r}\cong Sp_{2n}(r)$.
For a positive integer $n$, put $$\overline n= 2\operatorname{lcm}(1,2,\dots,n) \text{ and }
\mathscr{G}_n=\left\{G_{n,r}\mid r\in\pi_{\overline{n}}\right\}.$$ Observe that by definition the set $\mathscr{G}_n$ is infinite.
\[t:counterexample1\] For an arbitrary positive integer $n$, the $c$-dimension of every group in $\mathscr{G}_n$ does not exceed $$\label{e6}
2\left((n+1)^2+nM_{\overline{n}}\right).$$
Take $G=G_{n,r}\in\mathscr{G}_n$. By definition we have $r\in\pi_{\overline{n}}$ and hence $$\Omega(r^{\overline{n}}-1)\leqslant M_{\overline{n}}.$$ The Lagrange theorem implies that the length of every chain of nested subgroups in $X_{n,r}$ does not exceed $l=\Omega(|X_{n,r}|)$. Since $$|X_{n,r}|=|R_{n,r}||A_{n,r}|=r^{2n+1}|Sp_{2n}(r)|=r^{(n+1)^2}\prod\limits_{i=1}^n(r^{2i}-1)$$ and $r^{2i}-1$ divides $r^{\overline{n}}-1$ for every $i=1,\dots,n$, we have $$l= (n+1)^2+\sum\limits_{i=1}^n\Omega(r^{2i}-1)\leqslant (n+1)^2+n\Omega(r^{\overline{n}}-1)\leqslant (n+1)^2+nM_{\overline{n}}.$$ Now the theorem follows from Lemma \[l:c-dimensionOfSemidirectProduct\].
Let us prove Theorem \[t:ConjIsFalse\]. Assume that the statement $(2)$ of the Borovik–Khukhro conjecture is true. Fix a positive integer $n$ and consider the set $\mathscr{G}_n$. Theorem \[t:counterexample1\] implies that the $c$-dimensions of groups in $\mathscr{G}_n$ are bounded by the number given in (\[e6\]). Hence every group $G_{n,r}/R_{n,r}\cong Sp_{2n}(r)$ for $r\in\pi_{\overline n}$ contains a (proper) abelian subgroup of index bounded in terms of $n$, and, therefore, a normal abelian subgroup of bounded index. But there is a unique maximal proper normal subgroup of $Sp_{2n}(r)$ which is its center of order $2$ whose index grows as $r$ increases. This contradiction completes the proof of Theorem \[t:ConjIsFalse\].
Theorem \[t:ConjIsFalse\] implies that there exists a positive integer $k$ such that the second part of the Borovik–Khukhro conjecture fails for the finite groups of $c$-dimension $k$. On the other hand, the description of finite groups of $c$-dimension $2$ [@Schmidt Theorem 9.3.12] yields that the full version of the conjecture holds for these groups. So it is natural to ask for which minimal value of the $c$-dimension the Borovik–Khukhro conjecture is false. We already know that $3$ is a lower bound for this number and we do not know any better lower bound. Let us obtain an upper bound by bounding $M_2$.
Recall that $M_2$ is the smallest $M$ such that there exist an infinite number of prime numbers $r$ satisfying $\Omega(r^2-1)\leqslant M.$
Since $r^2-1$ is divisible by $24$ for $r>3$, it is clear that $\Omega(r^2-1)\geqslant 6$ for sufficiently large $r$, and therefore $M_2\geqslant 6$. There is a question attributed to P. Neumann [@Solomon p. 316] asking whether the number of prime numbers $r$ such that the order of $PSL_2(r)$ is a product of six prime numbers is infinite. Since $$\Omega(r^2-1)=\Omega(|PSL_2(r)|),$$ the positive answer to this question would imply that $M_2=6$ and the $c$-dimensions of groups of $\mathscr{G}_1$ would not exceed $2\cdot(2^2+6)=20$.
The affirmative answer to Neumann’s question would follow from the validity of Dickson’s conjecture (the $k$-tuple conjecture) [@Dickson]. This conjecture states that for a finite set of integer linear forms $a_1n+b_1,\dots, a_kn+b_k$ with $a_i>0$, there are infinitely many positive integers $n$ such that all these forms are simultaneously prime unless there are fixed divisors of their product. Equivalently $$\Omega\left(\prod\limits_{i=1}^k(a_in+b_i)\right)=k$$ for infinitely many integer values of $n$. If Dickson’s conjecture is valid for the triplet $12n+1$, $6n+1$ and $n$, then there are infinitely many primes $r$ of the form $r=12n+1$ such that $n$ and $6n+1$ are also primes and $$\Omega(r^2-1)=\Omega(12n\cdot (12n+2))=\Omega(2^3\cdot 3\cdot n\cdot (6n+1))=6.$$ Both Dickson’s and Neumann’s conjectures provide an exact value of $M_2$, but for our purposes a partial result might be satisfactory. There are well developed sieve methods that allow to obtain partial results for this kind of statements (see [@Sieve] for details). For example, the main result of [@Maynard] is very close to what is required. In this paper, J.Maynard proved that for any triplet of the forms $a_in+b_i$, $i=1,2,3$, without fixed divisors of their product, there are infinitely many positive integer values of $n$ such that $$\Omega\left(\prod\limits_{i=1}^3(a_in+b_i)\right)\leq 7.$$ In particular, there are an infinite number of integer values of $n$ such that the product $n\cdot(6n+1)\cdot(12n+1)$ has at most seven prime divisors, and, therefore, there are infinitely many integers $m$ such that $\Omega(m(m^2-1))\leq 11$. Unfortunately, one cannot guarantee the primality of $m$ in this result. Nevertheless in a private letter, J. Maynard expressed confidence that one can show that there are an infinite number of primes $r$ such that $\Omega(r(r^2-1))\leq 11$, or equivalently $\Omega(r^2-1)\leq 10$, by slightly changing his proof. This would mean that the $c$-dimensions of groups in $\mathscr{G}_1$ do not exceed $28$.
Proposition \[p:NumberTheory\], which is also proved in [@AST] by using sieve methods, has the following refinement [@AST Corollary 4.2]: there are infinitely many primes $r$ such that $\Omega(r^2-1)\leq 21$. This statement implies that $M_2\leq 21$, and, therefore, the following is a consequence of Theorem \[t:counterexample1\].
The $c$-dimensions of groups in $\mathscr{G}_1$ do not exceed $50$.
It is clear that the number $p$ in the construction of the module $V_{1,r}$ can be chosen in such a way that $p$ would not divide $|X_{1,r}|$. With this choice, one can apply the description of subgroups in $SL_2(r)\cong Sp_2(r)\cong A_{1,r}$, the character table of this group and results of [@Isaacs1] to calculate the character of the representation of $X_{1,r}$, which corresponds to the module $V_{1,r}$, and use it to calculate the precise value of $c$-dimension of $G_{1,r}$.
[ **. Proof of Theorem \[t:3Fitting\]**]{}
Throughout the rest of the paper $G$ denotes a finite group and $k$ denotes its $c$-dimension. The function $\lambda$ was defined in Section 1. We start by bounding the value of $\lambda$ on the layer $E(G)$ of $G$.
\[l:Quasisimple\] There exists a universal constant $b$ such that ${\lambda(E(G))\leqslant b\cdot k}$ for every $G$.
Since the $c$-dimension of a subgroup does not exceed the $c$-dimension of the group, we may assume that $G=E(G)$. By Lemma \[l:CentralProduct\], we may suppose that $G$ is quasisimple. Denote by $\overline{\phantom{g}}$ the natural homomorphism from $G$ to $G/Z(G)$. Observe that if $\overline G$ is a sporadic group, a group of Lie type of bounded Lie rank, or an alternating group of bounded degree, then we can choose $b$ being large enough to make the proposition trivial in these cases. So we may assume that $\overline G$ is either an alternating group whose degree is large enough, or a classical group whose Lie rank is large enough.
Let us find a prime divisor $r$ of the order of $\overline G$ possessing the following two properties. First, it is coprime to the order of the center $Z(G)$. Second, the maximal length $l$ of a chain of nested centralizers of subsets of $r$-elements is bounded from below by a linear function of $\lambda(G)$. Assume that such $r$ is determined. It is clear that every subset of $r$-elements of $\overline G$ can be presented in the form $\overline{M}$ for some subset $M$ of $G$ also consisting of $r$-elements. Let $$M_1\subset M_2\subset\dots\subset M_l\subset G$$ be a chain of subsets of $r$-elements such that $$C_{\overline G}(\overline M_1)>C_{\overline G}(\overline M_2)>\dots>C_{\overline G}(\overline M_l).$$ By the properties of coprime action, $C_{\overline G}(\overline{M_i})=\overline{C_G(M_i)}$. Hence $$C_{G}(M_1)>C_{G}(M_2)>\dots>C_{G}(M_l).$$ Therefore $l$ is at most the $c$-dimension of $G$. Since it is bounded from below by a linear function of $\lambda(G)$, the proposition follows. Now it remains to determine such $r$ for every $G$.
Consider the condition that $r$ does not divide the order of $Z(G)$. Every prime divisor of the order of $Z(G)$ is a prime divisor of the order of the Schur multiplier $M(\overline G)$ of $\overline G$. The orders of Schur multipliers of all finite simple groups can be found in [@GLS Section 6.1]. Due to these results, if $M(\overline G)$ is not a $\{2, 3\}$-group, then $\overline G$ is isomorphic to $A_n(q)$ or $^2A_n(q)$ and any prime divisor of the order of $M(\overline G)$ divides $6(q^2-1)$. So $r$ should be chosen subject to these restrictions.
Consider the second condition on $r$, that is a linear bound on maximal length of a chain of centralizers of $r$-elements. If $G$ is an alternating group $\operatorname{Alt}_n$, then $r$ can be chosen to be $5$. For $1\leqslant i\leqslant \frac{n}{5}$, we can choose nested sets $M_i$ consisting of $i$ disjoint $5$-cycles. Their centralizers form a strict chain whose length exceeds $\frac{n}{5}-1$. By definition of $\lambda$, this gives $\frac{\lambda(G)}{5}-1$ as a lower bound for $l$.
Let $\overline G$ be a classical group over a field of order $q$. According to [@Carter Propositions 7–12], group $\overline G$ contains a subgroup isomorphic to a central product of quasisimple subgroups $H_1$, $\dots$, $H_s$ where every $H_i$ is a group of Lie type $A_3$ or ${}^2A_3$ over a field of order $q$. Moreover, the number $s$ of these factors is at least $\frac{\lambda(G)-6}{4}$. By the Zsigmondy theorem, there exists an element $h_i$ of $H_i$ of order coprime to $6(q^2-1)$. Hence $h_i$ is not central in $H_i$. Therefore, $$C_{\overline G}(h_1)>C_{\overline G}(h_1, h_2)>\dots>C_{\overline G}(h_1, h_2,\dots, h_s),$$ and we found a strict series of centralizers of subsets of $r$-elements whose length is at least $\frac{\lambda(G)-6}{4}$. The proposition is proved.
\[l:CommonRank\] There exists a universal constant $d$ such that $\lambda(G)\leqslant d\cdot k$ for every $G$.
Let $R$ be the soluble radical of $G$. If $P$ is a Sylow subgroup of $R$, then $G/R \cong N_G(P)/(R\cap N_G(P))$. So nonabelian composition factors of $N_G(P)$ and $G$ coincide. Furthermore, the $c$-dimension of $N_G(P)$ as a subgroup of $G$ is at most $k$. Therefore, we may assume that $R$ is the Fitting subgroup of $G$.
Put $\overline{G}=G/R$. Let $l$ be the number of nonabelian composition factors of the socle $\overline{L}$ of $\overline{G}$ (note that $\overline{L}$ is the direct product of nonabelian simple groups). The quotient $\overline{G}/\overline{L}$ is an extension of a soluble group by a subgroup of the symmetric group $\operatorname{Sym}_l$. Lemma \[l:NumberOfCompFactors\] implies that the number $l$ is less than $5k$. Hence $\lambda(\overline G/\overline L)<25k/4$ by Lemma \[CompFactorSn\]. Thus it is sufficient to show that $\lambda(\overline L)\leqslant d'\cdot k$ for some $d'$. In particular, we may assume that $G$ coincides with the full inverse image of $\overline{L}$ in $G$.
Define $\mathcal F$ to be the set of nonabelian composition factors of $C_G(R)$. For a prime $p$, denote by $\mathcal F_p$ the set of nonabelian composition factors of $G/C_G(O_{p'}(R))$ whose order is divisible by $p$ (here $O_{p'}(R)$ stands for the maximal $p'$-subgroup of $R$). By the Feit–Thompson theorem [@FT] and the Thompson–Glauberman theorem [@Glauberman Chapter II, Corollary 7.3], the order of every finite nonabelian simple group is divisible by $2$ and is not coprime to $15$. Since $R=O_{p'}(R)O_{q'}(R)$ for distinct primes $p$ and $q$, we have $C_G(O_{p'}(R))\cap C_G(O_{q'}(R))=C_G(R)$. Therefore, each nonabelian composition factor of $G$ is contained in $\mathcal F\cup \mathcal F_2\cup \mathcal F_3\cup \mathcal F_5$. So to prove the proposition, it is sufficient to to bound the sum of values of $\lambda$ in each of these four sets by a linear function in $k$.
Put $K=C_G(R)$. Since $\overline{K}=KR/R$ is normal in $\overline{G}$, it is a direct product of elements of $\mathcal F$. Take $\overline S$ in $\mathcal F$. Denote by $S$ the full inverse image of $\overline S$ in $K$. Then $S^{(\infty)}$, that is the least term in the derived series of $S$, is a perfect central extension of $\overline S$ which is normal in $K$, so it is a component of $K$. Therefore, all elements of $\mathcal F$ are composition factors of the layer $E(K)$. Since $E(K)$ is a subgroup of $E(G)$, the number $\lambda(K)$ is bounded by $b\cdot k$ for some constant $b$ due to Proposition \[l:Quasisimple\].
Put $K_p=G/C_G(O_{p'}(R))$ for $p\in\{2, 3, 5\}$. It is clear that $K_p$ is an extension of a direct product of some nonabelian composition factors of $G$ by a nilpotent $p'$-group. By the definition, $K_p$ acts faithfully on $O_{p'}(R)$, and so does its Sylow $p$-subgroup $P$. Group $P$ is the direct product of Sylow $p$-subgroups of elements of $\mathcal F_p$. By Lemma \[l:ElemAbelian\], $P$ contains an elementary abelian $p$-group whose rank is bounded from below by $c\sum_{S\in\mathcal{F}_p} \lambda(S)$ for some positive constant $c$. It follows from Lemma \[LemmaKhukhro\] that $c\sum_{S\in\mathcal{F}_p} \lambda(S)\leqslant k$.
Finally, $\lambda(G)\leqslant 3k/c+b\cdot k$ as required.
Now we are ready to finish the proof of Theorem \[t:3Fitting\]. Put $\overline G=G/F_3(G)$. Let $\overline F^*$ be the generalized Fitting subgroup of $\overline G$. The quotient $\overline G/\overline F^*$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of the group of outer automorphisms $\operatorname{Out}(\overline F^*)$ of $F^*$. The latter is a subgroup of the direct product of $\operatorname{Out}(F(\overline G))$ and $\operatorname{Out}(E(\overline G))$. By Lemma \[l:KhukhroTh\], the order of $F(\overline G)$ and, therefore, the order of $\operatorname{Out}(F(\overline G))$ is bounded in terms of $k$. Hence it is sufficient to prove that $\operatorname{Out}(E(\overline G))$ contains an abelian subgroup of $k$-bounded index.
If $E(\overline G)$ is a product of components $Q_1$, $Q_2$, $\dots$, $Q_s$, then $\operatorname{Out}(E(G))$ is a subgroup of a semidirect product of $\operatorname{Out}(Q_1)\times \operatorname{Out}(Q_2)\times\dots\times \operatorname{Out}(Q_s)$ and some subgroup of $\operatorname{Sym}_s$. According to Lemma \[l:NumberOfCompFactors\], the number $s$ is bounded in terms of $k$, therefore, it is sufficient to prove that the direct product of the outer automorphism groups of the components possesses an abelian subgroup of $k$-bounded index. Group $\operatorname{Out}(Q_i)$ is a subgroup of the outer automorphism group of the corresponding simple group $S_i=Q_i/Z(Q_i)$ [@GLS Corollary 5.1.4]. If $S_i$ is an alternating or sporadic group, then the order of $\operatorname{Out}(S_i)$ is at most $4$. If $S_i$ is a group of Lie type, then the index of the cyclic subgroup of field automorphisms in $\operatorname{Out}(S_i)$ is bounded in terms of Lie rank of $S_i$ [@GLS Theorems 2.5.1 and 2.5.12]. Due to Proposition \[l:CommonRank\], the Lie rank of every $S_i$ is bounded in terms of $k$. Define $A_i$ to be trivial, if $S_i$ is not a group of Lie type, and the group of field automorphisms of $S_i$ otherwise. The index of the direct product $A_1\times\dots\times A_s$ in $\operatorname{Out}(S_1)\times\dots\times \operatorname{Out}(S_s)$ is $k$-bounded by above arguments,. This completes the proof of the theorem.
Observe that since the group $\overline G/\operatorname{Soc}(\overline G)$ is a homomorphic image of the quotient group of $G/F_3(G)$ by its layer, the following is an immediate consequence of Theorem 2.
\[t:solubleRadical\] Let $G$ be a finite group of $c$-dimension $k$ and $R$ be its soluble radical. Put $\overline G=G/R$. Then the group $\overline G/\operatorname{Soc}(\overline G)$ contains an abelian subgroup of $k$-bounded index.
**Acknowledgments**
The research was supported by RSF (project N 14-21-00065).
[100]{}
*K.Alladi, R.Solomon, A.Turull*, Finite simple groups of bounded subgroup chain length, J. Algebra, **231** (2000), 374–386.
*J.L.Alperin, P.Fong*, Weights for symmetric and general linear groups, Journal of Algebra, **131** (1990), 2–22.
*M.Aschbacher*, Finite group theory. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1986.
*R.Bryant,* Groups with the minimal condition on centralizers, J. Algebra, **60** (1979), 371–383.
*R.Bryant, B.Hartley,* Periodic locally soluble groups with the minimal condition on centralizers, J. Algebra, **61** (1979), 328–334.
*A. A.Buturlakin, A. V.Vasil’ev,* Locally finite groups with bounded centralizer chains, Algebra and Logic, **52**, No. 5 (2012), 367–-370.
*R.W.Carter*, Centralizers of semisimple elements in the finite classical group, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., III. Ser., **42**, No. 1 (1981), 1–41.
*L.E.Dickson*, A new extension of Dirichlet’s theorem on prime numbers, Messenger of mathematics, **33** (1904) 155–161.
*A.J.Duncan, I.V.Kazatchkov, V.N.Remeslennikov*, Centraliser dimension and universal classes of groups, Siberian Electronic Math. Reports, **3** (2006), 197–-215.
*D.Easdown, C.E.Praeger*, On minimal faithful permutation representations of finite groups, Bulletin Australian Mathematical Society, **38**(1988), 207–220.
*W.Feit, J.G.Thompson*, Solvability of groups of odd order, Pacific J. Math. **13**, No. 3 (1963).
*G.Glauberman*, Factorization in local subgroups of finite groups. Conf. Ser. Math., 33, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1976.
*D.Gorenstein, R.Lyons*, The local structure of finite groups of characteristic $2$ type, Mem. Am. Math. Soc., **42**, No. 276 (1983).
*D.Gorenstein, R.Lyons, R.Solomon*, The classification of the finite simple groups. No. 3, Part I, Chapter A: Almost simple K-groups (Mathematical Surveys and Monographs, **40**, No.3). Providence, RI: Amer. Math Soc., 1998.
*R.Griess*, Automorphisms of extra special groups and nonvanishing degree $2$ cohomology, Pacific J. Math., **48** (1973), 403–411.
*S.Guest, J.Morris, C.E.Praeger, P.Spiga*, On the maximum orders of elements of finite almost simple groups and primitive permutation groups, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., **367**, No. 11 (2015), 7665–7694.
*H.Halberstam, H.E.Richert*, Sieve methods. Academic Press, London/New York/San Francisco, 1974.
*D.F.Holt*, Representing quotients of permutation groups, Quarterly Journal of Mathematics, **48**, No. 2 (1997), 347–350.
*M.I.Isaacs*, Characters of solvable and symplectic groups, Amer. J. Math., **95** (1973), 594–635.
*M.I.Isaacs*, Finite group theory. Amer. Math. Soc.: Providence, Rhode Island, 2008.
*E.I.Khukhro*, On solubility of groups with bounded centralizer chains, Glasgow Math. J., **51** (2009), 49–54.
*P.B.Kleidman, M.W.Liebeck*, The subgroup structure of finite classical groups. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990.
*J.A.Maynard*, $3$-tuples have at most $7$ prime factors infinitely often, Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., **155**, No. 3 (2013), 443–457.
*A.Myasnikov, P.Shumyatsky*, Discriminating groups and $c$-dimension, J. Group Theory, **7** (2004), 135–142.
*R.Schmidt*, Subgroup lattices of groups. De Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics, **14**. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 1994.
*R.Solomon*, A brief history of the classification of the finite simple groups, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (New Ser.), **38**, No. 3 (2001), 315–352.
*K.Zsigmondy*, Zur Theorie der Potenzreste, Monatsh. Math. Phys., **3** (1892), 265–284.
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/239714/number-of-prime-divisors-of-p2-1-for-a-prime-p.
[^1]: Here and further, $H<K$ denotes the strict inclusion, that is $H\leqslant K$ and $H\neq K$.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The proof is presented that the Poincar'' e symmetry determines the equations of motion for massless particles of any spin in $2n$-dimensional spaces, which are linear in the momentum: $(W^a=\alpha p^a)|\Phi\rangle$, with $W^a$ the generalized Pauli-Ljubanski vector.'
address:
- 'Faculty of Mathematics and Physics, University of Ljubljana, Jadranska 19, Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia'
- 'Primorska Institute for Natural Sciences and Technology, C. Marežganskega upora 2, Koper 6000, Slovenia'
author:
- Bojan Gornik
- Norma Mankoč Borštnik
title: Massless particles of any spin obey linear equations of motion
---
,
Poincar' e symmetry ,equations of motion 11.10.Kk,11.30.Cp
Introduction
============
All theories with $d > 4$ have to answer the question why Nature has made a choice of four-dimensional subspace with one time and three space coordinates and with the particular choice of charges beside the spin degree of freedom for either fermions or bosons. One of us and Nielsen [@mankocnielsen00; @mankocnielsen01] has prooved that in $d$-dimensional spaces, with even $d$, the spin degrees of freedom require $q$ time and $(d-q)$ space dimensions, with $q$ which has to be odd. Accordingly in four-dimensional space Nature could only make a choice of the Minkowsky metric. This proof was made under the assumption that equations of motion are for massless fields of any spin linear in the $d$-momentum $p^a,\; a = 0,1,2,3,5,\ldots,d$. (In addition, also the Hermiticity of the equation of motion operator as well as that this operator operates within an irreducible representation of the Lorentz group was required.) Our experiences tell us that equations of motion of all known massless fields are linear in the four-momentum $p^a,
\; a = 0,1,2,3.$ We are refering to the Dirac equation of motion for massless spinor fields and the Maxwell or Maxwell-like equations of motion for massless bosonic fields. One of us together with A. Borštnik [@mankoc92; @mankoc93; @mankoc99; @mankocborstnik98] has shown that the Weyl-like equations exist not only for fermions but also for bosons. For four dimensional space-time Wigner [@wigner] classified the representations of the Poincar' e group, connecting them with particles. The classification of representations can also be found in Weinberg [@weinberg2], for example. According to these classifications, equations of motion follow, when constraining a solution space to a certain Poincar' e group representation. For spinors this leads to the Dirac equation and for vectors to the Maxwell equations [@fonda].
The aim of this paper is to briefly present the proof (the detailed version is presented in Ref. [@gornikmankoc]) that in even dimensional spaces, for any $d=2n$, free massless fields $|\Phi\rangle$ ( $(p^a p_a = 0)\; |\Phi\rangle,\quad a= 0,1,2,3,5,\ldots,2n$) of any spin satisfy equations of motion which are linear in the $d$-momentum $p^a = (p^0, \overrightarrow{p})$ $$\begin{aligned}
(W^a &=& \alpha p^a)\;|\Phi\rangle, \quad a = 0,1,2,3,5,\dots,d,
\nonumber\\
\quad {\rm with } \quad \alpha &=& - \rho 2^{n-1} (n-1)! (l_{n-1}+n-2)\ldots (l_2 + 1) l_1
\label{meq}\end{aligned}$$ and guarantee the validity of the equation $(p^a p_a = 0)\; |\Phi\rangle$.
In Eq. (\[meq\]) the operators $S^{ab}$ are the generators of the Lorentz group $SO(1, d-1)$ in internal space, which is the space of spin degrees of freedom. Parameters $l_1, \ldots, l_n$ are eigenvalues of the operators of the Cartan (Eq.(\[cartan\])) subalgebra of the algebra of the group $SO(1, d-1)$ on the maximal weight state (\[domweight\]) of an irreducible representation. Vector $W^a$ is the generalized Pauli-Ljubanski [@mankoc93] $d$-vector $$\begin{aligned}
W^a := \rho \,\varepsilon^{ab}{ }_{a_1 a_2\ldots a_{d-3}a_{d-2}} p_b S^{a_1 a_2}\ldots
S^{a_{d-3}a_{d-2}}.
\label{pauliljub}\end{aligned}$$ The value of $\rho$ is irrelevant in the equations of motion (\[meq\]) since it cancels out. It becomes relevant with the introduction of $d-1$ vector [@mankocnielsen00; @mankocnielsen01] $$S^i := \rho \,\varepsilon^{0i}{ }_{a_1a_2 \ldots a_{d-3} a_{d-2}}
S^{a_1a_2} \ldots S^{a_{d-3}a_{d-2}}.
\label{svector}$$ We choose the value of $\rho$ in such a way that $S^i$ has eigenvalues independent of dimension $d$ and with values familiar from four dimensions. For spinors, which are determined by Eqs.(\[spinor\]) or equivalently by $1/2 = l_n = \ldots = l_2 = \pm l_1$ we have $$\alpha = \pm \frac{1}{2},\quad \rho = \frac{2^{n-2}}{(2n-2)!}
\nonumber$$ and for vector fields with $1 = l_n = \ldots = l_2 = \pm l_1$ we have $$\alpha = \pm 1,\quad \rho = \frac{1}{2^{n-1}(n-1)!^2}.
\nonumber$$
The proof is made only for fields with no gauge symmetry and with a nonzero value of the [*handedness*]{} operator [@mankoc93; @mankoc99] $\Gamma^{(int)}$ $$\begin{aligned}
\Gamma^{(int)}: &=& \beta \,\varepsilon_{a_1 a_2 \ldots a_{d-1}a_d} S^{a_1 a_2} \ldots
S^{a_{d-1}a_d},
\nonumber\\
\beta &=& \frac{i}{2^n n! (l_n+n-1)\ldots(l_2+1)l_1}, \quad d=2n,
\label{gamaint}\end{aligned}$$ which commutes with all the generators of the Poincar' e group. We choose $\beta$ so that $\Gamma^{(int)} = \pm 1$ on representations with nonzero handedness. For spinors (Eq.(\[spinor\])) $\beta=(2^n i)/(2n)!$, while for vector fields it is $\beta =i/(2^n (n!)^2)$.
We prove that for spinors in $d$-dimensional space Eq.(\[meq\]) is equivalent to the equation $$(\Gamma^{(int)} p^0 = \frac{1}{|\alpha|} \;\overrightarrow{S}\cdot \overrightarrow{p})|\Phi\rangle.
\label{meq1}$$ with $1/|\alpha|$ equal to $2$ for any $d=2n$ while for a general spin Eq.(\[meq\]) may impose additional conditions on the field.
We recognize the generators $S^{ab}$ to be of the spinorial character, if they fulfil the relation $$\{S^{ab}, S^{ac}\} = \frac{1}{2} \; \eta^{aa}\; \eta^{bc}, \;\;{\rm no\;\; summation\;\; over\;\; a},
\label{spinor}$$ with $\{A,B\} = AB + BA $.
In this paper the metric is, independantly of the dimension, assumed to be the Minkowsky metric with $\eta^{ab}= \delta^{ab} (-1)^A, \;A= 0\; {\rm for}\; a=0 \;{\rm and}\; A=1$, otherwise.
We present the proof in steps introducing only the very needed quantities and assuming that the reader can find the rest in text-books, as well as in Ref. [@gornikmankoc].
Irreducible representations of the Lorentz group
================================================
We denote an irreducible representation of the Lorentz group $SO(1, d-1)$ by the weight of the dominant weight state of the representation [@giorgi]. The Lie algebra of $SO(1, d-1)$ is spanned by the generators $S^{ab}$, which satisfy the commutation relations $
[S^{ab}, S^{cd}] =
i(\eta^{ad} \; S^{bc} + \eta^{bc} \; S^{ad} - \eta^{ac} \; S^{bd} -
\eta^{bd}\; S^{ac}).$ We choose the $n$ commuting operators of the Lorentz group $SO(1,d-1)$ as follows $$-i S^{0 d}, S^{1 2}, S^{3 5}, \ldots, S^{d-2 \; d-1}
\label{cartan}$$ and call them ${C}_0, { C}_1, { C}_2, \ldots, { C}_{n-1}\;$ respectively. We say that a state $|\Phi_w\rangle$ has the weight $(w_0, w_1, w_2, \ldots, w_{n-1})$ if the following equations hold $${ C}_j|\Phi_w\rangle = w_j|\Phi_w\rangle,\quad j=0,1,\ldots,n-1.
\label{weight}$$ According to the definition of the operators (Eq.(\[cartan\])), weight components $w_0, w_1, w_2, \ldots, w_{n-1}$ are always real numbers.
We introduce in a standard way [@matematika] the raising and the lowering operators $$E_{j k}(\lambda, \mu) := \frac{1}{2}((-i)^{\delta_{j 0}} S^{j_- k_-} + i\lambda S^{j_+ k_-}
- i^{1+\delta_{j 0}}\mu S^{j_- k_+} - \lambda \mu S^{j_+ k_+} ),
\label{raislow}$$ with $0\le j<k\le n-1,\,\, \lambda,\mu=\pm 1\;$ and $\;0_- = 0, \;0_+ = d,\; 1_- = 1,\; 1_+ = 2,
\; 2_- = 3, \; 2_+ = 5\; $ and so on. Due to the commutation relations $$[ E_{j k}(\lambda, \mu), { C}_l ] = (\delta_{j l}\lambda + \delta_{k l}\mu) E_{j k}(\lambda, \mu),
\nonumber$$ if the state $|\Phi_w\rangle$ has the weight $(w_0, w_1, \ldots, w_{n-1})$ then the state $E_{j k}(\lambda, \mu) |\Phi_w\rangle$ has the weight $(\ldots, w_j + \lambda, \ldots, w_k + \mu, \ldots)$. We call the state $|\Phi_{l}\rangle$ with the property $$\begin{aligned}
E_{j k}(+1, \pm 1)|\Phi_{l}\rangle = 0, \quad 0\le j < k \le n - 1,
\label{domweight}\end{aligned}$$ the dominant weight state. All the other states of an irreducible representation are obtained by the application of the generators $S^{ab}$. We shall denote an irreducible representation of the Lorentz group $SO(1, d-1)$ by the weight of the dominant weight state: $(l_n, l_{n-1}, \ldots, l_2, l_1)$. Numbers $l_n, l_{n-1}, \ldots, l_2, l_1$ are either all integer or all half integer and satisfy $
l_n\ge l_{n-1}\ge \ldots \ge l_2\ge |l_1|.$
We can write Eq.(\[domweight\]) in an equivalent way $$\begin{aligned}
(S^{0 i} + S^{i d}) |\Phi_{l}\rangle = 0, \quad i = 1, 2, 3, 5, \ldots, d - 1
\nonumber\\
(S^{1 i} + i S^{2 i}) |\Phi_{l}\rangle = 0, \quad i = 3, 5, \ldots, d - 1,
\nonumber\\
(S^{3 i} + i S^{5 i}) |\Phi_{l}\rangle = 0, \quad i = 6, 7 \ldots, d - 1,\,\,\,{\rm and\,\,so\,\,on.}
\label{dom}\end{aligned}$$ By applying $\Gamma^{(int)} = \beta\varepsilon_{a_1 a_2\ldots a_{d-1} a_d} S^{a_1 a_2} S^{a_3 a_4} \ldots $ (Eq.(\[gamaint\])) on a state with the dominant weight and taking into account Eqs.(\[dom\]), we find $$( \Gamma^{(int)} = 2^n n! i \beta (l_n + n - 1)(l_{n-1} + n - 2)\ldots(l_2 + 1) l_1)|\Phi_l\rangle.
\label{gama1}$$ In order to obtain $\Gamma^{(int)}= \pm 1$ for any irreducible representation in any $d=2n$, $\beta$ must be the one, presented in Eq.(\[gamaint\]).
The unitary discrete massless representations of the Poincar' e group
=====================================================================
The generators of the Poincar' e group, that is the generators of translations $p^a$ and the generators of the Lorentz transformations $M^{ab}$ (which form the Lorentz group), fulfil in any dimension $d$, even or odd, the commutation relations: $$\begin{aligned}
[p^a, p^b] &=& 0,
\nonumber
\\
\;[M^{ab}, M^{cd}]
&=& i(\eta^{ad} \; M^{bc} + \eta^{bc} \; M^{ad} - \eta^{ac} \; M^{bd} -
\eta^{bd}\; M^{ac}),
\nonumber
\\
\;[M^{ab}, p^c]
&=& i (\eta^{bc}\; p^a - \eta^{ac}\; p^b). \nonumber\end{aligned}$$ For momenta $p^a$ appearing in an irreducible massless representations of the Poincar' e group it holds $p^a p_a = 0,\quad p^0 > 0 \,\,{\rm or}\,\, p^0 < 0$ (we omit the trivial case $p^0=0$). We denote $r=p^0/|p^0|$. The Poincar' e group representations are then characterized by the representation of the [*little group*]{}, which is a subgroup of the Lorentz group leaving some fixed $d$-momentum $p^a={\bf k}^a$, satisfying equation $ {\bf k}^a {\bf k}_a =0$, unchanged. Making the choice of ${\bf k}^a = (r k^0,0,\ldots,0,k^0)$, with $ r =\pm 1, k^0 > 0$, the infinitesimal generators of the little group $\omega_{bc} M^{bc},\,(\omega_{bc}=-\omega_{cb})$ can be found by requiring that, when operating on the $d$-vector ${\bf k}^a$ give zero, so that accordingly the corresponding group transformations leave the $d$-vector ${\bf k}^a$ unchanged: $(\omega_{bc} M^{bc}){\bf k}^a = 0$. It is easily checked that this requirement leads to equations $\omega_{0d}= 0,
\;\;\omega_{i0}+r\omega_{id}=0,\quad i = 1,2,3,5,\ldots d-1.$
All $\omega_{bc} M^{bc}$ with $\omega_{bc}$ subject to conditions $(\omega_{bc} M^{bc}){\bf k}^a = 0$ form the Lie algebra of the little group. We choose the following basis of the little group Lie algebra $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi_i = M^{0i} + r M^{id},\quad i = 1,2,3,5,\ldots,d-1\quad
\nonumber
\\
{\rm and \; all\;\;} M^{ij}, \quad i, j = 1,2,3,5,\ldots,d-1.
\label{glg1}\end{aligned}$$ One finds $$\begin{aligned}
[\Pi_i, \Pi_j] = 0, \quad [\Pi_i, M^{jk}] = i (\eta^{ij} \Pi_k - \eta^{ik} \Pi_j).
\label{glgc}\end{aligned}$$ We are interested only in unitary discrete representations of the Poincar' e group. This means that the states in the representation space can be labeled by the momentum and an additional label for internal degrees of freedom, which can only have [*discrete*]{} values.
[*Lemma 1:*]{} For a discrete representation of the Poincar' e group operators $\Pi_i$ give zero $\Pi_i |\Phi_a\rangle = 0.$
[*Proof:*]{} We may arrange the representation space of the little group so that the commuting operators $\Pi_1, \ldots, \Pi_{d-1}$ are diagonal: $\Pi_i |\Phi_a\rangle = b^i_a |\Phi_a\rangle$. Making the rotation $e^{i\theta M^{ij}}|\Phi_a\rangle$ for a continious set of values of the parameter $\theta$ and for the chosen indices $i,j$ we find that the states $e^{i\theta M^{ij}}|\Phi_a\rangle$ can only have the discrete eigenvalues for $\Pi_i$ if $b^i_a = 0$ for all $a$ and $i$. (The detailed version of the proof can be found in Ref. [@gornikmankoc]).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We now introduce the decomposition of the generators of Lorentz transformations to external and internal space. We write $M^{ab} = L^{ab} + S^{ab}$ where $L^{ab} = x^a p^b - x^b p^a$ and $S^{ab}$ are the generators of the Lorentz transformations in internal space (ie. spin generators). We see that on the representation space of the little group with the choice ${\bf k}^a =(r k^0, 0, \ldots, 0, k^0)$, on which $(L^{0i} + r L^{id})|\Phi_a\rangle=
0,$ the following holds: $$\Pi_i |\Phi_a\rangle = \Pi^{(int)}_i |\Phi_a\rangle = 0, \quad \Pi^{(int)}_i := (S^{0i} + r S^{id}), \quad
{\rm for \;\; each \;\;} i.
\label{piint}$$ The only little group generators, which are not necesserily zero on the representation space, are $M^{ij},
i, j = 1, 2, \ldots, d-1$ and they form the Lie algebra of $SO(d-2)$. Since the irreducible discrete representations of the Poincar' e group in $d(=2n)$ dimensions for massless particles are determined by the irreducible representations of the group $SO(d-2)$ we will denote the former with the same symbol as the latter with an additional label $r$ (ie. energy sign): $(l_{n-1}, l_{n-2}, \ldots, l_2, l_1; r)$.
[*Lemma 2:*]{} On the representation space of an irreducible massless representation of the Poincar' e group $(l_{n-1},\ldots,l_1; r)$ the equation (\[meq\]) holds with $\alpha = -\rho r 2^{n-1} (n-1)! (l_{n-1}+n-2)\ldots(l_2+1)l_1$.
[*Proof:*]{} First, we prove the lemma on the representation space of the little group for the choice $p^a = {\bf k}^a = (r k^0, 0,\ldots,0,k^0), \; k^0 > 0, r=\pm 1$. We begin with the cases $a=1,2,\ldots,d-1$ in Eq.(\[meq\]) $$\begin{aligned}
W^a/\rho|\Phi_a\rangle = (\varepsilon^{a a_1}{ }_{a_2 a_3\ldots a_{d-1}} p_{a_1} M^{a_2 a_3} M^{a_4 a_5}\ldots)|\Phi_a\rangle
= \nonumber\\
-2 k^0 (n-1) {{\mbox{\boldmath {$\alpha$}}}}^{ai} \Pi_i|\Phi_a\rangle,
\label{wijenic}\end{aligned}$$ where $${{\mbox{\boldmath {$\alpha$}}}}^{ai} :=
\varepsilon^{0dai}{ }_{a_1 a_2 \ldots a_{d-4}} M^{a_1a_2} \ldots M^{a_{d-5}a_{d-4}},\quad
[\Pi^i, {{\mbox{\boldmath {$\alpha$}}}}^{ai}] = 0.
\label{balfa}$$ Taking into account Eq.(\[piint\]) we conclude that for $a=1,2,\ldots,d-1$, $\;W^a |\Phi_a\rangle =
p^a |\Phi_a\rangle =0$.
For $a=0$ and $a=d$ we obtain $$\begin{aligned}
W^0/\rho|\Phi_a\rangle =
(-r) p^0 \Gamma^{(int)}_{d-2}/\beta|\Phi_a\rangle,
\nonumber \\
W^d/\rho|\Phi_a\rangle =
(-r) p^d \Gamma^{(int)}_{d-2}/\beta|\Phi_a\rangle,
\label{wininic}\end{aligned}$$ where $\Gamma^{(int)}_{d-2}$ is the handedness operator corresponding to the subgroup $SO(d-2)\le SO(1, d-1)$ acting on coordinates $1, \ldots, d-1$. Substituting for $\Gamma^{(int)}_{d-2}$ the appropriate value (Eq.(\[gama1\]) with $n-1$ instead of $n$ and without the $i$ factor) we conclude the proof for the choice $p^a = {\bf k}^a = (r k^0,0,\ldots,0,k^0)$. To extend the proof for Eq.(\[meq\]) to the whole representation space one only has to note that Eq.(\[meq\]) is in a covariant form and must therefore hold generally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since Eq.(\[meq\]) with $\alpha$ from Eq.(\[meq\]) holds on the Poincar' e group representation $(l_{n-1},\ldots,l_1; +1)$ it is a candidate for an equation of motion.
Equations of motion for free massless fields of any spin in $d=2n$
==================================================================
What we have to prove is that the solutions of Eq.(\[meq\]) belong to an irreducible unitary discrete representation, possibly with a degeneracy in the energy sign.
In all proofs that follow we shall make the choice $p^a = {\bf k}^a =
(r k^0,0, \ldots,0,k^0)$, $k^0 > 0, r = \pm 1,$ since then the covariance of Eq.(\[meq\]) guarantees that the proofs are valid for general $p^a$.
[*Lemma 3:*]{} On the space with internal Lorentz group $SO(1, d-1)$ representation $(l_n, l_{n-1}, \ldots, l_2, l_1),$ states satisfying the discreteness condition of Eq.(\[piint\]) for the little group, form the $SO(d-2)$-irreducible representation space $(l_{n-1}, \ldots, r l_1)$, where the subgroup $SO(d-2)\le
SO(1,d-1)$ acts on coordinates $1, 2, \ldots, d-1$.
[*Proof:*]{} We present an outline of the proof for $r=1$ only. The case $r=-1$ is treated similarly (see [@gornikmankoc]).
Eq.(\[glgc\]) implies that the space of solutions $\{|\Phi_a\rangle\}$ of Eq.(\[piint\]) forms an $SO(d-2)$-invariant space, where $SO(d-2)\le SO(1, d-1)$ acts on coordinates $1, 2, \ldots, d-1$. To show that $\{|\Phi_a\rangle\}$ is irreducible and corresponds to the $SO(d-2)$-representation $(l_{n-1}, \ldots, l_1)$, we choose any state $|\Phi_a\rangle\in\{|\Phi_a\rangle\}$ with a $SO(d-2)$-dominant weight and prove both that it is unique up to a scalar multiple and has $SO(d-2)$-weight $(l_{n-1}, \ldots, l_1)$. The set of states $\{|\Phi_a\rangle\}$ is nontrivial, because the $SO(1, d-1)$-dominant weight state is in $\{|\Phi_a\rangle\}$.
Since $|\Phi_a\rangle$ has a $SO(d-2)$-dominant weight the last two lines in Eqs.(\[dom\]) must hold. Eq.(\[piint\]) then implies that the first line of Eq.(\[dom\]) must also hold. It follows then that the state $|\Phi_a\rangle$ has a $SO(1, d-1)$-dominant weight and is (up to a scalar multiple) unique and the proof that the corresponding representation of the Poincar' e group is determined by all but the first dominant weight component of the internal Lorentz group representation $(l_{n-1}, l_{n-2}, \ldots, l_2, l_1)$ is complete.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
It remains to answer the question: when are the solutions of equations $\; (W^a = \alpha p^a)|\Phi\rangle,$ with $ \alpha = - \rho 2^{n-1}(n-1)!
(l_{n-1}+(n-2))\ldots (l_2 + 1) l_1$ on the space with internal Lorentz group $SO(1, d-1)$ representation $(l_n, l_{n-1}, \ldots, l_2, l_1),$ exactly those described by the lemma 3, ie. $(l_{n-1},\ldots, r l_1; r), r = \pm 1$.
[*Lemma 4:*]{} On the space with internal Lorentz group $SO(1, d-1)$ representation $(l_n, l_{n-1}, \ldots, l_1),$ where $
l_1 \not= 0 \Longleftrightarrow \Gamma^{(int)} \not= 0,$ the solutions of Eq.(\[meq\]) are exactly $(l_{n-1},\ldots,rl_1; r),$ with $r = \pm 1$.
[*Proof:*]{} First, we take the simplest case of $d=4$, proving that on the space with internal Lorentz group $SO(1, 3)$ representation $(l_2, l_1)$ the solutions of Eq.(\[meq\]) are exactly $(l_1; +1)$ and $(-l_1; -1)$.
In this case, the first equation of Eqs.(\[meq\]), with $a=1,2$ reads $(\Pi^{(int)}_2 = 0)|\Phi\rangle,\;\;\; (\Pi^{(int)}_1 = 0)|\Phi\rangle,$ which are exactly Eq.(\[piint\]) and lemma 3 completes the proof since cases $a=0,3$ both give the equation $S^{12}|\Phi\rangle = r l_1 |\Phi\rangle$ which imposes no additional constraints on representation spaces $(l_1; +1)$ and $(-l_1; -1)$.
We can proceed now with the general case $d\ge 6$. >From Eqs.(\[wijenic\]), (\[wininic\]) we know that Eq.(\[meq\]) can be written for our choice of $p^a$ as follows $$\begin{aligned}
{{\mbox{\boldmath {$\alpha$}}}}^{ij} \Pi^{(int)}_j |\Phi\rangle &=& 0,\quad {\rm for}\;\;a=i,
\nonumber\\
-\rho \varepsilon^{0d}{ }_{a_1 a_2\ldots a_{d-3}a_{d-2}} S^{a_1 a_2} S^{a_3 a_4}\ldots|\Phi\rangle &=&
\alpha|\Phi\rangle, \quad {\rm for}
\;\; a=0 \;\; {\rm and} \;\; a=d,
\label{alphaijpi}
\end{aligned}$$
with $ {{\mbox{\boldmath {$\alpha$}}}}^{ij}$ defined in Eq.(\[balfa\]).
By lemma 3 it is sufficient to show that every solution $|\Phi\rangle$ of Eqs.(\[alphaijpi\]) satisfies the condition $$\begin{aligned}
\Pi^{(int)}_i|\Phi\rangle = 0, \quad {\rm for}\,\, i=1,2,\ldots,d-1.
\label{piintphi}\end{aligned}$$ According to the proof of lemma 3 the dominant weight of the group $SO(1,d-1)$ satisfies all the above equations and we can conclude that the space ${ V}$ of solutions of equations in Eq.(\[alphaijpi\]) is nontrivial. It is also $SO(d-2)$-invariant due to the commutation relations $ [{{\mbox{\boldmath {$\alpha$}}}}^{ij} \Pi^{(int)}_j, S^{kl}] = i(\eta^{ik}{{\mbox{\boldmath {$\alpha$}}}}^{lj} \Pi^{(int)}_j - \eta^{il}
{{\mbox{\boldmath {$\alpha$}}}}^{kj} \Pi^{(int)}_j)$ and $
[\varepsilon^{0d}{ }_{a_1a_2 \ldots a_{d-3}a_{d-2}} S^{a_1a_2} \ldots S^{a_{d-3}a_{d-2}},
S^{kl}] = 0$ for $i,j,k,l=1,2,\ldots,d-1$ .
To prove that Eq.(\[piintphi\]) holds on $ V$ it suffices to prove that Eq.(\[piintphi\]) holds on any $SO(d-2)$-dominant weight state in $ V$. This is done with the aid of Eqs.(\[alphaijpi\]), (\[dom\]) and some lengthy but elementary calculations (details can be found in [@gornikmankoc]).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
We may now write down the main result of this letter.
[*On the space with internal Lorentz group representation $(l_n, l_{n-1}, \ldots, l_1)$ where $l_1\not=0$ equations $$(W^a = \alpha p^a)|\Phi\rangle, \alpha = -\rho 2^{n-1}(n-1)!(l_{n-1}+n-2)\ldots(l_2+1)l_1
\label{glavna_en2}$$ are equations of motion for massless particles corresponding to the following representations of the Poincar' e group*]{} $$(l_{n-1}, \ldots, l_1; +1)\quad{\rm and}\quad (l_{n-1},\ldots,-l_1;-1),$$
*where the masslessness condition $(p_a p^a=0)|\Phi\rangle$ is not needed, since it follows from (\[glavna\_en2\]) and they are linear in the $p^a$-momentum.*
With the aid of Eqs. (\[gama1\]), (\[gamaint\]) the equation of motion can also be written as $$\begin{aligned}
(W^a = |\alpha| \Gamma^{(int)} p^a)|\Phi\rangle, \nonumber\\
|\alpha| = \rho 2^{n-1}(n-1)!(l_{n-1}+n-2)\ldots(l_2+1)|l_1|.
\label{glavna_en3}\end{aligned}$$ This equation is convenient when dealing with positive and negative handedness on the same footing (an example of this is the Dirac equation) since $|\alpha|$ is independent of the sign of $l_1$.
We note that the particular value of $\rho$ is irrelevant in Eqs. (\[glavna\_en2\]), (\[glavna\_en3\]) since $\rho$ is found in both the lefthand and the righthand side of equations and thus cancels out. (The value of $\rho$ becomes relevant, as we have already said, when dealing with the particular spin when it is used to insure that the operators $S^i$ have the familiar values independent of the dimension.)
Making a choice of $a=0$ one finds $$(\overrightarrow{S}.\overrightarrow{p}= |\alpha| \Gamma^{(int)} p^0)|\Phi\rangle.
\label{sag}$$ Since $(\Gamma^{(int)})^2=1$, one immediately finds that $ |\alpha| = |\overrightarrow{S}.\overrightarrow{p}|/|p^0|$. The rest of equations make no additional requirements for spinors, while this is not the case for other spins.
Concluding remarks
==================
We have proven in this letter that massless fields of any spin (with nonzero handedness and no gauge symmetry) in $d=2n$-dimensional spaces, if having the Poincar' e symmetry, obey the [*linear equations of motion* ]{}(Eq.(\[meq\])). We have limited our proof to only even $d$, because the operator for handedness Eq.(\[gamaint\]), needed in the proof, as well as the $d$-vector (Eq.(\[svector\])), can only be defined in even-dimensional spaces. (The generalization of the proof to all $d$ and any signature is under consideration.)
We know that in four-dimensional space the Weyl equation is linear in the four-momentum and so are the Maxwell equations [@mankocborstnik98], describing massless spinors and massless vectors, respectively. In $d$-dimensional spaces the operator of handedness for spinors can be defined not only for even but also for odd dimensions. Also the Dirac-like equations exist for any dimension [@mankoc99; @gornikmankoc] and follow for even $d$ from Eq.(\[meq\]) if we take into account that for spinors $S^{ab} = -i[\gamma^a, \gamma^b]/4$: $$\begin{aligned}
(\gamma^a p_a = 0)|\Phi\rangle,
\label{dirac}\end{aligned}$$ with $\gamma^a$ matrices defined for $d$-dimensional spaces [@mankoc99; @gornikmankoc; @giorgi].
Similarly it follows from Eq.(\[meq\]) [@gornikmankoc] that vectors in $d$-dimensional space obey the equations of motion $$p_a F^{a a_1\ldots a_{n-1}} = p_a \varepsilon^{a a_1\ldots a_{n-1}}{}_{b_1 b_2\ldots b_n} F^{b_1 b_2\ldots b_n} = 0
\label{vectorem}$$ where $F^{abcd..}$ is a totally antisymmmetric tensor field.
Acknowledgement
================
This work was supported by Ministry of Science and Technology of Slovenia. One of us (N.M.B.) wants to thank for many fruitful discussions to Holger Bech Nielsen and Anamarija Borštnik.
[99]{}
Norma Susana Mankoč Borštnik and Holger Bech Nielsen (2000), ”Why odd-space and odd-time dimensions in even-dimensional spaces?”, [*Phys. Lett.* ]{} [**B 468**]{}(2000)314-321. Norma Susana Mankoč Borštnik and Holger Bech Nielsen (2001), ”Signature of space-time in $d$-dimensional spaces”, sent to [*Phys. Rev.* ]{} [**D**]{}. Norma Susana Mankoč Borštnik (1992), ”Spin Connection as a Superpartner of a Vielbein”, [*Phys. Lett.*]{} [**B 292**]{} 25-29; ”From a World-sheet Supersymmetry to the Dirac Equation”, [*Nuovo Cimento*]{} [**A 105**]{}, 1461-1471. Norma Susana Mankoč Borštnik (1993) ”Spinor and Vector Representations in Four Dimensional Grassmann Space”, [*J. Math. Phys.*]{} [**34**]{} 3731-3745. Norma Susana Mankoč Borštnik (1999) ”Unification of Spins and Charges in Grassmann Space”, [*hep-ph/9905357*]{}, [*Proceedings to the International Workshop ”What Comes Beyond the Standard Model”, Bled, Slovenia, 29 June-9 July 1998*]{}, Ed. by N. Mankoč Borštnik, H. B. Nielsen, C. Froggatt, DMFA Založništvo 1999, p. 20-29. Norma Mankoč Borštnik and Anamarija Borštnik, ”Left and right handedness of fermions and bosons”, [*J. of Phys. G: Nucl.Part. Phys. [**24**]{}*]{} (1998)963-977. E. P. Wigner, Ann. Math. 149, 40 (1938). Steven Weinberg (1995), [*The Quantum Theory of Fields*]{}, Cambridge University Press, New York 1995. L. Fonda, G. Ghirardi, [*Symmetry Principles in Quantum Physics*]{}, M. Dekker, New York 1970.
Bojan Gornik, Norma Mankoč Borštnik (1998), ”Linear equations of motion for massless particles of any spin in any even-dimensional spaces”, [*hep-th/0102008*]{}, submitted to J. of Math. Phys. , Bojan Gornik, Diploma work, ”Poincar' e symmetry and equations of motion for free particles”, 1998. H. Giorgi, [*Lie Algebras in Particle Physics*]{}, Benjamin Cummings, New York 1982. Theodor Br" ocker, Tammo tom Dieck (1985), [*Representations of Compact Lie Groups*]{}, Springer, New York 1985, W. Siegel, B. Zwiebach, Nucl. Phys. [**B**]{} 282 (1987) 125, Eq. (2.1), W. Siegel, [*hep-th/9912205*]{}, p. 80.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The fundamental collective degree of freedom of fractional quantum Hall states is identified as a unimodular two-dimensional spatial metric that characterizes the local shape of the correlations of the incompressible fluid. Its quantum fluctuations are controlled by a topologically-quantized “guiding-center spin”. Charge fluctuations are proportional to its Gaussian curvature.'
author:
- 'F. D. M. Haldane'
date: 'June 16, 2011'
title: Geometrical Description of the Fractional Quantum Hall Effect
---
In this Letter, I point out the apparently previously-unnoticed geometric degree of freedom of the fractional quantum Hall effect (FQHE), that fundamentally distinguishes it from the integer effect, and will provide the basis for a new description of its collective properties as a fluctuating quantum geometry.
The simplest model Hamiltonian for $N$ interacting electrons bound to a two-dimensional (2D) planar “Hall surface” traversed by a uniform magnetic flux density is $$H = \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{2m}g^{ab}\pi_{ia}\pi_{ib} +
\frac{1}{A}\sum_{\bm q} V(\bm q) \sum_{i<j} e^{i\bm q\cdot (\bm r_i-\bm
r_j)}.$$ Here $\bm r_i - \bm r_j$ = $(r^a_i-r^a_j)\bm e_a$, $[r^a_i,r^b_j]$ = 0, are the relative displacements of the particles on the 2D surface with orthonormal tangent vectors $\bm e_a$, $a=1,2$, and $\pi_{ia}$ = $\bm e_a\cdot \bm \pi_i$ are the components of the gauge-invariant dynamical momenta, with commutation relations $$[r_i^a,\pi_{jb}]= i\delta_{ij}\hbar \delta^a_b, \quad
[\pi_{ia},\pi_{jb}] = i\delta_{ij}\epsilon_{ab}\hbar^2/\ell_B^2.$$ I use Einstein summation convention: $q_ar^a$ = $\bm q\cdot \bm r$ (index placement distinguishes real-space vectors $r^a$ from dual (reciprocal) vectors $q_a$); $\delta^a_b$ is the Kronecker symbol, and $\epsilon_{ab}$ = $\epsilon^{ab}$ is the 2D antisymmetric Levi-Civita symbol. A periodic boundary condition (pbc) can be imposed on a fundamental region of the plane with area $A$ = $2\pi\ell^2_BN_{\Phi}$, which restricts wavevectors $\bm q$ to the reciprocal lattice; $N_{\Phi}$ is an integer, and $2\pi \ell_B^2$ is the area through which a London magnetic flux quantum $h/e$ passes.
The parameters of the Hamiltonian are: (1) a Galileian effective mass tensor $mg_{ab}$, where $g_{ab}$ is a positive-definite “Galileian metric” with $\det g$ = 1 (*i.e.*, a *unimodular* metric) and inverse $g^{ab}$, and $m > 0$ is the effective mass that controls the cyclotron frequency $\omega_B$ = $\hbar/m\ell_B^2$; (2) $V(\bm q)$ which is the Fourier transform of an unretarded translationally-invariant two-body interaction potential.
In principle, the real function $V(\bm q)$ is the Fourier transform of the long-ranged unscreened Coulomb potential, with the small-$\bm q$ behavior $$\lim_{\lambda \rightarrow 0} \lambda V(\lambda \bm q) \rightarrow
\frac{e^2}{2\varepsilon}(\tilde g^{ab}q_aq_b)^{-1/2} ,$$ where $\tilde g^{ab}$ is the inverse of a unimodular *Coulomb metric* $\tilde g_{ab}$, controlled by the dielectric properties of the surrounding 3D insulating media, while the large-$\bm q$ behavior of $V(\bm q)$ is controlled by the quantum well that binds electrons to the surface. The singularity of $V(0)$ does not affect incompressibility, and can be screened by a metallic plane placed parallel to the surface.
There is no fundamental reason for the Coulomb and Galileian metrics to coincide, unless there is an atomic-scale discrete $(n>2)$-fold rotational symmetry of the surface, and no tangential magnetic flux. I will argue that the usual implicit assumption of rotational symmetry hides key geometric features of the FQHE.
In the presence of the magnetic field, the canonical degrees of freedom $\{\bm r_i, \bm p_i\}$ are reorganized into two independent sets, the dynamical momenta $\{\bm \pi_i\}$, which I will call “left-handed” degrees of freedom, and the “guiding centers” $\{ \bm
R_i\}$, the “right-handed” degrees of freedom, $$R_i^a = r_i^a -\hbar^{-1}\epsilon^{ab}\pi_{ib}\ell_B^2, \quad
[R^a_i,R^b_j] = -i\delta_{ij}\epsilon^{ab}\ell_B^2,
\label{qgeom}$$ with $[R^a_i,\pi_{jb}]$ = 0. The pbc further restricts the guiding-center variables to the set of unitary operators $\rho_{\bm q,i}$ = $\exp {i\bm q\cdot \bm R_i}$, which obey the Heisenberg algebra $$\rho_{\bm q,i}\rho_{\bm q',i} = e^{i\frac{1}{2}\bm q\times \bm
q'\ell_B^2}\rho_{\bm q + \bm q',i}, \quad \bm q \times \bm q' \equiv \epsilon^{ab}q_aq'_b;$$ reciprocal vectors $\bm q, \bm q'$ compatible with the pbc obey $( \exp {i\bm q\times \bm q'\ell_B^2} )^{N_{\Phi}}$ = 1. The pbc can be expressed as $$\left (\rho_{\bm q,i}\right )^{N_{\Phi}}|\Psi\rangle = \left
(\eta_{\bm q}\right )^{N_{\Phi}}|\Psi \rangle$$ for all states in the Hilbert space, where $\eta_{\bm q} = 1$ if $\frac{1}{2}\bm q$ is an allowed reciprocal vector, and $\eta_{\bm q}
= -1$ otherwise. This leads to the recurrence relation $$\rho_{\bm q + N_{\phi}\bm q',i} = \left (\eta_{\bm q'}e^{i\frac{1}{2}\bm q \times
\bm q'\ell_B^2}\right )^{N_{\Phi}}\rho_{\bm q,i} = \pm \rho_{\bm
q,i}.$$ For a given particle label $i$, the set of independent operators $\bm \rho_{\bm q,i}$ can be reduced to a set of $N_{\Phi}^2$ operators where $\bm q \in \text{BZ}$ takes one of a set of $N_{\Phi}^2$ distinct values that define an analog of a “Brillouin zone”. Let $$\delta^2_{\bm q,\bm q'} \equiv \frac{1}{N_{\Phi}}{\sum_{ \bm q''}}' e^{i\bm
q''\times (\bm q - \bm q')}.$$ (Primed sums are over the BZ.) Then $\delta^2_{\bm q,\bm q'} = 0$ if $\bm q $ and $\bm q'$ are distinct, and has the value $N_{\Phi}$ if they are equivalent; with this definition $\delta^2_{\bm q,\bm q'}$ becomes $2\pi \delta^2(\bm
q\ell_B-\bm q'\ell_B)$ in the limit $N_{\Phi}\rightarrow \infty$, where $\delta^2(\bm x)$ is the 2D Dirac delta-function. It is convenient to choose the BZ so it has inversion symmetry: $\bm q \in \text{BZ}$ $\rightarrow$ $-\bm q \in \text{BZ}$, and $\rho_{\bm q=0,i}$ is the identity. The set of $N_{\Phi}^2-1$ operators $\{\rho_{\bm q,i},\bm q \in \text {BZ}, \bm q \ne 0\}$ are the generators of the Lie algebra $SU(N_{\Phi})$. Both $\rho_{\bm q,i}$ and also (as noted by Girvin, MacDonald and Platzman[@GMP]) the “coproduct” $\rho_{\bm q}$ = $\sum_i \rho_{\bm q,i}$, obey $$[\rho_{\bm q},\rho_{\bm q'} ] = 2i \sin ( {\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\bm q\times \bm
q'\ell_B^2)\rho_{\bm q+\bm q'}.$$ In this form of the Lie algebra, the quadratic Casimir is $$C_2 = \frac{1}{2N_{\Phi}}{\sum_{\bm q\ne 0}}'
\rho_{\bm q}\rho_{-\bm q} = \frac{N(N_{\Phi}^2 -N)}{2N_{\Phi}} + \sum_{i<j}P_{ij},$$ where $P_{ij}$ exchanges guiding centers of particles $i$ and $j$. For $N=1$, the $\rho_{\bm q,i}$ form the $N_{\Phi}$-dimensional fundamental (defining) $SU(N_{\Phi})$ representation of one-particle states of a Landau level, with $C_2$ = $(N_{\Phi}^2 -1)/2N_{\Phi}$.
The high-field condition is defined by $$\hbar \omega_B \gg \frac{1}{A}\sum_{\bm q} V(\bm q) f(\bm q)^2,
\quad f(\bm q) = e^{-\frac{1}{4}q_g^2\ell_B^2 },$$ where $f(\bm q)$ is the lowest-Landau-level form-factor, and $q_g^2$ $\equiv$ $ g^{ab}q_aq_b$. In this limit, the low-energy eigenstates of the model have all the particles in the lowest Landau level, and can be factorized into a simple *unentangled product* of states of right-handed and left-handed degrees of freedom: $$|\Psi_{0,\alpha}\rangle = |\Psi_0^L(g)\rangle \otimes |\Psi^R_{\alpha}\rangle,$$ where $|\Psi^L_0(g)\rangle$ is a trivial harmonic-oscillator coherent state, fully symmetric under interchange of the dynamical momenta of any pair of particles, and parametrized only by the Galileian metric $g_{ab}$; its defining property is $$a_i |\Psi^L_0( g)\rangle = 0,
\quad a_i \propto \omega^a(g)\pi_{ia},\quad i = 1,\ldots,N,
\label{lll}$$ where the complex unit vector $\omega^a(g)$ is obtained by solution of the generalized Hermitian eigenvector problem $$\omega_a(g) = g_{ab}\omega^b(g) = i\epsilon_{ab}\omega^b(g), \quad
\omega_a(g)^*\omega^a(g) = 1.$$ In contrast, the non-trivial states $|\Psi^R_{\alpha}\rangle$ are the eigenstates of the “right-handed” (guiding-center) Hamiltonian $$H_R = \frac{1}{2A}\sum_{\bm q}V(\bm q)f(\bm q)^2\rho_{\bm q}\rho_{-\bm q}.
\label{hamR}$$
The reduction of the problem by discarding “left-handed” degrees of freedom, “frozen out” by Landau quantization, makes numerical study of the problem by exact diagonalization of $H_R$ for finite $N, N_{\Phi}$ tractable. This may also be characterized as a “quantum geometry” description: once the “left-handed” degrees of freedom are removed, the notion of *locality*, fundamental to both classical geometry and Schrödinger’s formulation of quantum mechanics, is absent. The commutation relations (\[qgeom\]) imply a fundamental uncertainty in the “position” of the particles, now only described by their guiding centers. A Schrödinger wavefunction can only be constructed after “gluing” $|\Psi^R_{\alpha}\rangle$ together with some $|\Psi^L\rangle$, after which the composite state can be projected onto simultaneous eigenstates of the commuting set $\{\bm r_i\}$: *e.g.*, $$\Psi_{\alpha}(\{\bm r_i\},g) = \langle \{\bm r_i\}
|\Psi^L_0(g)\rangle \otimes |\Psi^R_{\alpha}\rangle .
\label{wf}$$ Note that the construction (\[wf\]) of a Schrödinger wavefunction involves an *extraneous quantity $(g_{ab})$ that is not directly determined by $|\Psi^R_{\alpha}\rangle$ itself*, and thus is a non-primitive construction that does not represent $|\Psi^R_{\alpha}\rangle$ in its purest form. This suggests a reconsideration of the meaning of the “Laughlin state”, usually presented in the form of the “Laughlin wavefunction”[@laughlin83], which is fundamental to current understanding of the FQHE.
The conventional presentation of FQHE states is as an $N$-particle Schrödinger wavefunction with the form $$\Psi(\{\bm r_i\}) =
F(\{z_i\})\prod_{i=1}^Ne^{-\frac{1}{2}z_i^*z_i},
\label{llwf}$$ where $z_i$ = $\omega_a(g)r^a_i/\surd 2 \ell_B$. Such wavefunctions, formulated in the “symmetric gauge”, obey (\[lll\]) with $a_i$ $\equiv$ ${\textstyle \frac{1}{2}}z_i +
{\partial}/{\partial z_i^*}$. The original Laughlin wavefunction[@laughlin83] was the polynomial $$F(\{z_i\}) = F_L^q(\{z_i\}) \equiv \prod_{i>j}(z_i-z_j)^q;
\label{polyl}$$ it was subsequently adapted[@halrez85] to a pbc with the form $$F^q_{L,\alpha}(\{z_i\}) = \prod_{i>j}w(z_i-z_j)^q \prod_{k=1}^q
w(({\textstyle \sum _i} z_i)-a_{k,\alpha}),
\label{lwfpbc}$$ where $w(z)$ is given in terms of an elliptic theta function: $w(z)$ = $\theta_1 (\pi z/L_1|L_2/L_1)\exp (z^2/2N_{\Phi} )$, with $L_1L_2^* - L_1^*L_2$ = $2\pi i N_{\Phi}$ (the wavefunction is (quasi) periodic under $z_i$ $\rightarrow$ $z_i + mL_1 + nL_2$). The additional $q$ parameters $a_{k,\alpha}$ of (\[lwfpbc\]), with $\sum_k a_{k,\alpha}$ = 0, characterize the $q$-fold topological degeneracy of the Laughlin state with a pbc.
The Laughlin wavefunction was originally presented as a “variational wavefunction”, albeit one with no continuously-tunable parameter, since $q$ is an integer fixed by statistics. Its initial success was that, as a “trial wavefunction”, it had a lower Coulomb energy than obtained in Hartree-Fock approximations, and explained the existence of a strong FQHE state at $\nu$ $\equiv$ $N/N_{\Phi}$ = 1/3, but not at $\nu$ = 1/2. In the wavefunction language, its defining characteristic is that, as a function of any particle coordinate $z_i$, there is an order-$q$ zero at the location of every other particle, which heuristically “keeps particles apart”, and lowers the Coulomb energy.
Subsequent to its introduction, the Laughlin state’s essential validity was further confirmed by this author’s observation[@haldane83] that, at $\nu = 1/q$, it is also uniquely characterized as the zero-energy eigenstate of a two-body “pseudopotential Hamiltonian” $$H_R = \sum_{m=0}^{q-1}V_mP_m(g) ,\quad V_m > 0,$$ where $$P_m(g) = \frac{1}{N_{\Phi}}\sum_{\bm q}
L_m(q_g^2\ell_B^2)e^{-{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}} q^2_g\ell_B^2}
\rho_{\bm q}\rho_{-\bm q},$$ where $L_m(x)$ is a Laguerre polynomial. Numerical finite-size diagonalization[@halrez85a] for $q$ = 3 showed that this $H_R$ had the gapped excitation spectrum of an incompressible FQHE state, and that this gap did not close along a path that adiabatically interpolated between it and the Hamiltonian of the Coulomb interaction with $\tilde g_{ab}$ = $g_{ab}$.
This raises the question that does not seem to have been previously considered: what if the “Coulomb metric” $\tilde g_{ab}$ and the “Galileian metric” $g_{ab}$ do *not* coincide? The “pseudopotential” definition of the Laughlin *state* (as opposed to the Laughlin *wavefunction*) defines a *continuously-parametrized family* of $\nu$ = $1/q$ Laughlin states $|\Psi^q_{L,\alpha} (\bar g)\rangle$ by $$P_m(\bar g)|\Psi^q_{L,\alpha}(\bar g)\rangle = 0 , m < q.$$ The continuously-variable parameter here is a unimodular *guiding-center metric* $\bar g_{ab}$ that is in principle distinct from the Galileian metric $g_{ab}$, and is *not* fixed by the one-body physics of the Landau orbits. Physically, it characterizes the *shape* of the correlation functions of the Laughlin state. If the shape of Landau orbits is used as the definition of “circular”, the correlation hole around the particles deforms to “elliptical” when $\bar g_{ab}$ $\ne $ $g_{ab}$.
If a wavefunction (\[lll\]) is constructed by “gluing together” $|\Psi^L_0( g)\rangle $ with the “Laughlin *state*” $|\Psi^R\rangle$ = $|\Psi^q_{L,\alpha}(\bar g)\rangle$, it does *not* correspond to the Laughlin *wavefunction* (\[lwfpbc\]) *unless* $\bar g_{ab}$ = $g_{ab}$, as there is no longer a $q$’th order zero of the wavefunction when $z_i$ = $z_j$. Despite this, I will not call $|\Psi^q_L(\bar g)\rangle$ with $\bar g_{ab}$ $\ne$ $g_{ab}$ a “generalization” of the Laughlin state, but propose it as a definition of the *family* of Laughlin states that exposes the geometrical degree of freedom $\bar g_{ab}$ hidden by the wavefunction-based formalism. I argue that FQHE states should be described completely within the framework of the “quantum geometry” of the guiding-center degrees of freedom alone, and no “preferred status” should be accorded to the metric choice $\bar g_{ab}$ = $g_{ab}$. If the states $|\Psi_{L,\alpha}^q(\bar g)\rangle$ are used as variational approximations to the ground state of a generic $H_R$ given by (\[hamR\]), $\bar g_{ab}$ must be chosen to minimize the correlation energy $E(\bar g)$ = $\langle \Psi_{L\alpha}^q(\bar g)|H_R
|\Psi_{L\alpha}^q(\bar g)\rangle$. If the Coulomb ($\tilde g_{ab}$) and Galileian ($g_{ab}$) metrics coincide, the energy will be minimized by the choice $\bar g_{ab}$ = $\tilde g_{ab}$= $g_{ab}$; otherwise, $\bar g_{ab}$ will be a compromise intermediate between the two physical metrics.
A more profound consequence of the identification of the variable geometric parameter $\bar g_{ab}$ follows from the observation that the correlation energy will be a quadratic function of local deformations $\bar g_{ab}(\bm r,t)$ around the minimizing value, whether or not this is equal to $g_{ab}$. This unimodular metric, or “shape of the circle” defined by the correlation function of the FQHE state, may be identified as the natural *local collective degree of freedom* of a FQHE state (defined on lengthscales large compared to $\ell_B$), and not merely a variational parameter.
In its finite-$N$ polynomial form (\[polyl\]), the Laughlin state $|\Psi^q_L(g)\rangle $ is an eigenstate of $L_R(g,0)$ where $L_R(g,\bm r)$ = $g_{ab}\Lambda^{ab}(\bm r)$ generates rotations of the guiding-centers about a point $\bm r$; here $\Lambda^{ab}(\bm r)$ = $\Lambda^{ba}(\bm r)$ are the three generators of area-preserving linear deformations[@fdmharxiv] of the guiding-centers around $\bm r$: $$\Lambda^{ab}(\bm r) = \frac{1}{4\ell_B^2}\sum_i \{\delta
R^a_i(\bm r),\delta R^b_i(\bm r)\},$$ with $\delta R^a_i(\bm r) \equiv R^a_i-\bm r$. Leaving $\bm r$ implicit, these obey the non-compact Lie algebra[@fdmharxiv] $$[\Lambda^{ab},\Lambda^{cd}] = -\frac{i}{2}\left (
\epsilon^{ac}\Lambda^{bd} +
\epsilon^{bd}\Lambda^{ac}
+ a \leftrightarrow b\right ),$$ which is isomorphic to $SO(2,1)$, $SL(2,R)$, and $SU(1,1)$, with a Casimir $C_2$ = $ -\frac{1}{2}\det \Lambda$ $\equiv$ $-\frac{1}{4}\epsilon_{ac}\epsilon_{bd}\Lambda^{ab}\Lambda^{cd}$.
FQHE states with $\nu$ = $ p/q$ can be simply understood as condensates of “composite bosons”[@gmpbos] which are “elementary droplets” of the incompressible fluid consisting of $p$ identical charge-$e$ particles “bound to $q$ London flux quanta” (*i.e.*, occupying $q$ one-particle orbitals of the Landau level), which behave as a boson under interchange. This requires that the Berry phase cancels any bare statistical phase: $(-1)^{pq}$ = $\xi^p$, where $\xi $ = $-1$ ($+1$) for fermions (bosons). For a condensate of charge-$pe$ objects, the elementary fractionally-charged vortex has charge $\pm e^*$ = $\pm (\nu e^2/h)
\times (h/pe)$ = $\pm e/q$. This work aims to extend the description of the “composite boson” by giving it (2D orbital) “spin” and geometry.
Polynomial FQHE wavefunctions like (\[polyl\]) that describe $\bar N$ = $N/p$ = $N_{\Phi}/q$ elementary droplets are generically eigenstates of $L_R(g,0)$ with eigenvalue $\frac{1}{2}pq\bar N^2 + \bar s\bar N$, where $\bar s$ is a variant of the so-called “shift” that I will identify as a fundamental FQHE parameter, the *guiding-center spin*, that characterizes the geometric degree of freedom of FQHE states. It can also be obtained as the limit $\bar N \rightarrow \infty$ of $$\bar s = \frac{1}{\bar N}\sum_{m= 0}^{q\bar N -1}
(m+{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}})(n_m(\bar g,\bm r)-\nu),$$ where $n_m(\bar g,\bm r)$, $m \ge 0 $ are the occupations of guiding-center orbitals defined as the eigenstates of $L_R(\bar g,\bm r)$.
Note that the “superextensive” ($\propto \bar N^2$) contribution to the eigenvalue derives from the uniform background density contribution $\nu \delta^2_{\bm q,0}$ to $\rho_{\bm q}$, and can be removed (regularized) by defining $\Lambda^{ab}(r)$ in the thermodynamic limit $N_{\Phi} = q\bar N\rightarrow \infty$ using the limit of the $\bm q\ne 0$ $SU(N_{\phi})$ generators alone, which become continuous functions $\rho(\bm q)$ of $\bm q$, with $\lim_
{\lambda \rightarrow 0} \rho(\lambda \bm q)$ = 0. Then $$\Lambda^{ab}(\bm r) =
\lim_{\lambda {\rightarrow 0}} \left (-\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{(\lambda\ell_B)^2}\frac {\partial}{\partial q_a}\frac {\partial}{\partial q_b}
\rho(\lambda \bm q)e^{-i\lambda \bm q\cdot \bm r}\right ).$$ The Laughlin state $|\Psi^q_L(\bar g)\rangle$ is an eigenstate of $\bar g_{ab}\Lambda^{ab}(\bm r)$ with $\bar s$ = $\frac{1}{2}(1-q)$. Note that for fermionic particles ($\xi$ = $-1$), $\bar s$ is odd under particle-hole transformations, and vanishes when the Landau-level is completely filled (here $q$ = 1). A spin-statistics selection rule requires that $$(-1)^{2\bar s}(-1)^{2s} = (-1)^{pq} = \xi^p, \quad (-1)^{2s} =
(-1)^p,$$ where $s$ is the (orbital) “Landau-orbit spin” of the elementary droplet ($s$ = $-\frac{1}{2},-\frac{3}{2},\ldots$ for particles with Landau index $0,1,\ldots $). The expression for $\bar s$ may now be inverted to define the (local) unimodular guiding-center metric $\bar g_{ab}(\bm r)$ by the expectation value $$\lim_{\bar N \rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{\bar N} \langle
\Psi^R|\Lambda^{ab}(\bm r)|\Psi^R\rangle =
{\textstyle\frac{1}{2}}\bar s \bar g^{ab}(\bm r), \quad \det \bar g = 1,$$ so if $\bar \rho(\bm r)$ is the local droplet density, $\frac{1}{2}\bar
s \bar \rho(\bm r) g^{ab}(\bm r)$ is the local density of the deformation generator.
The quantization of $2\bar s$ as an integer is a topological property deriving from the incompressibility of FQHE states. A simple picture that is reminiscent of Jain’s notion of “quasi-Landau-levels”[@jain] supports this: the “elementary droplet”, with a shape fixed by $\bar g_{ab}(\bm r)$, supports $q$ single-particle orbitals with guiding-center spins $\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2},\ldots
,\frac{q-1}{2}$. The way these are occupied by the $p$ particles of the droplet, determines the guiding-center spin of the droplet as the actual total guiding center spin of the configuration, minus that ($\frac{1}{2}pq$) given by putting $p/q$ particles in each orbital. The repulsive exchange and correlation fields of particles outside the droplet will give each of the internal levels a mean energy for orbiting around an effective potential minimum at its center. The droplet will be stable, with a quantized guiding center spin that is adiabatically conserved as the droplet changes shape, provided there is a finite positive energy gap between the highest occupied and lowest empty single-particle state in the droplet. Collapse of this gap implies that the system has become compressible with an unquantized or indeterminate value of $\bar s$.
The geometrical degree of freedom exposed here also suggests a new look at the problem of formulating a continuum description of incompressible FQHE states. Elsewhere, I will present a continuum description combining Chern-Simons fields with the geometry field $\bar \omega_a(\bm r,t)$, where $\bar
g_{ab}$ = $\bar \omega^*_a\bar \omega_b + \bar \omega^*_b\bar \omega_a$, but mention here some fundamental formulas that emerge. First, the electric charge density is given by $pe\bar \rho(\bm r)$, where $\bar \rho(\bm r)$ is the local elementary droplet (composite boson) density, and $$\bar \rho(\bm r,t) = \frac{1}{2\pi p q}\left ( \frac{ pe}{\hbar} B(\bm
r) + \bar s K(\bm r,t)\right ),$$ Here $B(\bm r)$ is the externally-imposed 2D (normal) magnetic flux density, (assumed to be time-independent, but not necessarily spatially uniform), and $K(\bm r, t)$ is the instantaneous Gaussian curvature of the unimodular guiding-center-metric field $\bar g_{ab}(\bm r,t)$, given by $K$ = $\epsilon^{ab}\partial_a\Omega^{\bar g}_b$, $\Omega^{\bar g}_a$ = $\epsilon^{bc}\bar \omega^*_b\nabla_a^{\bar
g}\bar \omega_c$, where $\Omega^{\bar g}_a$ is the spin connection gauge-field and $\nabla^{\bar g}_a$ is the covariant derivative (Levi-Civita connection) of $\bar g_{ab}$. This formula could perhaps have been anticipated from the work of Wen and Zee[@wenzee], who considered coupling Chern-Simons fields to curvature, but the curvature they apparently had in mind was not the collective dynamical internal degree of freedom described here, but that due to placing the FQHE system on a curved 2D surface embedded in 3D Euclidean space, as in formal calculations of the FQHE on a sphere surrounding a monopole[@haldane83; @halrez85]. The second formula is that the canonical conjugate of the geometry field $\bar \omega_a(\bm r)$ is $$\bar \pi^a_{\bar \omega}(\bm r) = \hbar \bar s \bar \rho(\bm r)
\epsilon^{ba}\bar \omega_b(\bm r)^*,$$ so the momentum density (translation generator density) is $\bar \pi^b_{\bar \omega}\nabla_a^{\bar g}\bar \omega_b $ = $\hbar s
\bar \rho \Omega^{\bar g}_a$. These formulas parallel those of quantum Hall ferromagnets, with guiding-center spin and Gaussian curvature replacing true electron spin and Berry curvature. On large lengthscales, the elementary charge $e^*$ = $\pm e/q$ quasiparticles appear as rational cone-singularities of the metric field $\bar g_{ab}(\bm
r,t)$ with localized Gaussian curvature $K$ = $\pm 4\pi/(2\bar s )$.
In summary, the prevalent assumption of rotational invariance of FQHE fluids conceals a fundamental geometric degree of freedom, the shape of their correlations, described by a unimodular spatial metric field that exhibits quantum dynamics.
This work was supported by DOE grant [DE]{}-[SC0002140]{}. The author thanks the Laboratoire Pierre Aigrain, École Normale Supérieure, Paris, for its hospitality during the final stages of this work.
[1]{} S. M. Girvin, A. H. MacDonald, and P. M. Platzman, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}, 581 (1985)
R. B. Laughlin, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**50**]{}, 1395 (1983).
F. D. M. Haldane and E. H. Rezayi, Phys. Rev. B [**31**]{}, 2529 (1985).
F. D. M. Haldane, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**51**]{}, 605 (1983).
F. D. M. Haldane and E. H. Rezayi, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**54**]{}, 237 (1985).
S. M. Girvin and A. H. MacDonald, Phys. Rev [**58**]{}, 1252 (1987).
F. D. M. Haldane, arXiv:0906.1854 (unpublished).
X. G. Wu and J. K. Jain, Phys. Rev. B. [**51**]{}, 1752 (1995)
X. G. Wen and A. Zee, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**69)**]{}, 953 (1992).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Clusters of galaxies have not yet been detected at gamma-ray frequencies; however, the recently launched Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, formerly known as GLAST, could provide the first detections in the near future. Clusters are expected to emit gamma rays as a result of (1) a population of high-energy cosmic rays fueled by accretion, merger shocks, active galactic nuclei and supernovae, and (2) particle dark matter annihilation. In this paper, we ask the question of whether the Fermi telescope will be able to discriminate between the two emission processes. We present data-driven predictions for the gamma-ray emission from cosmic rays and dark matter for a large X-ray flux limited sample of galaxy clusters and groups. We point out that the gamma-ray signals from cosmic rays and dark matter can be comparable. In particular, we find that poor clusters and groups are the systems predicted to have the highest dark matter to cosmic ray emission ratio at gamma-ray energies. Based on detailed Fermi simulations, we study observational handles that might enable us to distinguish the two emission mechanisms, including the gamma-ray spectra, the spatial distribution of the signal and the associated multi-wavelength emissions. We also propose optimal hardness ratios, which will help to understand the nature of the gamma-ray emission. Our study indicates that gamma rays from dark matter annihilation with a high particle mass can be distinguished from a cosmic ray spectrum even for fairly faint sources. Discriminating a cosmic ray spectrum from a light dark matter particle will be instead much more difficult, and will require long observations and/or a bright source. While the gamma-ray emission from our simulated clusters is extended, determining the spatial distribution with Fermi will be a challenging task requiring an optimal control of the backgrounds.'
author:
- 'Tesla E. Jeltema$^1$[^1], John Kehayias$^2$ and Stefano Profumo$^{2,3}$'
title: 'Gamma Rays from Clusters and Groups of Galaxies: Cosmic Rays versus Dark Matter'
---
Introduction
============
Clusters and groups of galaxies are the largest gravitationally bound matter structures observed in the Universe. Although these objects are expected to host several high energy phenomena, the resulting electromagnetic non-thermal emission is far from being fully understood [@brunetti; @heclusters]. A hallmark of the occurrence of non-thermal phenomena in these large structures is the detection, in numerous clusters, of extended radio emission associated to the synchrotron losses of relativistic cosmic-ray electrons [@brunetti; @heclusters; @Berrington:2002bh; @Colafrancesco:1998us; @Reimer:2004au]. The acceleration of cosmic rays in galaxy clusters can originate from a number of physical processes, including violent shocks produced in cluster-cluster mergers and the accretion of smaller structures [@harris; @sarazin; @shocks; @Keshet:2002sw], the re-acceleration of cosmic rays injected by galactic sources like active galactic nuclei and supernovae [@sarazin02], and inelastic collisions of primary cosmic-ray protons [@dennison] producing showers of secondary particles, including relativistic electrons and positrons as well as gamma rays.
The radio emission from clusters, perhaps the most solid source of observational information on non-thermal phenomena in these objects, broadly falls into two classes featuring different spatial distribution, polarization and emission location within the cluster. The first class, [*radio relics*]{}, is characterized by irregular radio morphologies and is typically located in external regions of the cluster [@kempner]. The second class of diffuse cluster radio sources is that of [*radio halos*]{} [@giovannini], whose emission is typically centered on the cluster and follows a similar spatial distribution as e.g. the thermal X-ray emission from the intra-cluster medium (ICM) gas. Radio relics, unlike radio halos, exhibit prominent polarization, and are often associated to cluster regions thought to host shock activity. The origin of radio halos, instead, is far from being fully understood [@brunetti; @heclusters]. The upcoming generation of low-frequency radio arrays, including the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT), the LOw Frequency ARray for radio astronomy (LOFAR), the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA) and the Long Wavelength Array (LWA), will improve the current observational situation in the near future.
In the recent past, claims of hard X-ray emission from nearby cluster of galaxies have been reported [@hardxray]. One possibility is that this X-ray emission originates from the inverse Compton (IC) scattering off background radiation of the same non-thermal high energy electron population responsible for the radio emission. Most of the clusters reportedly detected at hard X-ray frequencies are merging clusters [@nevalainen2004], and the detections themselves are still debated [@rossetti04; @Ajello:2008rd]. In addition, it is unclear if simple models for the non-thermal population fueling radio and hard X-ray emissions can self-consistently explain data from clusters (see e.g. the case of new radio data from the Ophiuchus cluster of galaxies [@ophradio] in connection with the recent claim of a non-thermal hard X-ray detection with INTEGRAL [@ophhxr]). Future hard X-ray missions, including the Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) [@nustar] and the International X-ray Observatory (IMX) [@syx], will play a key role in settling the mentioned controversies, as well as in fostering our understanding of processes underlying non-thermal activity in clusters [@Ajello:2008rd].
Gamma rays, covering the highest end of the electro-magnetic spectrum, can potentially provide essential information on high-energy phenomena in groups and clusters of galaxies. So far, these objects have not been detected in gamma-rays, and data from the EGRET telescope on board the Compton Gamma-Ray Observatory [@egretref] have only produced upper limits [@reimer] (see however [@grdetect]). Statistically conclusive discoveries and a true revolution in our understanding of the highest energy phenomena in galaxy clusters are anticipated with the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, formerly known as GLAST [@glastref], which was successfully launched on June 11, 2008. The main instrument onboard Fermi, the Large Area Telescope (LAT), represents a remarkable jump in sensitivity compared to its predecessor EGRET [@egretref]. The LAT also extends the EGRET energy range (20 MeV to 10 GeV) to much higher gamma-ray energies, up to about 300 GeV. Aside from probing high and ultra-high energy particle physics processes in astrophysical sources, the detection of gamma rays from clusters would also help to establish the properties of the primary proton population within clusters, and possibly clarify its role in various cluster phenomena [@heclusters]. These include e.g. the question of the origin of radio halos [@dennison], the “cooling-flow” problem [@fabian] and particle acceleration within cluster merger shocks [@sarazin04].
Clusters of galaxies are potentially powerful observational probes of cosmology (see e.g. [@voit; @HMH01; @albrecht06]). In this context, the accurate understanding of non-thermal phenomena in clusters is crucial to their ultimate utility as cosmological probes. Specifically, the estimate of cluster masses, which is at the basis of all cosmological applications using clusters, frequently relies on the assumption of hydrostatic equilibrium between gravitational forces and the thermal pressure supplied by the ICM. The accuracy of hydrostatic mass determinations is therefore limited by our understanding of the non-thermal pressure provided by cosmic rays, turbulence and magnetic fields in the ICM [@ensslin97; @nagai2007]. The Fermi Gamma-Ray Space Telescope, as well as current and planned ground based atmospheric Cherenkov telescopes (ACTs) will be able to probe the energy density supplied by cosmic rays, and possibly the evolution with redshift of cosmic ray pressure, to an unprecedented level of accuracy [@pfrommer2004; @nagaiando].
A more exotic possibility for non-thermal activity in galaxy clusters was first envisioned by Totani in Ref. [@totani]: the pair annihilation of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMP) constituting the dark matter halo. Following that seminal work, Colafrancesco, Profumo and Ullio calculated in [@Colafrancesco:2005ji] the complete multi-frequency spectrum, for the case of the Coma cluster, resulting from dark matter annihilation. The emission spectrum extends from radio to gamma-ray frequencies, and includes the secondary emissions from the non-thermal electrons and positrons produced as final stable particles in dark matter annihilation events. In addition, Ref. [@Colafrancesco:2005ji] also studied the heating of the ICM produced by the energy injected by dark matter annihilation, as well as the induced Sunyaev-Zeldovich signal. As far as indirect signals from particle dark matter annihilation, by far the best studied non-thermal radiative emission is the production of gamma-rays [@Gunn:1978gr; @Stecker:1978du]. Specifically, when two dark matter particles annihilate, gamma rays result both directly from loop-suppressed diagrams as well as from the subsequent decays or radiative emission (e.g. from final state radiation) of standard model particles produced in the annihilation final state, like quarks, leptons and gauge and Higgs bosons. The resulting gamma rays have energies extending up to the kinematic limit set by the WIMP mass (the pair annihilation event occurs for highly non-relativistic dark matter particles), predicted to be in the 10-1000 GeV range in the best motivated models [@dmreviews; @kkdm] (see however [@profumoheavy; @profumolight]).
The LAT instrument onboard Fermi is a tremendous tool for the indirect search for particle dark matter with gamma rays [@Baltz:2008wd; @ourgc]. Of special relevance for the present study, the flux of gamma rays from WIMP dark matter annihilation in clusters of galaxies has been shown to be in principle large enough to be detectable by Fermi-LAT [@Colafrancesco:2005ji; @ophiuchus]. Dark matter annihilation does not only produce gamma rays, but also additional stable particle species, such as energetic electrons and positrons. These, in turn, produce synchrotron, IC and bremsstrahlung radiation, with unique spectral features. The multi-wavelength emission from dark matter annihilation was studied in detail in [@gondolo; @bertone0101134; @aloisio0402588; @baltzwai; @coladraco; @xrdwarf; @ullioregis; @haze1; @haze2], and specifically in clusters of galaxies in [@Colafrancesco:2005ji; @ophiuchus; @colabullet]. Interestingly, it was demonstrated that if dark matter annihilation fuels to some appreciable degree either the radio emission in the Coma cluster [@Colafrancesco:2005ji], or the hard X-ray emission in the Ophiuchus cluster [@ophiuchus], Fermi is almost guaranteed to have the sensitivity to detect gamma rays from dark matter annihilation.
Upcoming gamma ray observations of clusters of galaxies have therefore profound implications for cosmology and, possibly, the discovery of New Physics. If Fermi detects gamma rays from clusters, a crucial point will be to conclusively assess the nature of the mechanism responsible for the emission. In the present study, we focus on how to tell apart gamma rays produced by standard, astrophysical mechanisms such as cosmic rays from those resulting from WIMP dark matter annihilation. On general grounds, we expect to have three handles to differentiate the two emission mechanisms:
- the [*gamma-ray spectrum*]{}: models for cosmic ray production of gamma rays predict a flux as a function of energy which differs from what expected out of dark matter annihilation. The low photon statistics represents a challenge for meaningful discrimination based on the gamma-ray spectrum. We thus study the best angular and energy range, and propose a technique based on hardness ratios that will help to discriminate cosmic rays from dark matter
- the [*spatial distribution*]{}: depending upon assumptions on the dark matter substructure distribution and density profile, as well as on the primary cosmic ray source distribution, we predict that clusters can appear to be extended gamma-ray sources. We study whether this can be used to differentiate gamma rays emitted by dark matter from those produced by cosmic rays
- the [*multi-wavelength emission*]{}: comparing the results of hydrodynamical simulations of cosmic rays in clusters to our predictions for a dark matter scenario, we find that the ratio of the hard X-ray to gamma-ray emission is a potential diagnostic to understand the origin of non-thermal phenomena in clusters.
In our simulations and analysis, we use the latest LAT instrumental response function and observation strategy and the Fermi Science Tools software package which is currently being used to analyze Fermi data.
As an application of our theoretical study, we present predictions for gamma-ray fluxes from a large X-ray limited sample of 130 nearby groups and clusters of galaxies. Specifically, our predictions are based on X-ray data, and on a fixed set of assumptions for both dark matter and cosmic rays. This also allows for a meaningful comparison of the dark matter to cosmic ray induced emission at gamma-ray frequencies. We present a ranking of plausible candidates where one might expect a bright gamma-ray signal, and of sources where the dark matter contribution is expected to be stronger compared to the one fueled by astrophysical cosmic rays. In particular, we discovered that low-redshift groups are the most promising class of objects to search for a dark matter signal from distant extra-galactic systems.
The organization of our paper is as follows. The following Section \[sec:method\] illustrates the model we use to compute the gamma-ray emission resulting frtom cosmic rays (\[sec:cr\]) and from dark matter annihilation (\[sec:dm\]), and gives details on the Fermi simulation setup (\[sec:glastsim\]). Section \[sec:origin\] discusses how to study the origin of gamma rays from clusters, including our analysis of the optimal angular region, the spectra, hardness ratios, spatial extension and multi-wavelength counterparts. We present in Section \[sec:cat\] our predictions and ranking of nearby clusters and groups according to their gamma-ray emission (the complete list is provided in the Appendix). Section \[sec:concl\] gives a discussion and summary of our results, and concludes.
Methodology {#sec:method}
===========
In this Section we present our modeling of the gamma ray emission from cosmic rays (\[sec:cr\]) and from dark matter (\[sec:dm\]). For definiteness, we consider the case of the Coma cluster [@Colafrancesco:2005ji; @grcoma], but what we find applies to generic low redshift clusters. We also discuss, in Sec. \[sec:glastsim\], the Fermi simulation setup we employ in our study.
Gamma-ray Emission From Cosmic Rays {#sec:cr}
-----------------------------------
Several mechanisms leading to the acceleration of relativistic particles in the intra-cluster medium have been discussed in the literature (see e.g. [@Reimer:2004ac]). Most importantly, energetic arguments suggest that powerful shocks created in cluster-cluster mergers and in the accretion of material onto the deep cluster gravitational potential well are significant sources of relativistic cosmic rays [@Takizawa:2000qk; @shocks; @Keshet:2002sw; @Blasi:2003xs; @Berrington:2002bh; @Miniati:2001ay; @2008arXiv0806.1522S; @Colafrancesco:1998us]. The same shocks can also re-accelerate originally lower-energy particles injected into the ICM through other processes [@Ensslin:1997kw].
The common denominator to the above mentioned scenarios is that Fermi shock acceleration yields a population of non-thermal relativistic cosmic rays. These include primarily high-energy electrons and protons. The former efficiently loose energy by synchrotron emission at radio frequencies as well as through the up-scattering of background radiation to gamma-ray and X-ray frequencies (inverse Compton scattering). Collisions of high-energy cosmic-ray protons with nuclei in the ICM produce, in their hadronic debris, neutral pions promptly decaying into two gamma rays with typical energies and fluxes potentially observable by Fermi-LAT. In addition, the same collisions yield secondary cosmic ray electrons and positrons from the decays of charged pions [@Berrington:2002bh; @Petrosian:2001ph; @Berezinsky:1996wx].
At energies $E_\gamma\gtrsim 0.1$ GeV and for non-merging clusters, or clusters in the intermediate or late merger stages, most of the gamma-ray emission is believed to stem from gamma rays produced in neutral pion decays resulting fomr the above mentioned inelastic cosmic-ray proton collisions [@Berrington:2002bh]. The energy stored in the secondary electron-positron pairs is predicted to contribute at the level of 1% or less of the total power associated to the primary cosmic ray protons [@Berrington:2002bh]. In terms of the gamma-ray emission, ref. [@nagaiando] estimates that only for very low average cluster magnetic fields and for very steep proton injection spectral indexes can the secondary inverse Compton contribution be even 10% of that from $\pi^0$ decay.
Although secondary $e^\pm$ inverse Compton emission is likely subdominant compared to neutral pion decay gamma-ray yields, during the early stages of a merger, [*primary*]{} electrons can still make a significant contribution to the GeV radiation. The gamma-ray emission is, again, dominantly associated to the inverse Compton of, here, primary cosmic-ray electrons off of the microwave radiation background. The resulting inverse Compton flux is suppressed compared to the hadronic gamma-ray production from nuclear interactions involving non-thermal protons only as long as the efficiency of acceleration of hadronic species exceeds that for electrons [@Keshet:2002sw]. While this is indeed the expectation in diffusive shock acceleration theory [@Berrington:2002bh], the reader should bear in mind that the model we outline below might not apply to merging clusters in the early stage of a merger, or it may give underestimates of the cosmic ray production of gamma-rays. In general, inverse Compton emission from primary electrons is expected to dominate close to acceleration sites such as large scale shocks [@Miniati2002]. Nevertheless, simulations indicate that the inverse Compton emission from electrons is systematically subdominant at energies relevant to the Fermi telescope compared to gamma-rays produced from pion decays [@pfrommer2004; @pfrommer2007; @nagaiando].
In this work, we consider only the typically dominant gamma-ray emission from pion decays. The inclusion of gamma rays from primary electrons inverse Compton scattering could affect the results of the analysis we present in the following ways. First, the total gamma-ray flux, when considering this additional source, will generically be enhanced, potentially resulting in even better prospects for the detection of galaxy clusters at gamma-ray energies with Fermi-LAT. Furthermore, if IC from primary electrons plays a significant role, the morphology of the gamma-ray emission region from cosmic rays would also be affected, leading likely to a wider extent of the emitting region (including for instance peripheral cluster shock regions). This could, however, potentially hinder the discrimination of a cosmic-ray emission from that originating from dark matter annihilation using spatial considerations (sec. \[sec:space\]). Thirdly, the spectral analysis (sec \[sec:specs\]) will in general be affected, depending on the spectrum of the emission, and a broken power law feature could arise at low Fermi energies where the emission from primary electrons may become comparable to that from primary hadronic cosmic rays. Finally, it is possible that clusters that host a bright active nucleus and, concurrently, exhibit significant IC emission from an accretion shock would feature a [*double peak*]{} in the spatial distribution of high-energy cosmic-ray sources. Such a circumstance cannot be described by the radial power-law functional form we adopt in the simplified spatial model for the distribution of cosmic-rays described below.
Bearing the above caveats in mind, for simplicity we assume here that the dominant source for the gamma-ray emission from galaxy clusters at energies relevant to Fermi originates from inelastic collisions of hadronic cosmic rays [@Reimer:2004ac; @Berezinsky:1996wx]. Following the arguments outlined above, we then follow the analytical cosmic-ray model outlined in [@pfrommer2004; @pfrommer2007; @nagaiando]. In this scenario, the primary proton injection spectrum is described by a simple power law, parametrized by a spectral index $\alpha_p$ independent of the position in the source. In [@pfrommer2004] a framework is outlined for incorporating the fireball model for very high energy cosmic ray proton interactions with the ICM as well as pion production threshold effects. The resulting differential source function $q_\gamma$ (with units of inverse energy and volume) is $$\begin{aligned}
\label{eq:crspec}
q_\gamma(r,E_\gamma) \textrm{d}E_\gamma\textrm{d}V \simeq& \sigma_{pp}\ c\ n_N(r)\ \xi^{2-\alpha_p}\ \frac{\tilde{n}_{CR_p}(r)}{\textrm{GeV}}\ \frac{4}{3\alpha_p}\left(\frac{m_{\pi^0}c^2}{\textrm{GeV}}\right)^{-\alpha_p} \nonumber \\ &\times \left[\left(\frac{2E_\gamma}{m_{\pi^0}c^2}\right)^{\delta_\gamma}+\left(\frac{2E_\gamma}{m_{\pi^0}c^2}\right)^{-\delta_\gamma}\right]^{-\alpha_\gamma/\delta_\gamma}\ \ \textrm{d}E_\gamma\textrm{d}V,\end{aligned}$$ where \_[pp]{} = 32(0.96+e\^[4.4-2.4\_p]{}) models the effective inelastic p-p cross section and $n_N$ is the target nucleon density in the ICM. The quantity $\tilde{n}_{CR_p}$ with the dimensions of the cosmic ray proton number density, has a normalization chosen so that the kinetic cosmic ray proton energy is proportional to the thermal energy density of the ICM. Also, $\xi = 2$ is the pion multiplicity, and $\delta_\gamma = 0.14\alpha_p^{-1.6}+0.44$ is a shape parameter for the $\pi^0$-threshold physics [@pfrommer2004]. By integrating over all solid angles and dividing by $n_N$ and $\tilde{n_{CR_p}}$ (to be independent of a model’s spatial dependence) the final differential gamma-ray source function (i.e. the gamma-ray flux per unit energy and unit time, per unit target and impinging cosmic-ray flux) is obtained.
The spatial distribution of cosmic ray sources is modeled in terms of the ratio of the energy density in cosmic rays to the energy density of the thermal gas; this ratio is taken to be a power law with radius, parametrized by $\beta_p$ as $$\label{eq:spatial}
X_p(r) = X_p(R_{500})\left(\frac{r}{R_{500}}\right)^{\beta_p}$$ where $X_p$ is the ratio of the energy density of cosmic rays compared to the thermal gas, and $R_{500}$ is the radius of an enclosed spherical overdensity $500$ times the critical density of the universe at the source’s redshift [@nagaiando]. The parameter $\beta_p$ physically reflects the possibility that the spatial distribution of the sources of high-energy cosmic rays deviates, via a power-law as a function of radius, from the density profile of the thermal gas in the cluster. While a variation in the Mach number during the course of a cluster merger can drive different injection indexes at different locations [@Berrington:2002bh], we neglect here, for simplicity, any spatial variation associated to $\alpha_p$.
In summary, the simple model we use here depends on three orthogonal parameters: $\alpha_p$, that sets the spectral shape of both the injected primary cosmic rays and the resulting gamma rays, $X_p$ that sets the normalization of the gamma-ray flux, and $\beta_p$, that (together with the gas density distribution, that can be inferred e.g. from X-ray data) sets the spatial distribution of the signal. We outline below a few motivated parameter space choices which define the benchmark models we employ to run our Fermi simulations. We then apply these models to the specific case of the Coma cluster.
- As far as the injection spectral index, estimates come from theoretical arguments as well as from numerical simulations. For instance, Ref. [@Berrington:2002bh] showed that the minimum spectral index ranges from 2.1 to 2.8. In that range, larger values are typically associated to forward shocks and smaller masses. The larger the mass, the stronger the gravitational potential and the harder the predicted injection spectral index. Structure formation shock theory predicts injection spectral indices of $2.0<\alpha_p<2.5$ for strong shocks [@Miniati:2003ep], such as those expected for [*accretion*]{} shocks and [*strong merger*]{} shocks. We choose here $\alpha_p=2.1,\ 2.7$ as physically motivated cases. Specifically, the cosmic ray spectrum in our Galaxy is observed to be a power law with $\alpha_p=2.7$, which motivates the large $\alpha_p$ choice. On the other hand, clusters confine cosmic rays on cosmological time scales [@Volk:1994zz; @Berezinsky:1996wx], and are thus expected to give rise to a harder spectrum than that of the Galaxy: $\alpha_p=2.1$ is thus also a reasonable and motivated choice for a harder injection spectrum [@nagaiando]. This choice is, in addition, consistent with the results of the simulations of Ref. [@Berrington:2002bh]. However, if cosmic rays in galaxy clusters are accelerated in [*weaker*]{} merger shocks the expectation is one of a softer injection spectral index. In this case, strong confinement of cosmic rays in clusters will likely not make the spectrum much harder. Numerical simulations, though, indicate a low efficiency for the acceleration of cosmic rays at weak merger shocks [@kangjones]. In summary, thus, we regard our benchmark value $\alpha_p=2.7$ as an example case rather than, strictly, as an upper limit to the cosmic ray injection spectrum.
Model $\alpha_p$ $\beta_p$
-------- ------------ -----------
CR\_HC $2.1$ $-0.5$
CR\_HF $2.1$ $1$
CR\_SC $2.7$ $-0.5$
CR\_SF $2.7$ $1$
: Summary of parameters for cosmic ray models used. The parameter $\alpha_p$ indicates the primary cosmic-ray injection spectral index, while the coefficient $\beta_p$ stands for the bias of the cosmic-ray source spatial distribution with respect to the cluster’s thermal gas spatial distribution (see eq. \[eq:spatial\]). For all models, we set the ratio of the energy density of cosmic rays compared to the thermal gas $X_p=0.1$. \[tab:cr\_models\]
- The results of recent hydrodynamical simulations (see e.g. [@pfrommer2007]) and of other recent studies [@nagaiando] motivate our choices of $\beta_p=-0.5,1$ for our benchmark models. The case of $\beta_p=-0.5$, which we label as the “cuspy” profile, is found in simulations that include radiative effects. The profile in (\[eq:spatial\]) with $\beta_p=-0.5$ approximates the profile resulting from the radiative, hydrodynamical simulations of Ref. [@pfrommer2007]. Non-radiative simulations indicate instead a flatter profile with $\beta_p=1$; this is an extreme scenario where the density of cosmic ray sources relative to the thermal gas density grows linearly with radius. Although this might be on the verge of being unrealistic, the effects of cooling and heating in clusters are also somewhat uncertain, and we adopt this case as an extreme possibility [@pfrommer2007; @nagaiando]. We remark that in recent studies [@brunetticassano] it has been argued that cosmic ray activity in clusters is dominated by turbulent reacceleration. In this case, in the absence of shocks, the natural expectation for $\beta_p$ would be 0. This choice falls in between the two benchmark cases we consider here.
- Lastly, in our Fermi simulations we assume that the cosmic ray energy density is 10% of the thermal gas energy density, i.e. we set $X_p=X_p(R_{500})=0.1$. The choice of the normalization to the cosmic ray proton energy density is limited by a few constraints [@Reimer:2004ac]:
- The gamma rays produced in inelastic collisions yielding neutral pions, which subsequently decay into two photons, must be consistent with the EGRET upper limits [@reimer]
- The inverse Compton up-scattering of microwave photons by the secondary $e^{\pm}$ population produced by charged pion decay (as for the neutral pions these particles are produced in collisions of the primary cosmic ray protons with nuclei in the ICM) will give rise to non-thermal hard X-ray and soft gamma-ray emission. The intensity of this radiation must also be consistent with observational data.
- Lastly, the mentioned secondary $e^\pm$ will also radiate at radio frequencies via synchrotron emission, providing additional constraints from radio data.
Assuming $\alpha_p\simeq2.4$, Ref. [@Reimer:2004ac] shows that in the case of Coma the radio data are at the level predicted for $X_p\sim0.2$, with appropriate assumptions on the magnetic field distribution. Tighter constraints come from high frequency radio data, and depend quite sensitively on $\alpha_p$ and, more importantly, on the value of the average magnetic field. EGRET data, again for the case of Coma, put milder constraints ($X_p\lesssim0.45$ for $\alpha_p=2.1$ and $X_p\lesssim0.25$ for $\alpha_p=2.5$ [@pfrommer2004]). While we consider $X_p=0.1$ here in our Fermi simulated observations, we will consider a more conservative value of $X_p=0.01$ in our survey of galaxy clusters and groups in sec. \[sec:cat\] and in the Appendix, motivated e.g. by the results of Ref. [@nagaiando], which showed that Fermi could be sensitive (depending on $\alpha_p$) to $X_p$ smaller than a fraction of a percent for nearby massive clusters.
We summarize our benchmark cosmic ray models, with their names and parameters, in Table \[tab:cr\_models\]. “CR” stands for cosmic rays, while “H” and “S” respectively indicate a “*Hard*” and a “*Soft*” primary proton injection spectrum, $\alpha_p=2.1$ and 2.7, and “C” and “F” stand for “*Cuspy*” and “*Flat*”, respectively corresponding to $\beta_p=-0.5$ and to 1.
![Contours levels for the gamma-ray emission from cosmic rays in the Coma (left) and Virgo (right) clusters of galaxies. We assume that the cosmic rays have 10% of the gas energy density ($X_p=0.1$), and scan the plane $(\beta_p,\alpha_p)$ where $\beta_p$ characterizes the spatial distribution of cosmic ray sources, and $\alpha_p$ the primary proton injection spectrum. \[fig:alphabeta\]](alphabeta.eps "fig:"){width="14.cm"}\
As pointed out in previous studies, for a wide range of parameters Fermi will be able to detect a gamma-ray signal produced by cosmic rays: Figure \[fig:alphabeta\] shows the gamma-ray flux for the Coma and Virgo clusters for a range of $\alpha_p$ and $\beta_p$, with $X_p=0.1$. In the computation, we assumed for both clusters the gas density profiles as given in Table 1 of [@pfrommer2004]. The curves indicate contours of constant integrated gamma-ray flux above 0.1 GeV, in units of $10^{-9}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$. For simplicity, we assume here a Fermi sensitivity for a point-source emission of $4\times10^{-9}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$, while the EGRET gamma-ray limits for Coma and Virgo are given in [@reimer]. Points below the blue line, in the central part of the panels, are predicted to be within the sensitivity of Fermi. The red lines indicate instead the EGRET limits: parameter space points below those lines are thus ruled out by current data [@reimer].
The shape of the gamma-ray emission contours is not unexpected: larger values of $\beta_p$ imply smaller gamma-ray fluxes, simply because they feature a flatter cosmic ray spatial distribution (see Eq. \[eq:spatial\]), which in turn integrates to smaller values. In addition, we find that the source function in Eq. (\[eq:crspec\]) implies that the largest gamma-ray fluxes correspond to intermediate values (2.1$\lesssim \alpha_p \lesssim2.7$) of the injection spectrum.
Dark Matter Models {#sec:dm}
------------------
The determination of the gamma-ray flux from dark matter annihilation in clusters depends on both the dark matter density distribution in the specific object under consideration and on assumptions on the dark matter particle model. For definiteness, we again consider here the case of the Coma cluster, for which a detailed study of the dark matter density distribution was carried out in [@Colafrancesco:2005ji].
As far as the dark matter density distribution is concerned, we assume a Navarro, Frenk and White (NFW) profile [@nfw] for both the smooth component (with a scale radius $a$, to be defined in the Equations below) and for the radial distribution of substructure (with a biased scaling parameter $a^\prime\simeq7a$, as inferred from numerical simulations of e.g. [@Nagai:2004ac; @Diemand:2004kx][^2]. We adopt here the semi-analytic approach outlined in [@Colafrancesco:2005ji] to evaluate the contribution from the smooth host halo and from substructures. The relevant quantity for the computation of the dark matter annihilation signal is a number density of particle dark matter pairs, defined as: $$\label{eq:npair}
{\mathcal N}_{\rm pairs}(r) =\frac{\rho_{\rm m}^2}{2m^2_{\rm WIMP}}\Big(\frac{\left[\rho^\prime\ g(r/a)-f_s\ \tilde\rho_s\ g(r/a^\prime)\right]^2}{\rho_{\rm m}^2}+f_s\ \Delta^2 \frac{\tilde\rho_s\ g(r/a^\prime)}{\rho_{\rm m}}\Big).$$ In the Equation above, the first line represents the contribution from the smooth part of the dark matter halo, while the second line encompasses the contribution from substructures. In particular, $\rho_{\rm m}$ indicates the present day mean matter density in the Universe, and for the function $g(y)$, as alluded to above, we assume the NFW prescription, i.e. $$\label{eq:nfw}
g(y)=\frac{1}{x\left(1+x\right)^2}.$$ The normalization parameter $\rho^\prime$ and the scale radius $a$ can be expressed, for a given profile, as functions of the virial mass $M_{\rm vir}$ and of the virial concentration parameter $c_{\rm vir}$ (by “virial” we mean assuming an overdensity $\Delta_{\rm vir}\simeq343$, see the discussion in [@Colafrancesco:2005ji]). Following [@Colafrancesco:2005ji], we take here for the Coma cluster a virial mass $M_{\rm vir}\simeq 0.9\times 10^{15}M_\odot h^{-1}$ and a concentration $c_{\rm vir}\simeq10$. The distance to Coma is set to 95 Mpc [@Colafrancesco:2005ji]. Further, in Eq. (\[eq:npair\]) above we defined a reference substructure normalization parameter \_s. Finally, the substructure model is specified by the two parameters $f_s$ and $\Delta^2$. The first stands for the ratio of the total mass in subhalos over the total virial mass, \_[M\_[cut]{}]{}\^[M\_[vir]{}]{}[d]{}M\_s M\_s=f\_sM\_[vir]{}, where ${{\rm d}n}/{{\rm d}M_s}$ indicates the sub-halo mass function, and $M_{\rm cut}$ the small scale cut off mass in the matter power spectrum [@Profumo:2006bv; @othersubs]. The second term, $\Delta^2$, indicates the weighed enhancement in the number density of dark matter particle pairs due to subhalos. For the definition of $\Delta^2$ and an extensive discussion on how to assess its value we refer the reader to [@Colafrancesco:2005ji], which we follow here. $\Delta^2$ crucially depends upon the ratio between the concentration parameter in subhalos over that in isolated halos at equal mass. Given a structure formation model and a dark matter density profile, $\Delta^2$ and the mentioned ratio can be traded for each other. Notice that as Eq. (\[eq:npair\]) shows, $\Delta^2$ [*is not*]{} the usually quoted substructure boost factor.
We employ here two sets of $f_s$ and $\Delta^2$, representing a very conservative setup with a suppressed contribution from substructure (“[*Smooth*]{}”, or “S” case) and one where instead substructures play a very significant role in setting the dark matter annihilation gamma-ray signal (“[*Boosted*]{}”, or “B” case). For the Smooth case, we assume that only 20% of the mass is in substructures ($f_s$=0.2) and that the average concentration ratio of same mass host and sub-halos equals 2, following what quoted in [@bullock]. The latter assumptions yields $\Delta^2\simeq 7\times 10^5$. In the Boosted setup, we instead assume $f_s$=0.5 and a concentration ratio of 4, implying $\Delta^2\simeq 7\times 10^6$. While smaller dark matter substructure are in principle possible, our present choices are realistic and compatible with the results of N-body simulations.
Another possibility for the overall cluster dark matter density distribution is one where the innermost profile is flat. This case can be physically motivated e.g. in the context of scenarios where angular momentum is effectively transfered between baryonic and dark matter in the process of baryon infall in the dark matter gravitational potential well. This process can be responsible for a significant modification to the slope of the dark matter density profile at small radii, leading to large core radii. In the model of Ref. [@elzant], the final dark matter density distribution can be approximated by a profile such as:
$$\label{eq:burk}
g_{\rm Burk}(y)=\frac{1}{\left(1+x\right)\left(1+x^2\right)},$$
which we refer to as the Burkert profile [@burkert]. For comparison, in Fig. \[fig:ANGULAR\] in Sec. \[sec:space\], where we compare the spatial distribution of gamma-ray emission for different models, we also show the radial profile of gamma-ray emission from a Burkert profile with our two reference substructure setups, but for simplicity we do not simulate this setup. The radial distribution of gamma-ray flux for this profile versus an NFW profile differs only in the inner cluster regions ($R<0.5$ degrees for Coma).
Our choice of the particle dark matter models for the present study was motivated by considering a reasonable range of masses and two different dominant final state annihilation modes. In addition, the size of the pair annihilation cross section was fixed according to either theoretical or phenomenological arguments. In the interest of generality and in order to make our results easily reproducible and comparable to previous work, we do not pick specific theoretical particle physics frameworks, but rather we specify the dominant final state, the particle mass and its pair annihilation rate. This allows one to completely determine the gamma-ray emission.
We consider a model with a relatively large mass ($m_{\rm WIMP}=110$ GeV), a dominant $W^+W^-$ final state annihilation mode, and a cross section corresponding to what is expected, for that mass, for a wino-like neutralino (i.e. for the supersymmetric fermion corresponding to the SU(2) gauge boson), namely $\langle\sigma v\rangle=1.5\times 10^{-24}\ {\rm cm}^3/{\rm s}$. We choose the mentioned value for the WIMP mass for two reasons: (1) we want to use the gamma-ray spectrum resulting from a $W^+W^-$ final state annihilation mode, which forces us to consider $m_{\rm WIMP}>M_W\approx80.4$ GeV, and (2) we want a sizable gamma-ray flux, which forces us to consider a relatively light mass. The choice of $110$ GeV serves both the purpose of avoiding fine-tuning with the $W$ threshold and of being heavy enough to contrast it to our second WIMP setup choice, described below. We call this model H, for high mass, and we assume that such a WIMP has a number density in accord with the cold dark matter abundance thanks to either non-thermal production [@nth] or to a modified cosmological expansion at the WIMP freeze-out [@mod].
Our second WIMP setup is a low mass model (L), featuring $m_{\rm WIMP}=40$ GeV (the lightest mass compatible with grand unified gaugino masses), a dominant $b\bar b$ final state, and a pair annihilation cross section approximately in accord with what is expected for thermal production of cold dark matter, $\langle\sigma v\rangle=6\times 10^{-26}\ {\rm cm}^3/{\rm s}$. While approximately $\Omega_\chi h^2\approx (3\times 10^{-26}\ {\rm cm}^3/{\rm s})/\langle\sigma v\rangle$ [@dmreviews], the scatter to that relation for instance in supersymmetric models (e.g. from resonant annihilation channels) justifies a slightly larger value, which enhances our predicted gamma-ray fluxes.
Having specified the setup for both the dark matter density distribution and particle properties, we can compute the differential gamma-ray yield (number of photons per unit energy, time and surface) as the following integral over the line of sight: =\_[l.o.s.]{}[d]{}l \_[pairs]{}(r(l)) (E\_), where ${\rm d}N^f_\gamma/{\rm d}E_\gamma(E_\gamma)$ stands for the differential gamma-ray yield per annihilation for final state $f$, as resulting from the Pythia [@pythia] Monte Carlo simulations implemented in the DarkSUSY code [@ds].
We summarize the dark matter model parameters in Tab. \[tab:grtab\]. The resulting gamma-ray fluxes are summarized instead in the second column of Tab. \[tab:spec\]. The various gamma-ray spectra of our cosmic ray and dark matter benchmark models are shown in Fig. \[fig:SPECTRA\].
-------- -------------------- ----------- -------------------------- ------- ----------------
Model Mass Final $\langle\sigma v\rangle$ $f_s$ $\Delta^2$
ID $m_{\rm WIMP}$/GeV State $[{\rm cm}^3/{\rm s}]$
DM\_HB 110 $W^+W^-$ $1.5\times 10^{-24}$ 0.5 $7\times 10^6$
DM\_HS 0.2 $7\times 10^5$
DM\_LB 40 $b\bar b$ $6\times 10^{-26}$ 0.5 $7\times 10^6$
DM\_LS 0.2 $7\times 10^5$
-------- -------------------- ----------- -------------------------- ------- ----------------
: Input parameters for the dark matter models considered here. The quantity $f_s$ indicates the ratio of the total mass in subhalos over the total virial mass, while $\Delta^2$ stands for the weighed enhancement in the number density of dark matter particle pairs due to subhalos. \[tab:grtab\]
![Differential gamma-ray spectrum times gamma-ray energy squared (i.e. spectral energy density), for the various models considered in the present analysis. “CR” indicates cosmic ray models, while “DM” the dark matter annihilation emission. See the text and Tab. \[tab:cr\_models\] and \[tab:grtab\] for the meaning of the other labels and the associated input parameters. \[fig:SPECTRA\]](SPECTRA_NEW.eps "fig:"){width="16.5cm"}\
Fermi Simulation Setup {#sec:glastsim}
----------------------
We produced simulated Fermi observations using the Fermi-LAT observation simulator tool, [gtobssim]{}, in the Fermi Science Tools package (v9r7) [@sciencetools]. We run simulations for the specific case of the Coma cluster in terms of the cluster distance, mass, and size. As discussed above, we choose two spectral and two spatial models for the gamma-ray emission from both cosmic rays and dark matter annihilation which encompass the ranges expected for these sources. As shown below (see Sec. \[sec:specs\]), these models cover a wide range of gamma-ray fluxes from clusters and, therefore, represent a reasonable range in the possible signal-to-noise for clusters detectable by Fermi. The range and variation in expected gamma-ray flux from known clusters is considered in detail in Sec. \[sec:cat\]. Our simulated models simply provide benchmarks of what could be seen for observed clusters with similar statistics.
The simulations were run in the default scanning mode with the Pass 6 instrumental source response functions (P6\_V1\_SOURCE). For each cluster simulation, data files defining the cluster spectrum and images defining the spatial distribution were fed to [gtobssim]{} (see Sec. \[sec:cr\] and \[sec:dm\] for model definitions). To include the extragalactic diffuse background emission, we simulate an isotropic source with the power-law spectral parametrization [@burkert] found in the analysis of the EGRET data [@egreteg]. We note that the Fermi background may be lower if a significant fraction of the extragalactic background is resolved as AGN [@agn1; @agn2; @agn3; @agn4; @agn5].
![ Shown from left to right are images of simulations of five year Fermi observations of the Coma cluster for models CR\_HC, CR\_SC, CR\_HF, and CR\_SF, including the extragalactic diffuse background. Images are 20 degrees across and binned to have 1 degree pixels. The color bar is the same in all cases. \[fig:crimages\]](crimages_1degbin.ps "fig:"){width="16cm"}\
[**CR\_HC CR\_SC CR\_HF CR\_SF**]{}\
![ Shown from left to right are images of simulations of five year Fermi observations of the Coma cluster for models DM\_HB, DM\_LB, DM\_HS, and DM\_LS, including the extragalactic diffuse background. Images are 20 degrees across and binned to have 1 degree pixels. The color bar matches the color bar in Fig. \[fig:crimages\]. \[fig:dmimages\]](dmimages_1degbin.ps "fig:"){width="16cm"}\
[**DM\_HB DM\_LB DM\_HS DM\_LS**]{}\
We simulate a one year observation for each combination of our benchmark spectral and spatial models for gamma-ray emission from cosmic rays and dark matter annihilation. We abbreviate these eight combinations as follows: DM\_HS for a high dark matter mass and a smooth dark matter distribution, DM\_LS for a low dark matter mass and smooth distribution, DM\_HB for a high mass and a dark matter distribution with significant substructure/boost factor, DM\_LB for a low mass and a significant substructure boost, CR\_HF for a hard cosmic ray spectrum and a flat cosmic ray spatial distribution, CR\_SF for a soft spectrum and flat distribution, CR\_HC for a hard spectrum and a cuspy cosmic ray distribution, and finally, CR\_SC for a soft spectrum and cuspy distribution. Each simulated source is normalized to have the total model predicted flux for the given spectral and spatial models integrated over a region of 10.5 degree radius (the extent of our input images to [gtobssim]{}). The input fluxes and the number of simulated source photons are given in Tab. \[tab:spec\]. Additionally we simulate five year long observations of all models to test the improvement to our fits with higher statistics, as discussed below. In Fig. \[fig:crimages\] and \[fig:dmimages\] we show images of the five year cosmic ray and dark matter simulations, respectively, binned to one degree and including the extragalactic background. The range in fluxes of these models is apparent. In particular, with little boost from substructure (DM\_HS and DM\_LS) the dark matter models are very faint. In addition, the spatial distribution of the gamma-ray emission from dark matter (DM\_HB) appears more extended than from cosmic rays (see also Sec. \[sec:space\]). We remark that we neglect here additional non-galaxy-cluster point sources expected, on average, in a 20 degree field with fluxes comparable or larger than what we predict for our cluster emission models. Specifically, estimates of the number of high-latitude gamma-ray point sources based upon the extrapolation of EGRET results and/or blazar models [@Ciprini:2003nwa], or on the actual Fermi-LAT early results [@fermiblazars] indicate that one would expect within a 10 deg radius region (what we consider in our figures) $\sim1.5$ sources with a flux at or above the boosted high-mass DM setup DM\_HB ($\gtrsim50\times 10^{-9}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$).
Deducing the Origin of Gamma Rays from Galaxy Clusters {#sec:origin}
======================================================
The Optimal Angular Region {#sec:angle}
--------------------------
Prior to embarking on the spectral and spatial analysis of our gamma-ray simulations, and of addressing the question of the potential of Fermi to discriminate between a gamma-ray emission in galaxy clusters originating from dark matter versus cosmic rays, in the present Section we investigate the optimal angular cuts from a theoretical standpoint. We show results for our one-year simulations for all of our cosmic ray and dark matter models, as well as for the extragalactic diffuse cosmic-ray background.
![The results of our simulations of one-year observations, binned by angular regions. We take as a reference case that of the Coma cluster, and we are summing over all photon counts in our simulations with energies above 100 MeV. The black line indicates the estimated extragalactic background. \[fig:counts\]](counts.eps "fig:"){width="16.5cm"}\
Given the low statistics of photon counts, we decided to include all photons with a reconstructed energy above 0.1 GeV. Fig. \[fig:counts\] shows the number of photon counts inside given angular regions, specified on the x-axis, for the various models. The left panel shows the four cosmic ray cases, while the right panel the dark matter annihilation induced gamma-ray signal. In both panels, for reference, we also show our simulated extragalactic gamma-ray background. A naive by-eye signal-to-background inspection would indicate a small angular region (a few tenths of a degree) as the optimal choice. However, given the fact that we will actually be able to subtract with some efficiency the extragalactic background, it makes sense to investigate the ratio of the signal to the noise, or square root of the background. In addition, the sheer small number of photon counts if we chose a small angular region contain very little information.
![The signal over square root of the background (S/N$\sim n\sigma$) in simulated one-year observations, as a function of the angular region, for all models under consideration here. \[fig:SN\]](SN.eps "fig:"){width="14.cm"}\
Figure \[fig:SN\] shows the ratio of the signal to the square root of the background, again for all models under consideration, and as a function of the angular region of interest. In the most luminous cosmic ray cases ($\beta_p=-0.5$), it appears that the signal-to-noise is maximized for a region of interest of around one degree. For such a choice, the left panel of Fig. \[fig:counts\] tells us that we would get around 500 photons per year above 0.1 GeV inside a one degree region, which is approximately 50% of the overall photon flux. A choice of one degree seems thus optimal in the case of cosmic rays.
The brightest dark matter cases, on the other hand, feature a large and “luminous” substructure content, in particular at large radii, making the signal significantly more diffuse than in the cosmic ray case. Given the importance of differentiating between a point-like and a diffuse emission from clusters, it will be important to have a large enough region of interest. Additionally, the signal-to-noise for the dark matter cases is maximized in regions between 1.5 and 3.5 degrees. Again looking at Fig. \[fig:counts\], we confirmed that the choice of a region of interest of 3 degrees appears to be optimal for a dark matter type signal.
In conclusion, we find that the analysis of the signal-to-noise and of the total photon counts would lead us to employ a region of interest of 3 degrees for the dark matter and of one degree for cosmic rays. In the interest of being sensitive to soft spectra, (the instrument Point Spread Function (PSF) would lead to the loss of most of the low energy photons out of an angular region of one degree) we decided to proceed with a 3 degree region for both cases. For reference, we mark a 3 degree radius region in figs. \[fig:crimages\] and \[fig:dmimages\].
Spectral Analysis {#sec:specs}
-----------------
We examine the simulated spectra for our eight benchmark cluster models to investigate our ability to discriminate the gamma-ray spectra from cosmic rays versus dark matter annihilation. We extract source spectra and response files, including the cluster plus extragalactic diffuse background, within a 3 degree radius of the cluster center using the tools [gtbin]{} and [gtrspgen]{}. To account for the extragalactic diffuse emission, we extract a background spectrum from an annular region with an inner radius of 10 degrees and an outer radius of 12 degrees. As is clear from Fig. \[fig:counts\], this outer region contains very little cluster emission. Spectra were fit using the XSPEC spectral fitting package [@xspec]. Within XSPEC, the background spectrum is subtracted from the source spectrum after adjusting the BACKSCAL header keyword in the background file to account for the difference in area between the background spectrum and the source spectrum.
-------- ------------------------------- -------- ------------------------ -------------- ----------------------- --------------
Model Flux ($>0.1$ GeV) Source $\alpha_p$ $\chi_{\nu}$ $m_{{\rm WIMP}}$ $\chi_{\nu}$
($10^{-9}$ cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$) Counts (GeV)
DM\_HB 54.7 1823 $2.27^{+0.08}_{-0.06}$ **1.51** $92.0^{+8.0}_{-16.1}$ 1.02
DM\_LB 14.6 431 $2.87^{+1.05}_{-0.49}$ 1.01 $<113.5$ 1.01
DM\_HS 2.25 73 - - - -
DM\_LS 0.597 15 - - - -
CR\_HC 37.7 1161 $2.39^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ 1.12 $24.8^{+3.1}_{-4.6}$ 1.11
CR\_SC 42.9 1188 $2.89^{+0.14}_{-0.13}$ 0.95 $<11.7$ *0.97*
CR\_HF 6.76 187 $3.26^{+1.52}_{-0.73}$ 1.01 $<54.3$ *1.01*
CR\_SF 7.71 208 $4.05^{+2.10}_{-1.11}$ 1.01 $<40.0$ *1.02*
-------- ------------------------------- -------- ------------------------ -------------- ----------------------- --------------
: Summary of one year simulations and their spectral fits, for the specific case of the Coma cluster. The second column lists the total flux input in to the simulations ($>100$ MeV), and the third column gives the total number of simulated cluster photons (all angles). Columns 4 and 5 give the best-fit slope and reduced $\chi^2$ for the CLUSTERCR fits, while columns 6 and 7 list the best-fit particle mass and reduced $\chi^2$ for the DMFIT fits. Upper/lower limits on spectral parameters refer to 90% confidence limits; all other errors are 1 sigma. Reduced chi-squared ($\chi_\nu$) in bold indicate a fit probability of less than 1% and in italics indicate that the best fit is found for the DMFIT lower mass limit of 10 GeV. \[tab:spec\]
XSPEC allows one to include custom user models, and we use this feature to include models for the gamma ray spectrum from both cosmic rays and dark matter annihilation. For the dark matter spectrum, we use the routine DMFIT, which we presented in ref. [@ourgc]. DMFIT is a tool that provides the gamma-ray flux from generic WIMP pair annihilation (i.e. from dark matter particles with specified mass and branching ratios into Standard Model final state annihilation modes). DMFIT is based on the same set of Monte Carlo simulations used in DarkSUSY [@ds] and incorporates a wide variety of annihilation modes. Two data files contain the Monte Carlo simulation results giving the differential and integrated gamma-ray fluxes at given energies. The simulation results are then interpolated given the dark matter particle mass and annihilation final states supplied by the fitting routine. We additionally include the $e^+e^-$ channel, where gamma-rays are radiated in the final state via internal bremsstrahlung. The $e^+e^-$ channel – presently not included in the DarkSUSY code – is relevant for various non-supersymmetric WIMP models, including the Kaluza-Klein dark matter of Universal Extra Dimensions [@kkdm] (see Ref. [@nicole] for model-independent limits on the annihilation cross section of dark matter to $e^+e^-$).
DMFIT consists of two data files and one Fortran routine, and the code is publicly available from the authors upon request. DMFIT essentially reverse-engineers the use of the DarkSUSY package for the computation of gamma-ray spectra: given an observed gamma-ray spectrum, DMFIT allows one to fit for the best matching particle dark matter mass, its pair-annihilation rate and its branching ratios. In conjunction with virtually any fitting package, like XSPEC and the [gtlike]{} routine in the Fermi Science Tools, DMFIT can be used to reconstruct confidence level ranges for the mentioned particle dark matter properties.
While the [Pythia]{} Monte Carlo simulations extend down to a WIMP mass of 10 GeV, DMFIT allows one to extrapolate to lower masses. Very light WIMPs have been recently shown to be relevant even in the context of supersymmetry [@Profumo:2008yg], and they can possibly play a role in explaining the puzzling DAMA/LIBRA signal [@dama]. We note that in the current XSPEC version of DMFIT, the default lower limit on the dark matter particle mass is 10 GeV. For the spectral fits shown below with only upper limits on the particle mass, the best fit typically saturates at the 10 GeV limit.
The spectrum from cosmic ray interactions is modeled with the simple analytic form given in Eq. (\[eq:crspec\]), and included in XSPEC using a Fortran routine as a model named CLUSTERCR. Both XSPEC models are available from the authors upon request, and both models are currently being incorporated into the Fermi-LAT Science Tools as part of the [gtlike]{} likelihood fitting tool.
Tab. \[tab:spec\] summarizes the spectral fits to simulations of one year observations of the Coma cluster. For each simulated cluster spectrum, we fit both a cosmic ray and a dark matter model, regardless of the input model, to compare how well we can distinguish these two scenarios based on the spectrum. For simplicity, in the case of the cosmic ray simulations, we assume a $b\bar b$ final state for the DMFIT spectral model, while for the dark matter simulations, we use the dominant final state ($b\bar b$ for DM\_L and $W^+W^-$ for DM\_H). The overall spectral shape of the $b\bar b$ final state is quite similar to most other final states [@Cesarini:2003nr; @Profumo:2005xd; @ds], including $W^+W^-$, but we refer the reader to ref. [@ourgc] for a discussion of the systematic affects of the assumption of final state on the reconstruction of dark matter particle properties. Columns 4 and 5 of Tab. \[tab:spec\] give the best-fit slope and reduced $\chi^2$ for the CLUSTERCR fits, while columns 6 and 7 list the best-fit particle mass and reduced $\chi^2$ for the DMFIT fits.
\
For a higher dark matter mass and a reasonably bright source, as is the case for DM\_HB ($m_{{\rm WIMP}} = 110$ GeV), we find a good fit to a dark matter spectrum, but we cannot get a good fit to a cosmic ray spectrum. Fig. \[fig:dmoptsspec\] shows a comparison of the best-fit DMFIT (left panel) and CLUSTERCR (right panel) models for this simulation compared to the data. In this case, the spectrum is only consistent with a dark matter interpretation; the best-fit dark matter particle mass is low by $\sim 15$% but consistent with the true mass within a couple of sigma. On the other hand, our low dark matter mass model DM\_LB ($m_{{\rm WIMP}} = 40$ GeV), which is also significantly fainter, can be well fit by either a cosmic ray spectrum with a fairly steep slope or with a dark matter spectrum.
A similar result is seen when considering the the simulated cosmic ray models. In general, these are consistent with either a cosmic ray spectrum or a dark matter spectrum with a low mass dark matter particle. The cuspy cosmic ray distribution gives fluxes 5-10 times higher than a flatter distribution, and in these cases the possible dark matter mass is limited to be quite low ($24.8^{+3.1}_{-4.6}$ GeV for a hard cosmic ray spectrum and a 90% upper limit of 11.7 GeV for a soft cosmic ray spectrum). Even for the fainter CR\_HF and CR\_SF models, we find a 90% upper limit on the possible dark matter mass of $40-55$ GeV. Interestingly, the cosmic ray spectral slope, $\alpha_p$, is overestimated in all cases, though the best fits are within a couple sigma of the true slope. This is most likely due to the hard spectrum of the extragalactic background emission. As the dark matter particle mass is also somewhat underestimated for DM\_HB, it appears that the background subtraction leads to a general softening of the source spectrum. The effect of the background can be mitigated and the cosmic ray spectral slope recovered to good accuracy if a smaller energy rage extending only up to 10 GeV is used in the spectral fits. However, with such a low high energy cutoff, a high mass dark matter particle model, like DM\_HB, is indistinguishable from a hard cosmic ray spectrum. We, therefore, recommend using a large energy range ($\sim 0.1-150$ GeV) to investigate the dominant source of the emission but a lower high energy cutoff ($\sim0.1-10$ GeV) to determine the model parameters.
-------- ------------------------------- -------- ------------------------ -------------- ----------------------- --------------
Model Flux ($>0.1$ GeV) Source $\alpha_p$ $\chi_{\nu}$ $m_{{\rm WIMP}}$ $\chi_{\nu}$
($10^{-9}$ cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$) Counts (GeV)
DM\_HB 54.7 9171 $2.10^{+0.02}_{-0.02}$ **2.94** $100.5^{+5.5}_{-5.7}$ 0.96
DM\_LB 14.6 2343 $2.47^{+0.13}_{-0.15}$ 1.03 $31.7^{+8.0}_{-4.0}$ 0.97
DM\_HS 2.25 368 $>2.19$ 0.98 $<200$ 1.00
DM\_LS 0.597 100 - - - -
CR\_HC 37.7 5819 $2.23^{+0.03}_{-0.03}$ 1.11 $29.2^{+2.0}_{-1.0}$ **2.02**
CR\_SC 42.9 5990 $2.76^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ 0.99 $<11.1$ ***1.40***
CR\_HF 6.76 977 $2.66^{+0.29}_{-0.21}$ 0.99 $24.1^{+8.0}_{-14.1}$ 1.03
CR\_SF 7.71 1145 $3.32^{+0.25}_{-0.61}$ 0.92 $<13.0$ *0.98*
-------- ------------------------------- -------- ------------------------ -------------- ----------------------- --------------
: Summary of five year simulations and their spectral fits. The second column lists the total flux input in to the simulations ($>100$ MeV), and the third column gives the total number of simulated cluster photons (all angles). Columns 4 and 5 give the best-fit slope and reduced $\chi^2$ for the CLUSTERCR fits, while columns 6 and 7 list the best-fit particle mass and reduced $\chi^2$ for the DMFIT fits. Upper/lower limits on spectral parameters refer to 90% confidence limits; all other errors are 1 sigma. Reduced chi-squares in bold indicate a fit probability of less than 1% and in italics indicate that the best fit is found for the DMFIT lower mass limit of 10 GeV. \[tab:spec5\]
As Fermi is expected to have at least a five year mission lifetime, we also consider the improvement in the spectral constraints for five year simulations of the same models; the results are shown in Tab. \[tab:spec5\]. With deeper observations, even a low mass dark matter particle model is ruled out for the brighter cosmic ray models, CR\_HC and CR\_SC, and for the fainter models, CR\_HF and CR\_SF, the upper limit on the particle mass is significantly decreased requiring a very light dark matter particle. As an example, we show in Fig. \[fig:crpespspec\] the best-fit DMFIT (left panel) and CLUSTERCR (right panel) models to the five year simulated spectrum of CR\_HC ($\alpha_p = 2.1$). A dark matter model is clearly inconsistent with the spectral data. As noted above, here we have only considered a $b\bar b$ final state, a reasonable assumption as it has a similar spectral shape to most other potential final states. However, we note that if we fit a $\tau^+\tau^-$ final state, which has a significantly harder gamma-ray spectrum than $b\bar b$, we get a much worse fit to the cosmic ray simulations. With five years of data, the best-fit cosmic ray slopes for the CLUSTERCR model are closer to the input values, but they are still too high by $\sim1 \sigma$ for the soft spectral model and $\sim3 \sigma$ for the hard spectral model. Again, this offset can be removed by using a smaller energy range (0.1-10 GeV) in the spectral fit to reduce the effects of the background.
\
For the dark matter simulations DM\_HB and DM\_LB, the longer exposure time significantly reduces the errors on the particle mass estimates, decreasing both the systematic shift to lower masses and the statistical errors. The simulated high particle mass spectrum is again very inconsistent with a cosmic ray-type spectrum. However, the low mass model with its moderate flux is still well fit by a cosmic ray model.
Unfortunately, the simulations of emission from dark matter annihilation with a smooth dark matter spatial distribution (i.e. little substructure) have very low fluxes and low S/N even with five years of data. For these simulations (DM\_HS and DM\_LS), we cannot get good constraints on the spectral model. The best case with the smooth spatial distribution is the five year simulation of DM\_HS, and as can be seen in Tab. \[tab:spec5\], we can only derive a lower limit on the possible cosmic ray slope and an upper limit on the possible dark matter particle mass.
In summary, assuming a dominant cosmic-ray or dark-matter origin, gamma ray emission from dark matter annihilation with a high dark matter particle mass ($m_{{\rm WIMP}}>50$ GeV) can be distinguished from a cosmic ray spectrum even for fairly faint sources (one year data for CR\_HF and CR\_SF, for example). Distinguishing a cosmic ray spectrum from a low dark matter particle mass is much more difficult and requires deep data and/or a bright source.
While our models show that either cosmic rays or dark matter annihilation can dominate the gamma-ray emission from clusters, a mix of the two is another likely scenario. As a final test, we simulate two clusters with emission from both cosmic rays and dark matter with equal fluxes for five years of observing time. The first simulation combines emission from models DM\_HB and CR\_SC each normalized to have a flux of $2.5 \times
10^{-4}$ photons m$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$; the second simulation combines emission from DM\_LB and CR\_HC each with a flux of $1.3 \times 10^{-4}$ photons m$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$. Note that the total cluster fluxes from both sources of emission are then within the range of the original models. The first case is more optimistic combining a high mass dark matter particle with a soft cosmic ray spectrum, while the second case has about half the total flux and combines a low particle mass with a hard cosmic ray spectrum. We do not simulate fainter mixed models, as we have already demonstrated the difficulty of distinguishing the type of emission for faint sources.
For the more optimistic case of a high mass dark matter particle and a soft cosmic ray spectrum, we find that neither a cosmic ray only spectral model ($\chi_{\nu} = 1.35$ for 94 DOF) nor a dark matter only model ($\chi_{\nu} = 2.03$ for 94 DOF) provide a good fit. Fitting to a combined dark matter and cosmic ray spectral model, however, gives a good fit ($\chi_{\nu} = 0.87$ for 92 DOF) with the normalizations of both components non-zero at $> 3 \sigma$. Here the DM particle mass is underestimated and the cosmic ray slope overestimated by $2-3 \sigma$ with $m_{{\rm WIMP}} = 87^{+8}_{-4}$ GeV and $\alpha_p = 3.5\pm0.4$. If the dark matter particle mass is known from other astronomical observations or direct detection experiments, then the errors can be significantly reduced. Fixing the dark matter mass at the true value, we find $\alpha_p = 3.1^{+0.1}_{-0.2}$ and the normalizations of the cosmic ray and dark matter components are both determined to $\sim15$%. The results for the second mixed simulation with a low particle mass and hard cosmic ray spectrum unfortunately show that one cannot distinguish the source of the emission. Comic ray only, dark matter only, and mixed models all give good fits to the data even with the dark matter particle mass fixed at its true value.
Overall, we find, for bright enough sources, that if the dark matter contribution to the cluster flux is significant and the particle mass is not very low ($m_{WIMP} > 40$ GeV) the presence of a dark matter component can be seen even in the presence of a significant gamma-ray flux from cosmic rays. The reconstruction of the model parameters is more difficult in this case, but can be significantly improved if something about the dark matter mass in known.
Hardness Ratios
---------------
In addition to the spectral analysis, we also investigated the use of simple energy band ratios, hardness ratios, to differentiate the gamma-ray signal of cosmic rays and dark matter. Hardness ratios give a quick estimate of the slope/shape of the spectrum and can be used as a rough spectral analysis for lower photon count data (for instance, dimmer sources or shorter observing time) when it is not possible to accurately estimate the flux in more than a couple of energy bins.
We defined two energy bands hard (H) and soft (S), and our hardness ratio is defined as HR = (H – S)/(H + S). A couple of considerations were used in defining these bands. We chose a lower energy limit of $\sim 150$ MeV so that the expected cosmic ray spectrum is a simple power law (e.g. away from threshold effects). We also require that the hard band have at most a factor of $10$ difference in photon counts from the soft band for the range of models under consideration. The energy bands we chose are S $=0.15 \leq E < 0.7$ GeV and H $=E \geq 0.7$ GeV. This particular choice of bands has the additional convenient feature that the expected ratio, HR, is negative for cosmic rays and positive for dark matter.
As for the spectral analysis of our Fermi simulations, we used a $3$ degree radius source region and an annulus from $10$ to $12$ degrees to estimate the background. The photon counts in the background region are subtracted from the counts in the same energy band in the $3$ degree source region, after accounting for the difference in area. We compared this annular background signal to a simulation of the background in the source region, and they match very well.
![The hardness ratio for cosmic ray and dark matter models. Indicating with H the total number of (hard) photons with energies above 0.7 GeV, and with S those (soft) in the energy band between 0.15 and 0.7 GeV, we define here as [*hardness ratio*]{} the quantity (H-S)/(H+S). The top plots are for high flux point sources without background, used as reference results. The middle and bottom rows of plots show the results for the simulated Fermi cluster observations of Coma, including the uncertainties due to the background subtraction. The red line in each plot is the same as in the top plots (just connected, not a best fit). \[fig:hr\_big\]](results_2band_0.7.eps "fig:"){width="16.5cm"}\
To find the expected hardness ratios for the different spectra after including the Fermi instrument response, we ran simulations of point sources for cosmic rays ($\alpha_p$ between $2$ and $3$) and dark matter (neutralino mass between $40$ and $400$ GeV, b-$\bar{\textrm{b}}$ final state), without any background and set to very high fluxes (top panel of Fig. \[fig:hr\_big\]). For all of these simulations, we took $10^5$ photons. Here we indeed see that the expected ratio, HR, is negative for cosmic rays and positive for dark matter. Also, at least with such good statistics, the ratio correlates well with $\alpha_p$ or the dark matter mass. The results of our cluster simulations agree well with these results. The hardness ratios for our eight simmulated cluster models, after background subtraction as described above, are plotted in the middle and lower panels of Fig. \[fig:hr\_big\], for 1 and 5 years of data.
All of these simulations agree well within errors with the results from the simple high-flux analysis, though the errors are large for the fainter cases. While it can be difficult to tell, for example, a lower dark matter mass from a harder cosmic ray spectrum, these results show that it is possible to use this simple two energy band ratio for distinguishing some cosmic ray and dark matter models. The hardness ratio also correlates well with spectral index $\alpha_p$ or the dark matter mass. So, for instance, if it is known that a gamma-ray source is mostly dark matter in origin, this ratio provides an indication of the particle mass. From comparing the simulations both with and without background we find that significant errors come from the uncertainty in the background and its subtraction. Accurate modeling of the diffuse gamma-ray background could significantly improve this analysis.
Spatial Extension of the Gamma-ray Emission {#sec:space}
-------------------------------------------
![The gamma-ray emission as a function of the angular distance from the center of the Coma cluster, for cosmic rays (left) and for dark matter (right). The first two lines in each panel correspond to our reference setups, and in both panels the thin solid black lines offer a comparison for dark matter (left) and cosmic rays (right). \[fig:ANGULAR\]](ANGULAR.eps "fig:"){width="16.5cm"}\
In addition to their spectra, the gamma-ray emissions from cosmic rays and dark matter annihilation in clusters are expected to have different spatial distributions. With sufficient signal, cluster emission from either source may also be detectable as extended, which could distinguish a cluster signal from the emission from e.g. a nearby AGN. In Fig. \[fig:ANGULAR\], we show the gamma-ray flux versus angular distance from the cluster center for a range of models including our benchmark simulated models. The left panel of Fig. \[fig:ANGULAR\] shows the radial distribution of flux for cosmic ray models with varying $\beta_p$. Obviously, as $\beta_p$ increases the flux falls off less steeply with radius, but generically all of the cosmic ray models are relatively flat within 0.1 degrees and then fall-off steeply with increasing radius. In comparison, the emission from the dark matter models (right panel of Fig. \[fig:ANGULAR\]) has a much flatter radial distribution, particularly when a significant substructure component is present. With a smaller contribution from substructure, as is the case for DM\_HS, the gamma-ray flux falls steeply at small radii but eventually flattens around $R\sim0.3$ degrees where the contribution from substructure becomes significant. For comparison, we also show in the right panel of Fig. \[fig:ANGULAR\] an alternative dark matter distribution to the centrally cuspy NFW model, the Burkert profile discussed in Sec. \[sec:dm\] (labeled Burk. in the figure). The radial profile of emission from the Burkert density distribution is very similar to our simulated NFW model at large radii, but flatter at small radii ($R<0.5$ degrees). In practice, this difference can only be resolved for bright sources and at high energies where the PSF is smaller.
We now turn to our simulations and ask whether our simulated models can be detected as extended and whether a difference in spatial distribution can be observed for our cosmic ray versus dark matter models. Unfortunately, a full joint fitting of the spectral and spatial distribution of a source cannot currently be carried out with the Fermi Science Tools, and here we choose to separate the spatial an spectral modeling. For simplicity, we consider only one simulated spectrum (plus the two reference spatial models) each for the dark matter and cosmic ray cases, the high mass spectrum for dark matter and the soft spectrum for cosmic rays. We also fit only the higher S/N, 5 year simulations. For each of the four simulations considered (DM\_HB, DM\_HS, CR\_SC, CR\_SF), we create images of the cluster plus extragalactic background for $E>100$ MeV and $R<3$ degrees binned to have 0.2 degree pixels. This binning was chosen to give a reasonable number of counts per bin while still being smaller than the Fermi-LAT PSF at all but the highest energies. While the PSF can be significantly reduced by only considering higher energies, we did not wish to reduce the photon counts from already faint sources.
First, we create a model of the energy averaged PSF for each spectral model considered by simulating a high flux point source with that spectrum. An image of the point source was then created with the same binning, energy cut, and angular region as for our cluster simulations. This image, re-normalized to one, is used as a PSF model, which is convolved with a given spatial model and then fit to the simulated cluster data. All spatial fitting is done using the package *Sherpa* [@sherpacit], distributed as part of the Chandra data analysis software *CIAO* [@ciaocit]. We consider three different models for the spatial distribution as provided by *Sherpa*: a delta function to test if a source is point-like, a Gaussian, and a $\beta$-model of the form $$S(r) = S_0 \left(1+ \left(\frac{r}{r_{core}}\right)^2\right)^{ - \alpha }.$$ Neither a Gaussian nor a $\beta$-model exactly describes the spatial distributions shown in Fig. \[fig:ANGULAR\], but these models give an indication of the extent and slope of the source distribution. We fit using the maximum-likelihood based Cash statistic, CSTAT [@cash], which is more appropriate than a $\chi^2$ statistic for data with few counts per bin but has the property that $\Delta C$ is distributed approximately as $\Delta \chi^2$ when the number of counts in each bin is $\gtrsim 5$ (as is the case for our images). Our results are summarized in Tab. \[tab:space5\].
-------- --------- --------------- --------------- ------------------------ --------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------
Model Bkgd? Delta Gaussian $\beta$-Model
Stat./DOF Stat./DOF FWHM (deg) Stat./DOF $\alpha$ $r_{core}$ (deg)
DM\_HB **4518**/715 **841.6**/714 $3.26^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ 767.8/713 $0.74^{+0.08}_{-0.07}$ $0.46^{+0.14}_{-0.12}$
DM\_HB $\surd$ **1784**/715 **817.0**/714 $3.44^{+0.14}_{-0.14}$ **817.5**/713 $10^{+?}_{-6.5}$ $6.2^{+?}_{-2.9}$
DM\_HS 716.8/708 510.2/707 $3.36^{+0.38}_{-0.30}$ 493.6/706 $0.43^{+0.13}_{-0.16}$ $0.006^{+0.039}_{-0.006}$
CR\_SC **855.0**/708 785.7/707 $0.46^{+0.06}_{-0.06}$ 780.5/706 $2.0^{+0.6}_{-0.3}$ $0.21^{+0.09}_{-0.05}$
CR\_SC $\surd$ **926.7**/715 **859.2**/714 $0.78^{+0.08}_{-0.08}$ **805.4**/713 $0.98^{+0.10}_{-0.10}$ $0.06^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$
CR\_SF **831.2**/708 787.7/707 $1.39^{+0.21}_{-0.20}$ 757.6/706 $1.0^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ $0.10^{+0.09}_{-0.05}$
-------- --------- --------------- --------------- ------------------------ --------------- ------------------------ ---------------------------
: Results of spatial fitting to the 5 year simulations. Columns 3, 4, and 6 list the value of the Cash statistic for the fit over the number of degrees of freedom. Values of the Cash statistic in bold indicate fits with a probability of less than 1%. Column 2 indicates whether or not the extragalactic diffuse background was included. In row 2, for the $\beta$-model fit to DM\_HB including the gamma-ray background, $\alpha$ pegs at its upper limit and the upper limits on the parameters of the model are unconstrained. \[tab:space5\]
Initially, we consider only the simulated cluster emission and neglect the extragalactic background. Tab. \[tab:space5\] reveals a couple of trends. First, none of the simulated clusters are consistent with a point source, with the exception of the very faint model DM\_HS whose spatial distribution is not well constrained. Second, as expected, the dark matter models are more extended, in terms of the Gaussian FWHM, and have flatter profiles, in terms of the $\beta$-model slope $\alpha$ than the cosmic ray models. Typically both the Gaussian and the $\beta$ models give acceptable fits to the data. Finally, we consider how well we can model the spatial distribution if the extragalactic background is included. Here again we create images of our simulations with the same radius, binning, and energy range, but with the extragalactic diffuse emission included. As in the spectral analysis, we use an outer annulus between 10 and 12 degrees to measure the background level. The average background per pixel from this region is then added as a constant to our spatial modeling. For the two fainter simulated clusters, DM\_HS and CR\_SF, unfortunately, the addition of the background means that the spatial model is not well constrained; the fits are poor and the errors on the model parameters are large. For the brighter simulations, DM\_HB and CR\_SC, we again find a much better fit to an extended source than to a point source. These fits are noted in Tab. \[tab:space5\]. The fits typically worsen somewhat in terms of fit probability given the imperfect modeling of the background, but in general, the fit parameters such as the FWHM and slope are consistent within the errors with the no background results.
In summary, clusters are expected to be extended gamma-ray sources, and with the inclusion of the contribution from substructure to the dark matter distribution, the gamma-ray emission from dark matter annihilation is predicted to be flatter and more extended than for cosmic rays. However, these differences can only be detected, given the extragalactic background, for bright sources with deep data. If the extragalactic background used in this work is an overestimate of the Fermi background, due for example to AGN unresolved by EGRET, then the situation could improve significantly. On the other hand, with real observations we will also have the additional uncertainty of imperfect knowledge of the spectrum. As a final note, what we have presented here is a relatively simple approach to the spatial modeling of Fermi data based on tools currently available. This analysis could be significantly improved through the development of tools to jointly fit the spectral and spatial distribution to arbitrary functions.
Multi-wavelength counterparts
-----------------------------
![The ratio of the gamma-ray to hard X-ray integrated flux for dark matter, as a function of the dark matter particle mass, for average magnetic fields $B=3\ \mu$G (left) and $B=10\ \mu$G (right). The red arrows indicate the range predicted for cosmic rays as assessed from the numerical simulations of [@pfrom], with various assumptions on the cosmic ray physics. \[fig:xgamma\]](xgamma_CR.eps "fig:"){width="14.cm"}\
Several recent studies highlighted the importance of secondary radiation emitted from electrons and positrons produced in WIMP pair annihilation as a powerful indirect dark matter diagnostic. The non-thermal population of light stable leptons produced in dark matter halos via particle annihilation radiates, in fact, through synchrotron, inverse Compton and bremsstrahlung off the ICM gas, with peculiar spectral features. First discussed in [@totani] for the case of galaxy clusters, the multi-wavelength emission from dark matter annihilation was also studied in detail in [@baltzwai] for galactic dark matter clumps and in [@coladraco] for the dwarf spheroidal galaxy Draco. Ref. [@xrdwarf] extended those analyses and studied constraints on particle dark matter properties from X-ray observations of nearby dwarf galaxies. Other recent studies include an interpretation of the significant non-thermal X-ray activity observed in the Ophiuchus cluster in terms of IC scattering of dark-matter produced $e^+e^-$ [@ophiuchus], an analysis of the broad-band dark-matter annihilation spectrum expected from the Bullet cluster [@colabullet] and from the galactic center region [@ullioregis]. In addition, radio emission from $e^+e^-$ produced in dark matter annihilation was considered as a possible source for the “WMAP haze” in the seminal paper of [@haze1], and subsequently analyzed in detail in [@haze2], [@haze3] and [@2008arXiv0801.4378H]. Other studies [@gondolo; @bertone0101134; @aloisio0402588] have also addressed synchrotron radiation induced by dark matter annihilation.
It was pointed out in [@ophiuchus] that a unique aspect of the multi-wavelength spectrum from WIMP dark matter annihilation in clusters is a strong emission at hard X-ray frequencies ($E_\gamma\gtrsim10$ keV), with strikingly uniform spectral features, independent of the specific WIMP model. Other studies, in particular [@xrdwarf], showed that even in systems where cosmic ray diffusion and leakage play an important role, like dwarf galaxies, X-ray and gamma-ray constraints on particle dark matter with current telescopes are comparable. It is therefore important to assess whether information can be extracted by comparing the X-ray and the gamma-ray emission from dark matter with the results of hydrodynamical simulations of cosmic ray physics in clusters [@pfrom]. The latter hard X-ray emission is thought to result from the inverse Compton up-scattering of mostly cosmic microwave background photons by non-thermal cosmic ray electrons accelerated to relativistic energies in the ICM through the multiple mechanisms summarized in the Introduction.
While a dedicated analysis of the spectral features expected in the hard X-ray band for cosmic rays and for dark matter is beyond the scope of the present analysis, we wish here to compare the cumulative flux in these two frequency regions. Specifically, we consider the ratio of the integrated gamma-ray flux (for $E>0.1$ GeV) to the integrated hard X-ray flux (for $E>10$ keV) as resulting from the numerical simulations of [@pfrom], and quoted in Table 3 there. Fig. \[fig:xgamma\] indicates the results of [@pfrom] with red arrows. In the left panel we employ a scaling magnetic field value of 3 $\mu$G, while in the right panel of 10 $\mu$G, with the spatial distribution assumptions outlined in [@pfrom]. As specified in ref. [@pfrom], where we refer the Reader for further details, simulation S3 includes thermal shock heating, radiative cooling, star formation, Coulomb and hadronic cosmic ray losses, and cosmic rays from shocks and supernovae. Simulation S2 neglects the latter component, while S1 also neglects radiative cooling and star formation.
We also show in Fig. \[fig:xgamma\] the results of the same integrated hard X-ray and gamma-ray emission for dark matter models with a $b\bar b$, $\tau^+\tau^-$ and $\mu^+\mu^-$ dominant final state, as a function of the WIMP mass. While a $b\bar b$ final state, common to numerous supersymmetric dark matter models, produces a soft electron-positron spectrum, leptonic final states give rise to a harder emission. In turn, this corresponds to a larger IC flux in the hard X-ray band, and to a suppressed gamma-ray flux. To compute the multi-wavelength emission from WIMP annihilation, we use the same setup as the one outlined in [@ophiuchus]. Notice that the ratio of the gamma-ray to hard X-ray luminosity from WIMP annihilation is largely independent of the particular setup chosen for the dark matter profile and for substructures (see Sec. \[sec:dm\]).
We find that the generic expectation is for the ratio of gamma-ray to hard X-ray flux to be larger for cosmic rays and suppressed for dark matter. The suppression can be as large as a factor 100, for final states producing a hard electron-positron spectrum, such as the lightest Kaluza-Klein particle of Universal Extra Dimensions (UED) [@kkdm]. As we found in the spectral analysis and with the hardness ratio approach, the hardest cases to differentiate dark matter from cosmic rays are those with a very light dark matter particle. Comparing the left and the right panel of Fig. \[fig:xgamma\], we also find that smaller values of the magnetic field enhance the difference in the gamma-to-hard X-ray luminosity for cosmic rays and for dark matter, while larger values tend to give a more blurry picture. While the assessment of the average intra-cluster magnetic field (via e.g. Faraday rotation measurements) might only give an order of magnitude estimate, we find that for expected values for the magnetic field and for dark matter particle models with electro-weak scale particles, the gamma-ray to hard X-ray ratio technique proposed here would give a rather robust handle. Notice that in theoretically favored dark matter particle models, such as supersymmetry, the ratio shown in fig. \[fig:xgamma\] would typically lie between the black solid line ($b\bar b$) and the green dashed line ($\tau^+\tau^-$). Other dark matter models, such as UED would have an even lower such ratio.
In short, we showed that the ratio of the integrated gamma-ray to hard X-ray flux in galaxy clusters can be used as a diagnostic for the discrimination of the origin of non-thermal phenomena, specifically astrophysical cosmic rays from dark matter annihilation. The generic expectation is that a dark matter induced signal would produce a brighter hard X-ray emission as opposed to cosmic rays, for a given detected gamma-ray flux.
Gamma Ray Emission from Selected Galaxy Clusters and Groups {#sec:cat}
===========================================================
In this Section, we ask the question what are the best targets for the detection of gamma ray emission from clusters. We consider two large catalogs of galaxy clusters and groups, the HIGFLUCS Catalog [@higf] and a subset of the catalog produced by the GEMS project [@gems]. We describe below the assumptions we make to predict the gamma ray emission from cosmic rays and from dark matter for the objects considered in the two catalogs. In order to compare all objects, we make the same set of assumptions as far as both cosmic rays and dark matter are concerned: for instance, we assume the same ratio of gas to cosmic ray energy density ($X_p=0.01$, i.e. lower by a factor 10 than what we considered before for Coma) for all clusters and groups. In modeling the dark matter halo, we assume the same fraction of mass in substructures versus the host halo ($f_s=0.5$) and the resulting $\Delta^2=7\times 10^6$ as for the “[Boosted]{}” setup (the fluxes corresponding to the “Smooth” case would have been roughly a factor 25 smaller, although this number depends on the cluster/group under consideration).
To compute the cosmic ray emission, the first step is to extract the electron scaling density $n_e$ from the X-ray data. We assume that the intra-cluster medium (ICM) density can be described by a beta model: $$\rho(r)=\rho_0\left(1+\frac{r^2}{R_c^2}\right)^{-3\beta/2}.$$ We follow here the approach outlined in [@Mohr:1999ya], which assumes that the ICM is isothermal with temperature $T_X$, and we compute the scaling density of electrons $n_e$ as $$n_e=\left(\frac{L_X\mu_H(1-3\beta)}{2\pi\mu_e\Lambda(T_X)R_c^3F(R_X)}\right)^{1/2},$$ where $$\mu_{e,p}=\frac{\rho(r)}{n_{e,H}(r)\ m_p},\quad {\rm with}\quad \mu_e\simeq1.167,\ \mu_H=1.400$$ which corresponds to the assumption of fully ionized plasma with 30% solar abundances [@feldman], $L_X$ is the X-ray luminosity, $R_X$ is the X-ray detection radius, and the function $F$ is defined as [@Mohr:1999ya] $$F(R)=\int_0^\infty\ {\rm d}s\Big[(1+s^2+(R/R_c)^2)^{1-3\beta}-(1+s^2)^{1-3\beta}\Big].$$ For the radiative cooling coefficient $\Lambda(T)$ we assume the parametrization of [@Tozzi:2000cy], i.e. $$\Lambda(T)=C_1(kT)^\alpha+C_2(kT)^\beta+C_3,$$ with $$\begin{aligned}
\nonumber C_1=8.6\times 10^{-25}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm cm}^3\ {\rm s}^{-1}\ {\rm keV}^{-\alpha}\\
\nonumber C_2=5.8\times 10^{-24}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm cm}^3\ {\rm s}^{-1}\ {\rm keV}^{-\beta}\\
\nonumber C_3=6.3\times 10^{-24}\ {\rm erg}\ {\rm cm}^3\ {\rm s}^{-1}\\
\alpha=-1.7,\quad \beta=0.5.\end{aligned}$$ We then use the cluster X-ray temperature $T_X$, the beta profile parameters $R_c$ and $\beta$, the cluster or group redshift and $R_{200}$ to compute the gamma-ray flux from cosmic rays. We assume an injection spectral index $\alpha_p=2.5$ (this parameter is unimportant here, as it just re-normalizes all the cosmic-ray induced gamma-ray fluxes but not the relative emission), and we normalize the cosmic ray energy density to a fraction $X_p=0.01$ of the gas energy density. For the cosmic ray source bias exponent $\beta_p$ we consider two opposite cases: a “smooth” case, where $n_{CR}\propto n_H$, hence $\beta_p=1$ (see Sec. \[sec:cr\]), and a “cuspy” case, where instead $\beta_p=-0.5$. We then integrate the gamma-ray emission above 0.1 GeV and out to $R_{200}$. Notice that this differs from the fluxes reported in Tab. \[tab:spec\], where we integrated the gamma-ray flux over the entire angular region corresponding to our Fermi simulations ($10.5^\circ$).
As far as the dark matter annihilation signal is concerned, we again use X-ray data to infer the dark matter density profile, assuming, as explained above, a Navarro-Frenk-White density distribution [@nfw]. We assume the substructure setup outlined in Sec. \[sec:dm\] and in [@Colafrancesco:2005ji] (to which we refer the reader for further details), and the structure formation model of [@bullock]. Here, we assume again that the radial density distribution of substructure follows the same profile as Eq. (\[eq:nfw\]), but with a biased length scale $a^\prime\simeq7a$, see e.g. [@Nagai:2004ac; @Diemand:2004kx]; we also assume an average bias in the concentration of subhalos versus host halos at equal mass $\langle c_s\rangle/\langle c_{\rm vir}\rangle=4$. Lastly, we assume that the fraction of mass in subhalos over the host halo mass $f_s=0.5$ (this setup corresponds to the Boosted or “B” case of sec. \[sec:dm\]). We then determine the scale radius $a$ and the scaling density $\rho_{0,\rm DM}$ in the following two ways. First, we take the $(R_{200},M_{200})$ and $(R_{500},M_{500})$ pairs as determined from X-ray data, and solve for $a$ and $\rho_{0,\rm DM}$. Alternatively, we use the model of [@bullock] to relate the concentration of a given cluster to its mass and redshift (in practice for our low-redshift samples the latter does not matter significantly), and only make use of one of the $(R,M)$ pairs from X-ray data. Remarkably, we find that the two procedures yield very similar results in the final dark matter induced gamma-ray flux, to the level of better than 10%.
On the particle dark matter side, we assume a particle mass of 40 GeV, a pair annihilation cross section $\langle\sigma v\rangle=6\times 10^{-26}\ {\rm cm}^3/{\rm s}$ and 23 gamma rays per dark matter annihilation event above 0.1 GeV, as Monte Carlo simulations indicate is the case for a $b\bar b$ annihilation final state, ubiquitous e.g. in supersymmetric models [@dmreviews]. This particle DM model corresponds to the low mass (L) model of Sec. \[sec:dm\]. Once the DM setup is specified, the gamma ray flux from dark matter annihilations is then simply the integral over the line of sight of the number density squared of dark matter particles, times the annihilation rate. The resulting fluxes we report, $\phi_0$, can easily be rescaled for other masses, pair annihilation cross sections and annihilation final states: $$\phi^\prime=\phi_0\left(\frac{40\ {\rm GeV}}{m_{\rm WIMP}}\right)^2\left(\frac{\langle\sigma v\rangle}{6\times 10^{-26}\ {\rm cm}^3/{\rm s}}\right)\left(\frac{N_\gamma^{E>0.1\ {\rm GeV}}}{23}\right).$$ In the case of the GEMS catalog [@gems], the group masses were not indicated. We need however that information to reconstruct the dark matter density profile. We thus assume that the ICM is in hydrostatic equilibrium and isothermal, and set [@higf] $$M(<r)=\frac{3kT_X\ r^3\beta}{\mu m_p G_N}\left(\frac{1}{r^2+R_c^2}\right)$$ where $m_p$ is the proton mass, $\mu\simeq0.61$ is the mean molecular weight and $G_N$ is the gravitational constant.
Gamma-ray Emission from Clusters: the HIGFLUCS Catalog
------------------------------------------------------
\
We applied the procedure described above to the HIGFLUCS Catalog, including the clusters and groups from the Extended Sample [@higf]. The HIGFLUCS Catalog includes candidates from several input catalogs, and it includes 63 clusters featuring an X-ray flux in the 0.1-2.4 keV range larger than $2.0\times10^{-11}\ {\rm ergs}\ {\rm s}^{-1}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}$, with galactic latitude $b>20.0^\circ$ and outside two excluded areas towards the Magellanic clouds and the Virgo cluster. In addition, we also include the Extended Sample, with 43 more clusters, bringing the total number of clusters to 106. We collect the flux ID numbers, names, predicted gamma-ray fluxes, ranking and ratio of cosmic ray to dark matter signal in Table \[tab:hf1\], \[tab:hf2\] and \[tab:hfext\] in the Appendix.
We show the flux of gamma rays from dark matter annihilation in the upper panel of Fig. \[fig:clusters1\]. We find that the eight clusters with the expected largest dark matter induced gamma ray flux are the nearby large clusters Perseus, Coma, Ophiuchus and Abell 1060, 3526 and 3627. In addition the two groups M49 and Fornax also have very large fluxes, the latter in particular giving the largest one in the entire sample. The scatter in flux over the HIGFLUCS Catalog ranges over more than two orders of magnitude, but for our nominal choices for the dark matter particle properties and density distribution the typical flux from dark matter from low-redshift clusters lies typically between $10^{-10}$ and $10^{-9}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$.
The lower panel of Fig. \[fig:clusters1\] shows our results for the cosmic-ray induced gamma-ray flux. We show the results for both a smooth ($\beta_p=1$) and a cuspy ($\beta_p=-0.5$) primary cosmic ray source distribution. The cuspy source distribution typically boosts the flux by around one order of magnitude, and is expected e.g. in clusters with bright active galactic nuclei. The actual cosmic ray flux is expected to be somewhere in between the red and the black line. The clusters expected to be brightest in gamma-rays from cosmic ray interactions include Perseus, Coma, Ophiuchus, Abell 3526, 3571, 3627 and 2319, as well as the bright cooling flow clusters 2A0335 and PKS0745.
We remark that although our data-driven analytic approach is different and new with respect to other attempts at predicting which clusters are brighter in gamma rays, we substantially agree with previous analyses, including [@reimer] which uses the ratio of the cluster mass over distance squared, and [@pfrom], which makes use of the results of numerical simulations to assess scaling relations that then are used to predict the gamma-ray emission. We naturally agree with [@nagaiando], which uses a similar approach to ours. We note that these previous analyses predict only the gamma ray flux from cosmic rays and neglect dark matter annihilation.
![The ratio of the gamma-ray emission from dark matter and from cosmic rays for the clusters and groups in the extended HIGFLUCS catalog. The red and black lines refer to a cuspy and a smooth cosmic ray source distribution, as in Fig. \[fig:clusters1\]. \[fig:dmcr\]](dmcr_v2.eps "fig:"){width="15.cm"}\
Fig. \[fig:dmcr\] shows the ratio of the dark matter to cosmic ray gamma-ray flux for the extended HIGFLUCS sample. As in Fig. \[fig:clusters1\] we use the black line to indicate fluxes corresponding to a smooth cosmic ray source profile and a red line for the cuspy profile. In either approach, we notice several outliers, featuring a very high dark matter induced emission compared to the cosmic ray contribution. Candidates include NGC 5846, 5813, 499, 5044 and 4636, as well as Abell 1060, 0548w, Fornax and M49. Interestingly, all these candidates are nearby poor clusters or galaxy groups. Even more interestingly, some of them (like M49 and Fornax) feature some of the largest predicted gamma-ray emissions from dark matter annihilation, making them particularly interesting candidates for Fermi observations. Even with extreme assumptions on the cosmic ray emission ($\beta_p=-0.5$), we find that the dark matter signal could be a factor 10 larger than that of the cosmic ray induced flux. Searches for gamma-ray signals from these promising set of objects will be extremely valuable even with only one year of Fermi data.
![Correlation between the gamma-ray fluxes (from cosmic rays and dark matter) and the ratio of mass to distance squared, for objects in the HIGFLUCS catalog. \[fig:corr\_MD2\]](corr_MD2_v2.eps "fig:"){width="14.cm"}\
We show in Fig. \[fig:corr\_MD2\] the correlation between the cluster mass to distance squared ratio and the predicted gamma-ray flux from cosmic rays and dark matter. We find a very tight correlation for the dark matter emission, which mainly depends on what we assumed for the reconstruction of the dark matter density profiles. On the other hand, the scatter in the beta model parameters induce a significant scatter for the cosmic ray induced gamma-ray emission, with significant outliers both in excess and in deficit.
![Correlation between the gamma-ray fluxes from cosmic rays and the ratio of X-ray luminosity to distance squared, for objects in the HIGFLUCS catalog. \[fig:corr\_LXD2\]](corr_LXD2_v2.eps "fig:"){width="14.cm"}\
Fig. \[fig:corr\_LXD2\] shows a correlation between the predicted gamma-ray luminosity from cosmic rays and the X-ray luminosity over distance squared for clusters in the extended HIGFLUCS sample. Although there are a few outliers, the correlation is rather tight, and close to linear. The dark matter induced emission, instead, does not show any significant correlation with the X-ray luminosity. Also, we do not find any other strong correlations between the predicted gamma-ray fluxes and X-ray related quantities.
As a side comment, we remark that two of the three clusters for which [@Wolfe:2008qm] tentatively associates an unidentified EGRET source with radio sources in the NRAO VLA and Westerbork Northern sky survey catalogs appear also in our list, namely Abell 85 and 1914. While we predict Abell 85 be quite luminous in cosmic-rays-induced gamma-ray emission (ranking 12th to 16th out of 130, depending on the cosmic ray model), Abell 1914 is not predicted to be particularly bright. In addition, both clusters have a low dark matter to cosmic ray gamma-ray luminosity ratio, ranking respectively 124th and 87th. A dark matter interpretation for the tentative gamma-ray emission from these clusters seems therefore disfavored.
Gamma-ray Emission from Groups: the GEMS Catalog
------------------------------------------------
\
Given the results of the previous Section, we decided to consider an alternate sample of nearby groups to (1) check whether our predictions with the HIGFLUCS sample depend on the X-ray data analysis performed in [@higf] and (2) identify other potentially promising candidates for gamma ray searches for particle dark matter. We thus considered the catalog provided by the GEMS project [@gems]. We excluded from our sample the following:
1. groups with an X-ray flux less than 3$\sigma$ above the background level (U-sample [@gems])
2. groups where the detectable extent of group emission is $r_{\rm ext}<60$ kpc, i.e. where the emission appears to be associated with the halo of an individual galaxy instead of being genuinely intergalactic (H-sample [@gems])
3. groups for which some of the relevant X-ray information was not available
4. groups already included in the HIGFLUCS sample
After the cuts described above, the GEMS sub-sample we used was limited to 24 groups. In passing, we notice that for the groups in the last item we obtained a remarkable agreement between the predictions for the gamma-ray fluxes we obtained with the HIGFLUCS and with the GEMS data.
We show in Fig. \[fig:groups\] our results for the dark matter and cosmic ray induced gamma-ray fluxes (left) and the dark matter to cosmic ray ratio (right), with the same conventions as we used in Fig. \[fig:clusters1\] and \[fig:dmcr\]. We find that the gamma-ray emission associated to the groups in the GEMS sample is generically rather faint, with only one group (NGC1407) predicted to have a dark matter signal above $2\times10^{-10}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$ and only three groups (HCG62, NGC4073 and NGC1407) that might have a gamma-ray emission from cosmic rays at the level of $\sim10^{-10}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}\ {\rm s}^{-1}$. More importantly, though, we confirm with the GEMS sample that nearby groups have a potentially very large ratio of dark matter to cosmic ray gamma-ray emission. We find in fact several candidates with a $\sim100$ times larger dark matter than cosmic ray gamma-ray emission, assuming a smooth cosmic ray source profile (see the right panel of Fig. \[fig:groups\]).
Discussion, Summary and Conclusions {#sec:concl}
===================================
The detection of gamma rays from clusters of galaxies might be a milestone in the scientific legacy of the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope. Clusters are known to host a variety of high-energy phenomena that could fuel cosmic rays, producing, in turn, gamma rays as a result of collisions with the ICM gas. Being the largest bound dark matter structures, it is also reasonable to expect that clusters feature a significant gamma-ray emission from the annihilation of dark matter particles. The scope of the present theoretical study was to investigate how to tell apart these two potential mechanisms of gamma-ray production with data from Fermi.
One potential source of gamma-rays from cluster regions that we have not considered here are the bright, central AGN known to be present in some clusters (NGC 1275 in Perseus and M87 in Virgo), which could inhibit our ability to detect faint extended gamma-ray emission. However, this source of contamination is not expected from some of the best candidate, nearby clusters, like the Coma cluster, where strong radio galaxies are not observed. The best method to detect diffuse gamma-ray emission, from cosmic rays or dark matter annihilation, will be to concentrate on those clusters lacking bright AGN. For clusters with central AGN, the expected extended nature of the cluster gamma-ray emission may reveal this component, and the well-known multiwavelength (radio and X-ray) AGN spectra will allow modeling of the contribution of these sources to the gamma-ray emission.
By making simple analytical assumptions on the cosmic ray spectra and source distribution and on the dark matter particle properties and density distribution, we proposed a set of various benchmark models for both gamma-ray production mechanisms under investigation. We believe the set of models we considered is representative of the variety of possibilities one can realistically expect to encounter in clusters of galaxies. We then proceeded to simulate the expected 1 and 5 years gamma-ray signals with the Fermi Science Tools, and analyzed our results.
We summarize below the main results of the present theoretical study.
- We find that for cosmic rays the absolute signal to noise peaks at around one degree, while for dark matter it can peak at larger regions of interest, possibly as large as 3 degrees. Since the Fermi instrument response function forces us to consider relatively large angular regions to include low energy photons, we conclude that the best region of interest for gamma-ray studies of cluster of galaxies is around 3 degrees.
- The spectral analysis of the simulated signal for our benchmark models shows that gamma ray emission from dark matter annihilation with a relatively large dark matter particle mass ($m_{{\rm WIMP}}>50$ GeV) can be distinguished from a cosmic ray spectrum even for fairly faint sources. Distinguishing a cosmic ray spectrum from a low dark matter particle mass appears to be more challenging, and would require deep data and/or a bright source.
- We defined optimal energy bands for a simple hardness ratio, (H – S)/(H + S), estimate of the spectrum. The energy bands we propose are S $= 0.15 \leq E < 0.7$ GeV and H $= E \geq 0.7$ GeV. The hardness ratio is correlated to the nature of the emission and is predicted to be negative for a cosmic ray emission and positive for a dark matter annihilation signal. Similar to the full spectral analysis, the hardness ratios for a simulated low mass dark matter particle model and a hard cosmic ray model are similar within the statisitcal errors. However, it is possible to use this simple two energy band ratio to distinguish cosmic ray and high mass dark matter particle models.
- The level of the gamma-ray emission from clusters produced by cosmic rays can be comparable to that from dark matter annihilation. In the case of a mix of the two emissions, we find that for bright enough sources, if the dark matter contribution to the cluster flux is significant and the particle mass is not very low ($m_{WIMP} > 40$ GeV) the presence of a dark matter component can be seen even in the presence of a significant gamma-ray flux from cosmic rays. However, tight constraints on the model parameters ($m_{WIMP}$ and $\alpha_p$) may be problematic unless the dark matter particle mass is known.
- Our cluster gamma-ray simulated emissions appear, after data reduction, as extended rather than point sources, with extensions which depend on the spatial models and on the emission mechanism. However, determining the spatial distribution with Fermi will be a challenging task requiring an optimal control of the backgrounds.
- We showed that the ratio of the integrated gamma-ray to hard X-ray flux in galaxy clusters can be used as a diagnostics for the discrimination of the origin of non-thermal phenomena. The generic expectation is that a dark matter induced signal would produce a brighter hard X-ray emission as opposed to cosmic rays, for a given gamma-ray flux.
- We presented X-ray data-driven predictions for the gamma-ray flux from 130 clusters and groups of galaxies in the HIGFLUCS and GEMS catalogs. We found that the clusters with the brightest gamma-ray emission from cosmic rays include the Perseus, Coma, Ophiuchus, Abell 3627 and Abell 3526 clusters; the most luminous clusters in dark matter emission are predicted to be the Fornax group, Ophiuchus, Coma, Abell 3526 and Abell 3627.
- We discovered that the objects with the largest dark matter to cosmic ray gamma-ray luminosity in our sample are groups and poor clusters. In particular, the highest ratios are associated to the groups NGC 5846, 5813 and 499, M49 and HCG 22. Of these, M49 ranks overall 6th/130 in terms of predicted dark matter induced gamma-ray emission, NGC 5846 ranks 12th and NGC 5813 15th; Fornax also has a relatively high dark matter to cosmic ray gamma-ray flux, and is the brightest object in dark matter emission. All these objects are very promising candidates for a search for gamma-ray emission with the Fermi telescope that could potentially be related to particle dark matter: specifically, as shown in the Appendix, we predict, for the DM\_HS setup, an integrated flux of photons above 0.1 GeV of $4\times 10^{-9}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$ for Fornax and of $2\times 10^{-9}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$ for M49, both around the projected Fermi point-source sensitivity for one year of data. With the same setup, we predict a flux of $0.8\times 10^{-9}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$ and $0.5\times 10^{-9}\ {\rm cm}^{-2}{\rm s}^{-1}$ for NGC 5846 and 5813, respectively, which would make them detectable or marginally detectable sources for Fermi within the anticipated mission lifetime.
Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered}
===============
We acknowledge useful discussions and inputs from several members of the Fermi Collaboration, in particular James Chiang, Johann Cohen-Tanugi, Jan Conrad, Joakim Edsjo, Robert Johnson, Greg Madejski, Aldo Morselli, Eric Nuss, Troy Porter, Joel Primack, Olaf Reimer, and others involved in the New Physics/Dark Matter and in the AGN/Clusters Fermi Science Working Groups. T.E.J. is grateful for support from the Alexander F. Morrison Fellowship, administered through the University of California Observatories and the Regents of the University of California. S.P. is partly supported by US DoE Contract DEFG02- 04ER41268, NASA Grant Number NNX08AV72G and NSF Grant PHY-0757911.
References {#references .unnumbered}
==========
[200]{}
See e.g. G. Brunetti, arXiv:astro-ph/0208074; Y. Rephaeli, J. Nevalainen, T. Ohashi and A. M. Bykov, arXiv:0801.0982 \[astro-ph\]; H. Liang, V. Dogiel and M. Birkinshaw, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**337**]{} (2002) 567 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0208509\].
P. Blasi and S. Colafrancesco, Astropart. Phys. [**122**]{}, 169 (1999) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9905122\]; S. Colafrancesco and P. Blasi, Astropart. Phys. [**9**]{}, 227 (1998) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9804262\]; A. N. Timokhin, F. A. Aharonian and A. Y. Neronov, arXiv:astro-ph/0305149; H. J. Volk, F. A. Aharonian and D. Breitschwerdt, Space Sci. Rev. [**75**]{}, 279 (1996); H. J. Volk and A. M. Atoyan, arXiv:astro-ph/9812458;
R. C. Berrington and C. D. Dermer, Astrophys. J. [**594**]{}, 709 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0209436\].
S. Colafrancesco and P. Blasi, Astropart. Phys. [**9**]{}, 227 (1998) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9804262\].
O. Reimer and P. Sreekumar, New Astron. Rev. [**48**]{} (2004) 481.
Harris, D. E.; Kapahi, V. K.; Ekers, R. D., Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series, [**39**]{} (1980) 215.
Sarazin, Craig L., Astrophys. J. [**520**]{} (1999) 529.
S. Gabici and P. Blasi, Astropart. Phys. [**20**]{}, 579 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0306369\]; S. Gabici and P. Blasi, Astrophys. J. [**583**]{}, 695 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0207523\].
U. Keshet, E. Waxman, A. Loeb, V. Springel and L. Hernquist, Astrophys. J. [**585**]{} (2003) 128 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0202318\].
See e.g. C. L. Sarazin, arXiv:astro-ph/0105418 and references therein.
W. J. Jaffe, Astrophys. J. [**212**]{} (1977) 1.
Schlickeiser, R.; Sievers, A.; Thiemann, H., Astron. Astrophys. [**182**]{}, 21 (1987)
B.Dennison, Astrophys. J. [**239**]{} (1980) L93.
J. C. Kempner, E. L. Blanton, T. E. Clarke, T. A. Ensslin, M. Johnston-Hollitt and L. Rudnick, arXiv:astro-ph/0310263.
Giovannini, G.; Feretti, L.; Venturi, T.; Kim, K.-T.; Kronberg, P. P., Astrophys. J. [**406**]{} (1993) 399.
R. Fusco-Femiano [*et al.*]{}, Astrophys. J. [**513**]{}, L21 (1999) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9901018\];
M. Renaud, G. Belanger, J. Paul, F. Lebrun and R. Terrier, arXiv:astro-ph/0606114; R. Fusco-Femiano, R. Landi and M. Orlandini, Astrophys. J. [**624**]{}, L69 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0504147\]; J. S. Sanders, A. C. Fabian, S. W. Allen and R. W. Schmidt, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**349**]{} (2004) 952 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0311502\]; J. S. Sanders, A. C. Fabian and R. J. H. Dunn, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**360**]{} (2005) 133 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0503318\].
J. Nevalainen, T. Oosterbroek, M. Bonamente and S. Colafrancesco, Astrophys. J. [**608**]{} (2004) 166 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0311142\].
M. Rossetti and S. Molendi, Astron. Astrophys. [**414**]{}, L41 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0312447\]. M. Ajello [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:0809.0006 \[astro-ph\].
M.A. Perez-Torres, F. Zandanel, M.A. Guerrero, S. Pal, S.Profumo and F. Prada, “[*X-ray and radio emission from the Ophiuchus cluster of galaxies*]{}” submitted to MNRAS.
D. Eckert, N. Produit, S. Paltani, A. Neronov and T. L. Courvoisier, “[*INTEGRAL discovery of non-thermal hard X-ray emission from the Ophiuchus cluster*]{}” arXiv:0712.2326 \[astro-ph\].
O. Reimer, M. Pohl, P. Sreekumar and J. R. Mattox, Astrophys. J. [**588**]{} (2003) 155 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0301362\].
S. Colafrancesco, Astron. Astrophys. [**396**]{}, 31 (2002) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0203443\]; W. Kawasaki and T. Totani, Astrophys. J. [**576**]{}, 679 (2002) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0108309\]; C. A. Scharf and R. Mukherjee, Astrophys. J. [**580**]{}, 154 (2002) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0207411\].
W. B. Atwood \[GLAST Collaboration\], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A [**342**]{}, 302 (1994); P. F. Michelson [*et al.*]{}, GLAST Proposal to NASA, Response to AO 99-OSS-03, Stanford University, (1999); P. F. Michelson \[GLAST-LAT Collaboration\], AIP Conf. Proc. [**921**]{} (2007) 8. Website: [http://www.nasa.gov/mission\_pages/GLAST/main/index.html]{}.
A. C. Fabian, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. [**32**]{} (1994) 277.
Sarazin, Craig L., Journal of the Korean Astronomical Society, [**37**]{} (2004) 433
G. M. Voit, Rev. Mod. Phys. [**77**]{} (2005) 207.
Haiman, Zoltán; Mohr, Joseph J.; Holder, Gilbert P., Astrophys. J. [**553**]{} (2001) 545.
A. Albrecht [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:astro-ph/0609591.
Ensslin, T. A.; Biermann, P. L.; Kronberg, P. P. and Wu, Xiang-Ping, Astrophys. J. [**477**]{} (1997) 477.
D. Nagai, A. Vikhlinin and A. V. Kravtsov, Astrophys. J. [**655**]{}, 98 (2007) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0609247\].
C. Pfrommer and T. A. En[ß]{}lin Astron. Astrophys. [**413**]{}, 17 (2004)
S. Ando and D. Nagai, arXiv:0705.2588 \[astro-ph\].
T. Totani, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**92**]{}, 191301 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0401140\]; see also T. Totani, New Astron. Rev. [**49**]{}, 205 (2005). S. Colafrancesco, S. Profumo and P. Ullio, Astron. Astrophys. [**455**]{}, 21 (2006) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0507575\].
J. E. Gunn, B. W. Lee, I. Lerche, D. N. Schramm and G. Steigman, Astrophys. J. [**223**]{} (1978) 1015.
F. W. Stecker, Astrophys. J. [**223**]{} (1978) 1032.
G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski and K. Griest, Phys. Rept. [**267**]{}, 195 (1996) \[arXiv:hep-ph/9506380\]; L. Bergström, Rept. Prog. Phys. [**63**]{}, 793 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0002126\]; G. Bertone, D. Hooper and J. Silk, Phys. Rept. [**405**]{}, 279 (2005) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0404175\]. For a review, see D. Hooper and S. Profumo, Phys. Rept. [**453**]{}, 29 (2007) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0701197\]. S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{}, 103521 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0508628\].
S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 023507 (2008) \[arXiv:0806.2150 \[hep-ph\]\].
E. A. Baltz [*et al.*]{}, arXiv:0806.2911 \[astro-ph\].
T. E. Jeltema and S. Profumo arXiv:0808.2641 \[astro-ph\].
S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 103510 (2008) \[arXiv:0801.0740 \[astro-ph\]\];
P. Gondolo, Phys. Lett. B [**494**]{}, 181 (2000) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0002226\].
G. Bertone, G. Sigl and J. Silk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**326**]{}, 799 (2001) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0101134\].
R. Aloisio, P. Blasi and A. V. Olinto, JCAP [**0405**]{}, 007 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0402588\].
E. A. Baltz, J. E. Taylor and L. L. Wai, arXiv:astro-ph/0610731.
S. Colafrancesco, S. Profumo and P. Ullio, Phys. Rev. D [**75**]{}, 023513 (2007) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0607073\];
T. E. Jeltema and S. Profumo, arXiv:0805.1054 \[astro-ph\].
M. Regis and P. Ullio, Phys. Rev. D [**78**]{}, 043505 (2008) \[arXiv:0802.0234 \[hep-ph\]\].
D. P. Finkbeiner, arXiv:astro-ph/0409027.
D. Hooper, G. Zaharijas, D. P. Finkbeiner and G. Dobler, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 043511 (2008) \[arXiv:0709.3114 \[astro-ph\]\].
S. Colafrancesco, P. de Bernardis, S. Masi, G. Polenta and P. Ullio, arXiv:astro-ph/0702568.
A. Reimer, O. Reimer, R. Schlickeiser and A. Iyudin, Astron. Astrophys. [**424**]{} (2004) 773 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0405224\]; R. C. Berrington and C. D. Dermer, arXiv:astro-ph/0407278; V. Petrosian, arXiv:astro-ph/0101145.
A. Reimer, O. Reimer, R. Schlickeiser and A. Iyudin, Astron. Astrophys. [**424**]{} (2004) 773 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0405224\].
M. Takizawa and T. Naito, arXiv:astro-ph/0001046.
P. Blasi and S. Gabici, arXiv:astro-ph/0305251.
F. Miniati, T. W. Jones, D. Ryu and H. Kang, Astrophys. J. [**559**]{}, 59 (2001) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0105465\].
Skillman, S. W., O’Shea, B. W., Hallman, E. J., Burns, J. O., & Norman, M. L. 2008, arXiv:0806.1522
H. J. Volk, F. A. Aharonian and D. Breitschwerdt, Space Sci. Rev. [**75**]{}, 279 (1996).
H. J. Volk and A. M. Atoyan, arXiv:astro-ph/9812458.
T. A. Ensslin, P. L. Biermann, U. Klein and S. Kohle, Astron. Astrophys. [**332**]{}, 395 (1998) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9712293\].
V. Petrosian, arXiv:astro-ph/0101145.
V. S. Berezinsky, P. Blasi and V. S. Ptuskin, arXiv:astro-ph/9609048.
F. Miniati, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**337**]{} (2002) 199 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0203014\].
H. Kang and T. W. Jones, Astrop. Phys. [**28**]{} (2007) 232.
C. Pfrommer, T. A. Enblin, V. Springel Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**385**]{} 1211 (2008) \[arXiv:0707.1707 \[astro-ph\]\].
F. Miniati, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**342**]{}, 1009 (2003) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0303593\].
See e.g. R. Cassano, G. Brunetti, T. Venturi, G. Setti, D. Dallacasa, S. Giacintucci and S. Bardelli, arXiv:0712.3516 \[astro-ph\] and references therein.
J.F. Navarro, C.S. Frenk and S.D.M. White, Astrophys. J. [**462**]{} (1996) 563; Astrophys. J. [**490**]{} (1997) 493.
D. Nagai and A. V. Kravtsov, Astrophys. J. [**618**]{}, 557 (2005) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0408273\].
J. Diemand, B. Moore and J. Stadel, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**352**]{} (2004) 535 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0402160\]. G. De Lucia [*et al.*]{}, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**348**]{} (2004) 333 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0306205\]. S. Profumo, K. Sigurdson and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**97**]{}, 031301 (2006) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0603373\].
T. Bringmann and S. Hofmann, JCAP [**0407**]{} (2007) 016 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0612238\]; E. Bertschinger, Phys. Rev. D [**74**]{} (2006) 063509 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0607319\]; A. M. Green and S. P. Goodwin, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**375**]{} (2007) 1111 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0604142\].
J. S. Bullock [*et al.*]{}, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**321**]{} (2001) 559 \[arXiv:astro-ph/9908159\].
A. El-Zant, I. Shlosman and Y. Hoffman, Friction,” arXiv:astro-ph/0103386; A. El-Zant, I. Shlosman and Y. Hoffman, arXiv:astro-ph/0108327.
A. Burkert, Astroph. J. [**447**]{} (1995) L25; A. Burkert and P. Salucci, Astroph. J. [**537**]{} (2000) L9.
B. Murakami and J. D. Wells, Phys. Rev. D [**64**]{}, 015001 (2001); T. Moroi and L. Randall, Nucl. Phys. B [**570**]{}, 455 (2000); M. Fujii and K. Hamaguchi, Phys. Lett. B [**525**]{}, 143 (2002); M. Fujii and K. Hamaguchi, Phys. Rev. D [**66**]{}, 083501 (2002); R. Jeannerot, X. Zhang and R. H. Brandenberger, JHEP [**9912**]{}, 003 (1999); W. B. Lin, D. H. Huang, X. Zhang and R. H. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. [**86**]{}, 954 (2001).
M. Kamionkowski and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D [**42**]{} (1990) 3310; P. Salati, \[arXiv:astro-ph/0207396\]; F. Rosati, Phys. Lett. B [**570**]{} (2003) 5 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0302159\]; S. Profumo and P. Ullio, JCAP [**0311**]{}, 006 (2003) \[arXiv:hep-ph/0309220\]; R. Catena, N. Fornengo, A. Masiero, M. Pietroni and F. Rosati, Phys. Rev. D [**70**]{} (2004) 063519 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0403614\]; S. Profumo and P. Ullio, Proceedings of the [*39th Rencontres de Moriond Workshop on Exploring the Universe: Contents and Structures of the Universe*]{}, La Thuile, Italy, 28 Mar - 4 Apr 2004, ed. by J. Tran Thanh Van \[arXiv:hep-ph/0305040\].
T. Sj¨ostrand, Comm. Phys. Comm. [**82**]{} (1994) 74; T. Sjöstrand, [*PYTHIA 5.7 and JETSET 7.4. Physics and Manual*]{}, CERN-TH.7112/93, \[arXiv:hep-ph/9508391 (revised version)\].
P. Gondolo, J. Edsjo, P. Ullio, L. Bergstrom, M. Schelke and E. A. Baltz, JCAP [**0407**]{}, 008 (2004) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0406204\].
http://glast.gsfc.nasa.gov/ssc/data/analysis/documentation/Cicerone/
P. Sreekumar [*et al.*]{} \[EGRET Collaboration\], Astrophys. J. [**494**]{} (1998) 523 \[arXiv:astro-ph/9709257\].
V. Pavlidou and T. M. Venters, Astrophys. J. [**673**]{}, 114 (2008) arXiv:0710.0002 \[astro-ph\].
T. Narumoto and T. Totani, Astrophys. J. [**643**]{}, 81 (2006) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0602178\].
C. D. Dermer, Astrophys. J. [**659**]{}, 958 (2007) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0605402\].
R. Mukherjee and J. Chiang, Astropart. Phys. [**11**]{}, 213 (1999) \[arXiv:astro-ph/9902003\].
A. Mucke and M. Pohl, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**312**]{} (2000) 177.
A. W. Strong, I. V. Moskalenko and O. Reimer, Astrophys. J. [**613**]{} (2004) 956 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0405441\].
S. Ciprini, Mem. Soc. Ast. It. [**3**]{} (2003) 238 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0308377\].
A. A. Abdo et al. \[Fermi-LAT Collaboration\], arXiv:0902.1559 \[astro-ph.HE\].
K.A. Arnaud, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V, eds. Jacoby G. and Barnes J., p17, ASP Conf. Series volume [**101**]{} (1996); [http://heasarc.nasa.gov/docs/xanadu/xspec/]{}
N. F. Bell and T. D. Jacques, arXiv:0811.0821 \[astro-ph\].
L. Bergstrom, T. Bringmann, M. Eriksson and M. Gustafsson, JCAP [**0504**]{} (2005) 004 \[arXiv:hep-ph/0412001\].
S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. [**D 78**]{} (2008) 023507, arXiv:0806.2150 \[hep-ph\].
R. Bernabei [*et al.*]{} \[DAMA Collaboration\], arXiv:0804.2741 \[astro-ph\].
A. Cesarini, F. Fucito, A. Lionetto, A. Morselli and P. Ullio, Astropart. Phys. [**21**]{} (2004) 267 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0305075\]. S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. D [**72**]{} (2005) 103521 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0508628\]. P. E. Freeman, S. Doe, A. Siemiginowska SPIE Proceedings, [**4477**]{} (2001) 76.
Fruscione et al. 2006, SPIE Proc. 6270, 62701V, D.R. Silvia & R.E. Doxsey, eds.
W. Cash, Astrophys. J. [**228**]{} (1979) 939.
C. Pfrommer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**385**]{} (2008) 1242 \[arXiv:0707.1693 \[astro-ph\]\].
D. Hooper, D. P. Finkbeiner and G. Dobler, Phys. Rev. D [**76**]{}, 083012 (2007) \[arXiv:0705.3655 \[astro-ph\]\].
D. Hooper, Phys. Rev. D [**77**]{}, 123523 (2008) \[arXiv:0801.4378 \[hep-ph\]\].
T. H. Reiprich and H. Boehringer, Astrophys. J. [**567**]{}, 716 (2002) \[arXiv:astro-ph/0111285\].
J. P. F. Osmond and T. J. Ponman, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. [**350**]{} (2004) 1511 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0402439\].
J. J. Mohr, B. Mathiesen and A. E. Evrard, Astrophys. J. [**517**]{} (1999) 627 \[arXiv:astro-ph/9901281\].
U. Feldman, Phys. Scr. [**46**]{} (1992) 202 .
P. Tozzi and C. Norman, Astrophys. J. [**546**]{} (2001) 63 \[arXiv:astro-ph/0003289\].
B. Wolfe, F. Melia, R. M. Crocker and R. R. Volkas, arXiv:0807.0794 \[astro-ph\].
Appendix {#appendix .unnumbered}
========
We report here the X-ray data driven gamma-ray flux predictions for the HIGFLUCS catalog (tab. \[tab:hf1\] and \[tab:hf2\], plus members of the extended catalog \[tab:hfext\]) and for the GEMS catalog (tab. \[tab:gems\]). The first column indicates the object ID used in our plots, the second one specifies the object name. The third column shows the predicted gamma-ray flux from dark matter annihilation for the model setup DM\_LB of sec. \[sec:dm\] (featuring a particle mass of 40 GeV, a pair annihilation cross section of $6\times 10^{-26}\ {\rm cm}^3/{\rm s}$, and 23 photons with an energy above 0.1 GeV per annihilation), and the fourth column the overall ranking (considering at the same time the extended HIGFLUCS catalog and the GEMS catalog). The next columns indicate the predictions for a cosmic ray origin, under the assumption of a smooth and of a cuspy source distribution, as well well as the overal ranking according to the corresponding emission. Lastly, the rightmost columns indicate the ratio of the dark matter to cosmic ray gamma-ray emission, with ranking.
The flux predictions quoted here can be easily rescaled for different particle DM models as: $$\phi^\prime=\phi_0\left(\frac{40\ {\rm GeV}}{m_{\rm WIMP}}\right)^2\left(\frac{\langle\sigma v\rangle}{6\times 10^{-26}\ {\rm cm}^3/{\rm s}}\right)\left(\frac{N_\gamma^{E>0.1\ {\rm GeV}}}{23}\right),$$ where $\phi_0$ is the integrated gamma-ray flux above 0.1 GeV we quote in the following tables and $\phi^\prime$ is the corresponding re-scaled flux. Similarly, for the cosmic-ray predictions, the scaling with the fraction of energy density in cosmic rays $X_p$ (which we here set at 1%) is simply $$\phi^\prime=\phi_0\left(\frac{X_p}{0.01}\right).$$
In the tables, we mark in red the top-ten objects in every category we consider (gamma-ray emission from DM annihilation, emission from cosmic-ray inelastic interactions, and ratio of the DM-to-cosmic-rays projected emission).
In the figures, we also indicate with a horizontal dashed line an estimate of the high-latitude point source sensitivity of Fermi-LAT over 5 years ($\sim1.3\times 10^{-9}$ photons per ${\rm cm}^2$ per s). We predict, with the assumptions we made here for the DM setup, that on the order of 10 clusters will produce a large enough DM annihilation emission of gamma rays. Over the anticipated Fermi lifetime of 10 years, 5 or so more clusters might also be detectable according to the present predictions.\
---- ---------- ---------------- ----------- --------------- ----------- ---------------- ----------- -------------- ---------------
ID Name DM\_LB DM\_LB, CR\_S CR\_S, CR\_C CR\_C, DM\_LB/CR\_S DM\_LB/CR\_S,
rank rank rank rank
1 A0085 213.1 47 110.3 12 1285.0 16 1.9 124
2 A0119 336.4 30 73.3 25 382.4 47 4.6 86
3 A0133 83.1 98 19.6 74 277.3 61 4.2 92
4 NGC507 141.3 74 11.8 96 85.5 104 11.9 40
5 A0262 329.2 32 74.7 24 446.4 36 4.4 89
6 A0400 216.6 46 24.5 68 132.6 91 8.8 54
7 A0399 199.5 50 56.6 28 418.2 41 3.5 101
8 A0401 182.2 54 87.9 19 801.0 24 2.1 122
9 A3112 89.8 94 28.0 57 561.3 31 3.2 105
10 FORNAX [**4016.0**]{} [**1**]{} 37.2 43 419.0 40 108.1 16
11 2A0335 174.4 62 48.5 33 1286.0 15 3.6 99
12 IIIZw54 245.3 40 12.0 95 135.8 88 20.4 25
13 A3158 198.1 51 54.5 31 496.8 34 3.6 98
14 A0478 136.5 76 56.4 29 1259.0 17 2.4 116
15 NGC1550 432.4 22 22.8 71 280.4 60 19.0 27
16 EXO0422 184.5 53 18.3 78 317.6 55 10.1 50
17 A3266 410.8 23 103.9 14 858.9 21 4.0 95
18 A0496 244.5 41 90.4 17 1024.0 20 2.7 112
19 A3376 346.3 29 29.6 53 212.0 71 11.7 42
20 A3391 181.7 56 36.3 45 244.2 69 5.0 83
21 A3395s 375.0 25 25.7 63 237.3 70 14.6 33
22 A0576 373.6 26 31.4 49 293.0 56 11.9 41
23 A0754 572.4 14 46.6 36 774.2 27 12.3 38
24 HYDRA-A 125.1 81 37.2 42 782.2 25 3.4 104
25 A1060 [**1958.0**]{} [**7**]{} 80.8 23 1137.0 19 24.2 23
26 A1367 732.9 13 81.2 22 467.1 35 9.0 52
27 MKW4 150.4 70 14.2 89 122.5 94 10.6 45
28 ZwCl1215 158.5 67 27.6 58 275.9 62 5.7 72
29 NGC4636 [**1530.0**]{} [**9**]{} 11.0 99 197.7 72 138.8 14
30 A3526 [**2137.0**]{} [**4**]{} [**273.0**]{} [**5**]{} [**3028.0**]{} [**5**]{} 7.8 58
---- ---------- ---------------- ----------- --------------- ----------- ---------------- ----------- -------------- ---------------
: Gamma-ray emission predictions for the groups and clusters in the HIGFLUCS catalog (first part). Fluxes are in units of $10^{-12}{\rm ph}/({\rm cm}^{2}\ {\rm s})$\[tab:hf1\]
---- --------- ---------------- ----------- --------------- ----------- ---------------- ------------ -------------- ---------------
ID Name DM\_LB DM\_LB, CR\_S CR\_S, CR\_C CR\_C, DM\_LB/CR\_S DM\_LB/CR\_S,
rank rank rank rank
31 A1644 182.1 55 68.1 26 359.5 51 2.7 113
32 A1650 134.7 77 31.5 48 367.7 50 4.3 91
33 A1651 99.3 88 31.3 50 400.9 43 3.2 107
34 COMA [**2170.0**]{} [**3**]{} [**610.8**]{} [**2**]{} [**5073.0**]{} [**3**]{} 3.6 100
35 NGC5044 481.1 19 17.0 81 375.1 49 28.4 22
36 A1736 107.8 85 47.3 34 171.0 81 2.3 118
37 A3558 228.1 43 106.6 13 750.2 28 2.1 121
38 A3562 142.5 73 46.8 35 287.5 57 3.0 109
39 A3571 512.0 16 [**171.0**]{} [**9**]{} [**1929.0**]{} [**7**]{} 3.0 110
40 A1795 247.9 38 66.8 27 1546.0 11 3.7 97
41 A3581 199.9 49 19.2 76 284.4 58 10.4 47
42 MKW8 275.6 34 27.2 59 182.4 75 10.1 48
43 A2029 196.4 52 86.9 20 [**1787.0**]{} [**10**]{} 2.3 119
44 A2052 154.9 69 38.3 40 548.6 32 4.0 94
45 MKW3S 145.2 72 26.2 60 438.6 37 5.5 75
46 A2065 274.9 35 25.6 64 333.0 53 10.7 44
47 A2063 219.3 44 42.3 38 398.1 45 5.2 80
48 A2142 160.8 66 101.7 16 1333.0 13 1.6 125
49 A2147 237.8 42 103.8 15 375.9 48 2.3 117
50 A2163 83.1 99 40.3 39 508.0 33 2.1 123
51 A2199 445.8 20 88.2 18 1298.0 14 5.1 81
52 A2204 37.6 120 25.8 62 674.0 29 1.5 128
53 A2244 90.7 92 25.9 61 400.6 44 3.5 102
54 A2256 368.1 27 83.2 21 841.3 22 4.4 88
55 A2255 178.9 58 35.6 46 253.6 66 5.0 82
56 A3667 217.6 45 143.2 11 780.4 26 1.5 126
57 S1101 74.0 101 11.5 97 339.7 52 6.4 65
58 A2589 175.6 61 25.2 66 283.4 59 7.0 62
59 A2597 60.7 109 12.9 92 427.5 38 4.7 85
60 A2634 331.5 31 34.6 47 177.0 79 9.6 51
61 A2657 167.9 63 28.6 56 246.7 68 5.9 71
62 A4038 257.0 37 49.0 32 592.2 30 5.2 78
63 A4059 180.9 57 30.7 51 427.3 39 5.9 70
---- --------- ---------------- ----------- --------------- ----------- ---------------- ------------ -------------- ---------------
: Gamma-ray emission predictions for the groups and clusters in the HIGFLUCS catalog (second part). Fluxes are in units of $10^{-12}{\rm ph}/({\rm cm}^{2}\ {\rm s})$\[tab:hf2\]
----- ---------------------- ---------------- ------------ ---------------- ------------ ----------------- ----------- --------------- ---------------
ID Name DM\_LB DM\_LB, CR\_S CR\_S, CR\_C CR\_C, DM\_LB/CR\_S DM\_LB/CR\_S,
rank rank rank rank
64 A2734 90.2 93 17.0 80 134.3 89 5.3 77
65 A2877 440.0 21 23.3 70 146.9 85 18.9 28
66 NGC499 161.2 65 0.4 123 26.9 110 [**417.1**]{} [**4**]{}
67 AWM7 [**1236.0**]{} [**10**]{} [**149.7**]{} [**10**]{} [**1819.0**]{} [**8**]{} 8.3 57
68 PERSEUS [**1940.0**]{} [**8**]{} [**1353.0**]{} [**1**]{} [**20230.0**]{} [**1**]{} 1.4 130
69 S405 109.4 84 28.8 54 137.4 87 3.8 96
70 3C129$^{\dagger}$ 1126.0 11 [**201.2**]{} [**8**]{} 1189.0 18 5.6 73
71 A0539 272.3 36 36.4 44 261.6 63 7.5 59
72 S540 138.4 75 12.1 94 133.7 90 11.4 43
73 A0548w 35.7 122 1.5 111 8.8 117 23.9 24
74 A0548e 99.9 87 16.4 83 85.7 103 6.1 67
75 A3395n 377.4 24 21.8 73 180.6 78 17.3 30
76 UGC03957 210.4 48 10.7 100 190.9 73 19.6 26
77 PKS0745$^{\dagger}$ 83.0 100 55.9 30 1533.0 12 1.5 127
78 A0644 245.4 39 44.3 37 804.5 23 5.5 74
79 S636 510.1 17 37.9 41 165.8 82 13.5 35
80 A1413 50.5 113 15.8 85 249.6 67 3.2 106
81 M49 [**2009.0**]{} [**6**]{} 2.8 106 149.3 84 [**710.0**]{} [**3**]{}
82 A3528n 97.2 91 13.2 91 113.9 98 7.3 60
83 A3528s 54.2 111 22.4 72 115.8 96 2.4 115
84 A3530 157.1 68 12.7 93 89.4 102 12.4 37
85 A3532 163.4 64 25.2 65 189.0 74 6.5 64
86 A1689 46.8 115 15.9 84 387.7 46 2.9 111
87 A3560 89.1 95 18.6 77 90.6 101 4.8 84
88 A1775 63.4 108 14.4 88 114.8 97 4.4 90
89 A1800 87.4 97 14.4 87 109.8 99 6.1 69
90 A1914 74.0 102 16.5 82 407.3 42 4.5 87
91 NGC5813 555.6 15 0.8 118 54.7 107 [**724.7**]{} [**2**]{}
92 NGC5846 853.0 12 0.9 115 76.6 105 [**943.5**]{} [**1**]{}
93 A2151w 107.6 86 10.7 101 126.2 93 10.1 49
94 A3627$^{\dagger}$ [**2081.0**]{} [**5**]{} [**598.1**]{} [**3**]{} [**3128.0**]{} [**4**]{} 3.5 103
95 TRIANGUL 504.2 18 [**233.0**]{} [**7**]{} 2018.0 6 2.2 120
96 OPHIUCHU$^{\dagger}$ [**2497.0**]{} [**2**]{} [**459.8**]{} [**4**]{} [**8642.0**]{} [**2**]{} 5.4 76
97 ZwCl1742 118.5 82 19.5 75 261.1 64 6.1 68
98 A2319 346.5 28 [**240.5**]{} [**6**]{} [**1790.0**]{} [**9**]{} 1.4 129
99 A3695 72.6 104 29.6 52 165.0 83 2.5 114
100 IIZw108 125.4 80 24.0 69 127.8 92 5.2 79
101 A3822 87.8 96 28.7 55 171.1 80 3.1 108
102 A3827 176.9 59 24.8 67 320.3 54 7.1 61
103 A3888 99.2 89 11.5 98 254.7 65 8.6 55
104 A3921 97.4 90 15.7 86 180.8 77 6.2 66
105 HCG94 126.3 79 18.2 79 144.0 86 6.9 63
106 RXJ2344 112.2 83 13.3 90 181.2 76 8.4 56
----- ---------------------- ---------------- ------------ ---------------- ------------ ----------------- ----------- --------------- ---------------
: Gamma-ray emission predictions for the groups and clusters in the Extended Sample of the HIGFLUCS catalog. Fluxes are in units of $10^{-12}{\rm ph}/({\rm cm}^{2}\ {\rm s})$. Clusters at low galatic latitudes, $|b|<10$ deg, are marked with $\dagger$. These clusters will have higher gamma-ray backgrounds due to galactic emission.\[tab:hfext\]
---- --------- -------- --------- ------- -------- ------- -------- --------------- ---------------
ID Name DM\_LB DM\_LB, CR\_S CR\_S, CR\_C CR\_C, DM\_LB/CR\_S DM\_LB/CR\_S,
rank rank rank rank
1 NGC383 57.1 110 6.5 104 29.7 109 8.8 53
2 NGC533 36.9 121 2.0 109 17.2 111 18.2 29
3 NGC720 150.0 71 0.6 121 10.7 116 [**267.9**]{} [**7**]{}
4 NGC741 42.9 117 1.1 113 12.1 113 39.4 20
5 HCG22 17.7 126 0.05 130 0.5 130 [**383.6**]{} [**5**]{}
6 NGC1407 321.0 33 2.3 108 93.3 100 141.5 13
7 NGC1587 65.1 107 0.3 124 3.9 127 [**190.6**]{} [**10**]{}
8 NGC2563 33.7 123 2.3 107 11.5 115 14.6 34
9 HCG42 40.0 118 0.2 126 7.3 119 [**206.3**]{} [**9**]{}
10 NGC3557 18.0 125 0.1 128 5.1 123 132.9 15
11 NGC3607 69.1 105 1.0 114 5.9 122 66.0 18
12 NGC3665 49.8 114 0.1 127 2.7 128 [**352.3**]{} [**6**]{}
13 NGC4065 19.6 124 1.6 110 7.1 120 12.4 36
14 NGC4073 39.7 119 9.5 103 66.5 106 4.2 93
15 NGC4261 176.0 60 10.2 102 46.6 108 17.2 31
16 NGC4325 14.3 128 1.4 112 14.6 112 10.6 46
17 NGC4589 129.4 78 0.9 116 11.6 114 148.6 12
18 HCG62 68.1 106 5.7 105 117.2 95 12.0 39
19 NGC5129 12.8 129 0.9 117 7.3 118 15.0 32
20 HCG67 10.4 130 0.1 129 1.7 129 170.6 11
21 HCG68 54.2 112 0.6 120 4.8 125 94.6 17
22 HCG90 44.9 116 0.7 119 6.0 121 60.2 19
23 IC1459 73.8 103 0.3 125 4.6 126 [**239.2**]{} [**8**]{}
24 HCG97 17.6 127 0.5 122 4.8 124 36.6 21
---- --------- -------- --------- ------- -------- ------- -------- --------------- ---------------
: Gamma-ray emission predictions for the groups in the GEMS catalog. Fluxes are in units of $10^{-12}{\rm ph}/({\rm cm}^{2}\ {\rm s})$\[tab:gems\]
[^1]: Morrison Fellow
[^2]: Notice that (i) a smaller $a^\prime/a$ ratio is inferred from a comparison of the galaxy radial density profile in clusters [@Diemand:2004kx] (see also [@DeLucia:2003xe]), and (ii) this ratio might vary from cluster to cluster (for instance, Ref. [@Diemand:2004kx] finds that the ratio scales proportionally with the cluster concentration). We evaluated the uncertainty on the total annihilation signal for the setup we outline in this section stemming from considering the generous range $2<a^\prime/a<10$ and we find a variation of at most $\pm 10\%$ in the flux within one degree and of less than $4\%$ for the emission within 0.1 degrees, for the case of the Coma cluster.
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Americans spend about a third of their time online, with many participating in online conversations on social and political issues. We hypothesize that social media arguments on such issues may be more engaging and persuasive than traditional media summaries, and that particular types of people may be more or less convinced by particular styles of argument, e.g. emotional arguments may resonate with some personalities while factual arguments resonate with others. We report a set of experiments testing at large scale how audience variables interact with argument style to affect the persuasiveness of an argument, an under-researched topic within natural language processing. We show that belief change is affected by personality factors, with conscientious, open and agreeable people being more convinced by emotional arguments.'
author:
- |
Stephanie Lukin, Pranav Anand, Marilyn Walker and Steve Whittaker\
Computer Science, Linguistics and Psychology Depts.\
University of California, Santa Cruz\
Santa Cruz, Ca. 95064\
[slukin,panand,mawalker,[email protected]]{}
title: |
Argument Strength is in the Eye of the Beholder:\
Audience Effects in Persuasion
---
Introduction {#intro-sec}
============
Americans spend a third of their online time on social media, with many participating in online conversations about education, public policy, or other social and political issues. Our hypothesis is that online dialogs have important properties that may make them a useful resource for educating the public about such issues. For example, user-generated content might be more engaging and persuasive than traditional media, due to the prevalence of emotional language, social affiliation, conversational argument structure and audience involvement. Moreover, particular types of people may be more or less convinced by particular styles of argument, e.g. emotional arguments may resonate with some personalities while factual arguments resonate with others.
[@p[0.5cm]{}|p[2.5in]{}@]{}\
: & I’m sure there have been more repeat murderers than innocent people put to death. As far as the cost goes, is that really an issue? Execution Room = \$10,000. Stainless Steel Table = \$2,000. Leather Straps = \$200. Lethal Injection Chemicals = \$5,000. Knowing this person will never possibly be able to kill again = PRICELESS\
[**R1**]{}:& Actually the room, straps, and table are all multi-use. And the drugs only cost Texas \$86.08 per execution as of 2002.\
\
: & You mean, the perpetrator is convicted and the defender acquitted? Yes, that’s the rule and not the exception. Notice here how no-one ended up dead, or even particularly seriously injured. Additionally the circumstances described are incredibly rare, that’s why it makes the news.\
[**R2**]{}: & The defender shouldn’t even have been brought to trial in the first place. That doesn’t make it any better. Somebody breaks into your home and threatens your family with rape and murder, they deserve serious injury at the very least.\
For example, contrast the two informal dialogic exchanges about the death penalty in Table \[sample-quote-response\] with the traditional media professional summary in Table \[death-procon\]. We might expect the argument in Table \[death-procon\] to be more convincing, because it is carefully written to be balanced and exhaustive [@ReedRowe04]. On the other hand, it seems possible that people find dialogic arguments such as those in Table \[sample-quote-response\] more engaging and learn more from them. And indeed, about 90% of the people in online forums are so-called lurkers [@Whittaker96; @NonneckePreece00; @Preeceetal04], and do not post, suggesting that they are in fact [**reading**]{} opinionated dialogs such as those in Table \[sample-quote-response\] for interest or entertainment.
[@p[0.65cm]{}|p[6.35cm]{}@]{}\
& Proponents of the death penalty say it is an important tool for preserving law and order, deters crime, and costs less than life imprisonment. They argue that retribution or “an eye for an eye” honors the victim, helps console grieving families, and ensures that the perpetrators of heinous crimes never have an opportunity to cause future tragedy.\
& Opponents of capital punishment say it has no deterrent effect on crime, wrongly gives governments the power to take human life, and perpetuates social injustices by disproportionately targeting people of color (racist) and people who cannot afford good attorneys (classist). They say lifetime jail sentences are a more severe and less expensive punishment than death.\
Research in social psychology identifies three factors that affect argument persuasiveness [@PettyCacioppo86; @PettyCacioppo88].
- the [argument]{} itself
- the [audience]{}
- the [source]{} of the argument
The [argument]{} includes the content and its presentation, e.g. whether it is a monolog or a dialog, or whether it is factual or emotional as illustrated in Table \[sample-quote-response\] and Table \[death-procon\]. The [audience]{} factor models people’s prior beliefs and social affiliations as well as innate individual differences that affect their susceptibility to particular arguments or types of arguments [@Anderson71; @Davies98; @Devineetal00; @Pettyetal81]. Behavioral economics research shows that the cognitive style of the audience interacts with the argument’s emotional appeal: emphasizing personal losses is more persuasive for neurotics, whereas gains are effective for extraverts [@Carveretal00; @Mannetal04]. The [ source]{} is the speaker, whose influence may depend on factors such as attractiveness, expertise, trustworthiness or group identification or homophily [@EaglyChaiken75; @Kelman61; @bender2011annotating; @LuchokMcCroskey78; @Ludford04; @mcpherson2001birds].
We present experiments evaluating how properties of social media arguments interact with audience factors to affect belief change. We compare the effects of two aspects of the [argument]{}: whether it is monologic or dialogic, and whether it is factual or emotional. We also examine how these factors interact with properties of the [ audience]{}. We profile audience [**prior beliefs**]{} to test if more neutral people are swayed by different types of arguments than people with entrenched beliefs. We also profile the audience for Big Five personality traits to see whether [**different personality types**]{} are more open to different types of arguments, e.g., we hypothesize that people who are highly agreeable ([A]{}) might be more affected by the combative style of emotional arguments. We provide a new corpus for the research community of audience personality profiles, arguments, and belief change measurements.[^1]
Audience factors have been explored in social psychological work on persuasion, but have been neglected in computational work, which has largely drawn from sentiment, rhetorical, or argument structure models [@habernal2016argument; @ConradWiebe12; @BoltuzicSnajder14; @ChoiCardie08]. We demonstrate that, indeed, undecided people respond differently to arguments than entrenched people, and that the responses of undecided people correlate with personality. We show that this holds across an array of different arguments. Our research questions are:
- Can we mine social media to find arguments that change people’s beliefs?
- Do different argument types have different effects on belief change?
- Do personality and prior beliefs affect belief change?
- Are different personality types differently affected by factual vs. emotional arguments?
Our results show a small but highly reliable effect that short arguments derived from online dialogs do lead people to change their minds about topics such as abortion, gun control, gay marriage, evolution, the death penalty and climate change. As expected, opinion change is greater for people who are initially more neutral about a topic, than those who are entrenched. However personality variables also have a clear effect on opinion change: neutral, balanced arguments are more successful with all personality types, but conscientious people are more convinced by dialogic emotional arguments, and agreeable people are more persuaded by dialogic factual arguments. We describe how we use plan these findings to select and repurpose social media arguments to adapt them to people’s individual differences and thus maximize their educational impact.
Related Work {#relwork-sec}
============
Previous work on belief change has primarily focused on single, experimentally crafted, persuasive messages, rather than exploring whether user-generated dialogic arguments can be repurposed to persuade. Recently however several papers have begun to investigate two challenges in argument mining: (1) understanding the structure of an argument and extracting argument components [@lippi2015context; @nguyen2015extracting; @stab2014annotating; @lippi2015context; @BiranRambow11]; and (2) understanding what predicts the persuasiveness of web-sourced argumentative content [@habernal2016argument; @ostendorf2016learning; @wachsmuth2016using; @habernalmakes16; @Tanetal16].
Tan et al. study belief change in the Reddit [ /r/ChangeMyView]{} subreddit (CMV), in which an original poster (OP) challenges others to change his/her opinion. They build logistic regression models to predict argument success, identifying two conversational dynamic factors: a) early potential persuaders are more successful and b) after 4 exchanges, the chance of persuasion drops virtually to zero. Linguistic factors of persuasive posts include: a) dissimilar content words to the OP, b) similar stop words, c) being lengthy (in words, sentences, and paragraphs), d) italics and bullets. Finally, susceptibility to persuasion is correlated with singular vs. plural first person pronouns, which the authors relate to the personality trait of Openness to Experience. The CMV reddit offers a unique window into how persuasion of self-declared open-minded people occurs online. However, while Tan et al. find potential proxies for personality traits, they cannot examine traits directly because they do not have personality profiles as we do here. They also do not examine the effect of argument style as we do.
Recent work [@habernal2016argument; @habernalmakes16] also examines what makes an informal social media argument convincing. They have created a new dataset of pairs of arguments annotated for which argument is more convincing, along with the reasons given by annotators for its convincingness. They test several models for predicting convincingness comparing an SVM with engineered linguistic features to a BLSTM, with both models performing similarly. In contrast to our experiments, they do not explore factors of the audience or explicitly vary the style of the argument.
Previous work also tests the hypothesis that dialogic exchanges might be more engaging, in the context of expository or car sales dialog [@Andreetal00; @Lee10; @Craigetal06; @StoyanchevPiwek10]. Work comparing monologic vs. dialogic modes of providing information suggest that dialogs: (1) are more memorable and engaging, (2) stimulate the audience to formulate their own questions, and (3) allow audiences to be more successful at following communication [@Leeetal98; @Foxtree99; @SuzukiYamada04; @Driscolletal03; @FoxtreeMayer08; @Foxtree99; @LiuFoxtree11].
Other work [@Vydiswaranetal12] explores how user-interface factors (e.g., number and order of argument presentation, whether and how arguments are rated) affect how readers process arguments. Several factors increased the number of passages read, including explicitly presenting contrasting viewpoints simultaneously. This exercise caused people with strong beliefs (about the healthiness of milk) to moderate their views after 20-30 minutes of concentrated study. We do not concentrate on interface factors, instead exploring how persuasiveness relates to audience factors and argumentative style. Also our experiments are run online with hundreds of users, rather than as a controlled study in the lab.
Experimental Method
===================
Our experimental method consists of the following steps:
- Select user-generated dialogs with persuasive argument features from an online corpus of socio-political debates, exploring the role of [**affect**]{} (Sec. \[corpus-iac\]).
- Profile subjects for [**personality traits**]{} and [**prior beliefs**]{} about socio-political issues (Sec. \[corpus-pers\]).
- Expose subjects to user-generated, factual vs. emotional dialogic exchanges and compare the effects on belief change to balanced, curated arguments (Sec. \[corpus-belief\]).
- Conduct experiments to predict the degree of belief change as a function of prior belief, personality and type of argument.
The participants were pre-qualified using a reading comprehension task that checked their responses against a gold standard to ensure that they read the arguments carefully. Because we make many comparisons, and our experiments are conducted at large scale, all of our results incorporate Bonferroni corrections.
Dialog Selection: Identifying Socio-Emotional Arguments {#corpus-iac}
-------------------------------------------------------
Our work requires a new experimental corpus that is sensitive to readers’ prior beliefs and personalities. We utilize online dialogs from [4forums.com]{} downloaded from The Internet Argument Corpus (IAC) [@Walkeretal12c]. The IAC contains quote/response pairs of targeted arguments between two people (Table \[sample-quote-response\]) on topics such as: death penalty, gay marriage, climate change, abortion, evolution and gun control. Each argument is annotated to distinguish arguments making strong appeals to emotional factors versus straightforwardly factual arguments.
[@p[0.5cm]{}|p[2.5in]{}@]{}\
: & Not only that, to suggest that untold numbers of women would seek illegal abortions is a question-begging claim that has no grounding in history, logic, or reason. It is an unfounded, unproven claim. It is a betrayal to sound judgment to make decisions based upon unfounded predictions into the future.\
[**R3**]{}: & But it is based on history. There is plenty of history showing that women had illegal abortions.\
\
[**Q4**]{}: & This is where the looney left gets lost. Their mantra is atmospheric CO2 levels are escalating and this is unquestionably causing earth’s temperature rise. But ask yourself – if global temperatures are experiencing the biggest sustained drop in decades, while CO2 levels continue to rise – how can it be true?\
[**R4**]{}: & Because internal variability from the likes of ENSO, which can cause short term swings of a full degree C, easily swamp the smaller increase we’d expect from CO2 forcing. Easy.\
\
: & Undesired first pregnancy is an acute problem for many girls who choose to go under the surgical knife, even though that often ends up with infertility, broken life etc. Dry fasting is an alternative to first pregnancy abortion. If applied, up to 2-3 months old embryo gets dissolved after 15-16 days of the fast. Plus, there is no ’christian’ sin.\
[**R5**]{}: & No Christian sin??? Other then the intent to kill and then doing so:p\
\
: & Did anyone else expect anything less? These evil fundie christianists can have affairs, 2, 3, 4, or even 5 marriages yet gay people are a threat to marriage by wanting to get married.\
[**R6**]{}: & You hear that cry...allowing gays to marry will cause the downfall of civilization...but you never hear ’how’ or ’why’? More Chicken Little \#\#\#\#.\
We selected a subset of extreme exemplars of factual ([fact]{}) versus emotional ([emot]{}) arguments, defined as Q/R pairs reliably annotated to be at the extreme ends of the fact/emotion scale, i.e. responses with an average $\ge 4$ annotation were considered factual, and those whose annotation averaged $\le -4$ were considered emotional on a scale of -5 to 5. Table \[sample-quote-response\] illustrates both factual (R1) and emotional (R2) arguments, with additional examples for other topics in Table \[more-fact-feeling\].
In the IAC, 95% of the Q-R pairs are disagreements, the [fact]{} and [emot]{} datasets were selected to contain a similar proportion. There was no correlation between agreement/disagreement and emotionality (r $=0.07$, ns).
Personality {#corpus-pers}
-----------
Personality is usually measured with a standardized survey that calculates a scalar value for the five [ocean]{} traits: opennness to experience [O]{}, conscientiousness [C]{}, extraversion [ E]{}, agreeableness [A]{}, and neuroticism [N]{} [@Goldberg90; @Norman63] We first conducted an experiment to profile the Big Five personality traits of 637 Turkers using the Ten Item Personality Inventory (TIPI) [@Goslingetal03]. The TIPI instrument defines each person on a scale from 1 to 7 with 0.5 precision. In order to guarantee reliablity of our results, we then verified that our pre-qualified Turkers are representative of the population as a whole, by comparing the means and standard deviations of our sample of 637 Turkers with the national standards given in Gosling et. al . Table \[tab:distr\] shows that our survey means and standard deviations are very close to the national norms, suggesting our sample is representative of the public in general, and hence can be used to validate whether social media arguments could fruitfully be be used to educate the public.
[| c\*[5]{}[|c]{} |]{} &[**E**]{} & [**A**]{} & [**C**]{} & [**N**]{} & [**O**]{}\
Our survey&4.30&5.19&5.50&4.82&5.53\
Norms&4.44&5.23&5.4&4.83&5.38\
Our survey $\sigma$ &1.45&1.11&1.32&1.42&1.07\
Norms $\sigma$ &1.44&1.24&1.24&1.41&1.14\
Prior Beliefs and Belief Change {#corpus-belief}
-------------------------------
Previous research suggests that people who are entrenched about an issue are unlikely to change their mind [@Anderson71; @Davies98; @Devineetal00], so we wanted to establish the baseline beliefs of our pre-qualified Turkers before they had been exposed to any arguments about a topic. We therefore collected each Turker’s initial stance on a topic, by asking them to answer a simple [**stance question**]{} with no context, for example: [*Should the death penalty be allowed?*]{}. Likert responses were recorded on a -5 to 5 slider scale with 0.01 degrees of precision, with labels on the slider of “Yes", “No", or “Neutral".
[@p[0.65cm]{}|p[6.35cm]{}@]{}\
: & Proponents, identifying themselves as pro-choice, contend that abortion is a right that should not be limited by governmental or religious authority, and which outweighs any right claimed for an embryo or fetus. They argue that pregnant women will resort to unsafe illegal abortions if there is no legal option.\
: & Opponents, identifying themselves as pro-life, assert that personhood begins at conception, and therefore abortion is the immoral killing of an innocent human being. They say abortion inflicts suffering on the unborn child, and that it is unfair to allow abortion when couples who cannot biologically conceive are waiting to adopt.\
Our goal is to compare the belief change that results from social-media dialogs with the belief change from professionally-curated monologs. We selected the balanced, monologic, argument summaries from the website [ProCon.org]{} (in Table \[death-procon\] with an additional example in Table \[abortion-procon\]). The arguments from [ProCon.org]{} are very high quality, and produced by domain experts.
After probing initial beliefs, we presented participants with one of the three different argument types to test their affect on belief change: a Curated Monolog ([mono]{}) (Table \[death-procon\]), an emotional argument ([emot]{}) (R2 in Table \[sample-quote-response\]), or a factual argument ([fact]{}) (R1 in Table \[sample-quote-response\]). After each person read one of these three types of arguments, we retested their reactions to the original stance question, while viewing the argument. Responses were again recorded on a -5 to 5 slider scale with 0.01 degrees of precision, with labels on the slider of “Yes”, “No”, or “Neutral”. We computed belief change by measuring differences in stance before and after reading each argument. We created 20 HITs on Mechanical Turk for this task, with 5 items per hit.
Experimental Corpus Results
===========================
Entrenchment and Belief Change
------------------------------
Our first question is whether our method changed participant’s beliefs. Table \[tab:beliefchange\_means\_stddev\] shows belief change as a function of argument type: monologs ([mono]{}), factual ([fact]{}) and emotional ([emot]{}). Belief change occurred for all argument types: and the change was statistically significant as measured by paired t-tests ($t_{(5184)}$ = 38.31, p <0.0001). This confirms our hypothesis that social media can be mined for persuasive materials. In addition, all three types of arguments independently led to significant changes in belief.[^2]
[|c\*[2]{}[|c]{}|c|]{} & [**N**]{} & [**Mean change**]{} & [**$\sigma$ change**]{}\
entrenched & 1826 & 0.50 & 1.09\
[mono]{} neutral & 1359 & 0.62 & 0.71\
[fact]{} entrenched & 258 & 0.27 & 0.79\
[fact]{} neutral & 202 & 0.39 & 0.55\
[emot]{} entrenched & 213 & 0.35 & 0.87\
[emot]{} neutral & 187 & 0.37 & 0.54\
ALL entrenched & 2951 & 0.43 & 1.00\
ALL neutral & 2234 & 0.51 & 0.65\
One of the strongest theoretical predictions is that people with entrenched beliefs about an issue are less likely to change their mind when provided new information about that issue. Table \[tab:beliefchange\_means\_stddev\] shows the relationship between initial beliefs and extent of belief change. We defined people as having more entrenched initial beliefs if their response to the initial stance question was within 0.5 points of the two ends of the scale, i.e. (1.0-1.5) or (4.5-5.0), indicating an extreme initial view.
We tested whether people who were more entrenched initially showed less change than those who were initially more neutral. We conducted a 2 Initial Belief (Entrenched/Neutral) X 3 Argument Type ([ mono]{}/[emot]{}/[fact]{}) [anova]{}, with Belief Change as the dependent variable, and Initial Belief and Argument Type as between subjects factors. Again, as expected, initially Entrenched people showed less change (M = 0.43) than those who began with Neutral views (M = 0.51), [anova]{} ($F_{(1,5179)}$=5.97, p = 0.015).
Argument Type and Belief Change
-------------------------------
We wanted to test whether the engaging, socially interesting, dialogic materials of [emot]{} and [fact]{} might promote more belief change than balanced curated monologic summaries. We tested the differences between argument types, finding a main effect for argument type ($F_{(2,5179)}$=31.59, p <0.0001), with Tukey post-hoc tests showing [mono]{} led to more belief change than both [emot]{} and [fact]{} (both p <0.0001), but no differences between [emot]{} and [fact]{} overall across all subjects (See Table \[tab:beliefchange\_means\_stddev\]). Finally there was no interaction between Initial Belief and Argument Type ($F_{(2,5179)}$=1.25, p >0.05): so although neutrals show more belief change overall, this susceptibility does not vary by argument type.
Predicting Belief Change
========================
Our results so far show that our arguments changed people’s beliefs as a function of their prior beliefs and argument type. However we aim to automatically [**predict**]{} belief change, and hypothesize that knowing a person’s [**personality**]{} in combination with their [**prior beliefs**]{} will allow us to select social-media arguments that are more persuasive [**for a particular individual**]{}.
Thus, we vary whether providing a learner with features about a person’s personality improves performance for predicting belief change, when compared with providing information about degree of entrenchment alone. We use different representations for personality and prior beliefs as features, the raw score from the Likert slider for belief change and the TIPI score, as well as normalizations of the raw scores according to the distributions per topic, and finally categorical binning of the transformed scores.
Feature Development and Selection
---------------------------------
\[sub:features\]
New features were created by computing the z-transformation score from the raw prior beliefs and personality traits scores. Applying Equation \[ztrans\] to the raw data creates a normal distribution where the new mean is 0 and the standard deviation is 1. For prior beliefs, $x_i$ is an individual prior belief for a particular topic, $\bar{x_i}$ is the mean, and $\sigma_i$ is the standard deviation for the particular topic.
$$\frac{x_i - \bar{x_i}}{\sigma_{x_i}}
\label{ztrans}$$
Categorical bins are derived from the transformed scores to describe the direction of the belief change by comparing prior and final recorded beliefs. The belief change is positive or negative depending upon where the Turkers rate themselves on the belief scale, moving more towards one side (1) or the other (5). Next, to control for variance, we apply a z-transformation on change scores to create a normal distribution. We classify the resulting distribution into three bins: Low, Medium, and High. The interpretation of what stance the Low and High bins represent is strictly topic dependent. The Medium bin consists of z-transformation values between -1 and 1. These are the people whose belief change is less than one standard deviation from the transformed mean. The Low bin contains z-transform scores of less than -1 and translates to belief changes of a large magnitude (more than a standard deviation from the mean) in a negative direction, where again, the meaning of “negative” is dependent upon how the question was framed. The High bin contains z-transformation scores of greater than 1 and translates to belief changes of a large magnitude in a positive direction. For example, the stance question [ *Should the death penalty be allowed?’*]{} has “no” at the -5 end and “yes” at the +5 end of the likert scale. A Low bin is indicative as moving in the direction of the “no” stance and High towards the “yes” stance.
Bins were also derived for the personality traits, e.g. for Openness, the High bin indicates someone who is very open, the Medium bin is average, and the Low bin is not open at all.
Finally, a binary feature was created to represent how entrenched an individual is in a particular topic. This feature is based on the raw prior belief score and is True if the prior belief score is within 0.5 points of either end point on the stance scale. This feature is different from the prior belief bins because this entrenchment feature groups together people who are in the extremes on both sides of the stance scale, while the prior belief bins distinguishes between the two ends.
We created a development set using data from a prior Mechanical Turk experiment which had 20 HITs, 5 questions per HIT, and 20 people who completed each HIT. In the same manner as the [fact]{} and [ emot]{} HITs, these Turkers (whose personality was already profiled) were asked about their prior beliefs about a topic, then presented with a factual or emotional argument. But in this case they were asked to rate the strength of the argument rather than to report their belief about the topic. We then identified the combination of features that best predicted argument strength in this development data, and then used this feature set for the belief change experiments below. Turkers who participated in this initial study did not participate in the belief change study and vice versa.
Results on the development set showed that the z-transformation scores for prior belief and personality performed better than the raw scores and bins. On the other hand, the belief change feature was most effective when represented as a categorical variable via binning and directionality. We also found that it is better to have [**both**]{} the z-transformed prior belief feature and the entrenchment feature. Thus our experiments below use these feature representations.
We test on three different datasets: [mono]{}, [fact]{} and [ emot]{}, to elicit responses from reading the monologic summaries, and the factual and emotional dialogic arguments. The [fact]{} and [ emot]{} datasets have specific information in terms of scalar values about their degree of factuality or emotionality, on a scale of -5,+5 and a feature with this value is created for these datasets derived from the crowdsourced Turker judgments about the degree of Fact/Emotion in a Q/R pair, as described earlier. The monologic summaries ([mono]{}) are assumed to be neutral and are not assigned a value for degree of factuality or emotionality.
Belief Change Experimental Results {#bel-change-exp}
----------------------------------
[|c\*[6]{}[|c]{} |]{} [**row \#**]{} & [**Dataset**]{} & [**TIPI**]{} & [**Accuracy**]{} & [**Precision**]{} & [**Recall**]{} & [**F1**]{}\
1 & **Baseline & & 33% & & &\
2 & [mono]{} & None & 57% & 0.50 & 0.58 & 0.51\
3 & & [**Open**]{} & 58% & 0.52 & 0.59 & **0.52\
4 & & Conscientious& 58% & 0.51 & 0.58 & 0.51\
5 & & Extrovert & 58% & 0.49 & 0.57 & 0.49\
6 & & Agreeable & 58% & 0.52 & 0.57 & 0.50\
7 & & Neurotic & 57% & 0.49 & 0.55 & 0.47\
8 & & **All & 58% & 0.52 & 0.58 & **0.52\
9 & [fact]{} & None & 49% & 0.47 & 0.47 & 0.46\
10 & & Open & 46% & 0.45 & 0.47 & 0.46\
11 & & Conscientious & 48% & 0.48 & 0.45 & 0.46\
12 & & Extrovert & 48% & 0.46 & 0.45 & 0.44\
13 & & [**Agreeable**]{} & 51% & 0.52 & 0.49 & **0.49\
14 & & Neurotic & 47% & 0.45 & 0.44 & 0.43\
15 & & [**All**]{} & 50% & 0.49 & 0.50 & **0.49\
16 & [emot]{} & None& 53% & 0.42 & 0.52 & 0.44\
17 & & [**Open**]{} & 56% & 0.54 & 0.53 & **0.51\
18 & & [**Conscientious**]{} & 53% & 0.49 & 0.51 & **0.48\
19 & & Extrovert & 49% & 0.43 & 0.47 & 0.44\
20 & & [**Agreeable**]{} & 52% & 0.48 & 0.50 & **0.48\
21 & & Neurotic & 53% & 0.43 & 0.51 & 0.44\
22 & & [**All**]{} & 56% & 0.55 & 0.57 & **0.56\
********************
Our dataset consists of 5185 items, with 3185 responses to the balanced [mono]{} summaries, 1020 responses to [fact]{}, and 980 responses to [emot]{}. We first applied 10-fold cross-validation with Naive Bayes, Nearest Neighbor, AdaBoost, and JRIP, from the Weka toolkit [@WittenFrank05]. Overall, Naive Bayes had the most consistent scores with our feature sets, thus we only report Naive Bayes experimental results below.
Seven feature sets were created for each of the three {[mono]{}, [ fact]{}, [emot]{}} datasets. [*None*]{} feature sets are the no-personality baseline within each dataset. The baseline features contain [**no information**]{} about the personality of the unseen human subjects. We use the {[mono]{}, [fact]{}, [ emot]{}}+None feature sets for testing our hypothesis that personality affects belief change, and [**our ability to predict belief change**]{} using personality features. [*All*]{} feature sets have information about [**all**]{} of the human subjects’ personality traits as 5 distinct features. The remaining five [*{O,C,E,A,N}*]{} feature sets examine the effect of providing information to the learner about personality using only [**one personality trait at a time**]{}, in order to determine if any personality trait is having a larger impact for belief change prediction.
Table \[tab:belief\_change\] summarizes our key results, reporting accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 for predicting belief change as a discrete bin, Low, Medium, and High. We balanced each dataset to contain the same number of instances in bins, thus the accuracy for majority classification is 33% (Row 1).
After running Naive Bayes over all feature sets in the three datasets, we compared the experimental classifier performance of [*All*]{} and [*{O,C,E,A,N}*]{} against the None baselines using a Bonferroni corrected t-test for F1 measure. Using statistical [anova]{} tests that control for pre and post test sample variance, we found small but highly reliable effects. We show all of our results, but focus our discussion below on statistically significance differences in F1. We boldface personality feature sets in Table \[tab:belief\_change\] that are statistically significant when comparing {[mono]{}, [ fact]{}, [emot]{}}+None with the other feature sets in the group.
The effect of argument alone (without personality information) can be seen by the no-personality baseline for each argument type, where we exclude personality information ({[mono]{}, [fact]{}, [ emot]{}}+None). All these feature sets perform above the baseline of 33% (Row 1). This supports the results of our prior [anova]{} testing over all subjects for belief change, and shows that the argument itself partially predicts belief change.
However, more interestingly, Table \[tab:belief\_change\] also shows that providing the learner with information about personality consistently improves the ability of the learner to predict belief change. For all types of arguments, ie. the neutral, monologic summaries and the factual and emotional dialogs, the feature sets without any information about the personality traits of the unseen human subjects perform significantly worse than the feature sets that contain all five personality traits. [mono]{}+None compared to [ mono]{}+All (rows 2 and 8 respectively) show a slight but significant increase in F1 from 0.51 to 0.52 (using a paired t-test on 10 fold cross validation scores, (p = .001)). Similarly, [fact]{}+None versus [fact]{}+All (rows 9 and 15) shows a significantly greater increase in F1: from 0.46 to 0.49 (p = .0002), as does [ emot]{}+None versus [emot]{}+All (rows 16 and 22) with F1 increasing from 0.44 to 0.56 (p = .00001). This confirms that the personality traits improves a model’s ability to predict belief change in unseen human subjects.
Next we compared the effects of providing the learner with information about each individual personality feature [**in isolation**]{} by comparing {[mono]{}, [fact]{}, [emot]{}}+None with individual personality factors. For [mono]{}, we found that adding personality information about Openness to Experience ([mono]{}+O, row 3) improved F1 from 0.51 to 0.52 compared with a no-personality baseline (p = .0006). This suggests that open people are more persuaded by balanced monologic arguments.
A more interesting result is that Openness to Experience ([ emot]{}+O, row 17) was also important for Emotional arguments, increasing F1 from 0.44 to 0.51 (p = .00001). In contrast, Openness had no effect for Factual arguments (Row 10) (p $>$ 0.05). Models for predicting belief change for Emotional arguments also benefit from information about Conscientiousness and Agreeableness. Row 17 ([emot]{}+O), Row 18 ([emot]{}+C) and Row 20 ([emot]{}+A) all show significant differences in F1, with [ emot]{}+O better than [emot]{}+None (p = .00001), [ emot]{}+C better than [emot]{}+None (p = .00001) and [emot]{}+A better than [emot]{}+None (p = .0001).
Information about Agreeableness also improves the quality of the belief change models for the factual dialogs ([fact]{}+A, row 5) with an increase in F1 from 0.46 baseline to 0.49 (p = .004), suggesting that people who are more Agreeable are more influenced by factual arguments. This confirms one of our initial hypotheses that Agreeable people would be more sensitive to the fact/emotional dimension of arguments because of their desire to either avoid conflict (highly Agreeable people) or to seek conflict (Disagreeable people).
Conclusions {#conc-sec}
===========
To the best of our knowledge we are the first to examine the interaction of social media argument types with audience factors. Our contributions are:
- A new corpus of personality information and belief change in socio-political arguments;
- A new method for identifying and deploying social media content to inform and engage the public about important social and political topics;
- Results showing at scale (hundreds of users) that we can mine arguments from online discussions to change people’s beliefs;
- Results showing that different types of arguments have different effects: while balanced monologic summaries led to the greatest belief change, socio-emotional online exchanges also caused changes in belief.
Although our short question/response pairs did not induce as much belief change as the curated balanced monologs, we believe that these are striking results given that the materials we extracted from online discussions are not balanced or professionally produced, but instead are simple fragments extracted from online discussions.
Further, confirming prior work on persuasion [@EaglyChaiken75; @Kelman61; @Pettyetal81], we found that these effects depend on audience characteristics. As expected, belief depended on the strength of prior beliefs so that initially neutral people were more likely to be persuaded than entrenched individuals, regardless of the type of argument. Again supporting our predictions, argument effectiveness depended on personality type. People who are Open to Experience were influenced by balanced and emotional materials. In contrast, Agreeable people are most affected by factual materials. Emotional arguments had very different effects from factual and balanced monologs: Openness is important but so too are Conscientiousness and Agreeableness.
How can we explain this? People who are more Open are typically receptive to new ideas. But our results for emotional arguments also show that Conscientious people change their views when presented with emotional arguments, possibly because they are careful to process the arguments however expressed. And Agreeable people may also be motivated to change belief by emotional arguments because they are less likely to be influenced by personal feelings.
Our results have numerous implications that suggest further technical experimentation. The fact that we can induce belief change by extracting simple discussion fragments suggests that belief change can be induced without the application of sophisticated text processing tools. While our results for balanced monologs suggest that summaries increase belief change, summary tools for such arguments are still under development [@Misraetal15]. However, perhaps high quality summaries may not be needed if compelling argument fragments can be automatically extracted [@Misraetal16; @subba2007automatic; @nguyen2015extracting; @Swansonetal15].
Our work also suggests the importance of personalization for persuasion: with different personality types being open to different styles of argument. Future work might be based on methods for profiling participant personality from simple online behaviors [@di2013detecting; @liu2016buy; @pan2014pplum; @Ducheneautetal11], or from user-generated content such as first-person narratives or conversations [@MairesseWalker06a; @MairesseWalker06b; @rahimtoroghi2016learning; @Rahimtoroghietal14]. We could then select personalized arguments to meet a participant’s processing style.
While here we used crowdsourced judgments to select arguments of particular types. Elsewhere, we present algorithms for automatically identifying and bootstrapping arguments with different properties. We have methods to extract arguments that represent different stances on an issue [@Misraetal16b; @Anandetal11; @Sridharetal15; @Walkeretal12a; @Walkeretal12b], as well as argument exchanges that are agreements vs. disagreements [@MisraWalker13], factual vs. emotional arguments [@Orabyetal15], sarcastic and not-sarcastic arguments, and nasty vs. nice arguments [@Orabyetal16; @LukinWalker13; @Justoetal14].
An open question is to whether these effects are long term. Our approach limits us to examining belief change during a single session for practical reasons; long-term cross-session comparisons lead to significant participant retention issues.
Our results also suggest new empirical and theoretical methods for studying persuasion at scale. Only recently have studies of persuasion moved beyond small scale lab studies involving simple single arguments [@habernal2016argument; @habernalmakes16; @Tanetal16]. Our research also suggests new methods and tools for larger scale studies of persuasion. While care must be taken in deploying these results, studies of juries and other decision making bodies suggest that exposure to a diversity of opinions and minority views are very important to countering extremism and understanding the issues at stake [@Devineetal00; @Ludford04]. The ability to repurpose the huge number of varied opinions available in social media sites for educational purposes could provide a novel way to expose people to a diversity of views.
Pranav Anand, Marilyn Walker, Rob Abbott, [Jean E. Fox Tree]{}, Robeson Bowmani, and Michael Minor. 2011. . In [*Proc. of the ACL Workshop on Sentiment and Subjectivity*]{}.
N. H. Anderson. 1971. Integration theory and attitude change. , 78(3):171.
Elisabeth André, Thomas Rist, Susanne van Mulken, Martin Klesen, and Stephan Baldes. 2000. The automated design of believable dialogues for animated presentation teams. , pages 220–255.
Emily M. Bender, Jonathan T. Morgan, Meghan Oxley, Mark Zachry, Brian Hutchinson, Alex Marin, Bin Zhang, and Mari Ostendorf. 2011. Annotating social acts: Authority claims and alignment moves in wikipedia talk pages. In [*Proceedings of the Workshop on Languages in Social Media*]{}, pages 48–57. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Oram Biran and Owen Rambow. 2011. Identifying justifications in written dialogs. In [*2011 Fifth IEEE International Conference on Semantic Computing (ICSC)*]{}, pages 162–168.
Filip Boltuzic and Jan [Š]{}najder. 2014. Back up your stance: Recognizing arguments in online discussions. In [*Proc. of the First Workshop on Argumentation Mining*]{}, pages 49–58.
Charles S. Carver, Bjorn Meyer, and Michael H. Antoni. 2000. Responsiveness to threats and incentives, expectancy of recurrence, and distress and disengagement: Moderator effects in women with early stage breast cancer. , 68(6):965.
Y. Choi and C. Cardie. 2008. Learning with compositional semantics as structural inference for subsentential sentiment analysis. In [*Proc. of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*]{}, pages 793–801. Association for Computational Linguistics.
Alexander Conrad, and Janyce Wiebe. 2012. Recognizing arguing subjectivity and argument tags. In [*Proc. of the Workshop on Extra-Propositional Aspects of Meaning in Computational Linguistics*]{}, pages 80–88.
S. D. Craig, J. Sullins, A. Witherspoon, and B. Gholson. 2006. The deep-level-reasoning-question effect: The role of dialogue and deep-level-reasoning questions during vicarious learning. , 24(4):565–591.
M. F. Davies. 1998. Dogmatism and belief formation: Output interference in the processing of supporting and contradictory cognitions. , 75(2):456.
D. J. Devine, L. D. Clayton, B. B. Dunford, R. Seying, and J. Pryce. 2000. Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. , 7(3):622–727.
Barbara Di Eugenio, Nick Green, and Rajen Subba. 2013. Detecting life events in feeds from twitter. In [*ICSC*]{}, pages 274–277.
D. M. Driscoll, S. D. Craig, B. Gholson, M. Ventura, X. Hu, and A. C. Graesser. 2003. Vicarious learning: Effects of overhearing dialog and monologue-like discourse in a virtual tutoring session. , 29(4):431–450.
A. H. Eagly and S. Chaiken. 1975. An attribution analysis of the effect of communicator characteristics on opinion change: The case of communicator attractiveness. , 32(1):136.
Hao Fang, Hao Cheng, and Mari Ostendorf. 2016. Learning latent local conversation modes for predicting community endorsement in online discussions. In [*Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing*]{}, page 55.
J. E. [Fox Tree]{} and S. A. Mayer. |2008|. Overhearing single and multiple perspectives. , 45(160-179).
J. E. Fox Tree. |1999|. Listening in on monologues and dialogues. , 27:35–53.
Lewis R. Goldberg. 1990. An alternative “description of personality”: The [B]{}ig-[F]{}ive factor structure. , 59:1216–1229.
S. D. Gosling, P. J. Rentfrow, and W. B. Swann. 2003. A very brief measure of the big five personality domains. , 37:504–528.
Ivan Habernal and Iryna Gurevych. 2016a. What makes a convincing argument? empirical analysis and detecting attributes of convincingness in web argumentation. page 1214–1223.
Ivan Habernal and Iryna Gurevych. 2016b. Which argument is more convincing? analyzing and predicting convincingness of web arguments using bidirectional lstm. In [*Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)*]{}.
M. Hall, F. Eibe, G. Holms, B. Pfahringer, P. Reutemann, and I. Witten. 2005. The weka data mining software: An update. , 11(1).
Raquel Justo, Thomas Corcoran, Stephanie M .Lukin, Marilyn Walker, and M. In[é]{}s Torres. 2014. Extracting relevant knowledge for the detection of sarcasm and nastiness in the social web. .
H. C. Kelman. 1961. Processes of opinion change. , 25(1):57.
J. Lee, F. Dineen, and J. McKendree. 1998. Supporting student discussions: it isn’t just talk. , 3(3):217–229.
J. Lee. 2010. Vicarious learning from tutorial dialogue. , pages 524–529.
Marco Lippi and Paolo Torroni. 2015. Context-independent claim detection for argument mining. In [*Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence*]{}, pages 185–191.
K. Y. Liu and J. E. [Fox Tree]{}. 2011. Eavesdropping on friends and strangers: The influence of perceived familiarity on overhearer discourse comprehension. In [*52nd Annual Meeting of the Psychonomics Society*]{}.
Zhe Liu, Yi Wang, Jalal Mahmud, Rama Akkiraju, Jerald Schoudt, Anbang Xu, and Bryan Donovan. 2016. To buy or not to buy? understanding the role of personality traits in predicting consumer behaviors. In [*International Conference on Social Informatics*]{}, pages 337–346. Springer.
Joseph A. Luchok and James C. McCroskey. 1978. The effect of quality of evidence on attitude change and source credibility. , 43:371–383.
P. J. Ludford, D. Cosley, D. Frankowski, and L. Terveen. 2004. Think different: increasing online community participation using uniqueness and group dissimilarity. In [*Proc. of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems*]{}, pages 631–638.
Stephanie Lukin and Marilyn Walker. 2013. Really? well. apparently bootstrapping improves the performance of sarcasm and nastiness classifiers for online dialogue. , page 30.
François Mairesse and Marilyn A. Walker. 2006a. Automatic recognition of personality in conversation. In [*Proceedings of HLT-NAACL*]{}.
François Mairesse and Marilyn A. Walker. 2006b. Words mark the nerds: Computational models of personality recognition through language. In [*Proceedings of the 28th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society*]{}, pages 543–548.
Traci Mann, David Sherman, and John Updegraff. 2004. Dispositional motivations and message framing: a test of the congruency hypothesis in college students. , 23(3):330.
Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. , pages 415–444.
Amita Misra and Marilyn A. Walker. 2015. Topic independent identification of agreement and disagreement in social media dialogue. In [*Proc. of the SIGDIAL 2013 Conference: The 15th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue*]{}.
Amita Misra, Pranav Anand, [Jean E. Fox Tree]{}, and Marilyn Walker. 2015. Using summarization to discover argument facets in dialog. In [*Proc. of the 2015 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies*]{}.
Amita Misra, Brian Ecker, Theodore Handleman, Nicolas Hahn, and Marilyn Walker. 2016a. Nlds-ucsc at semeval-2016 task 6: A semi-supervised approach to detecting stance in tweets. In [*Proc. of the International Workshop on Semantic Evaluation*]{}.
Amita Misra, Brian Ecker, and Marilyn A. Walker. 2016b. Measuring the similarity of sentential arguments in dialogue. In [*Proc. of the SIGDIAL 2015 Conference: The 17th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue*]{}.
Huy V. Nguyen and Diane J. Litman. 2015. Extracting argument and domain words for identifying argument components in texts. In [*Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Argumentation Mining*]{}, pages 22–28.
B. Nonnecke and J. Preece. 2000. Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. In [*Proc. of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems*]{}, pages 73–80.
W. T. Norman. 1963. Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality attributes: Replicated factor structure in peer nomination personality rating. , 66:574–583.
Shereen Oraby, Lena Reed, Ryan Compton, Ellen Riloff, Marilyn Walker, and Steve Whittaker. 2015. And that’s a fact: Distinguishing factual and emotional argumentation in online dialogue. In [*NAACL HLT 2015 Workshop on Argument Mining*]{}, page 116.
Shereen Oraby, Vrindavan Harrison, Ernesto Hernandez, Lena Reed, Ellen Riloff, and Marilyn Walker. 2016. Creating and characterizing a diverse corpus of sarcasm in dialogue. In [*Proc. of the SIGDIAL 2015 Conference: The 17th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue*]{}.
Shimei Pan and Michelle Zhou. 2014. Pplum: A framework for large-scale personal persuasion. In [*Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on Data-Driven User Behavioral Modeling and Mining from Social Media*]{}, pages 5–6. ACM.
R. E. Petty and J. T. Cacioppo. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. , 19(1):123–205.
Richard E. Petty and John T. Cacioppo. 1988. The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. , 46(1):69–81.
R. E. Petty, J. T. Cacioppo, and R. Goldman. 1981. Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. , 41(5):847.
J. Preece, B. Nonnecke, and D. Andrews. 2004. The top five reasons for lurking: improving community experiences for everyone. , 20(2):201–223.
Elahe Rahimtoroghi, Thomas Corcoran, Reid Swanson, Marilyn A. Walker, Kenji Sagae, and Andrew S. Gordon. 2014. Minimal narrative annotation schemes and their applications. In [*7th Workshop on Intelligent Narrative Technologies*]{}.
Elahe Rahimtoroghi, Ernesto Hernandez, and Marilyn A. Walker. 2016. Learning fine-grained knowledge about contingent relations between everyday events. In [*17th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue*]{}, page 350.
Chris Reed and Glenn Rowe. 2004. Araucaria: Software for argument analysis, diagramming and representation. , 13(04):961–979.
Dhanya Sridhar, James Foulds, Bert Huang, Lise Getoor, and Marilyn Walker. 2015. Joint models of disagreement and stance in online debate. In [*Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL)*]{}.
Christian Stab and Iryna Gurevych. 2014. Annotating argument components and relations in persuasive essays. In [*COLING*]{}, pages 1501–1510.
S. Stoyanchev and P. Piwek. 2010. Harvesting re-usable high-level rules for expository dialogue generation. In [*Proc. of the 6th International Natural Language Generation Conference*]{}, pages 145–154.
Rajen Subba and Barbara Di Eugenio. 2007. Automatic discourse segmentation using neural networks. In [*Proc. of the 11th Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue*]{}, pages 189–190.
S. V. Suzuki and S. Yamada. 2004. Persuasion through overheard communication by life-like agents. In [*Intelligent Agent Technology, 2004.(IAT 2004). Proc. . IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on*]{}, pages 225–231. IEEE.
Reid Swanson, Stephanie Lukin, Luke Eisenberg, Thomas Chase Corcoran, and Marilyn A. Walker. 2014. Getting reliable annotations for sarcasm in online dialogues. In [*Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, LREC 2014*]{}.
Reid Swanson, Brian Ecker, and Marilyn Walker. 2015. Argument mining: Extracting arguments from online dialogue. In [*Proc. of the 16th Annual Meeting of the Special Interest Group on Discourse and Dialogue*]{}, pages 217–226.
Chenhao Tan, Vlad Niculae, Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, and Lillian Lee. 2016. Winning arguments: Interaction dynamics and persuasion strategies in good-faith online discussions. In [*Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on World Wide Web*]{}, pages 613–624. International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.
Avril Thorne and V. Nam. 2009. The storied construction of personality. In Kitayama S. and Cohen D., editors, [*[The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology]{}*]{}, pages 491–505.
V. G. Vydiswaran, ChengXiang Zhai, Dan Roth, and Peter Pirolli. 2012. Biastrust: Teaching biased users about controversial topics. In [*Proceedings of the 21st ACM international conference on Information and knowledge management*]{}, pages 1905–1909. ACM.
Henning Wachsmuth, Khalid Al-Khatib, and Benno Stein. 2016. Using argument mining to assess the argumentation quality of essays. In [*Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Computational Linguistics*]{}.
Marilyn Walker, Pranav Anand, Rob Abbott, [Jean E. Fox Tree]{}, Craig Martell, and Joseph King. 2012a. That’s your evidence?: Classifying stance in online political debate. .
Marilyn Walker, Pranav Anand, Robert Abbott, and Richard Grant. 2012b. Stance classification using dialogic properties of persuasion. In [*Meeting of the North American Association for Computational Linguistics. NAACL-HLT12*]{}.
Marilyn A. Walker, Jean E. Fox Tree, Pranav Anand, Rob Abbott, and Joseph King. 2012c. A corpus for research on deliberation and debate. In [*LREC*]{}, pages 812–817.
S. Whittaker. 1996. Talking to strangers: an evaluation of the factors affecting electronic collaboration. In [*Proc. of the 1996 ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work*]{}, pages 409–418.
Nick Yee, Nicolas Ducheneaut, Les Nelson, and Peter Likarish. 2011. Introverted elves & conscientious gnomes: the expression of personality in world of warcraft. In [*Proc. of the 2011 annual conference on Human factors in computing systems*]{}, CHI ’11, pages 753–762, New York, NY, USA.
[^1]: [ nlds.soe.ucsc.edu/persuasion\_persona]{}
[^2]: (For [mono]{}, $t_{(3184)}$ = 32.65, p <0.0001, for [fact]{}, $t_{(1019)}$ = 14.81, p <0.0001, For [emot]{}, $t_{(979)}$ = 14.35, p <0.0001).
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'The cross-entropy method (CE) developed by R. Rubinstein is an elegant practical principle for simulating rare events. The method approximates the probability of the rare event by means of a family of probabilistic models. The method has been extended to optimization, by considering an optimal event as a rare event. CE works rather good when dealing with deterministic function optimization. Now, it appears that two conditions are needed for a good convergence of the method. First, it is necessary to have a family of models sufficiently flexible for discriminating the optimal events. Indirectly, it appears also that the function to be optimized should be deterministic. The purpose of this paper is to consider the case of partially discriminating model family, and of stochastic functions. It will be shown on simple examples that the CE could fail when relaxing these hypotheses. Alternative improvements of the CE method are investigated and compared on random examples in order to handle this issue.'
author:
- |
Frédéric Dambreville\
Délégation Générale pour l’Armement, DGA/CTA/DT/GIP\
16 Bis, Avenue Prieur de la Côte d’Or\
Arcueil, F 94114, France\
Web: [http://www.FredericDambreville.com]{}\
Email: [http://email.FredericDambreville.com]{}
title: 'Cross-Entropy method: convergence issues for extended implementation'
---
Introduction
============
The Cross-Entropy method has been developed by R. Rubinstein for the simulation of rare events[@rubinstein:book]. The algorithm iteratively builds a near-optimal importance sampling of the rare event, based on a family of parameterized sampling laws. The construction of the importance sampling is obtained by iteratively:
- tossing samples,
- selecting the samples which are approximating the rare events,
- relearning the parameters of the sampling law by minimizing its Kulback-Leiber distance (cross-entropy) with the selection,
- computing the importance weightings.
By considering the optimal events related to an objective as rare events, the method has been extended to optimization problems.\
The cross-entropy method has been implemented successfully on many combinatorial problems. However, attempted proofs of the method make some assumptions as preliminary requests[@rubinstein:book; @rubinsteinProof]. First, the proof has been made in a deterministic context. Secondly, the closure of the simulation law family should contain the dirac on the optimum (or laws with support on the optimums).\
The first condition cannot be fulfilled properly, in case of stochastic problem. The second condition is an obvious requirement. But there are some cases, where it is not possible to handle all the solutions precisely by the law family. Indeed, the solutions may not be countable practically; this is typically the case for some dynamic problems (for example, the strategy tree against a deterministic computer chess player). Both difficulties are encountered in optimal planning with partial observation. The purpose of this paper is to point out on simple examples, that these hypotheses are necessary for the convergence of the classical CE method. The questions are:
- *Does the *classical* CE algorithm solve stochastic problems properly?* It appears that the quantile selection within the CE may not work properly, without a rather good estimation of the objective functional expectation. Nevertheless, smoother selection criteria seem to be a possible answer to these difficulties.
- Assume that the law family closure does not contain all the deterministic solutions. The CE algorithm will converge to a stochastic approximation of the optimal solution. *Is this approximation the best possible within the law family?* Our answer to this question is not absolutely negative. But it appears that some extensions of the CE, quite usually implemented, will fail on this question.
This paper presents some counterexamples to these questions. In the case of stochastic optimization, tests are done on simple random examples in order to compare the convergence of various CE methods with the global optimum.\
Next section introduces shortly the principle of the CE method. Section \[RESIM:DMB:Cont1:Chap3\] will consider the case, where the optimal solution is not caught properly by the sampling family. A counterexample is proposed and studied. In section \[RESIM:DMB:Cont1:Chap4\], stochastic problems are considered. Two simple counterexamples are investigated, thus enlightening some typical convergence difficulties. Different evolutions of the cross-entropy are then compared to the basical method, by generating several random examples. In particular, a method with smooth sample selection is proposed as a possible alternative for the stochastic problems. Section \[RESIM:DMB:Cont1:Chap5\] concludes.
Basis of the cross-entropy method {#RESIM:DMB:Cont1:Chap2}
=================================
The reader interested in CE methods should refer to the tutorial [@IEEEisda:boer] and the book [@rubinstein:book] on the CE method. CE algorithms were first dedicated to estimating the probability of rare events. A slight change of the basic algorithm made it also good for optimization. We will not focus on the cross-entropy method for simulation, although this primary aspect of the method is quite interesting. Rather, the CE method for optimization is now presented and discussed. While there are different evolutions of the primary method related to the choice of the selective rate or to a smooth update, this presentation is restricted to the basical CE method. By the way, it is not difficult to attest that the counterexamples proposed in sections \[RESIM:DMB:Cont1:Chap3\] and \[RESIM:DMB:Cont1:Chap4\] still work with these evolutions.
General CE algorithm for the optimization
-----------------------------------------
The Cross Entropy algorithm repeats until convergence the three successive phases in order to maximize a given reward criterion:
1. Generate samples of random data according to a parameterized random mechanism,
2. Select the best samples according to the reward criterion,
3. Update the parameters of the random mechanism, on the basis of the selected samples.
In the particular case of CE, the update in phase 3 is obtained by minimizing the Kullback-Leibler distance, or cross entropy, between the updated random mechanism and the selected samples. The next paragraphs describe on a theoretical example how such method can be used in an optimization problem.
#### Formalism.
Let be given a function $x\mapsto f(x)$; this function is easily computable. The value $f(x)$ has to be maximized, by optimizing the choice of $x\in X$. The function $f$ will be the reward criterion.\
Now let be given a family of probabilistic laws, $P_\sigma|_{\sigma\in\Sigma}$, applying on the variable $x$. The family $P$ is the parameterized random mechanism.\
Let $\rho\in\,]0,1[$ be a selective rate. The CE algorithm for $(x,f,P)$ follows the synopsis:
1. Initialize $\sigma\in\Sigma$,
2. \[XX:step2\]Generate $N$ samples $x_n$ according to $P_\sigma$,
3. Select the $\rho N$ best samples according to the reward criterion $f$,
4. Update $\sigma$ as a minimizer of the cross-entropy with the selected samples: $$\sigma\in\arg\max_{\sigma\in\Sigma}\sum_{n~{\rm selected}}\ln P_\sigma(x_n)\;,$$
5. Repeat from step \[XX:step2\] until convergence.
*This algorithm requires $f$ to be easily computable and the sampling of $P_\sigma$ to be fast.*
#### Interpretation.
The CE algorithm tightens the law $P_\sigma$ around the maximizer of $f$. Then, when the probabilistic family $P$ is well suited to the maximization of $f$, it becomes equivalent to find a maximizer for $f$ or to optimize the parameter $\sigma$ by means of the CE algorithm. The problem is to find a good family, and convergence parameters.
#### Extensions.
##### Smooth update.
The method has been extended by implementing a smooth update of the law. More precisely, assume the set $\{P_\sigma / \sigma\in\Sigma\}$ to be convex, and let $\alpha\in[0,1[$ be a smoothing rate. The algorithm follows the synopsis:
1. Initialize $\sigma\in\Sigma$,
2. \[XX:2:step2\]Generate $N$ samples $x_n$ according to $P_\sigma$,
3. Select the $\rho N$ best samples according to the reward criterion $f$,
4. Define $\sigma_1$ as a minimizer of the cross-entropy with the selected samples: $$\sigma_1\in\arg\max_{\sigma_1\in\Sigma}\sum_{n~{\rm selected}}\ln P_{\sigma_1}(x_n)\;,$$
5. Define $\sigma_2$ such that $P_{\sigma_2}=\alpha P_{\sigma}+(1-\alpha)P_{\sigma_1}$, and update $\sigma$ by setting $\sigma:=\sigma_2$,
6. Repeat from step \[XX:2:step2\] until convergence.
##### Adaptive parameters.
The principle is to make the parameters $\alpha$ and $\rho$ dependent of the iteration time of the algorithm or on other contextual informations. Adaptive parameters appears as a main ingredient in the different proofs of convergence of the method.
##### Sampling with rejection.
In some examples (particularly the *salesman*) considered in the CE tutorial [@IEEEisda:boer], the laws family $P_\sigma|_{\sigma\in\Sigma}$ does not match the set $X$ of valid values for the variable $x$. More precisely, there is a set $Y\supsetneq X$ such that $P_\sigma\in\mathcal{P}(Y)$, *i.e.* $P_\sigma$ is defined as a probability over $Y$. The implementation of such a law family in the CE methods is possible by rejecting the invalid samples generated by $P_\lambda$. A slight change is implied in the step 2 of the CE algorithm:
1. Repeat the subsequent process for any $n\in\{1,\dots,N\}\,$:
1. Generate a sample $x\in Y$ according to $P_\lambda$,
2. If $x\not\in X$, then repeat from step (a),
3. *At this step, $x\in X$.* Then, set $x_n=x$.
There is *no other change* implied to the algorithm. In particular, the update step is the same: *the update of $P_\lambda$ is done from the selected values of the subset $X$.*\
At first sight, *this update of the law is questionable in regards to the rejection.* Indeed, the law to be learned from the samples is $P_\lambda/\sum_{x\in X}P_\lambda(x)$ and not $P_\lambda$. This induces a different result while minimizing the cross-entropy with the selected samples.\
However, the rejection could also be derived from a parameter adaptation: the idea is to interpret the invalid samples of $Y\setminus X$ as samples with very bad reward. Then, the classical CE scheme is recovered by adapting the number of samples $N$ and the parameter of selection $\rho$ in order to reject these invalid samples.\
This last interpretation makes sense, when the process actually converges to a law with a support included in $X$. This is the case, for example, when the law converges to a dirac around the optimum. But otherwise, it will be shown in section \[RESIM:DMB:Cont1:Chap3\] that the convergence may be biased.
#### Convergence.
Different convergence results have been proposed for the method and its extensions [@rubinsteinProof; @rubinstein:book; @Margolin:proof]. The convergence needs a proper tuning of the parameters of the algorithm (selecting rate, smoothing, number of samples). Essentially, these results have been established for the optimization of deterministic functions. Another issue is the stability of the optimization process, when the family of law, $P_\sigma|_{\sigma\in\Sigma}$, does not necessarily match the optimal value properly. The questions investigated by this paper are:
- *Does the *classical* CE algorithm solve stochastic problems properly?* A negative answer is given subsequently. An evolution of the CE is proposed in order to deal with this problem.
- Assume that the law family closure does not contain the dirac, or dirac mixture, around the optimal solutions. *Does the CE process provide the best approximation possible within the law family?* A partial negative answer is provided in next section, by producing a counterexample based on a sampling law with reject. This counterexample does not work in the classical scheme of the CE. It is not clearly answered in this paper, what should be the conditions in the CE process for guaranteeing such stability of the convergence. But it is sure that one have to be more careful in the choice and manipulation of the family.
When the family of laws does not enclose the optimum {#RESIM:DMB:Cont1:Chap3}
====================================================
The subsequent example is inspired from a convergence flaw diagnosed within a practical trajectory planning experiment; an experiment achieved by Francis Celeste [@francis:paper], which is working in our team.
#### Problem setting.
It is assumed that an agent has two possible actions: the action *continue* or the action *end*. Each time the agent decides to *continue*, it receives the reward $+1$ and the process is continued. When the agent decides to *end*, it still receives the reward $+1$ but the process is terminated. Thus, the agent has to choose a sequence of action, which is a repetition of the action *continue* terminated by the action *end*: $$\mathrm{continue};\mathrm{continue}\dots\mathrm{continue};\mathrm{end}\;.$$ The reward for a whole sequence of action is $t$, the length of the sequence. Now, a constraint of length is imposed to the actions. The sequence of action cannot contain more than $T$ actions, so that $t\le T$.
#### Optimal solution.
The optimal solution is obvious. The agent will do as many action as possible. Its optimal sequence of action is thus: $$\underbrace{\mathrm{continue};\cdots;\mathrm{continue}}_{T\times};\mathrm{end}\;.$$ The problem is actually a triviality. But we will see that for some laws family, the CE with rejection will fail in finding the optimal law.
#### Proposal of a laws family, and convergence issue.
On such a simple example, the best choice is perhaps a law on the length of the process sequence. But in fact, this kind of problem could be easily generalized so as to involve more than two possible actions (not only *continue* or *end*). Then, a Markov chain is generally used for these problems. In the salesman problem, for example, the actions are the choice for a town; the salesman is solved in [@rubinstein:book; @IEEEisda:boer] by means of a Markov chain with reject. A method with reject is investigated subsequently.\
The purpose is to sample a sequence $(d_\theta|1\le\theta\le t)$ where $1\le t\le T$, $d_\theta=\mathrm{continue}$ for $\theta<t$, and $d_t=\mathrm{end}$. This sampling will be done by means of a reject method:
- Generate a sample without size constraint: $(d_\theta|1\le\theta\le t)$ where $1\le t$, $d_\theta=\mathrm{continue}$ for $\theta<t$, and $d_t=\mathrm{end}$,
- Reject the sample when $t>T$.
*Sampling a sequence without size constraint.* The sampling will be generated uniformly and independently for each step, so that the sampling law of the sequence is characterized by the law $p_\lambda$ for sampling a single action: $$p_\lambda(d_\theta=\mathrm{continue})=\lambda
\quad\mathrm{and}\quad
p_\lambda(d_\theta=\mathrm{end})=1-\lambda\;.$$ The whole process takes into account the ending state, so that the sample generation follows the following synopsis:
1. Set $t=0$,
2. \[Sampling:process:1:step2\]Set $t:=t+1$,
3. Generate $d_t$ by means of the law $p_\lambda$,
4. Repeat from step \[Sampling:process:1:step2\], until $d_t=\mathrm{end}$.
As a consequence, the probability of a full sequence $d=(d_\theta|1\le\theta\le t)$ is given by: $$P_\lambda(d)=\lambda^{t-1}(1-\lambda)\;.$$ *Optimal law.* The optimal law is the one which yields the best gain expectation for the valid trajectories generated by $P_\lambda$. The gain expectation after rejection is given by: $$E_{P_\lambda(\cdot|t\le T)}t=
\frac{\sum_{t=1}^T t \lambda^{t-1}(1-\lambda)}{\sum_{t=1}^T \lambda^{t-1}(1-\lambda)}=
\frac{\sum_{t=1}^T t \lambda^{t-1}}{\sum_{t=1}^T \lambda^{t-1}}\;.$$ This expectation is maximized when $\lambda=1$: $$\mbox{Within the family, the optimal law is }P_1\;.$$ Notice that this optimal distribution is not an optimum for the problem. The family $P_\lambda|0\le\lambda\le 1$ is not sufficiently rich to handle the optimum of the function.\
It is sometimes not possible to provide a family able to handle the global optimum of the function. Then, it is often sufficient to find the optimal distribution among the family. *Is the CE able to provide such optimal distribution among the family?* Subsequently, it is shown on the example that the CE (with rejection) does not converge to the optimal law $P_1$.\
*Updating the law.* Assume $M=\rho N$ samples $(d^n|1\le n\le M)$ being obtained after a sampling process (with reject) and a selection of the best samples. Denote $t_n$ the ending time of sequence $d^n$ (*beware:* it is not a power operation!).\
The parameter $\lambda$ for the upcoming loop of the CE algorithm is obtained by maximizing the distance with the selected samples: $$\lambda\in\arg\max\frac1M\sum_{n=1}^M \ln P_\lambda(d^n)\;.$$ Now: $$\frac1M\sum_{n=1}^M \ln P_\lambda(d^n)=
\frac1M\sum_{n=1}^M \ln\bigl(\lambda^{t_n-1}(1-\lambda)\bigr)=
\left(\left(\frac1M\sum_{n=1}^M t_n\right)-1\right)\ln\lambda+\ln(1-\lambda)\,.$$ The maximization then results to the relation: $$\left(\left(\frac1M\sum_{n=1}^M t_n\right)-1\right)\frac1\lambda-\frac1{1-\lambda}=0\;.$$ At last, the following update relation is derived: $$\lambda=1-M\left/\sum_{n=1}^M t_n\right.\;.
\label{Resim2006:eq:1}$$ *Convergence issue.* Equation \[Resim2006:eq:1\] and the rejection constraint imply that $\lambda\le1-\frac1T$ after update. As a consequence, *the CE does not converge to $P_1$, the optimal distribution among the family.* In fact, it is even proved by considering the CE process that $\lambda<1-\frac1T$. Let $P_{\lambda\ast}$ be the law obtained after convergence of the CE. Then: $$E_{P_\lambda^\ast(\cdot|t\le T)}t<
\frac{\sum_{t=1}^T t (1-1/T)^{t-1}}{\sum_{t=1}^T (1-1/T)^{t-1}}\;.$$\
Let us consider the simple case $T=2$, and compare the expectations: $$E_{P_1(\cdot|t\le T)}t=(1+2)/(1+1)=\frac32
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
E_{P_\lambda^\ast(\cdot|t\le T)}t<(1+2\times\frac12)/(1+\frac12)=\frac43\;.$$ The difference, at least $11\%$, is not negligible.
#### Convergence in the CE classical scheme.
As it has been discussed in section \[RESIM:DMB:Cont1:Chap2\], the update of $\lambda$ within the classical scheme will be obtained by minimizing the cross-entropy of the *conditional* law: $$P_\lambda^\ast(d|t\le T)=\frac{\lambda^{t-1}(1-\lambda)}{\sum_{\theta=1}^T\lambda^{\theta-1}(1-\lambda)}=\frac{\lambda^{t-1}(1-\lambda)}{1-\lambda^T}\;.$$ with the selected samples. Thus, the update is expressed by: $$\lambda\in\arg\max\frac1M\sum_{n=1}^M\ln\frac{\lambda^{t_n-1}(1-\lambda)}{1-\lambda^T}\;.$$ Defining $\bar t=\frac1M\sum_{n=1}^Mt_n$, the optimization reduces to: $$\lambda\in\arg\max\frac{\lambda^{\bar t-1}(1-\lambda)}{1-\lambda^T}\;.$$ The maximum of this function is not necessarily located at $\lambda=1$. For example, when $\bar t=1$, the optimum is obtained for $\lambda=0$. Now, the function to be optimized could be rewritten: $$\frac{\lambda^{\bar t-1}(1-\lambda)}{1-\lambda^T}=\frac{\lambda^{\bar t-T}}{\sum_{k=0}^{T-1}\lambda^{-k}}\;.$$ Then, it is deduced: $$\label{RESIM2006:MaxEnt:eq:1}
\bar t\ge T\quad\Longrightarrow\quad 1\in\arg\max_{0\le\lambda\le1}\frac{\lambda^{\bar t-1}(1-\lambda)}{1-\lambda^T}\;.$$ The equation (\[RESIM2006:MaxEnt:eq:1\]) has a clear interpretation: when $\lambda>0$ at initialization and the selective rate $\rho$ is sufficiently small, then the CE algorithm (without rejection) converge to the optimal law $P_1$. As a conclusion, our counterexample fails in the classical CE paradigm.
#### Discussion.
The previous example has shown convergence issue of the CE with reject when the laws family cannot reach the optimum of the function. This counterexample does not work when using a classical CE scheme. In general, even when the family cannot handle the optimum exactly, the convergence still works rather well in the classical CE paradigm. Many questions arise however. In particular, how to evaluate and enhance the stability of the convergence in regards to the discrimination weakness of the laws family?
When the problem is stochastic {#RESIM:DMB:Cont1:Chap4}
==============================
In this section, it is discussed about the convergence of the CE in case of stochastic optimization. Notice that it is still possible to bring such stochastic problems back to deterministic problems by computing the expectation of the objective function. But generally, this computation is obtained by simulation and is costy. A reduction of the cost could be obtained by means of the method described in section \[RESIM2006:STOCHMETH:section\].\
When the variable to be optimized and the stochastic variable of the system are dependent, the expectation will make necessary the use of a functional abstraction of the variable to be optimized (instead of conditional laws). This is again somewhat costy. Moreover, the cost reduction method described in section \[RESIM2006:STOCHMETH:section\] is no more feasible (when the variable of the system depends on the variable to be optimized).\
The purpose of this section is to consider the stochastic optimization by the CE without computing the expectation of the objective. It is shown on simple examples that there may be a true convergence difficulty of the CE method in such conditions.\
In the first subsequent example, the value to be optimized is conditioned by another variable which is stochastic. In other word, the value to be optimized could be considered as a function of the stochastic variable. Such problems do not appear classically in the CE literacy, but explain clearly some typical difficulties in the convergence. The second example is unconditioned and more classical. These examples will be completed by a study of stochastic optimization problems (here, without conditioning), which will be generated randomly. Alternative solutions to the classical CE are proposed and compared then.
Examples
--------
### Example 1
Typically, there is an additional difficulty in evaluating the expectation of the objective function, when the variable to be optimized are conditioned by the variable of the system. For this reason, we will start by considering this kind of example.\
Let us consider the following stochastic problem: $$\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}\displaystyle
f_o\in\arg\max_{f:x\mapsto d}\sum_{x}p(x)V(f(x),x)\;,
\vspace{7pt}\\
\mbox{where }
x\in\{0,1\}\,,\ d\in\{0,1\}\,,\ p(0)=p(1)=\frac12\,,\ V(d,x)=2x+d\;,
\vspace{7pt}\\
\mbox{and }f\mbox{ is a mapping from }x\mbox{ to }d\;.
\end{array}
\label{Resim2006:eq:2}$$ This problem could be seen from a probabilistic viewpoint: $$\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}\displaystyle
h_o\in\arg\max_{h}\sum_{d,x}p(x)h(d|x)V(d,x)\;,
\vspace{7pt}\\
\mbox{where }
x\in\{0,1\}\,,\ d\in\{0,1\}\,,\ p(0)=p(1)=\frac12\,, V(d,x)=2x+d\;,
\vspace{7pt}\\
\mbox{and }h(d|x)\mbox{ is a probability of }d\mbox{ conditionally to }x\;.
\end{array}
\label{Resim2006:eq:3}$$ We will apply a cross-entropic method in order to solve the optimization (\[Resim2006:eq:3\]). Notice that the method will differ slightly from usually, since we are handling a conditional laws family.
#### Direct solve.
The obvious answer to this problem is $h(0|x)=0$ and $h(1|x)=1$; the optimal gain is $2$.
#### Cross-entropic solve.
A cross-entropic procedure is proposed here with quantile selection $\rho=10\%$ (no smooth update, for simplicity) in order to solve (\[Resim2006:eq:3\]):
- Initialize $h$ by $h(0|0)=h(1|0)=h(0|1)=h(1|1)=\frac12$,
- Make 100 samples and evaluate them by $V$,
- $[\ast]$ Select the $10\%$ best samples, update $h(\cdot|x)$ from the selected samples, when it is possible.[^1] Reiterate from previous step.
Since $V(d_1,1)>V(d_2,0)$ for any choice of $d_i$, it comes that samples $(d,0)$ are (almost) never[^2] selected. As a consequence, $h(\cdot|0)$ is (almost) never updated and stays unchanged. Thus, a practical convergence will stale to the solution $h(0|0)=h(1|0)=\frac12\,;\;h(0|1)=0\,;\;h(1|1)=1$, which is sub-optimal. The expected gain is then $\frac74$.\
This example contains a specific difficulty: we are indeed optimizing the function $x\mapsto f(x)$ by mean of a conditional law. By the way, one may argue that $[\ast]$ is not a good updating strategy, since the samples should be selected relatively to each condition $x$. But this is not possible, when there are many possible conditions $x$ (this is often the case).
### Example 2 {#stoch:counter:ex:2}
It could be argued about the previous example that the use of a conditional family is not the classical scheme for applying the CE method. This forthcoming example will be related to a more classical scheme.\
Now, let us solve the following stochastic problem: $$\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}\displaystyle
d_o\in\arg\max_{d}\sum_{x}p(x)V(d,x)\;,
\vspace{7pt}\\
\mbox{where }
x\in\{0,1\}\,,\ d\in\{0,1\}\,,\ p(0)=p(1)=\frac12\;,
\vspace{7pt}\\
\mbox{ and }
V(0,0)=2\,,\
V(0,1)=-2\,,\
V(1,0)=V(1,1)=1\,.
\end{array}
\label{Resim2006:eq:4}$$ From a CE viewpoint, the problem becomes: $$\begin{array}{@{}l@{}}\displaystyle
h_o\in\arg\max_{h}\sum_{x}p(x)h(d)V(d,x)\;,
\vspace{7pt}\\
\mbox{where }
x\in\{0,1\}\,,\ d\in\{0,1\}\,,\ p(0)=p(1)=\frac12\;,
\vspace{7pt}\\
%\mbox{ and }
V(0,0)=2\,,\
V(0,1)=-2\,,\
V(1,0)=V(1,1)=1\,.
\vspace{7pt}\\
\mbox{and }h(d)\mbox{ is a probability of }d\;.
\end{array}
\label{Resim2006:eq:5}$$
#### Direct solve.
The optimal solution of (\[Resim2006:eq:5\]) is of course $h_o(0)=0$ and $h_o(1)=1$, resulting in the gain $1$.
#### Cross-entropic solve.
A cross-entropic procedure is proposed here with quantile selection $\rho=10\%$ (no smooth update, for simplicity) in order to solve (\[Resim2006:eq:5\]):
- Initialize $h$ by $h(0)=h(1)=\frac12$,
- Make 100 samples and evaluate them by $V$,
- Select the $10\%$ best samples, update $h$ from the selected samples. Reiterate from previous step.
Since $V(0,0)>V(d,x)$ for any $(d,x)\ne (0,0)$, it comes that the samples $(d,x)\ne (0,0)$ are (almost) never selected. As a consequence, the selected samples will be $(0,0)$ from the beginning of the CE process. Consequently, the CE process will converge to the sub-optimal solution $h_\ast(0)=1$ and $h_\ast(1)=0$, thus resulting in the gain $0$.
### Discussion.
The two previous examples are enlightening. It appears clearly that the selection scheme of the CE (selection of a quantile) does not work properly, in regards to a stochastic objective. Indeed, some configurations of the problem, which are sampled by the law of the system but not by us, will be automatically discarded by the quantile selection process. By discarding these cases, a convergence bias is generated.
Alternative methods
-------------------
### Computing the expectation (reduced cost) {#RESIM2006:STOCHMETH:section}
This method is not exactly an alternative: it is costy. But it will be provided as a reference for the test comparison. The idea is to replace the stochastic objective function $V(d,x)$ by an estimation of its expectation. This expectation is obtained by sampling over $x$ according to the law $p$ of the system. More samples are used, more accurate is the estimation. Here, we are using the same samples of $x$ for computing the expected gain of the samples $d_n$. This will reduce greatly the complexity. But such method is not feasible, when the variables $x$ and $d$ are dependent. The whole algorithm is explained subsequently:
1. Initialize $h$,
2. \[XX:step76\] Generate $N$ samples $d_n$ according to $h$,
3. Generate $K$ samples $x_k$ according to $p$,
4. Evaluate each sample $d_n$ by the estimated expectation $v_n=\sum_{k=1}^KV(d_n,x_k)$,
5. Select the $\rho N$ best samples $d_n$ according to the expectation $v_n$,
6. Update $h$ as a minimizer of the cross-entropy with the selected samples: $$h\in\arg\max\sum_{n~{\rm selected}}\ln h(d_n)\;,$$
7. Repeat from step \[XX:step76\] until convergence.
### Using another selection scheme for the CE
The idea here is to change the selection scheme of the CE. The stochastic objective function $V(d,x)$ is directly used here. As in section \[stoch:counter:ex:2\], the stochastic pair $(d,x)$ is sampled and evaluated at the same time.
#### Selection scheme.
Assume $N$ samples $(d_n,x_n)$ being evaluated by $v_n=V(d_n,x_n)$. It is defined a non decreasing function $R$, which will characterize the importance $R(v_n)$ of each sample $(d_n,x_n)$. The update of $h$ will be computed as a maximizer of the cross entropy with the discrete weighted distribution $\left(d_n,\frac{R(v_n)}{\sum_{n=1}^NR(v_n)}\right)$.
#### Algorithm.
The whole algorithm is explained subsequently:
1. Initialize $h$,
2. \[XX:step71\] Generate $N$ samples $d_n$ according to $h$ and $N$ samples $x_n$ according to $p$,
3. Evaluate each sample pair $(d_n,x_n)$ by $v_n=V(d_n,x_n)$,
4. Update $h$ as a minimizer of the cross-entropy with the weighted samples: $$h\in\arg\max\sum_{n=1}^NR(v_n)\ln h(d_n)\;,$$
5. Repeat from step \[XX:step71\] until convergence.
This selection scheme is called *smooth selection scheme*. Notice that the quantile selection of Rubinstein is a particular case of the *smooth selection scheme*, where the function $R$ is a heavyside function pointed on the quantile.
Method comparison by means of Randomly generated tests
------------------------------------------------------
The three methods, basic CE; CE with expectation computation; and smooth selection scheme, have been compared on random problems. The method for creating the problems is simple:
- There are $100$ possibles states for $d$ and for $x$, that is $d,x\in\{1,\dots,100\}$,
- The parameters $V(d,x)\in]0,1]$ are generated randomly, according to the uniform law, for any $d$ and any $x$,
- The probability $p$ is generated randomly, according to the uniform law (that is the 99-dimensions vector characterizing $p$ is generated uniformly),
Notice that it is quite easy to solve these problems, by enumerating the cases.\
The test has been executed $1000$ times. The parameters of the algorithm are:
- $K=N=100$ and $\rho=10\%$,
- The update is smoothed by $\alpha=0.9$ (*i.e.* the innovation is $10\%$),
- The importance function $R$ is defined by $R(v_n)=v_n$.
The following table gives the percentage of the optimum achieved by each method. These results are averaged over the $1000$ executed tests, and the variance is given. $$\begin{array}{c||c|c|}
\mbox{Optimal percentage}&\mbox{Mean}&\mbox{Variance}
\\\hline
\mbox{Basic CE}&93.9\%&3.7\%
\\\hline
\mbox{Expectation}&99\%&0.4\%
\\\hline
\mbox{Smooth scheme}&99.1\%&0.7\%
\end{array}$$ The convergence speed of the expectation CE and the smooth selection CE was comparable. Since the expectation is computed with reduced cost, the methods run with similar computation cost.
Conclusion {#RESIM:DMB:Cont1:Chap5}
==========
This paper has investigated the convergence issues of the cross-entropy method when relaxing the constraints of use. A counterexample has been found for the CE with reject, when the laws family used for the CE is too weak and does not contain the optimum dirac. Counterexamples have been found when optimizing a stochastic objective function. Weakness of the family and stochastic objective are very important context of use of the CE algorithm. By the way, both difficulties are encountered when optimizing a control with partial observation[@dambreville]. An alternative evolution of the CE has been proposed for the stochastic optimization. It is based on a smooth scheme for the sample selection. The convergence of weak laws family is still an unsolved question. Next works will focus on this difficult problem. Moreover, the proof of convergence of the smooth selection scheme will be investigated; at this time, this method has been evaluated only by experimental means.
[99]{} R. Rubinstein, D. P. Kroese, *The Cross-Entropy method. An unified approach to Combinatorial Optimization, Monte-Carlo Simulation, and Machine Learning*, Information Science & Statistics, Springer 2004. De Boer and Kroesse and Mannor and Rubinstein, *A Tutorial on the Cross-Entropy Method*,\
R. Margolin, *On a Convergence of the Cross-Entropy Method*, Annals of Operations Research, Springer Netherlands, April 2005. Homem-de-Mello, Rubinstein, *Rare Event Estimation for Static Models via Cross-Entropy and Importance Sampling*,\
F. Celeste, F. Dambreville and J.-P. Le Cadre, *Optimal path planning using cross-entropy method*, Conference Fusion 2006, Florence, Italy, July 2006. F. Dambreville, *Cross-entropic learning of a machine for the decision in a partially observable universe*, Journal of Global Optimization, Springer Netherland, August 2006 (on line).
[^1]: Leave $h(\cdot|x)$ unchanged when there are no selected samples conditioned by $x$.
[^2]: Probability is around $10^{-18}$
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
---
abstract: 'Elastically-driven motion has been used as a strategy to achieve high speeds in small organisms and engineered micro-robotic devices. We examine the size-scaling relations determining the limit of elastic energy release from elastomer bands with mechanical properties similar to the biological protein resilin. The maximum center-of-mass velocity of the elastomer bands was found to be size-scale independent, while smaller bands demonstrated larger accelerations and shorter durations of elastic energy release. Scaling relationships determined from these measurements are consistent with the performance of small organisms which utilize elastic elements to power motion. Engineered devices found in the literature do not follow the same size-scaling relationships, which suggests an opportunity for improved design of engineered devices.'
author:
- Mark Ilton
- 'S. M. Cox'
- Thijs Egelmeers
- 'Gregory P. Sutton'
- 'S. N. Patek'
- 'Alfred J. Crosby'
title: 'Size-scaling limits of impulsive elastic energy release from a resilin-like elastomer'
---
Introduction
============
Many organisms use impulsive, elastically-driven motion to exceed the power limitations of muscle [@James2007; @Patek2011]. For example, mantis shrimp store elastic bending energy in the exoskeleton of their raptorial appendages, which upon release drives their appendages at velocities up to 30 m/s, allowing them to crush shells or spear prey [@Patek2004; @Zack2009; @Rosario2015; @McHenry2016]. Although large organisms make some use of elastic structures (e.g. tendon), elastic energy storage and release can be crucial for small organisms (typically $\!<\!10\,\mathrm{cm}$ in length) to achieve rapid movement [@Bennet-Clark1977; @James2007]. These small organisms - such as mantis-shrimp, trap-jaw ants, locusts and fleas - use a latch to separate the phase of elastic energy storage (via muscle contractions) from that of energy release [@Ilton2018]. Disentangling the rate of muscle contraction from energy release allows these organisms to achieve astonishing kinematic performance (high velocities, large accelerations, and short durations of movement), and perhaps most remarkably, to perform these motions in a repeatable manner sustained by their metabolic processes.
Organisms that store and release elastic energy have served as inspiration for recent robotics research [@Kovac2008; @Debray2011; @Koh2013; @Zhao2013; @Kim2014a; @Koh2015; @Zaitsev2015; @Haldane2016]. Several research groups have taken a biomimetic or bioinspired approach in an attempt to match (or exceed) biological performance using engineered devices. This approach has led to new techniques for robotic manipulation [@Debray2011; @Rollinson2013; @Kim2014a; @Haldane2016], the ability to move robots on difficult terrain [@Kovac2008; @Koh2015; @Zaitsev2015], and has been used to test scientific hypotheses about locomotion [@Koh2013; @Kim2014a; @Koh2015]. However, these engineered devices are typically larger than biological organisms, and the fastest organisms have a greater kinematic performance than currently achievable by small robots using elastic elements to perform repeatable motions [@Ilton2018].
In addition to an elastic element (i.e. spring) there are three other major components of an elastically-driven system: (i) a motor (in many animals, muscle) that generates sufficient work to load the elastic element, (ii) an energy-efficient latch to store and release the elastic element without significant dissipation, and (iii) a load mass that is moved by the elastic element and that is not actively involved in elastic energy release. But since these systems drive motion through elastic recoil, the kinematic performance in these systems depends on the properties of an elastic element. Although springs are often assumed to be ideal, the materials properties and geometry of a spring can constrain its kinematics [@Ilton2018].
In this work, we address the gap in performance between biological and synthetic systems by examining the role of size-scale and materials properties for elastic energy storage and release. To determine the limits of elastic energy release due to only spring properties, we take a reductionist approach by examining the dynamics of a freely-retracting spring in isolation - externalizing the motor and latch. This externalization decouples the motor and latch from the fast movement of the spring, which is similar to the way some fast elastically-driven organisms operate [@Cox2014]. Here we take this isolation one step further by measuring the dynamics of a spring that carries no additional load mass. From an initially uniform uniaxial extension, we release long thin bands of polyurethane elastomer. This polyurethane has similar mechanical properties to resilin, an elastomeric protein found in some arthropods and important for elastically-driven motion in locusts [@Burrows2012; @Burrows2016]. Resilin is a material with high resilience (resilience is a measure of energy recovery, and is defined by the ratio of energy recovered upon unloading divided by the energy expended during loading a material) with $r>$90% resilience measured for both natural and recombinant resilin [@Weis-Fogh1961; @Jensen1962; @King2010; @Gosline2002; @Elvin2005]. We measure the free retraction of a resilin-like polyurethane elastomer, and building upon recent work [@Vermorel2007; @Bogoslovov2007; @Niemczura2011; @Tunnicliffe2015; @Yoon2017], track the full displacement field of the material. The displacement field is used to obtain the center-of-mass motion of the band, which allows for a functional determination of the scaling relations that define the limits of impulsive elastic performance. We focus on the size-scale and materials properties of a spring and how these factors affect its elastically-driven performance by examining three key parameters often used to assess kinematic performance in biology and micro-robotics [@James2007; @Patek2011; @Patek2004; @Kovac2008; @Rogers2016; @Burrows2006; @Gerratt2013; @Irschick2003]: maximum center-of-mass velocity ($v_\mathrm{max}$), maximum center-of-mass acceleration ($a_\mathrm{max}$), and duration of elastic energy release ($\Delta t$). Utilizing this experimental approach we ask two guiding questions: Does kinematic performance depend on the size of an elastic element? How does the kinematic performance of elastically-driven biological organisms and engineered devices compare to the isolated recoil of a resilin-like elastomer?
Expected scaling relations for the center-of-mass kinematic performance of a recoiling elastomer band can be rationalized based on physical principles. First, the center-of-mass acceleration of the band is given by the ratio of the net force acting on the band divided by its mass. Just after the release of the band from one end, if the only external force acting on the band is from the clamp at the other (fixed) end, then center-of-mass acceleration is
$$a_\mathrm{max} = \frac{\sigma_\mathrm{in}}{\rho L_0},$$
where $\sigma_\mathrm{in}$ is the initial stress from which the band is released, while $L_0$ and $\rho$ are the equilibrium length of the band and its density, respectively. To separate the role of materials and loading strain, we can rewrite this equation as
$$\label{eq:a}
a_\mathrm{max} = \frac{c_\mathrm{sec}^2 \epsilon_\mathrm{in}}{L_0},$$
with the secant elastic wavespeed ($c_\mathrm{sec}$) from an initial strain ($\epsilon_\mathrm{in}$) defined as
$$\label{eq:csec}
c_\mathrm{sec} = \sqrt{\frac{\sigma_\mathrm{in}}{\rho \epsilon_\mathrm{in}}}.$$
During the unloading of a uniform, long thin strip of elastic material stretched to an initial strain of $\epsilon_\mathrm{in}$, the center-of-mass travels a displacement $\epsilon_\mathrm{in} L_0/2$. Using this displacement and assuming a constant center-of-mass acceleration given by Eq. (\[eq:a\]), leads to the duration of elastic energy release $$\label{eq:t}
\Delta t = \frac{L_0}{c_\mathrm{sec}}.$$
Finally, with those same assumptions, the maximum center-of-mass velocity is determined by the product of acceleration and duration, $v_\mathrm{max} = a_\mathrm{max} \Delta t$, yielding an expression consistent with the maximum velocity found in previous work for a linear elastic material [@Tunnicliffe2015] $$\label{eq:v}
v_\mathrm{max} = c_\mathrm{sec} \epsilon_\mathrm{in}.$$
Materials and Methods
=====================
To experimentally verify these scaling relations, a commercially available pre-fabricated polyurethane elastomer sheet (McMaster-Carr, 8716K61, durometer 40A, $1.6\,\mathrm{mm}$ thick) was sectioned into long, thin bands using a razor blade. For the narrowest bands (width, $w_0\!<\!2\,\mathrm{mm}$), a laser cutter (Universal Laser Systems) was first used to create shallow grooves to guide the razor blade, reducing variation in the band width. Samples were cut to ensure a uniaxial geometry ($L_0\!>>\!w_0$), with $1.6 \,\mathrm{mm}\! \leq\! w_0 \!\leq\! 27 \,\mathrm{mm}$ and $17\, \mathrm{mm}\! \leq\! L_0\! \leq\! 267\, \mathrm{mm}$. The mechanical properties of the material were characterized by performing cyclic loading/unloading of the bands at low strain-rate ($\dot{\epsilon}< 0.01\, \mathrm{s}^{-1}$), using a tensile testing apparatus (Instron 5564). The polyurethane elastomer has similar mechanical response to resilin (Fig. \[fig:1\]A-B) at low strain-rates, and a resilience $r>97\%$ at up to 300% strain. Beyond 300% strain, the material would typically fail due to stress concentrations at the clamped ends of the band. While resilin can strain up to 300% reliably [@Weis-Fogh1961], it is not generally observed to stretch this much in vivo. The highest suggested in vivo strain for a recoiling insect spring is in the flea pleural arch, where the resilinous portion is hypothesized to strain 100% [@Bennet-Clark1967] - thus our experimental elastomer strain covers the whole range of the strains seen in vivo. Over the full range of the polyurethane elastomer, the secant wavespeed of the polyurethane depends on strain and varies between $\sim 24 - 40\,\mathrm{m/s}$ (Fig. \[fig:1\]C), as calculated from Eq. \[eq:csec\] using the stress-strain relationship in Fig. \[fig:1\]A and the density of the material (average density of all samples $\rho = 1125 \,\mathrm{kg/m}^3$, with the mass of each sample measured using an analytical balance).
![\[fig:1\]**Low strain-rate characterization of a resilin-like polyurethane elastomer.** **A** The polyurethane elastomer used in this study is similar to resilin in its mechanical properties at low strain-rate ($\dot{\epsilon}<0.01$). Its stress-strain response has a similar slope (modulus) to resilin (from ref. [@Weis-Fogh1961]) at small strain in uniaxial extension. The small difference in stress between loading and unloading the polyurethane (inset) can be quantified by the material’s resilience. **B** The polyurethane elastomer has a high resilience ($r>0.97$) for all samples measured in this study, up to $\epsilon=3$. Its resilience is similar to natural resilin ($r=0.96-0.97$) [@Jensen1962], and slightly higher than the recombinant resilin from ref. [@Elvin2005]. **C** The secant wavespeed ($c_\mathrm{sec}$) depends on strain for the polyurethane elastomer, as determined from the stress-strain response and Eq. (\[eq:csec\]). As will be shown, $c_\mathrm{sec}$ is a characteristic velocity that governs the recoil dynamics of the elastomer. ](Fig1){width="75mm"}
Free retraction measurements were performed by initially loading a band clamped between two pneumatic grips to a given initial strain ($\epsilon_\mathrm{in}$) using the tensile testing apparatus, and then releasing one of the grips (Fig. \[fig:2\]A). Upon release, the band rapidly contracts, and the motion was recorded using a high speed camera (Photron Fastcam SA3, frame rate 20-75 kfps). A macro zoom lens (Nikon AF Nikkor 24-85mm) was used to maximize the image of the band to cover the full 1024 pixel CCD of the camera along the direction of motion ($x$-axis), giving a pixel resolution of $33-\SI{420}{\micro \meter}$ depending on the band length and initial strain. Markings, which had been placed along the band (Sharpie^^ marker, metallic silver), were then digitized from the high speed videography using a custom MATLAB script to determine the position ($x$) of each point of the band as a function of time ($t$) (Fig. \[fig:2\]B). To generate velocity, acceleration, and higher order derivatives of the position with respect to time, the digitized position data was fit to free knot splines [@Schwetlick1995; @Schutze1997]. Combining the motion of each section of the band, the center-of-mass kinematics were then deduced, allowing for the determination of $v_\mathrm{max}$ and $a_\mathrm{max}$. The duration was defined as the time between the onset of the propagating elastic wave (determined by a minimum onset threshold of jerk) until the kinetic energy of the band reached its maximum (which occurs at $v=v_\mathrm{max}$).
Results
=======
The kinematic performance of 13 different bands with varying geometry (varying $L_0$ and $w_0$) was measured (Fig. \[fig:2\] shows an example measurement) as a function of the strain energy loaded into the band (between 1-8 values of $\epsilon_\mathrm{in}$ for each band, for a total of 57 unique measurements). The center-of-mass kinematic performance does not depend on $w_0$ for the uniaxial geometry used in these experiments. The maximum center-of-mass velocity, acceleration, and duration all increase with increasing initial strain (Fig. \[fig:3\]A-C). The center-of-mass velocity is independent of the band length (Fig. \[fig:3\]A), however, the maximum center-of-mass acceleration and duration both depend on band length (Fig. \[fig:3\]B-C); the acceleration is inversely proportional to band length (Fig. \[fig:3\]B, bottom panel) and the duration scales with band length (Fig. \[fig:3\]C, bottom panel), as demonstrated by the data collapse after appropriately normalizing $a_\mathrm{max}$ and $\Delta t$ with $L_0$.
![\[fig:2\]**The center-of-mass kinematic performance (velocity, acceleration, and duration) is measured for a retracting elastomer band.** **A** Five images of a retracting elastomer band ($L_0\!=\!140\,\mathrm{mm}$, $w_0\!=\!8.5\,\mathrm{mm}$) from a high speed image sequence. To visualize the motion of the band, silver markings are placed along the band and on the clamps at the top and bottom of the image (colored points to the left of the images were added in post-processing to uniquely label the points of the band, and correspond to the colors used in B-D). The last two images in the sequence show the band undergoing compressive buckling, and occur after the center-of-mass has reached its maximum velocity. **B** After the bottom clamp releases, motion propagates up through the band in a spatially non-uniform release of strain energy. The center-of-mass motion (black points) is determined from a weighted average of the individual segments of the band (colored points). The inset shows a zoom in of the center-of-mass position along with a free knot spline fit (solid, black curve) in close agreement with the data. The maximum difference between the data and spline fit is on the order of a single pixel ($\sim 0.2$% of the total displacement of the center-of-mass). $t\!=\!0$ is set by the propagation of the elastic wave unloading, and determined by a minimum threshold in the derivate of the acceleration (jerk). **C,D** Derivatives of the free knot splines give the velocity (C), and acceleration (D) of each segment of the band (colored curves), along with the center-of-mass (black curve). From the center-of-mass velocity and acceleration, the kinematic performance is determined (here $v_\mathrm{max} = 23\,\mathrm{m/s}$, $a_\mathrm{max} = 6.2\times 10^3\,\mathrm{m/s}^2$, $\Delta t = 4.6\,\mathrm{ms}$).](Fig2){width="0.96\columnwidth"}
The scaling relations predicted by Eqs. (\[eq:a\]-\[eq:v\]) are comparable to the observed recoil kinematics (dashed curves in Fig. \[fig:3\]A-C), using $c_\mathrm{sec}$ measured from the tensile test (Fig. \[fig:1\]C). The scalings agree with the data for acceleration and duration with no free parameters (Fig. \[fig:3\]B-C). However, the scaling relationship for velocity systematically exceeds the observed recoil velocity (Fig. \[fig:3\]A).
To understand the systematic difference in predicted and measured recoil velocity, it is helpful to examine the predicted velocity scaling of Eq. (\[eq:v\]) in the context of the kinematic data in Fig. \[fig:2\]D. The equation assumes a constant acceleration over the entire duration recoil. Although this is a reasonable approximation, the measured duration also includes the ramp-up time to reach $a_\mathrm{max}$ ($\sim 1\,\mathrm{ms}$ in Fig. \[fig:1\]D) and the ramp-down to zero acceleration (also $\sim 1\,\mathrm{ms}$ in Fig. \[fig:1\]D). During this ramp-up and ramp-down period the acceleration is less than $a_\mathrm{max}$, which leads to a breakdown in the predicted scaling of Eq. (\[eq:v\]). Factors that could affect the ramp-up/ramp-down time include frictional losses from interaction of the band with the pneumatic clamp [@Tunnicliffe2015], inertia of elastomer material inside the clamp, dispersion of the elastic wave due to losses within the material or to the environment [@Vermorel2007], and residual strain left in the band at the point of buckling [@Bogoslovov2007]. These losses depend on both material properties of the band and external factors. Since these factors are challenging to accurately model, as a first approximation we assume these losses are constant for all the bands measured, and introduce an effective resilience of the recoiling elastomer $r_\mathrm{eff}$ through the scaling
$$\label{eq:v_eff}
v_\mathrm{max} = \sqrt{r_\mathrm{eff}}c_\mathrm{sec}\epsilon_\mathrm{in}.$$
This effective resilience accounts for both energy loss within the band and external dissipation (such as friction of the clamp), and $r_\mathrm{eff}$ is defined by the ratio of output kinetic energy to input elastic energy (i.e. $r_\mathrm{eff} = \rho v_\mathrm{max}^2/2 u_\mathrm{in}$, where $u_\mathrm{in}$ is the stored elastic energy density). The energy loss seems to primarily occur during the ramp-up and ramp-down periods of the recoil, which accounts for why $a_\mathrm{max}$ and $\Delta t$ do not depend on $r_\mathrm{eff}$. Using $r_\mathrm{eff}$ as a free parameter to fit the measured recoil velocity (Fig. \[fig:3\]A, solid curve), results in $r_\mathrm{eff} = 0.5\,\pm 0.1$. This effective resilience is significantly lower than that measured at low strain-rate (recall $r>0.97$ from Fig. \[fig:1\]B).
{width="180mm"}
Discussion
==========
Armed with scaling relations that agree with the observed recoil kinematics, we now return to answering our first guiding question: Does kinematic performance depend on the size of an elastic element? The size-scaling limits of the resilin-like polyurethane elastomer for repeatable, elastic energy release (Fig. \[fig:4\], dashed lines) are determined by setting the initial strain to $\epsilon_\mathrm{in}=3$ in the scaling relations from Fig. \[fig:3\] (recall for $\epsilon_\mathrm{in}> 3$ failure of the polyurethane was often observed). The maximum velocity of the polyurethane elastomer recoil is size-scale independent (Fig. \[fig:4\]A), while the maximum acceleration and duration of movement depend on size (Fig. \[fig:4\]B-C). The dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:4\] represent the kinematic performance of this particular material choice of polyurethane elastomer, under a specific loading geometry (uniaxial extension), and driving zero added load mass. In the next two paragraphs we justify two specific claims about the recoil scaling limits shown in Fig. \[fig:4\]: (1) the overall scaling of kinematic performance with size does not depend on the specific choice material, geometry, or load mass, and (2) the dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:4\] are an approximate upper bound for the particular material choice used in this study, independent of geometry and load mass.
First, the size-scaling of kinematic performance (summarized in the first column of Table \[tab:power\]) should be independent of the specific choice of materials, geometry, and load mass. Changing the elastic material would alter the pre-factors in the scaling limits through changing $c_\mathrm{sec}$, failure properties, and resilience, without altering the fundamental trade-offs with size-scale [@Ashby2011materials]. A different geometry (e.g. using a cantilevered beam as a spring) or adding load mass to the system would alter the absolute kinematic performance of the system. However, if the relative size of elements all change with system size, then changing geometry or mass simply introduces a lengthscale-independent pre-factor to the scaling relations. As a specific example, for a cantilevered beam driving a heavy load mass the scaling relations shown in Fig. \[fig:3\] still hold, but with added coefficients that depend on two dimensionless parameters: the aspect ratio of the beam (length to thickness), and the ratio of the spring mass to load mass (see Supplementary Information). Since these are independent of size-scale when relative size proportions are held constant, the scaling of kinematic performance with characteristic length shown in Fig. \[fig:4\] are robust descriptions of the size-scale dependence of elastically-driven motion.
Recoil Organisms Devices
-------------- ----------------- -------------------- -------------------
Velocity $\sim L_c^{0}$ $\sim L_c^{-0.1}$ $\sim L_c^{0.2}$
Acceleration $\sim L_c^{-1}$ $\sim L_c^{ -0.9}$ $\sim L_c^{-0.5}$
Duration $\sim L_c^{1}$ $\sim L_c^{1.1}$ $\sim L_c^{0.9}$
: Dependence of velocity, acceleration, and duration on the characteristic lengthscale ($L_c$) for recoil measurements along with two parameter power law fits to the organisms and engineered devices in Fig. \[fig:4\]. Here we report the power law exponent $\alpha$, obtained by fitting to $AL_c^\alpha$, where both $A$ and $\alpha$ are adjustable fitting parameters.\[tab:power\]
{width="100.00000%"}
The second claim above — that for the specific polyurethane used in this study the dashed lines in Fig. \[fig:4\] are an approximate upper bound to elastically-driven performance — is also related to the geometry and load mass. In both of these cases, changing geometry or adding load mass, the net effect is a decrease in the system’s kinematic performance and does not change the scaling argument in Fig. \[fig:4\]. Intuitively, adding load mass to the system would decrease the kinematic performance compared to the unloaded elastomer bands used here. The uniaxial geometry used in this work ensures a nearly uniform strain energy density in the material. Other geometries (such as bending) result in a non-uniform strain energy density, and material failure will likely occur at a lower average strain energy density than for uniaxial extension (see Supplementary Information). And although geometries which introduce a mechanical advantage in the system through a lever arm can amplify displacement, they also increase inertial load. As a result, a longer lever arm does not improve performance of the three kinematic parameters in Fig. \[fig:4\]. Therefore, changing geometry or load mass would shift the polyurethane scaling to lower performance (lowering the intercepts in the plots of Fig. \[fig:4\]), without altering the size-scaling relationship (the slopes in Fig. \[fig:4\]).
Putting these results in a larger context, we return to our second guiding question: How does the kinematic performance of elastically-driven biological organisms and engineered devices compare to the isolated recoil of a resilin-like elastomer? We interpret our results by comparing the size-scale dependence of the kinematic performance of the model elastomer with the performance of organisms and engineered devices that incorporate elastic elements (Fig. \[fig:4\]). The limits of kinematic performance for the polyurethane elastomer shows a similar size-scaling to elastically-driven organisms, which is in contrast to the engineered devices (Table \[tab:power\]). Specifically, the maximum acceleration scales inversely with characteristic lengthscale for both elastic recoil measurements and organisms, yet the maximum acceleration of current engineered devices depends more weakly on size-scale. We are cautious in the interpretation of this result as each organism or engineered device in this dataset represents a unique embodiment of materials properties and geometry of elastic energy release, and the engineered devices span a narrower range of lengthscales than the organisms. However, the connection between size-scale dependence of the recoil performance and elastically-driven organisms suggests a possible universality to the size-scaling limits of elastic energy release.
Another notable feature that emerges from Fig. \[fig:4\] is the ability for examples from biology to match the performance of the synthetic elastomer system. The scaling limits of kinematic performance for the elastomer recoil is similar to the performance of hydra, trap-jaw ants, and mantis shrimp. This is impressive for three reasons. First, compared to our isolated polyurethane elastomer, we would expect a diminished performance for organisms because they have load mass that does not contribute to elastic energy storage. For example, in the raptorial appendage of mantis shrimp, the two regions that move furthest (the propodus and dactyl) do not store significant elastic energy [@Rosario2015], and the added mass of these regions slows the release of elastic energy. Second, dissipation is likely much more significant at the lengthscales of these organisms [@Bennet-Clark1977], and remarkably, both the hydra and mantis shrimp achieve their kinematic performance under water in a viscous environment. Finally, since performance of organisms in the lab is often inferior to that in nature [@Astley2013; @Irschick2003], the kinematic performance of these organisms could potentially be higher in a natural setting. The remarkable performance of hydra, trap-jaw ants, and mantis shrimp despite these hindering factors, suggests that the materials properties of the biological springs are likely critical to their kinematics. While resilin is often discussed as an energy store (going back to refs. [@Weis-Fogh1961] and [@Bennet-Clark1967]), many arthropods also use the much harder chitin as a primary material to store energy, as is the case for chitinous springs in locusts [@Burrows2012; @Wan2016], froghoppers [@Burrows2008; @Siwanowicz2017], planthoppers [@Siwanowicz2017], mantis shrimp [@Tadayon2015], and trap-jaw ants [@Larabee2017]. Chitin, having an elastic modulus orders of magnitude larger than resilin [@Vincent2004a], may account for the ability of arthropod systems to surpass the maximums observed in our experiments which use a resilin-like elastomer as the primary energy store. This difference in modulus is consistent with observed elastic mechanisms in the highest performing organisms, including the chitinous exoskeletal elastic materials in mantis shrimp [@Patek2004] and trap-jaw ants [@Gronenberg1996], along with mini-collagen fibrils in hydra [@Nuchter2006].
Material properties of elastic elements have been shown previously to play an important role in elastic energy storage and release in synthetic systems. Work on engineered devices has noted the importance of using spring materials with a high elastic energy density capacity, such as elastomers [@Lee1990; @Ashby2011materials]. Even though metals typically have a significantly higher elastic wavespeed, the large strain to failure of elastomers allows them to reach velocities that are often greater than that of metal springs [@Maier1957]. However, typical elastomers dissipate a significant fraction of the stored elastic energy (low resilience), so one might expect that elastomeric materials with high resilience, such as elastin or resilin found in some organisms [@King2010; @Gosline2002; @Elvin2005], would serve as ideal candidates for the quick release of elastic energy. Understanding the trade-offs between resilience, elastic wavespeed, and maximum strain in biological materials employed by organisms undergoing elastically-driven motion could provide insight into the ultimate limits of elastic energy release. Recent evidence indicates that similar trade-offs persist in biological systems. While resilin and elastin are highly resilient materials, their capacity for elastic energy storage is low. This suggests that the coupling of resilient and stiff materials commonly found in biological systems may offset these inherent trade-offs [@Burrows2008]. The weak size-scale dependence of the engineered devices (Table \[tab:power\]) and their diminished performance compared to biological organisms demonstrates that there are opportunities for improved design. For small-scale devices, performance enhancements could be developed from a bioinspired approach, utilizing composite elastic materials with both resilient and stiff components. Depending on the desired function of the device, this work suggests some advantage to engineering devices at smaller size-scales to maximize performance (e.g. maximizing acceleration or minimizing duration might be a goal). A deeper understanding of spring performance in the context of an on-board motor, latch, and load mass could further reveal important design principles currently limiting engineering design.
The impact of size-scale on kinematic performance is complicated by the choice of using either absolute performance, or scaling the performance relative to body size (relative performance). Biologists examine kinematics of organisms both in an absolute sense (a cheetah runs more quickly than an ant) and in a relative sense (relative to body size, some ants are faster than cheetahs). Relative performance of running (body lengths per second) and jumping (jump height per body length) have been used to characterize both biological organisms [@Avery1989; @Spagna2012; @Burrows2006; @Rosario2016] and engineered devices [@Kovac2008; @Saranli2001; @Gerratt2013; @Gao2012]. In biology, relative size has been used to standardize for size differences between animals in the same species [@Avery1989] or across several species [@Spagna2012], and it has been suggested that relative performance is more ecologically relevant as it correlates well with the ability to evade predators [@VanDamme1999; @Bergmann2009]. Relative performance can also be used to normalize for drag effects, which become significant at small size-scales [@Bennet-Clark1977]. However, in contrast to the prevalent use of relative performance, we find that *absolute* velocity is a size-scale independent quantification of elastic performance for the lengthscales probed in the current work. Higher *relative* velocities (along with higher accelerations or shorter durations) can be achieved simply by reducing the size of an elastic element. Therefore, comparing the performance of systems that are orders of magnitude different in size-scale requires caution.
In summary, we have measured the kinematic performance of elastic energy release for an elastomer with similar mechanical properties to the protein resilin. In agreement with expected scaling relations, the maximum center-of-mass velocity of a freely retracting band is independent of length, and depends only on the initial strain at which the band was released and the elastic wavespeed of the material. The maximum center-of-mass acceleration and duration of elastic energy release were found to depend on the length of the elastomer band, with an improved performance at smaller size-scales. Previously reported measurements of kinematic performance in elastically-driven organisms show similar size-scaling limits to the elastomer studied here, whereas the acceleration of engineered micro-robotic devices varies more weakly with size-scale. The current results, which probe the upper bound of elastically-driven kinematics of a resilin-like material, show a similar performance to some of the fastest biological systems. Future work which seeks to delineate the role of elastic wavespeed, maximum strain, and resilience in elastic biological systems could lead to a foundational understanding for improved engineering design. Specifically, the mechanical properties of resilin, chitin, and resilin/chitin composites would be of great importance to compare to engineered systems.
Data accessibility. {#data-accessibility. .unnumbered}
-------------------
All relevant data are included in the manuscript. This article has no additional data.
Authors’ contributions. {#authors-contributions. .unnumbered}
-----------------------
M.I. S.M.C., A.J.C. designed research; M.I., T.E. performed experiments; M.I., S.M.C., G.P.S., S.N.P., A.J.C. wrote the paper.
Competing interests. {#competing-interests. .unnumbered}
--------------------
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding. {#funding. .unnumbered}
--------
This material is based upon work supported by the U. S. Army Research Laboratory and the U. S. Army Research Office under contract/grant number W911NF-15-1-0358.
Acknowledgments. {#acknowledgments. .unnumbered}
================
The authors thank Professor Ryan Hayward and Tetsu Ouchi for help with high speed imaging.
[72]{} 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 10.1242/jeb.02731) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1242/jeb.038596) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/428819a), [****, ()](\doibase 10.1242/jeb.034801) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/jmor.20398) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1242/jeb.140590) in @noop [**]{}, (, , ) pp. @noop [****, ()]{} in [**](\doibase
10.1109/ROBOT.2008.4543236) (, ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1748-3182/6/2/026002) in [**](\doibase
10.1109/ICRA.2013.6630552) (, ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1109/TRO.2013.2249371) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1748-3182/9/3/036004) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/science.aab1637) in [**](\doibase
10.1109/IROS.2015.7353426), Vol. (, ) p. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1126/scirobotics.aag2048) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1115/DSCC2013-3875) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/1748-3182/9/1/016014) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1242/jeb.071993) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1242/jeb.138941) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/S0022-2836(61)80018-1) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1098/rstb.1962.0008) **, [](https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/33677
http://www2.esm.vt.edu/{~}dmdudek/King{_}RJ{_}Thesis{_}2010.pdf), () [****, ()](\doibase
10.1098/rstb.2001.1022) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature04085) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1098/rspa.2006.1781) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1063/1.2784018) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.jmps.2010.09.009) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.polymertesting.2015.07.012) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/s40870-016-0090-2) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1242/jeb.134445) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1242/jeb.02539) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1088/0964-1726/22/1/014010) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1093/icb/43.3.396) [****, ()](http://jeb.biologists.org/content/jexbio/47/1/59.full.pdf) [****, ()](http://download.springer.com.libaccess.lib.mcmaster.ca/static/pdf/38/art{%}253A10.1007{%}252FBF01732610.pdf?originUrl=http{%}3A{%}2F{%}2Flink.springer.com{%}2Farticle{%}2F10.1007{%}2FBF01732610{&}token2=exp=1497364666{~}acl={%}2Fstatic{%}2Fpdf{%}2F38{%}2Fart{%}25253A10.1007{%}25252FBF01) [****, ()](http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/896/art{%}253A10.1007{%}252FBF02510176.pdf?originUrl=http{%}253A{%}252F{%}252Flink.springer.com{%}252Farticle{%}252F10.1007{%}252FBF02510176{&}token2=exp=1497364686{~}acl={%}252Fstatic{%}252Fpdf{%}252F896{%}252Fart{%}2525253A10.1007{%}2525252FBF02510176.pdf{%}253ForiginUrl{%}253) [**](https://books.google.com/books?id=1T1dt{_}W4aAgC), ed. (, , ) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1088/1748-3190/10/6/066012) in [**](\doibase 10.1109/ROBOT.2007.363848) (, ) pp. in [**](\doibase
10.1109/IROS.2003.1248880), Vol. (, ) pp. [****, ()](\doibase 10.1109/JMEMS.2011.2174414) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/nature03185) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1098/rspb.2010.2292) [****, ()](http://jeb.biologists.org/content/63/1/53.short) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1038/srep18625) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/jmor.20053) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1086/525290) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1242/jeb.074682) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1073/pnas.0604290103) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01249.x) [****, ()](https://www-nature-com.silk.library.umass.edu/articles/435164a.pdf) [****, ()](\doibase
10.3852/mycologia.97.4.866) [****, ()](http://jcs.biologists.org/content/joces/111/11/1545.full.pdf) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.cub.2006.03.089) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1242/jeb.090357) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1038/srep35219) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1186/1741-7007-6-41) [****, ()](\doibase 10.7554/eLife.23824) [****, ()](\doibase
10.1002/adfm.201502987) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1242/jeb.156513) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.asd.2004.05.006) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1007/BF00225821), **, [](http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/35353), () @noop [****, ()]{} [****, ()](\doibase 10.1163/156853889X00313) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1016/j.jinsphys.2012.01.019) [****, ()](\doibase 10.6084/m9.figshare.c.3462654.) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1177/02783640122067570) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1002/tcr.201100031) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1006/anbe.1998.0980) [****, ()](\doibase 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00534.x)
|
{
"pile_set_name": "ArXiv"
}
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.